Congressional Record, Volume 152 Issue 106 (Thursday, August 3, 2006)

[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 106 (Thursday, August 3, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8674-S8723]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 5631, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 5631) making appropriations for the Department
of Defense, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007,
and for other purposes.

Pending:

Kennedy amendment No. 4802, to require a new National
Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Alaska.

Amendments Nos. 4777, 4821, 4789, 4837, 4823, and 4838

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I have another managers' package that
has been prepared and has the approval of Senator Inouye and myself.
Let me state it for the Senate.
It contains amendment No. 4777, for Senator Smith, regarding landing
systems; amendment No. 4821, for Senator Landrieu, regarding first-aid
kits; amendment No. 4789, for Senator Stabenow, regarding Stryker
combat vehicles; amendment No. 4837, for Senator Bennett, regarding
all-terrain vehicles; amendment No. 4823, for Senator Durbin, regarding
the training of military nurse educators; and amendment No. 4838, for
Senator McCain, regarding grants. These have been cleared by both
managers. I send this managers' package to the desk and ask unanimous
consent that it be considered immediately, the amendments be adopted
immediately, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments were agreed to, as follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 4777

(Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Air Force, up to $4,000,000 for the Transportable
Transponder Landing System)

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, Air Force'', up to
$4,000,000 may be available for the Transportable Transponder
Landing System.

AMENDMENT NO. 4821

(Purpose: To make available from Operation and Maintenance, Marine
Corps Reserve, up to $3,500,000 for the Individual First Aid Kit)

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, Marine Corps Reserve'', up to $3,500,000 may be
available for the Individual First Aid Kit (IFAK).

AMENDMENT NO. 4789

(Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Army, up to $8,000,000 for the Advanced Tank Armament
System)

At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8109. Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by title IV under

[[Page S8675]]

the heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation,
Army'', up to $8,000,000 may be available for the Advanced
Tank Armament System.

AMENDMENT NO. 4837

(Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Army, up to $1,000,000 for the development of a Lightweight
All Terrain Vehicle)

AMENDMENT NO. 4823

(Purpose: To make available from Defense Health Program up to $500,000
for a pilot program on troops to nurse teachers)

At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8109. Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by title VI under the heading ``Defense Health
Program'', up to $500,000 may be available for a pilot
program on troops to nurse teachers.

AMENDMENT NO. 4838

(Purpose: To clarify the treatment of Committee report guidance on
certain projects)

On page 180, beginning on line 2, strike ``, and the
projects'' and all that follows through line 4 and insert a
period.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, we have a long day ahead of us. I again
want to state that the Parliamentarian has submitted an opinion
regarding the application of rule XVI to quite a few amendments. In
order to not be discriminatory, it is my intention to raise rule XVI in
any instance in which the Parliamentarian says it would apply, and I
think Senators ought to be on notice to that effect.
There is a whole series of amendments that are being presented today.
I believe we will have a considerable number of votes today.
I wish to point out to the Senate that Senator Inouye and I have now
reprogrammed over $4 billion from various projects and equipment
accounts that we have already approved for the Department of Defense
for this fiscal year. Those requests were made to obtain more money to
cover the costs of the military pay and allowances and the costs
associated with rotation of our military force in and out of Iraq and
Afghanistan.
That means within the next few weeks there is going to be a shutdown
on many contracts throughout the United States. I say to the occupant
of the chair, the distinguished Senator from the same State I
represent, we had that happen at Fort Greely when the supplemental was
not approved in time, with considerable disruption to the working
people who were working on projects at Fort Greely. Some of them have
been resumed, but the tempo that was in place could not be picked up
because of the problem of financing the Department of Defense during
this period. So I want Members to be on notice that if this bill is not
completed and signed by the President and delivered to the Secretary of
Defense before September 30, there will be even more of these notices
of delay, which lead to unemployment, lead to considerable increase in
costs.
There is no reason this bill should be delayed. This bill has to be
sent to the President before the end of the fiscal year and timed, as a
matter of fact, so the Secretary of Defense has the authority to
release the money immediately on the first of October.
I urge the Senate to consider the welfare of these men and women who
represent us now in 120 countries throughout the world. We have men and
women in uniform who depend upon this.
As delays occur--we know what has just happened to the Stryker
Brigade from our State. They were ready to come back. Two days from the
time they were scheduled to come back, they were delayed. Their
personal equipment had been sent home. Their families had airline
tickets to go meet their loved ones as they came into the depot. They
planned vacations and some time off with their families. Reservations
were made. The Department has said they are going to try to compensate
those people to the extent possible, but all of those are delays which
were caused by lack of funding.
Now, I think the Senate cannot be in the position of not passing this
bill before we go home. If we do so, I can tell Members of the Senate,
they are going to get the kind of complaints Senator Murkowski and I
have gotten from the families of the Stryker Brigade. And they are
legitimate complaints. The problem is, there is nothing we can do about
it.
I do think it is incumbent upon us to concentrate on this bill today.
And again, I serve notice that rule XVI will be applied to any
amendment the Parliamentarian says violates that rule.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, is there an amendment pending at this
time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Kennedy amendment is pending.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment
be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 4787

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 4787.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an
amendment numbered 4787.

Mr. COBURN. Madam 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 limit the funds available to the Department of Defense for
expenses relating to conferences)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. The aggregate amount available in this Act for
expenses of the Department of Defense relating to conferences
in fiscal year 2007, including expenses relating to
conference programs, staff, travel costs, and other
conference matters, may not exceed $70,000,000.

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, this is a fairly straightforward
amendment. One of the things we do know is happening is that we are
borrowing a lot of money every year from our kids and our grandkids.
What we have done in my Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management is
we have noted that we spend, at minimum, a half a billion dollars a
year on conferences.
The Defense Department spends more on conferences than anybody. These
conferences are sometimes very needed--which I will not object to--but
also many are not needed. One of the things I think we need to look at
is, can we do it better? Can we become more efficient?
The chairman and ranking member on the Appropriations Defense
Subcommittee, as well as Chairman Warner on the Defense authorization
committee, understand the things we need to do to fund our military,
such as the Senator just talked about: the timeliness of this bill. But
the fact is, the Pentagon, last year, spent $77 million on conferences.
Madam President, 36,000 military and civilian employees went to 6,600
conferences worldwide last year, at an average cost of $2,200 per
person. Of interest is that of those 6,600 conferences, 663 were held
in Florida in the middle of the winter, 224 were held in Las Vegas, and
98 in Hawaii. The cost of those conferences and the per cost of those
travels for individuals far exceeded the average. DOD spent more on
conferences than the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education,
Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, Transportation, Treasury,
and EPA combined.
The question is, Are there not some benefits? There are some benefits
to some of these conferences. But half the conferences could have been
conducted under what we call now digital video conferencing. So we have
the technology to save money. We are in a war. We are having trouble
funding the war. We are borrowing the money to fund that war from our
kids. We are at $8.6 trillion debt. We have unending debts facing us in
the future, secondary to Medicare and Social Security. It is time we
prioritize.
All this amendment does is it sets a ceiling for the Department of
Defense. It does not tell them where they can go, who can go, or
anything else. It just says they will not spend more than $70 million--
$70 million. That still will be more than all those agencies combined.
And all it takes is a little thoughtful planning to say: Maybe this is
one we should not go to. Maybe we should not be traveling to Florida in
the middle of the winter for a conference. Maybe we can do it on video
conferencing.
The fact is, there are hard choices before us. Should we limit how
much

[[Page S8676]]

money we spend on conferences? And can we use that money to take care
of our troops, to upgrade a humvee, to pay for the things we are having
trouble paying for today?
I think this is a commonsense amendment. It was added to the HUD bill
by this body. I plan on adding it to almost every appropriations bill
that comes through. It is something I think we ought to consider.
For example, for $159,000, we can up-armor an M1151. For $152,000, we
can up-armor an M1152. For $189,000, we can up-armor an M1152
ambulance. There are a lot of things we can do if we limit the amount
of money spent on travel and conferences in the Department of Defense.
So all this says is: Can't you do it better? Won't you do it better?
Won't you use the technology that is available to us today? And won't
you put $70 million, this next year, into our troops instead of
conferencing?
I have tried to work with the chairman on getting this accepted and
held in conference. I understand he cannot guarantee that. Therefore, I
am going to be asking for a vote so that the Senate is on record that
we think we ought to be trimming some of the other expenses so we can
put the money where our troops need it.
I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I wish to speak on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. At this moment, there is not a sufficient
second.
The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, the Senator's amendment is very
difficult to vote against, except that it applies to all members of the
Department of Defense, civilian and military. About 1 percent of the
people in the Department of Defense, civilian and military, go to a
conference each year. I personally know that when we travel abroad, we
ask for members of the Department of Defense from Germany and from
Italy to come meet with us in France. We have conferences with them
concerning NATO. We did the same thing recently in terms of the Middle
East. We had people come from three different countries to meet with us
when we were in Kuwait. That involved probably 14 people traveling in
each instance to come see us. It is essential that we have conferences
and not have to depend upon video conferences to deal with issues. That
applies throughout the Department of Defense.
The Senator is correct. We offered to take it to conference, and in
conference we might be able to find a reasonable figure that would be a
limitation. Seventy million is not a reasonable limitation. There is no
reason for us to try to be unreasonable with the Department of Defense.
We are the last superpower in the world. People depend upon us, and we
go visit the places, 120 different countries, where we have military
people in uniform. It costs money. The cost of traveling is going up
all the time.
I did offer to take the amendment to conference and try to work out
with the House a reasonable limitation. The Senator is unwilling do
that.
Therefore, I move to table the Senator's amendment and ask for the
yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. 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. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment may
be temporarily set aside so the Senator may offer another amendment. We
are trying to determine the availability of membership to be present
for a vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

Amendment No. 4784

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, in concurrence with the other amendment
being set aside, I ask that amendment No. 4784 be considered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], for himself and Mr.
Obama, proposes an amendment numbered 4784.

Mr. COBURN. 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 require the posting of certain reports of the Department
of Defense on the Internet website of the Department of Defense)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. (a) Posting of Certain Reports on Department of
Defense Internet Website.--Each report described in
subsection (b) shall be posted on the Internet website of the
Department of Defense for the public not later than 48 hours
after the submittal of such report to Congress.
(b) Covered Reports.--The reports described in this
subsection are the reports as follows:
(1) Each report required by a provision of this Act to be
submitted by the Department of Defense to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives.
(2) Any report required to be submitted by the Department
of Defense to Congress in support of the budget of the
President for fiscal year 2008 (as submitted to Congress
pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States Code) for
the Department of Defense, including any budget justification
documents in support of such budget for the Department of
Defense.
(c) Redaction of Certain Information.--In posting a report
on the Internet website of the Department under subsection
(a), the Secretary of Defense may redact any information
whose release to the public would, as determined by the
Secretary, compromise the national security of the United
States.

Mr. COBURN. This amendment is all about common sense, about saving
money.
I do wish to make a couple of corrections with regard to the last
amendment. The expenses related to the military meeting with Members of
Congress are not in the $79 million that was spent last year. It is not
included in that figure. This is domestic conferencing. It doesn't have
anything to do with international travel. The fact is, we have to do
better when it comes to the things we can control in terms of variable
expenses.
In the Defense appropriations bill, 20 reports are required by the
Defense Department. Many of those are needed. What this amendment does
is require public disclosure of all reports delivered to the
Appropriations Committee. I am willing to amend that to apply to the
authorization committee as well, if the chairman would so desire,
including the justification of the presence of annual budget requests
by the Department of Defense, unless those reports contain information
that would comprise national security. Anything that would comprise
national security is exempted from the amendment. But if they are
reporting to the Appropriations Committee or the authorization
committee, then they ought to be reporting to the American public. The
American public ought to see what those reports say, provided there is
no risk to national security within them.
DOD provides the Appropriations Committee with annual justifications
for the administration's budget proposals, which OMB has agreed to put
online next year, with the same exception regarding the compromise of
national security. The reason this issue came up is that this year with
the President's budget request, only members of the Appropriations
Committee could see the justifications. Other Members of the Senate
could not see the justifications, the reasoning behind the requests.
Even though we are going to be required to vote on them, we could never
see the President's reasoning for why he was asking for what he was
asking for. So that is going to be changed at OMB next year. They have
committed to do that. Those justifications will be made public.
But of the reports this committee is going to ask of the Congress, if
they don't compromise national security--Senator Obama and I are
offering this amendment--they ought to be placed online. The Defense
Department has the capability of doing that. The rest of America ought
to see what the justifications are. Sunshine is the best thing we have
to hold us accountable

[[Page S8677]]

to do what is in the best interest of our country. Not only should the
American public know it, the media should have availability to it so
that information can be spread.
Every Department annually provides budget justifications to the
Appropriations Committee. That is not in question. The question is, Do
they provide justifications to the American public? That is the
question. That is a question the American public is asking now.
We are going to spend, as Senator Gregg said yesterday, $553 billion
on defense this year, including the war, upgrading defense, and there
is no question, as the chairman said, we are the lone superpower. There
is great responsibility that comes with that. But in fact, as the
Secretary of Defense said on September 10, 2001, every penny counts. It
ought to be tracked, checked, and open for scrutiny.
This amendment says that a communication to Congress, if in fact it
puts no risk, no security-sensitive information out there, the American
public ought to see it. The only reason, a logical person could assume,
other than a national security issue, that we would not want the
American public to see these reports is that we have something we don't
want them to know. I believe collectively the American public is as
wise or wiser than the collection of their representatives in
Washington. Their judgment is important in what we do and how we do it.
If we truly have a government of the people, by the people, and for the
people, then routine operations of the Government must no longer be
concealed or hidden from the people of this country. What this
amendment does is assure greater transparency and accountability of
taxpayer funds. It lets the American people know what we are doing, why
we are doing it, and how.
This amendment is endorsed by over 50 organizations. Here is what
they say:

As advocates from diverse political perspectives, both on
the far right and far left and in the middle, we concur that
government transparency is vital to the health of our
political system. Regardless of our views on the appropriate
role of the federal government, we believe government policy
must disclose its spending decisions and the rationale behind
them. Such disclosure will help encourage a more active,
engaged citizenry and a more effective and efficient
government.

American taxpayers should not be kept in the dark about any decision,
unless it is for national security, and yet there are obstacles for
this information at every turn. It is important, with the revelations
of what has happened in Defense contracting, that the American public
have their confidence reestablished that what we are doing is correct,
right, and straightforward.

This is straightforward. We have from the committee the list of
reports that are directed to be prepared: Reserve component budget
structure, legal assistance, personnel reductions, National Guard
procurement, alternative diesel fuel, MTF efficiency wedge, impact of
nursing shortage on military health care delivery system, postdoctoral
education, alcoholism research, Commander's Emergency Response Program,
to name a few. Where it does not compromise national security, the
American public ought to know it. This says that if they have it, the
Department of Defense puts it on the Web site with the proviso that
anything that is of national security be extracted or withheld. It is a
reasonable amendment. It ought to be there. The Senate ought to vote on
it to say that they want sunshine, that they want the American people
to know what they are going to do.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, this amendment violates rule XVI in
terms of the second portion of the amendment, part (b)(2), page 2. If
it applied just to the reports delivered to the Appropriations
Committee, it would not, in my opinion. I have already said I am going
to raise rule XVI on any amendment that is determined by the
Parliamentarian to apply to a particular amendment.
In regard to the basic concept, we have no problem with having all of
the items that are submitted to the Appropriations Committee put on the
Web. Almost all of them are anyway. But there are some reports that are
submitted to Congress pursuant to section 1105, as I understand it,
which are documents that go to other committees and are for other
purposes. I don't know what their policies are with regard to
disclosure.
All of the items that come to us are on the Web, and we welcome them
being on the Web. We don't have any problem with every report required
by the provisions of this act, submitted pursuant to this act, or, as a
matter of fact, in terms of existing law, but I do think we should not
have a violation of rule XVI. Therefore, I ask the Senator if he is
willing to limit paragraph (2) to any report required by the Department
of Defense to be submitted to the Appropriations Committee in support
of the budget of the President which does not violate rule XVI? The
Senator said that is what it is about, but it goes further. It applies
to any report going to any committee or to the Congress itself with
regard to this budget. There are other justifications submitted to
other committees. What their policies are, I don't know.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, we spent some time last evening with the
Parliamentarian on it. We believe we have a defense of germaneness
based on what the content of the House bill is and that we would stand
by the idea that this is already relating to and attached to
requirements from the House bill. We do not believe it violates rule
XVI. I ask for a ruling from the chair.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I raise a point of order under rule XVI
that this amendment violates rule XVI. What is the ruling of the Chair?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are two issues raised here. One is
whether the amendment violates rule XVI and the other one is whether
there is an appropriate defense of germaneness. The answer to both
questions is in the affirmative.
Mr. STEVENS. I raise rule XVI. If the Senator wants to raise the
point of germaneness, he may do so.
Mr. COBURN. I raise the point of germaneness.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is submitted to the Senate.
Mr. STEVENS. I will ask that the vote be postponed until we agree on
a series of votes today.
I ask for the yeas and nays on that question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote will be set.
Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may
speak up to 7 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. What is the amount of time?
Mr. COLEMAN. Up to 7 minutes. I probably will not need that much
time.
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator has the floor. I will not object now, but we
are trying to get the votes put together so we can start at 11 o'clock
for the convenience of the Senate because committee meetings are going
to take place. I will not object now. To any further interruption, I
will object.

Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act of 2006

Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I want to speak about unfounded
concerns raised about the minimum wage increase proposal of the Estate
Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act of 2006.
I have long supported an increase in the minimum wage in order to
help raise the living standards of America's hard-working families. I
voted for Senator Kennedy's amendment on a number of occasions. I voted
for a minimum wage increase with or without a tip credit. It has been 9
years since we last increased the minimum wage. Many States--mine
included--have raised their minimum wage higher than the Federal level.
The tax bill we will take up tomorrow increases the minimum wage. The
bill would also provide for a tip credit in those States--again, like
my own--that don't currently allow for a tip credit. Again, I have
supported a minimum wage increase with and without a tip credit. We
have an opportunity to increase the minimum wage, and there is a tip
credit provision in there.
I find it regrettable that some of my Democratic colleagues are now
arguing that the tip credit provision would actually lead to a
reduction in the minimum wage for those workers in nontip

[[Page S8678]]

credit States. It is interesting that these colleagues of mine make
this argument at a time when we are close to providing an increase in
the minimum wage. Not once have these colleagues of mine made such
claims when the Senate considered this very same proposal on several
occasions in the recent past.
Contrary to what some are saying, the fact is that the tip credit
would only apply to future increases in the minimum wage. I will repeat
that. The tip credit would only apply to future increases in the
minimum wage--not to the current minimum wage.
The charge that the tip credit provision would result in the minimum
wage for tipped workers going down is absolutely false.
If you read closely the proposal's language, it says a worker cannot
be paid less than ``the cash wage paid such employee which is required
under such law, ordinance, regulation, or order on the date of
enactment. . . .'' That is how the bill reads.
It also appears that the critics of this provision have not taken
into consideration section 218 of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which
prohibits employers from paying less than the current minimum wage.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from
the Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards, U.S. Department of
Labor, Victoria Lipnic.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

August 2, 2006.
Hon. Bill Frist, M.D.,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Leader Frist: You have asked for the views of the
Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division (WHD) regarding
Section 402 of the Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act
of 2006 (the Act). If Section 402 of the Act (``Tipped Wage
Fairness'') were passed into law, WHD would read Section 402
as protecting the current minimum wages of the tipped
employees in the seven states that now exclude a tipped
employee's tips from being considered as wages because to do
otherwise would be inconsistent with what we understand to be
the intent of Congress and the Fair Labor Standards Act,
which WHD enforces.
Nevertheless, we are aware that some have argued that
Section 402 is ambiguous. We would be pleased to work with
the Congress to clarify that the intent of Congress is to
protect the current minimum wages of tipped employees. Please
contact me if the Department can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Victoria A. Lipnic.

Mr. COLEMAN. This letter says that absolutely the Fair Labor
Standards Act prohibits employers from paying less than the current
minimum wage. That is to be taken into consideration in terms of what
the Senate is doing with the minimum wage tip credit provision.
The letter from the Department of Labor is very clear. If my
colleagues have any question, this is now part of the Record; I have
asked that it be printed in the Record. It lays it out very clearly.
Again, the letter states that if the tip credit becomes law, the
Labor Department reads it ``as protecting the current minimum wages of
the tipped employees in the seven States that now exclude a tipped
employee's tips from being considered as wages because to do otherwise
would be inconsistent with what we understand to be the intent of
Congress and the Fair Labor Standards Act.''
In my State, the minimum wage is $6.15. Our employee wages are not
going to be decreased if this tip provision comes in. If there is an
increase above that, then of that amount of the increase, you could use
tip credits to compensate for that, with no decrease in the minimum
wage.
This is nothing more than an effort by my colleagues on the other
side to steal defeat from the jaws of victory as we move to the
opportunity to pass an increase in the Federal minimum wage. Let's not
miss that opportunity. Let's support this bill and get this done on
Friday.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, regarding amendment No. 4784, I ask
unanimous consent that on page 2, section 2 be deleted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 4784), as modified, is as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. (a) Posting of Certain Reports on Department of
Defense Internet Website.--Each report described in
subsection (b) shall be posted on the Internet website of the
Department of Defense for the public not later than 48 hours
after the submittal of such report to Congress.
(b) Covered Reports.--The reports described in this
subsection are the reports as follows:
(1) Each report required by a provision of this Act to be
submitted by the Department of Defense to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives.
(c) Redaction of Certain Information.--In posting a report
on the Internet website of the Department under subsection
(a), the Secretary of Defense may redact any information
whose release to the public would, as determined by the
Secretary, compromise the national security of the United
States.

Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to withdraw
the point of order under rule XVI and that the vote on the issue of
germaneness be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. It is my understanding that the Senator from Oklahoma
wants a vote on that amendment. Is that correct?
Mr. COBURN. That's correct.
Mr. STEVENS. We are prepared to accept it, but if the Senator wishes
a vote, he is entitled to it.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, we expect the Senator from Oklahoma to
raise two additional amendments. It is our hope that we can ask
unanimous consent in a short time that a series of votes on the Coburn
amendments start around 11 o'clock.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.

Amendment No. 4785

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 4785.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an
amendment numbered 4785.

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

(Purpose: To ensure the fiscal integrity of travel payments made by the
Department of Defense)

On page 218, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
Sec. 8109. Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit
to the congressional defense committees and the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and
the Committee on Government Reform of the House of
Representatives a report--
(1) describing risk assessments performed by the Department
of Defense on payments made by the Department for travel, as
required under section 2 of the Improper Payments Information
Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-300; 31 U.S.C. 3321 note);
(2) including an estimate, using statistically valid
methods, of improper payments for travel that have been
processed by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service
(DFAS); and
(3) including an explanation that the methods used to
perform risk assessments are statistically valid in
accordance with Office of Management and Budget Memorandum
30-13 issued pursuant to the Improper Payments Information
Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-300; 31 U.S.C. 3321 note).

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, this is a straightforward amendment.
Everybody knows we are having problems in the Department of Defense in
terms of management and accounting and control. There is a law called
the Improper Payments Act. Quite frankly, the law is not being followed
by the Department of Defense.
This amendment is very narrow in its focus. What it does is directs
the DOD to improve the methodology for estimating improper payments
related to travel and to provide risk assessments that determine
whether travel payments at DOD are at a significant risk of making
improper payments.

[[Page S8679]]

We know of a minimum of $30 million in airline tickets that were not
used, but we didn't get our money back for last year. We know of
another $30 million that was at least bought inappropriately, and this
is done outside of the Defense Department, not within. The Defense
Department is not assessing that. All this amendment does is say you
ought to figure out and look at what you are making improper payments
for.
What we do know, from our subcommittee hearings, is that there is in
the neighborhood of $20 billion to $30 billion of improper payments
made by the Defense Department every year on a $553 billion budget.
Those problems cannot be solved overnight. We are working hard. As a
matter of fact, we are having a hearing today on the management
techniques and information systems that the DOD is using. They are
starting to make the corrections to be better stewards of our money.
This is a simple amendment that says they ought to follow the
Improper Payments Act for this one segment, for the purpose of finding
and eliminating payments that should not have been made, or were made
for incorrect amounts by the Defense Department. We have had three
hearings in our subcommittee on improper payments. The minimum in this
Government, including Medicare, Medicaid, and Defense, is around $100
billion a year in wrong payments made by the Federal Government. There
is over $30 billion in Medicaid and $36 billion in Medicare. This large
quantity in the Defense Department--plus many of the other agencies--is
not even being reported or looked at. There is $1.6 billion in food
stamps. I could go on and on.
The fact is, when we are running a deficit such as we are and we are
borrowing the money from our grandkids, we ought to do every small
thing we can to improve the stewardship of that money. The DOD is
reporting improper payment information for only three programs--the
military retirement fund, military health benefits and, for the first
time this year, military pay.
There are significant other improper payments within the Pentagon. We
know it and we are going after it and we are going to try to solve it.
The Improper Payments Act doesn't exempt this agency from its
requirements. No agency is exempt. What it says is: Perform a risk
assessment, develop a statistically valid assessment of improper
payments, develop corrective action, and report the results. If you are
not doing any of that, you are not going to know what we are wasting,
and you are not going to be able to develop a plan or figure out how to
correct the problem.
So all this amendment does is take one small area of it and say do
the improper payments on it. It is one area where they can do it fairly
simply and they can accomplish it. It is asking them to do it. It
requires them to provide the congressional defense committees and the
Governmental Affairs Committee the risk assessments for fiscal year
2005 that determine whether travel payments at DOD are at a significant
risk of making improper payments. We already know that because that is
what the Defense Travel System debate is all about. It requires DOD to
use a statistically valid estimate for determining whether travel
payments are at risk or making significant improper payments. Finally,
it requires DOD to provide a justification for the methodology and
making sure it is statistically valid and accurate, representing the
full universe of travel payments by DOD. This isn't a small amount of
money. They spend a ton on travel, and they ought to spend it wisely.
They shouldn't waste a penny because anything we are wasting can't be
used in a way to support our troops and do what we need to do.
We have cleared this with the Parliamentarian in terms of it being
germane, and we hope the Senate will concur with this amendment.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I think we should welcome the devotion
of the Senator from Oklahoma to be concerned about the Improper
Payments Act, and if the Senator's amendment applied to any payments
made pursuant to this act, I certainly would have no objection. We are
prepared to accept it.
This covers a great deal more than that, though, those made under
existing law and those made to, as I understand it, in the areas of
homeland security and Government affairs. I wish the Senator would say
that this covers--to be clear under rule XVI--payments made out of any
funds provided by this act. If he did that, I am prepared to accept it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, let me describe the recent assessment by
the Department of Defense: For payments made within the Department of
Defense for travel--for travel--as required under section 2 of the
Improper Payments Information Act.
Mr. STEVENS. From the funds provided in this act? There are funds
provided in other acts. For instance, the funds provided to the Defense
Intelligence Agency come from the funds that are provided through the
National Intelligence Director's Office, but they come to DIA. But we
are very specific about it. If the payments are made pursuant to this
act, we agree with it.
Mr. COBURN. That is what this says.
Mr. STEVENS. No, no, it does not. It says: All payments made by the
Department----
Mr. COBURN. Will the chairman yield for a question?
Mr. STEVENS. It says performed by the Department on payments made for
travel.
Mr. COBURN. Would the chairman yield for a question?
Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
Mr. COBURN. Is there a reason, even if the money was spent from NSA
or Defense Intelligence, that you wouldn't want an improper payments
evaluation for that money?
Mr. STEVENS. I don't have any problems with this--this Senator
doesn't have any problem with complying with the Improper Payments
Information Act. I have to tell you, I am not informed about that act
in detail, but I know there are payments made through DIA and through
NSA and through other agencies and that if they remain, there would
have to be a disclaimer in here about classification and other things.
But if you just say it is from the Department under this act, I don't
think you have that problem. And this act is a 1-year bill, it is not--
in truth, this should be applied to the Department of Defense
authorization bill, and then they could have a bill that would
authorize for more than 1 year. By definition, this bill is a 1-year
bill.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, if the chairman would yield, I did apply
this to the Defense authorization bill and it is in conference--it is
going to conference, and the chairman of that committee accepted it.
Mr. STEVENS. I can understand why he would. I don't understand why
the Senator wants it on this bill, too, because it has a problem on
this bill that it doesn't have on the authorization bill.
Mr. COBURN. I would be happy to add an amendment or a caveat that
says ``under this act.'' Would that satisfy the chairman?
Mr. STEVENS. If you do that, I would not raise a point of order under
rule XVI.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 4785, as Modified

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I submit an amendment to this amendment
and ask for its immediate consideration. Do I have the right to ask to
modify the Senator's amendment in that regard?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would take unanimous consent.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to modify the
Senator's amendment with the amendment that is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 4785), as modified, is as follows:

On page 218, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
Sec. 8109. Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall, with
regard to payments made with Funds provided by this

[[Page S8680]]

Act, submit to the congressional defense committees and the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of
the Senate and the Committee on Government Reform of the
House of Representatives a report--
(1) describing risk assessments performed by the Department
of Defense on payments made by the Department for travel, as
required under section 2 of the Improper Payments Information
Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-300; 31 U.S.C. 3321 note);
(2) including an estimate, using statistically valid
methods, of improper payments for travel that have been
processed by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service
(DFAS); and
(3) including an explanation that the methods used to
perform risk assessments are statistically valid in
accordance with Office of Management and Budget Memorandum
30-13 issued pursuant to the Improper Payments Information
Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-300; 31 U.S.C. 3321 note).

Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator wish to have a vote on this amendment?
Mr. COBURN. I do.
Mr. STEVENS. We are prepared to accept it. Does the Senator still
wish a recorded vote?
Mr. COBURN. I do.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

Amendment No. 4848

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask that the pending amendment be set
aside, and I call up amendment No. 4848.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an
amendment numbered 4848.

Mr. COBURN. Madam 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 require notice to Congress and the public on earmarks of
funds available to the Department of Defense)

At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8109. (a) Reports to Congress and Notice to Public on
Earmarks in Funds Available to the Department of Defense.--
The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress, and post
on the Internet website of the Department of Defense
available to the public, information as follows:
(1) A description of each earmark of funds made available
to the Department of Defense by this Act, including the
location (by city, State, country, and congressional district
if relevant) in which the earmarked funds are to be utilized,
the purpose of such earmark (if known), and the recipient of
such earmark.
(2) The total cost of administering each such earmark
including the amount of such earmark, staff time,
administrative expenses, and other costs.
(3) The total cost of administering all such earmarks.
(4) An assessment of the utility of each such earmark in
meeting the goals of the Department, set forth using a rating
system as follows:
(A) A for an earmark that directly advances the primary
goals of the Department or an agency, element, or component
of the Department.
(B) B for an earmark that advances many of the primary
goals of the Department or an agency, element, or component
of the Department.
(C) C for an earmark that may advance some of the primary
goals of the Department or an agency, element, or component
of the Department.
(D) D for an earmark that cannot be demonstrated as being
cost-effective in advancing the primary goals of the
Department or any agency, element, or component of the
Department.
(E) F for an earmark that distracts from or otherwise
impedes that capacity of the Department to meet the primary
goals of the Department.
(b) Earmark Defined.--In this section, the term ``earmark''
means a provision of law, or a directive contained within a
joint explanatory statement or report accompanying a
conference report or bill (as applicable), that specifies the
identity of an entity, program, project, or service,
including a defense system, to receive assistance not
requested by the President and the amount of the assistance
to be so received.

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, this is an amendment which we know is
needed. We have seen it through the conviction of a Member of Congress.
What this does is require an analysis of the total cost of earmarks
and the effectiveness of each in meeting the goals of the Department of
Defense. Earmarks are consuming a growing proportion of the Defense
funding. The number of earmarks in the appropriation laws has grown
from 587 in the Department of Defense in 1994 to 2,847 in 2006. The
amount of money earmarked has increased over the same period from $4.2
billion to $9.4 billion. The amount earmarked as a percentage of the
total Defense budget has risen to 2.4 percent in 2006.
It is my belief that earmarks are siphoning away funds from other
national security priorities. Last year, the White House Office of
Management and Budget wrote to the House Appropriations Committee
warning that the hundreds of millions of dollars set aside for
congressional pork projects would be slashed from a Pentagon program
designed to fill some military desk jobs with civilians and would
thereby limit one of the Defense Department's most productive
initiatives for reducing the strain on our Armed Forces and free up
critically needed troops for the global war on terror. OMB's letter
said the committee's additions to the Navy's shipbuilding program and
budget, and numerous other smaller funding increases, preempts the
Department's ability to invest cost-effectively in 21st century
capabilities and that the administration is concerned that these
reductions could damage the readiness of the U.S. forces and their
preparedness.
Earmarks or projects directed by Members could be used to offset much
of the cost of the emergency supplemental bills that have been used to
finance the various front lines in the war against terrorism. The
emergency supplemental bill passed by Congress and signed by the
President this last month provided $65.8 billion to support Operation
Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. The total amount spent on
earmarks in Defense appropriations spent over the past 3 years was $27
billion--about 47 percent of the amount needed to pay for the continued
military operations in these battlefronts in the war against terrorism.
What we have done instead is relied on emergency spending, which is not
offset; it is directly added to the debt of our kids, undermining their
future standard of living.
All this amendment does is say: Let's do an analysis. Let's see if
the things that are being earmarked by individual Members of Congress
actually support the defense of the country versus the defense of some
special interest back home.
Interestingly, the chairman objected to Senator Durbin's amendment to
do brain trauma research at the University of Chicago, and rightly so.
We have had 1,700 brain-injured troops from traumatic brain injuries.
There is research going on across this country on traumatic brain
injury. The reason is that we have 1,700 a year from 4-wheelers and
another 1,700 from motorcycles. So the point is, do we put the money in
our troops or do we put the money in investing in projects back home
that make us look good but aren't a priority with the troops?
Let's talk about this supplemental which we just passed this past
year: $80 billion. Ten million dollars went to expand wastewater
facilities in Pennsylvania. The University of Texas Southwestern
Medical Center got $3 million; Dosoto County, MS, got $35 million; the
Fire Sciences Academy in Elk, NV, got $4 million.
We know the problems with earmarking in terms of the recent
congressional corruption and ethics probes. What this amendment does is
adds transparency and accountability to the earmark process. If it is
good, then the Defense Department study will say: Yes, it is something
we should have done. If it will waste, then we will say: It is wasted.
The fact is we are loading to the tune of billions of dollars a year
projects Members of Congress want but the Defense Department doesn't
want that interfere with their mission rather than help their mission.
An analysis of the usefulness of each earmark in advancing the goals
of the Department of Defense is the purpose of this amendment. This
will provide Members of Congress a more complete view of the cost-
effectiveness of the earmarks and whether they continue to warrant
additional funding.
The annual earmark report will ensure that policymakers and the
public are fully aware of the impact of unnecessary earmarks on the
budget of the Department of Defense and siphon

[[Page S8681]]

away from military preparedness and our national defense. The grading
system will likewise provide needed information to the appropriators
about projects that are inserted in the bills that have not had proper
oversight, debate, or discussion. This added transparency will ensure
that every Member of Congress can cast a truly informed vote and ensure
greater accountability for how Federal funds are allocated and spent.
This is at the heart of the confidence of the American people with
Congress. Do we earmark something because it is the best thing for the
country to do, is it the best long-term choice, or do we earmark
something because it helps us individually?
I would say there isn't one State in this country that can be healthy
if this country isn't healthy. There can't be one community that can
end up healthy if the country isn't healthy economically. None of us
can be free unless we are all free. So the idea is not to eliminate
earmarks; it is just saying after they have happened, then let's look
at them and see if they really accomplished something worthwhile for
the defense of this country and should we have spent the money in doing
that.
There are multiple examples I can put into the Record, and I will
submit to the Record with unanimous consent a list of the ongoing
probes that are there in terms of earmarks and the Defense Department.
But I think it is incumbent upon us to reestablish the confidence of
the American public that when we earmark, what we are doing is
accurate, it is needed, and it is something that will, in fact, inure
to the defense of this country and the defense of our children's
financial health.
With that, I yield the floor.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
immediately proceed to a series of votes in relation to the following
amendments: Coburn amendment No. 4787 for conferences, Coburn amendment
No. 4784, as modified, for posting of reports, and Coburn amendment No.
4785, as modified, for improper payments.
The Senator has a pending amendment. That would not be included. It
is because of the timeframe associated with meetings that are scheduled
today that the leadership has asked that we proceed to the votes on
these three amendments. I further ask that no amendments be in order to
the amendments prior to the votes and that all votes be limited to 10
minutes each and there be 2 minutes equally divided on the votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. All the votes have the yeas and nays, is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The first vote is on the motion to table
amendment No. 4787. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will
call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, 2 minutes before each vote. Senator
Coburn and I each have 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes equally divided.
Who yields time? The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this is a real straightforward amendment.
The Defense Department spends more on conferences than all the other
programs combined. It has grown significantly in the last 5 years.
Every dollar that is spent on a conference in Las Vegas, the Presiding
Officer's home, or in Hawaii or south Florida is a dollar that doesn't
go to our troops. We are not saying eliminate the needed conferences.
We are saying do some sacrifice when it comes to conferences so we have
money to fund our troops appropriately. Be wise, use digital video
conferencing where you can, and make some sacrifice within the ease of
travel and conference fun and fair for our troops.
It is $70 million a year. Less than 5 years ago it was $58 million.
Can we not, can we not spend less on conferences, do it a different
way, and still accomplish what we need for the troops?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. The committee has already cut $85 million from travel
funds for the Department. This would say that for programs related to
staff and travel costs and conference programs or other conference
matters, the total amount available to the whole Department--over a
million people in over 120 countries in the world--will be limited to
$70 million. We are unable to run the Department at $70 million a year.
So I proposed and made a motion to table the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the
Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky (Mr.
Bunning) would have voted ``no.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus),
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), and the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New
York (Mrs. Clinton) would vote ``nay.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 36, nays 60, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 223 Leg.]

YEAS--36

Akaka
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Dayton
Dole
Durbin
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Inouye
Jeffords
Kennedy
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Roberts
Sarbanes
Shelby
Specter
Stevens
Vitter
Warner

NAYS--60

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bayh
Bingaman
Boxer
Brownback
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Coburn
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Harkin
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Lincoln
Lott
McCain
Menendez
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Santorum
Schumer
Sessions
Smith
Snowe
Stabenow
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Voinovich
Wyden

NOT VOTING--4

Baucus
Bunning
Clinton
Lieberman

The motion was rejected.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 4787) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there are two more amendments. These are
10-minute votes, at the request of the leadership. I hope we can keep
to that time. We are ready to take all three amendments to conference.

Amendment No. 4787

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Coburn amendment No. 4787 is the next
amendment. There is 2 minutes equally divided.
Who yields time?
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, all this amendment says is that with the
exception of anything related to national security, whatever they
report ought to be made available to the American public. It is real
simple. They have the Web site capability. If they report it, and it
doesn't have anything to do with national security in terms of
protecting our security, they ought to report it to the rest of the
Members of Congress as well as to the rest of the American public.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we are ready to take the amendment to
conference on a voice vote. Is the Senator willing to accept a voice
vote?

[[Page S8682]]

Mr. COBURN. I will accept a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 4787) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4785, as modified

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes of debate equally divided
on Coburn amendment No. 4785, as modified.
Who yields time?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, again, if the Senator will yield, we are
willing to take this amendment to conference and accept it on a voice
vote. Is the Senator willing to accept a voice vote?
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, the only problem with that is I think the
Senate ought to have a rollcall vote on whether improper payments which
have been made by the Department of Defense ought to be held in
conference. I would like to have a recorded vote to empower the
chairman of the committee to hold this in conference.
All this says is, let's look at improper payments of the Department
of Defense. They make more improper payments than anywhere in the
Government. They only look at three areas out of all the areas. The law
says they should report improper payments. That is all I am asking for.
Let's make them report the improper payments under the Improper
Payments Act of 2002 which says they should.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Improper Payments Act is not within
the jurisdiction of our committee. We agreed that it should be
reported. I believe the committee of jurisdiction ought to have
hearings to determine whether there is improper compliance. We are
pleased to accept it. If a rollcall vote is required, let us go ahead.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus) and
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the
Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr.
Warner).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky (Mr.
Bunning) would have voted ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--96 yeas, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 224 Leg.]

YEAS--96

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
Wyden

NOT VOTING--4

Baucus
Bunning
Lieberman
Warner
The amendment (No. 4785), as modified, was agreed to.

VOTE EXPLANATION

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to discuss my absence today during
rollcall vote No. 224. The vote was in reference to Senate amendment
No. 4785, offered by my colleague, Senator Coburn. Senator Coburn's
amendment, which sought to ensure fiscal integrity of travel payments
made by the Department of Defense, passed the Senate by a vote of 96 to
0.
During the vote, I was serving as chairman of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, chairing a very important hearing on Iraq,
Afghanistan, and the global war on terrorism. Witnesses at the hearing
included Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld; Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace; and General John Abizaid,
Commander, United States Central Command. My vote would not have
affected the outcome of this amendment.
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.

Amendments Nos. 4755, 4808, 4847, and 4828, en bloc

Mr. STEVENS. I have a managers' package: amendment 4755, for Senator
Santorum, regarding maritime inspection; amendment 4808, for Senator
Bill Nelson, regarding UAV virtual training; amendment 4847, for
Senator Reed of Rhode Island, regarding recoil mitigation; amendment
4828, for Senator Chambliss, regarding linguists.
I send this package to the desk. I ask unanimous consent it be
considered en bloc, agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid
upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments were agreed to, as follows:

amendment no. 4755

(Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Navy, up to $2,500,000 for Navy research and development
activities on the Wireless Maritime Inspection System as part of the
Smartship Wireless Project of the Navy)

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 $2,500,000
may be available for the Wireless Maritime Inspection System
as part of the Smartship Wireless Project of the Navy.

amendement no. 4808

At the appropriate place insert the following:
Sec. . Of the amount appropriated in title IV under the
heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army'',
up to $5,000,000 may be made available for the Virtual
Training and Airspace Management Simulation for Unmanned
Aerial Vehicles.

AMENDMENT NO. 4847

(Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Defense-Wide, up to $3,000,000 for Small and Medium Caliber
Recoil Mitigation Technologies)

AMENDMENT NO. 4828

(Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Army, up to $1,000,000 for the Automated Communications
Support System for WARFIGHTERS, Intelligence Community, Linguists, and
Analysts)

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 the Automated Communications Support
System for WARFIGHTERS, Intelligence Community, Linguists,
and Analysts.

Mr. STEVENS. We are continuing to work on the agreements. I hope
Members come forward to help work them out. We still have the
opportunity to finish this bill before we leave this week. There are
some 34 amendments still pending we are working on. I do believe a lot
of them can be worked out, as these last four were.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

Amendment No. 4827

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Senator Bond and I have amendment No. 4827.
I ask consent the pending amendment be set aside and it be in order to
call up that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. I will be brief on amendment No. 4827. This is an
amendment that the distinguished senior Senator from Missouri and I
filed yesterday. It guarantees that $2.4 billion of the $13 billion
included in the managers' package on Tuesday for the Army and Marine
Corps be allocated for National Guard equipment. It does not add any
money. It ensures that the promises that have already been made to the
Guard about funding will be fulfilled and, also, of course, make sure
we have a much needed infusion of equipment to the National Guard.
It follows an amendment that Senator Bond and I introduced last
September to the Fiscal Year 2006 Defense

[[Page S8683]]

Appropriations, in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. We
realized, with the significant shortfalls in equipment available to the
Guard at home for use in such natural disasters or other domestic
emergencies, if, God forbid, we had another such tragedy, the Guard
would not have had enough trucks, tractors, and communication gear
across the country to adequately respond.
The problem then--and still is--that much of their equipment has been
left in Iraq, where the National Guard has been indispensable.
Since the start of the war in Iraq, Guard units have deployed with
their gear and then, after a year, they have left this gear for use by
other units arriving in Iraq. Worse still, the National Guard has
consistently been underfunded, leaving it with well less than the
required equipment stocks.
These low levels of equipment threaten the Guard's ability to carry
out the two critical prongs of its dual mission.
Two days ago, the top National Guard LTG Steven Blum, reported that
more than two-thirds of the Army National Guard's 34 brigades are not
combat ready, due largely to vast equipment shortfalls.
Almost a year after Katrina, the Department of Defense leadership--
which is ultimately responsible for monitoring the Guard's
capabilities--has yet to recognize this clear problem, let alone to
develop a real funding plan to deal with the problem.
The $900 million included in last year's, Defense appropriations bill
was only the beginning of addressing this major problem with
shortfalls--a problem that General Blum himself estimates to total
nearly $21 billion.
Congress has no choice but to act. That is why this amendment takes
another step toward addressing the Guard's response capabilities at
home. It adds $2.4 billion on top of the funding in the regular bill
and bridge supplemental for the Guard to procure equipment--for items
as diverse as remanufactured tanks, radios, medium-sized trucks, and
command-and-control systems.
I would like to commend Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, who were
able to identify almost $340 million in National Guard and Reserve
equipment in the committee markup of the baseline Defense bill. That
number shows the enormous support that exists within the Defense
Subcommittee, especially when the Senate Defense allocation was $9
billion below that set in the House of Representatives.
On behalf of our Guard units, our Guard members, and of all Americans
who so acutely rely on their steadfast readiness and service, I urge my
colleagues to vote now for a much-needed, higher level for the Guard.
This problem is so pressing and so severe that we cannot afford to
lose momentum.
I just mention again, 2 days ago the top National Guard General, LTG
Steven Blum, reported that more than two-thirds of the Army National
Guard's 34 brigades are not combat ready.
We really have no choice but to act. This will not even begin to
handle the problems, but it will be a good start.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add, after Senator Bond's
name and my name, Senator Menendez of New Jersey and Senators Lincoln,
Dodd, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Dorgan, Mikulski, Harkin, Rockefeller,
Baucus, and Jeffords as cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished chairman of
the National Guard Caucus, who has labored indefatigably in this area,
calling on his experience not only as a U.S. Senator but especially his
experience when he was Governor and commander in chief of the Guard in
his own State.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and fellow chairman of
the National Guard caucus for his kind words. As most people in this
body know, we have had wonderful, bipartisan cooperation supporting the
great work of the Guard.
As the Senator from Vermont was kind enough to note, I did have the
experience of being commander in chief of our National Guard in
Missouri for 8 years. And I have since followed very closely what they
have done.
Our National Guard, as I think everybody knows, has provided about 40
percent of the boots on the ground in Iraq and in the conflict against
Islamofascism. They went into that battle, being called up for their
national security service, short of equipment. They are short of
equipment because, as the Senator from Vermont and I have explained
time after time after time, the Pentagon, when it is faced with a
shortfall of equipment or resources, tends to take care of the active
forces first.
No one who knows my personal situation would think I am not
sympathetic to the needs of the active forces. I very much want to see
them get the support they need. I understand what is going on in the
Pentagon. But the National Guard has fallen so far behind in its
equipment accounts because of the pressure of the need to restock and
reset other branches of Government.
When we found that a significant sum of money would be available for
providing equipment that is vitally needed for our National Guard, for
our entire military, it was extremely important that we carve out a
small amount, which is covered by this amendment, that would go
directly to the Guard.
Now, we have been told this could have been accepted if we said the
money ``may'' go to the National Guard. That is precisely the problem:
that money could have gone to the National Guard under any
circumstances. But, in fact, it is not going to the National Guard.
When there are competing needs in the active military, they get first
call.
Let me be clear: The National Guard is being fully active, not only
in the work they are doing overseas but in their homeland defense
activities.
Now, when you take a look at the national service mission, when they
go abroad, as has been pointed out on the floor, and they take
equipment with them, they leave it there because it does not make sense
to transport equipment back from the fighting frontlines when they have
carried it over there. So, as a result, that equipment is left there.
When the Guard units come home, they have lost even more equipment.
That means they are falling far, far behind in their needed equipment
coverage.
Now, at the same time, when they went over they left the homeland
defense or the natural disaster equipment at a far, far insufficient
rate. Most Guard units are about one-third equipped. In other words, if
they have nine units, only three of them are fully equipped.
I pointed out on the floor last year, after Hurricane Katrina, we
were very proud that one of our National Guard engineering battalions
was called to Louisiana. And they did a magnificent job. As a matter of
fact, they did such a magnificent job that the adjutant general of
Louisiana and the Governor of Louisiana sought another of the three
engineering battalions from Missouri to come down. The bad news was
that one out of the three battalions that we had took the only
equipment we had. We did not have equipment for a second battalion that
could have been very, very well used by our Guard in assisting the
recovery mission in Louisiana or Mississippi or Texas or other areas.
That is why it is so important to make sure we are fully equipped.
More than 200,000 Guard troops have left their homes, their jobs, and
their families to participate in the war on terror in Afghanistan and
Iraq and other missions since 9/11. The National Guard has provided as
much as half of the combat force and 40 percent of the total force in
Iraq. They are performing their duties with honor and valor, often at
great cost to their families and their own lives.
The Guard also helps local responders deal with overwhelming natural
disasters here at home such as hurricanes, tornados, and floods.
The modified amendment will provide an additional $2.4 billion for
National Guard and Army Reserve needs on top of the funds already
provided in the bill under title III and title IX.
Lieutenant General Blum in a recent interview had this to say about
National Guard readiness:

I am further behind or in an even more dire situation than
the active Army, but we both have the same symptoms, I just
have a higher fever.

[[Page S8684]]

It has been widely reported that the current funding shortfall for
National Guard needs is approximately $23,000,000,000.
About a third of this amount is required to replace equipment
consumed by the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and peacekeeping
assignments. The remainder is money that is needed to close the gap
from years of intentional underfunding according to Lieutenant General
Blum, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau who also has been quoted
as saying:

I am not talking about the icing on the cake. That's the
cake.

It has been reported that more than two-thirds of the Army National
Guard's 34 brigades are not combat-ready due largely to vast equipment
shortfalls.
The Army National Guard currently has only 34 percent of its required
equipment. It was recently even worse than that. The percentage
actually dropped for a time to as low as 26 percent as large numbers of
units demobilized and the Guard realized the full impact of equipment
destroyed, damaged or required to remain behind in theater.
Since that new low, there has been some recovery so that, at present,
the percent of required equipment actually onhand is 34 percent. That
is nowhere near enough.
My colleagues will recall that Senator Leahy and I provided over $900
million in last year's Defense appropriations bill for the shortages in
equipment. Had we not acted then, the state of National Guard equipment
might be even worse.
Currently there are 27,000 Guard forces deployed overseas and another
29,000 Guard forces either coming back from overseas or preparing to go
overseas. Additionally there are 6,000 Guard troops deployed along the
Nation's borders. Do the math and you will find that there are 62,000
Guard forces mobilized.
The National Guard Bureau reports that 16 percent of its force is
mobilized in support of the global war on terror and 84 percent of the
force is actively involved in force planning or preparing and training
to deploy overseas or along the border.
Time and time again the National Guard has been a tremendous value
for the capabilities it provides our Nation, providing 40 percent of
the total force for around 7 to 8 of the budget.
Let me remind my colleagues that our National Guard force must also
remain cognizant of its homeland defense and security role. Our Nation
was reminded last year during the response to Hurricane Katrina of the
Guard's other paramount mission.
The National Guard's contributions to Hurricane Katrina were stellar.
The magnitude, quality, and timeliness of the Guard's response remains
one of the less publicized successes of the Katrina disaster. The
Guard's successful response was attributable to the fact that the Guard
is best organized and trained to initiate and coordinate a civil
response of the scale of Katrina.
This morning I was advised that it might be necessary to come to the
floor to defend this amendment. As I noted, it came as a surprise that
it might be necessary, but now that I am here I am eager to defend it.
Senator Leahy and I are not alone. I have a letter from the Enlisted
Association of the National Guard of the United States addressed to the
bill managers which states in part:

The $2.44 billion will not solve the equipment shortages in
the Guard. It will not instantly restore Guard equipment
readiness to top levels. It will, however, allow the Guard to
focus its restorative efforts on those who are preparing for
mobilization, and it will help to restore readiness for our
homeland defense posture.

Our amendment provides a prudent allocation of dollars to the proven
and effective forces of the National Guard and Army Reserve.
Through it we ensure that the Guard and Reserve's military readiness
and homeland security resources remain at minimally acceptable levels.
The funds we are providing in this measure are absolutely necessary to
the health of the force. This is why I urge my colleagues to send a
strong message to the citizen-soldiers and Airmen of the National Guard
and Army Reserve by voting overwhelmingly in favor of this amendment.
Mr. President, I will turn it over to my colleague, but I believe it
is necessary for us formally to call up amendment No. 4827.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator is absolutely right. The
Senator from Missouri is right.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for himself and Mr.
Leahy, Mr. Menendez, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Dodd, Ms. Landrieu,
Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Dorgan, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Harkin, Mr.
Rockefeller, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Jeffords, proposes an
amendment numbered 4827.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To clarify the availability of funds for the National Guard
for National Guard and Reserve equipment)

At the end of title IX, add the following:
Sec. 9012. Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act by reason of the adoption of Senate
Amendment 4751 (referred to as the ``Stevens amendment''),
$2,440,000,000 is available for the National Guard for
National Guard and Reserve equipment. Such amount is in
addition to any other amounts available in this title, or
under title III under the heading ``Other Procurement,
Army'', for National Guard and Reserve equipment.

Amendment No. 4827, as modified

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
be modified to include ``and the Army Reserve.'' We have been asked to
expand this so that the $2,440,000,000 is available for the National
Guard and the Army Reserve, for National Guard and Reserve equipment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 4827), as modified, is as follows:

At the end of title IX, add the following:
Sec. 9012. Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act by reason of the adoption of Senate
Amendment 4751 (referred to as the ``Stevens amendment''),
$2,440,000,000 is available for the National Guard and the
Army Reserve for National Guard and Reserve equipment. Such
amount is in addition to any other amounts available in this
title, or under title III under the heading ``Other
Procurement, Army'', for National Guard and Reserve
equipment.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BOND. 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. BOND. Mr. President, I have letters, one from the Enlisted
Association of the National Guard and one from the National Guard
Association of the United States. I ask unanimous consent that those
letters be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United
States,
Alexandria, VA, August 3, 2006.
Senator Ted Stevens,
Chairman, Senate Defense Appropriations Committee, Senate
Dirksen Office Building, Washington, DC.
The Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the
United States (EANGUS) is the only military service
association that represents the interests of every enlisted
soldier and airmen in the Army and Air National Guard. With a
constituency base of over 414,000, and a large retiree
membership, EANGUS engages Capitol Hill on behalf of
courageous Guard persons across this nation.
On behalf of EANGUS, I'd like to communicate our support,
and urge your support, for an amendment being offered by
Senator Bond (SA 4827 to H.R. 5631) to increase funding for
the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account. EANGUS
appreciates your immediate action to the reported equipment
shortages in the Army Guard, and this funding is vital to
restoring the readiness of the Guard.
The $2.44 billion will not solve the equipment shortages in
the Guard. It will not instantly restore Guard equipment
readiness to top levels. It will, however, allow the Guard to
focus its restorative efforts on those who are preparing for
mobilization, and it will help to restore readiness for our
homeland defense posture.

[[Page S8685]]

Thank you for your continued support of our military. If
our association can be of further help, feel free to contact
our Legislative Director, SGM (Ret) Frank Yoakum.
Working for America's Best!
Michael P. Cline,
Executive Director.
____

Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United
States,
Alexandria, VA, August 3, 2006.
Senator Daniel Inouye,
Ranking Member, Senate Defense Appropriations Committee,
Senate Dirksen Office Building, Washington, DC:
The Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the
United States (EANGUS) is the only military service
association that represents the interests of every enlisted
soldier and airmen in the Army and Air National Guard. With a
constituency base of over 414,000, and a large retiree
membership, EANGUS engages Capitol Hill on behalf of
courageous Guard persons across this nation.
On behalf of EANGUS, I'd like to communicate our support,
and urge your support, for an amendment being offered by
Senator Bond (SA 4827 to H.R. 5631) to increase funding for
the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account. EANGUS
appreciates your immediate action to the reported equipment
shortages in the Army Guard, and this funding is vital to
restoring the readiness of the Guard.
The $2.44 billion will not solve the equipment shortages in
the Guard. It will not instantly restore Guard equipment
readiness to top levels. It will, however, allow the Guard to
focus its restorative efforts on those who are preparing for
mobilization, and it will help to restore readiness for our
homeland defense posture.
Thank you for your continued support of our military. If
our association can be of further help, feel free to contact
our Legislative Director, SGM (Ret) Frank Yoakum.
Working for America's Best!
Michael P. Cline,
Executive Director.
____

National Guard Association

of the United States, Inc.,

Washington, DC, August 3, 2006.
Senator Ted Stevens,
Chairman, Senate Defense Appropriations Committee, The
Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Stevens: I am writing to urge your support of
the Bond-Leahy amendment language (S. 4827) clarifying the
Senate's intent in its passage of your amendment (S. 4751).
NGAUS appreciates your action in providing immediate
response to the services need for additional funding. We
believe Bond-Leahy can greatly assist National Guard
requirements by earmarking $2.44 billion in addition to the
other amounts in the bill.
We continue to have concerns that the National Guard
leadership consistently has problems with DoD in securing
funds which the Congress has previously identified for Guard
accounts.
Your support in this regard is respectfully requested.
Sincerely,
Stephen M. Koper,
President.
____

National Guard Association

of the United States, Inc.,

Washington, DC, August 3, 2006.
Senator Daniel K. Inouye,
Ranking Minority Member, Senate Defense Appropriations
Committee, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Inouye: I am writing to urge your support of
the Bond-Leahy amendment language (S. 4827) clarifying the
Senate's intent in its passage of Chairman Steven's amendment
(S. 4751).
NGAUS appreciates your action in providing immediate
response to the services need for additional funding. We
believe Bond-Leahy can greatly assist National Guard
requirements by earmarking $2.44 billion in addition to the
other amounts in the bill.
We continue to have concerns that the National Guard
leadership consistently has problems with DoD in securing
funds which the Congress has previously identified for Guard
accounts.
Your support in this regard is respectfully requested.
Sincerely,
Stephen M. Koper,
President.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as I previously stated, LTG Blum, the head
of the National Guard, said in a recent interview about National Guard
readiness:

I am further behind or in an even more dire situation than
the active Army, but we both have the same symptoms, I just
have a higher fever.

And while this $2.4 billion will be a significant step forward, the
Guard's best estimate for the shortfall is approximately $23 billion--a
third of it to replace equipment consumed by the wars in Afghanistan,
Iraq, and peacekeeping assignments. The remainder is money that is
needed to close the gap from years of underfunding by the Pentagon.
Again, LTG Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, has said:

I am not talking about the icing on the cake. That's the
cake.

And they have been cut very badly.
I have already mentioned that the Army National Guard has only 34
percent of its required equipment. At one time it dropped as low as 26
percent. And with some 27,000 Guard forces deployed overseas, and
another 29,000 either coming back or preparing to go, there is a
tremendous need for that equipment.
Mr. President, 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. SHELBY. 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. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we
temporarily set aside the Leahy-Bond amendment for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an amendment I
have filed regarding the Air Force's KC-135 Tanker Replacement Program.
Like my colleagues in the Senate, one of my top priorities is to keep
our Nation safe. I am working to ensure that our servicemembers have
the best equipment possible.
Our Air Force has a fleet of aging refueling tankers that are
currently experiencing problems. I simply do not believe we can wait 35
years to replace them.
While I understand the fiscal constraints the Defense Subcommittee
was under, I believe that the KC-X, the airframe that will replace our
nearly 40-year-old fleet of KC-135 tankers, is vital to our national
security and to the success of our servicemembers fighting abroad.
This acquisition effort is likely one of the most important ones we
will execute for many years to come. Whether the objective is to
respond to military aggression or to provide humanitarian relief, the
combination of distance and time can pose a significant challenge. When
we need to respond quickly and in force, tankers allow us to project
globally.
With our current military commitments abroad, our national security
has become dependent upon the tanker force. It is the way we deter,
deploy, and fight. We cannot achieve our decisive range capabilities
without the air refuelers.
The Air Force's current schedule is to award a contract for the new
KC-X aircraft in 2007. However, that award could be indefinitely
postponed if funding is not restored in the 2007 Defense appropriations
bill.
While I have filed an amendment, I do not plan to call it up because,
as a member of the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, I understand
the problem between the authorizers and the appropriators who may be
receiving different information regarding the necessity for funding in
fiscal year 2007. I have a letter from the Air Force Deputy for Budget,
dated August 2, 2006, stating that the Air Force needs a minimum of $70
million in research and development, test and evaluation funds for the
year 2007, in addition to the funds remaining in the tanker transfer
fund. I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Department of the Air Force,

Washington, DC, August 2, 2006.
Hon. Richard Shelby,
Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Shelby: On behalf of the Secretary of the Air
Force, thank you for your inquiry on the Air Force's tanker
replacement program (KC-X). The KC-X budget request for RDT&E
in fiscal year 2007 was $203.9M. However, the submitted
budget did not account for the full extent of the program
pause, which started in September 2005 to allow for
additional analysis and review. In April 2006, the SECAF took
the program off pause and traditional program activities
resumed.

[[Page S8686]]

To properly re-phase the program to account for the delay,
with contract award scheduled for August 2007, the Air Force
needs a minimum of $70M in RDT&E funds for fiscal year 2007.
This is in addition to the funds remaining in the Tanker
Transfer fund. These funds are needed to allow the program
office to obligate commercial long lead items for four test
aircraft and engines, as well as mitigate the risk associated
with the competition, since there is a wide variance between
the levels of effort required and the cost of potential
airframes among the various competitors.
To answer your specific funding questions, we provide the
following table:

[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed for
RDT&E funding Issued reprogramming Remaining
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tanker Transfer Fund................ $100 $10.2 ................. $89.8
FY06................................ 97.9 19.7 78.2 0
FY07................................ 203.9 0 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 401.8 29.9 78.2 89.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Requested in FY07PB, subject to enactment.

We agree that recapitalizing our aging tanker fleet is
vital to our national security and appreciate your support in
moving this program forward.
Sincerely,
Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz,
Deputy for Budget.

Mr. SHELBY. I also want to make certain that both the Armed Services
Committee and the Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations are receiving
identical funding information from the Air Force. To that end, I am
committed to working with my colleagues to ensure that we are all
receiving the same information and have the same understanding of the
needs of the program to move forward at this time.
The Tanker Replacement Program is vital to ensuring that our Armed
Forces have the most reliable and effective equipment in the world. In
a year when the Senate's Defense appropriations bill has been cut $9
billion, I appreciate the difficult funding choices that must be made.
As a member of the committee, we have to make those choices. However,
as our military aircraft become fewer in number and have to serve
longer than those they replace, we cannot afford to take a misstep at
the outset of this acquisition program. We must adequately fund the
Tanker Replacement Program to ensure our servicemembers have the
necessary equipment to successfully defend our Nation.
I appreciate Chairman Stevens' continuing assistance with this
program, as well as Senator McCain's longstanding interest, and look
forward to working with both of them in the coming months to ensure
that we can move forward and replace our aging tanker fleet. A lot of
those planes are over 40 years old.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to associate myself with the
concerns expressed by Senator Shelby regarding the cuts contained in
this bill to the tanker replacement program.
The tanker fleet is one of our military's key competitive advantages.
It gives our Nation the ability to project power to any point on the
globe like no other country can. In an age where our military must be
able to react rapidly to events, our airmen and soldiers cannot reach
all corners of the world without being refueled by tankers.
At a time when we are spending billions of dollars on new, short-
range fighter aircraft, it would be foolish to not ensure that those
aircraft could get adequate supplies of tanker gas to do their jobs.
The current tanker fleet is old, with most aircraft dating back to
the mid-1960s. The fleet is now aging even more rapidly because
increasingly frequent deployments--mainly in support of operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan--have put significant wear and tear on their
airframes. As magnificently as they have performed, these work horses
of our military are coming close to the end of their service life and
cannot safely fly forever.
It is imperative that we move now to ensure that we can acquire
sufficient numbers of new tankers before these old airframes have to be
retired. Reliable sources have informed me that without a minimum of
$70 million in fiscal year 2007 funding, the Air Force's effort to
acquire the next generation of tankers will likely face significant
delays.
I believe it is very important that the conference committee provide
sufficient funding for next generation tankers to ensure that the
program can proceed on schedule.
Mr. SHELBY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BOND. 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. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the
distinguished chairman of the appropriations subcommittee, the manager
of the bill.
Senator Stevens and I have discussed a particular rescission included
in the Defense appropriations bill on a classified matter. It is my
understanding--and I ask the Senator--that it is his intention to
receive additional information from the Director of National
Intelligence and other appropriate intelligence community officials on
this program. I believe it is imperative that the committee have this
information as soon as possible so that the conferees can appropriately
consider the matter. Could the Senator confirm that this is his
intention?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have conferred with our cochairman,
Senator Inouye. This is our intention. We do appreciate the Senator's
desire to work cooperatively on this issue, and we intend to follow
through and see to it we get the information he seeks and have further
dialog on it when we do.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and Senator Inouye for
their leadership on this bill. This information will be of great
interest to them. I appreciate their careful consideration of it. We
look forward to having these discussions and hearings.
I yield the floor.
Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Conference Report on Pensions

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are in the final moments of working
through a rather important amendment. I thought I would use a few of
those moments, until the floor manager returns, to address an issue
that we are going to be dealing with within the next 2 days. I am not
sure how much time we will have. That is the conference report on
pensions which I urge the Senate to accept.
I want to quickly review exactly what our pension conference came
back with. It requires the companies to fund pension promises, help
workers save through automatic enrollment, making the Saver's Credit
permanent. This automatic enrollment will ensure that workers will be
enrolled in 401(k)s. And this legislation ensures they will be able to
get good advice. The advice will be objective.
The Saver's Credit is going to be made permanent. That is probably
the most that can be done for low-income individuals. The bill helps
protect our airline workers' pensions. It give workers timely and
accurate information on pension plan finances. It protects workers and
businesses in multi-employer pensions. It protects older workers' early
retirement benefits from erosion. That is important. It gives workers
access to unbiased investment advice. It adopts post-Enron worker
pension protections. It penalizes corporate

[[Page S8687]]

executives who line their pockets when workers' pensions suffer. It
provides greater retirement security for widows and former spouses.
Pensions are important because when we look at retirement security,
it is a three-legged stool. We have Social Security, the bedrock of
retirement; private pensions, and then private savings. Private savings
are at an all-time low. We will, obviously, maintain the integrity of
Social Security, but the other aspect is private pensions. Only 50
percent of workers today have pension coverage at work, and only 21
percent have a defined benefit plan.
Pensions are enormously important. We have had approximately $8
billion in pension savings that have been lost in the last 5 years. So
if we did not take these steps, the prospects in terms of workers'
pensions would have been very threatening.
We will make this recommendation at an appropriate time, when the
leaders are here. The chairman of our conference is our friend and
colleague, Senator Enzi, who has done an extraordinary job during the
course of the whole pension conference. As always, he is a man of good
judgment and patience. The conference lasted longer than any of us
believed was necessary. Nonetheless, we have a product that we are
prepared to defend.
We had great unanimity in the Senate when we passed the earlier bill
97 to 2. Even those two individuals expressed reservations, and we were
able to address their primary concerns.
This is not the legislation that I think Senator Enzi or I would have
drafted, quite frankly. But it is a solid recommendation. It will make
an important difference to millions of workers, particularly those in
the multi-employer plans and also single-employer plans. It will make
an incredibly important difference to some of the airlines. Quite
frankly, I was disappointed that we didn't treat American and
Continental Airlines more fairly in the final recommendations. Without
moving ahead at this time on the pension legislation, we have the
prospects of one of the major airlines dropping their pension program,
with more than 150,000 workers losing their pensions.
So this is going to be enormously important. We are not going to
spend a great deal of time on this, as we are dealing with Defense
appropriations, which is incredibly important; and we are going to be
dealing with the estate tax proposal, which has been set by the
majority leader. But we will, in the next 2 days, deal with this
legislation.
It is extremely important. If there are Members who want additional
information, I am sure Senator Enzi and I will be more than willing to
provide it.
Americans who have worked hard and played by the rules for a lifetime
deserve a secure retirement. They deserve to be able to enjoy their
golden years, to spend time with their families and to rest after a
lifetime of hard work. We need to be sure that they have the income
they need to meet their costs for gasoline, prescription drugs, and
other needs of daily living.
But what they see each day is corporations such as Enron that
callously disregard their workers retirement needs. They see airlines
that are going bankrupt, leaving their workers with a fraction of the
pensions they thought they had earned. They see other companies facing
economic hardship that reward their executives while cutting the
pensions of their workers.
The Pension Protection Act, which we are considering this week, will
help over 100 million Americans. This legislation makes sweeping
changes to strengthen guaranteed pensions and to increase workers'
ability to build a secure retirement.
This legislation is the result of years of work on these complex
issues by both the House and the Senate. Last year, we worked closely
on the HELP Committee with our chairman, Senator Enzi, and subcommittee
chair, Senator DeWine, and its ranking member, Senator Mikulski, to
develop a bipartisan way to deal with these issues, and we worked
closely as well with Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus of the
Finance Committee. Last fall, the Senate approved our comprehensive
legislation by a vote of 97 to 2.
For months, the conference committee has struggled to reach agreement
with the House, and last month we were finally able to reach a
compromise on the key pension elements of the bill, which are reflected
in the measures we are considering today.
Before I turn to the merits of the Pension Protection Act, I must say
that while I support this legislation and the compromise it represents,
I cannot support the process used in this conference, particularly the
systematic exclusion of Democrats from the negotiations. Republicans
allowed only two of the 11 Democratic conferees to participate in the
talks, denying the American people the views and contributions that
these able legislators could bring to the table. The American people
elect us to serve them, and refusing to allow elected officials to do
their job is a fundamental attack on our democratic system of
government.
As we all know, millions of Americans are increasingly concerned
about their retirement security, and it is long past time for Congress
to act. Many workers cannot save enough toward retirement. The personal
savings rate has now fallen below zero because wages are stagnant, but
costs are soaring for basic necessities such as gas, housing, health
care and education.
Social Security is under attack, and private pensions are in trouble
too. In the past 5 years, over 700 pension plans have failed, with
workers losing approximately $8 billion in pensions they had worked so
hard to earn.
Many workers today rely solely on their 401(k) accounts as their
pensions. But these accounts don't offer real retirement security. Many
of those workers do not have any money in their 401(k)s.
Those who do are not saving enough. Half of workers close to
retirement have less than $61,000 in their accounts. And those who rely
on these accounts face the constant risk that their investments will
perform poorly.
This is why this legislation is needed. Companies need to keep their
pension promises to workers. Workers deserve to know the true financial
state of the health of their pensions. And companies need to offer
benefits that give more workers the ability to earn a secure
retirement.
A core problem that we have tackled in this bill is the need to
strengthen the defined benefit pension system, which today provides
secure pensions for nearly 45 million workers and retirees. These
pensions grant a known monthly retirement benefit for life, and are
insured by the Federal Government.
Workers rely on these plans for a secure retirement. They have earned
their pensions over a lifetime of hard work, foregoing raises and other
benefits to keep them. But as many workers at Bethlehem Steel and
United Airlines suddenly discovered, their companies stopped
contributing money to these pensions, and the employees paid the price
when the pensions collapsed. This includes workers like James Roberts,
of Harrisburg, PA, worked for 33 years in a steel plant. When Roberts'
pension had to be bailed out by pension guaranty agency at the Federal
Department of Labor, his pension was cut by one-third, to only $14,916
a year. Our headlines have been full of stories like these in recent
years.
The legislation solves this serious problem by requiring companies to
put more funds into their pensions and to do so in a fair and
predictable way.
It also recognizes the power of public disclosure and the urgent need
for more effective oversight of pension plans. Under current law,
workers receive little financial information about their pensions, and
what they do receive is often years out of date. They have earned these
pensions, and they deserve to know whether the funds are there to pay
them.
The Pension Protection Act ensures that workers and retirees receive
up-to-date information each year about the status of their pensions. By
opening up the books of pension funds, they will be able to monitor the
true health of their retirement.
The bill also provides incentives to keep pensions financially
healthy by tying executive compensation to pension health. Executives
should not be able to feather their own retirement nests, while workers
lose their nest eggs. The bill penalizes executives who put company
funds into their own retirement trusts, when the pensions of rank and
file workers are underfunded.
We also need to recognize the growing role of defined contribution
pension

[[Page S8688]]

plans in our retirement system. Over 40 percent of workers participate
in such plans today, and for many of them it is their only pension
plan.
Our legislation encourages them to save more under these plans by
automatically enrolling them in these pensions and automatically
increasing the amount they can save. Automatic enrollment can
drastically increase the number of workers who start saving for
retirement--it would immediately help up to 5.9 million American
workers whose companies already offer pensions but they are not
participating.
Workers in the lowest income brackets benefit the most. One study
projects that automatic enrollment could more than double the percent
of lower income workers who are building a retirement when their
employer offers a pension from only 42 percent to over 90 percent.
The Saver's Credit provides critical incentives to help hard-working
Americans contribute to their retirement plans and helps over 5 million
workers each year. This legislation makes that credit permanent and
indexes it so this incentive will continue to be meaningful for workers
into the future.
Also, as employees assume greater responsibility for pension
investment choices, they need the best information possible about their
choices. The Pension Protection Act encourages companies to provide
nonbiased investment advice to their employees so they can maximize
their retirement savings.
Our bill also helps to improve the portability of pension savings. By
making it easier for workers to move retirement savings from one type
of pension to another when they change jobs, we encourage workers to
keep these savings for retirement instead of spending them.
In addition, the bill addresses the needs of nearly 10 million
workers and retirees who receive pensions through multiemployer plans.
These are the workers who clean our office buildings and hotel rooms,
sell us our groceries, build our homes and schools and highways, and
deliver goods across the country. Many of them are in industries where
they move from job to job and would not be able to earn any pension at
all without a multiemployer plan, since their employers, particularly
small businesses, could not afford to offer a pension on their own.
The majority of these pensions are in strong financial shape. But the
recent economic downturn and the weak stock market have put some of
them in financial difficulties similar to those facing single-employer
pensions. We owe it to these employees to protect their pensions now,
instead of acting only when they are about to fail.
Under this legislation, employers and employees must work together
and agree on a plan to restore these pensions to financial health.
Employers would be protected from unforeseen payment increases and new
excise taxes, which could cost many workers their jobs.
The bill also addresses the special needs of workers who help to keep
America safe. We improve retirement security for public safety workers
by expanding options to pay for retiree health care and long-term care.
We also allow reserve and national guard members to draw on their
retirement savings without penalty when called to active duty, and we
give them an opportunity to replace these savings when they return to
civilian life.
The pension crisis in the airline industry also deserves our
immediate attention. Our airlines have faced unprecedented challenges
since 9/11. Natural disasters have reduced travel. The industry is
suffering from record-high fuel prices. These costs are driving
companies into bankruptcy, putting the retirement of hundreds of
thousands of workers and retirees at risk.
Workers at United Airlines and U.S. Airways saw their pensions
slashed when their companies filed for bankruptcy and then turned over
their pension plans to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. We
need to help hundreds of thousands of other workers avoid the same
fate.
The bill provides a way for these airlines to keep their pensions, by
offering companies a specialized payment program and a transition
period to adjust to the new rules. Hardworking people like Sean
Reardon, a mechanic with Delta Airlines in Boston, deserve to keep
their pensions, as do thousands of other workers in Massachusetts.
Our legislation also addresses new types of pensions, like ``hybrid''
pensions, which play a growing role in our retirement system. These
pensions provide a guaranteed pension, and the benefits are attractive
to younger workers and to others, such as parents caring for children,
who move in and out of the workforce.
Older workers, however, can lose out when their companies switch to
these plans because they lose a large portion of the benefits they were
promised. Some companies have been taking advantage of the conversion
process to eliminate early retirement benefits that workers have
already earned.
This legislation gives companies clear guidance about the future
legal status of these plans, but allows workers who have been harmed in
the past to continue to pursue their rights. And it contains clear
protections against such ``wearaway'' or erosion of older workers'
benefits. The bill also makes these pensions more portable, so that
they better serve a mobile workforce.
As we learned from the Enron, WorldCom and other corporate scandals,
employees forced to invest in company stock are at huge risk. Despite
all the publicity, many workers continue to overinvest in company
stock, jeopardizing their retirement security because their job and
their retirement depend on the fate of their company.
The bill protects them by preventing employers from overloading
401(k) plans with company stock. It also warns employees when they
place too much of their retirement funds in one investment.
The legislation also includes important provisions from the Women's
Pension Protection Act that Senator Snowe and I introduced. Retirement
security is essential for all Americans, but we often fail to meet the
needs of women on this basic issue. Women live longer than men, but
they continue to earn far less in wages over their lifetimes. They are
also much less likely to earn a pension. These differences translate
into seriously inadequate retirement income for vast numbers of women.
According to the most recent data, only 22 percent of women age 65
and over are receiving private pension income, and for those who do,
half of them are receiving less than $4,500 a year compared to $9,600
for men. Minority women are in even more desperate straits--only 21
percent of African-American women and 9 percent of Hispanic women
receive a pension. These disparities are a major reason why nearly one
in five elderly single women lives in poverty.
Our legislation gives them greater retirement security. Widows will
receive more generous survivor benefits and divorced women will have
greater ability to receive a share of their former husband's pension
after a divorce. These are long overdue improvements in the private
pension system, so that retirement savings programs will be more
responsive to the realities of women's lives and careers.
Employees and their families rightly expect Congress to protect their
hard-earned pensions. This legislation is a major start toward meeting
this basic challenge in our 21st century society. I urge my colleagues
to support the Pension Protection Act.
I suggest absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ISAKSON. 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. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I rise for a moment to address the
situation with regard to the pension protection bill. I want to follow
up on the remarks by the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy. I
thank Senator Kennedy for his hard work as the ranking member of the
HELP Committee. I thank Mike Enzi, the chairman, and I appreciate the
patience of Chuck Grassley and his effort in the Finance Committee.
The Senator's recitation of the long and arduous conference committee
was absolutely on track. We are within hours of getting a bill to the
floor that will protect the pensions of thousands of Americans today
and, in the future, make our pension laws 21st century laws in a 21st
century economy.

[[Page S8689]]

Failure to agree to the bill before we leave will mean disastrous
consequences. Airlines in America have needed some special protection
for some time in order to do what they want to do, which is honor the
pensions of their employees. It is to the great credit of Delta and
Northwest Airlines that both companies want to exit bankruptcy and
ensure the pension benefits of their employees. This is not only noble,
but it is very important. In my State, 91,000 people's pensions and
their futures are determined and dependent upon the Senate acting.
Beyond the airline situation, the pension laws of the country have
needed to be modernized for some time. We all know the trouble Social
Security has had. It has been the same trouble with defined pension
benefits. People live longer and there are less workers, and less
workers do more work and contribute less to the system. It is important
to the companies to be able to amortize their liability over a period
of time that is sustainable. It is important that the interest rate
assumptions made are realistic, and that we adopt the principle that
people do in their own savings, and that is dollar cost averaging--
continuing to put money into whether the market is up or down. It
should be the same in terms of protecting pension plans by ensuring
that contributions are consistent and meaningful and, in fact, doable.
I have had tremendous help over the past 18 months from many people.
I want to particularly thank Mike Quiello, Ed Egee, and Glee Smith on
my staff for countless hundreds of hours in working toward the
resolution that will soon come to this floor.
I urge my colleagues to join with us in adopting and ratifying,
without amendment, the pension protection bill that will be before us.
It will be meaningful for many retirees today. It will be more
meaningful for every retiree in the future. I end by thanking Chairman
Grassley and Chairman Enzi for their tireless work, and ranking members
Kennedy and Baucus for their cooperation, and the staffs who put in so
much time to make this bill a reality for millions of Americans.
I yield the floor and 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. KENNEDY. 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. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the pending amendment is the amendment I
offered; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Bond amendment is the pending amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. The regular order is the underlying Kennedy amendment;
is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

Amendment No. 4802, as Modified

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send a modification of the amendment to
the desk and ask that the underlying amendment be modified as
designated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be so modified.
The amendment (No. 4802), as modified, is as follows:

On page 150, line 24, insert before the period the
following: ``: Provided, That the Director of National
Intelligence shall, utilizing amounts appropriated by this
heading, perpare as soon as practicable but not later than 90
days after the date of enactment of this Act, a new National
Intelligence Estimate on prospects for security and stability
in Iraq, which shall address such matters as the Director of
National Intelligence considers appropriate, including (1) an
assessment of whether Iraq is succeeding in creating a stable
and effective unity government, and the likelihood that
government will address the concerns of the Sunni community,
(2) the prospects for Iraq's ethnic, religious and tribal
divisions, (3) the prospects for controlling severe sectarian
violence that could lead to civil war, (4) an assessment
whether Iraq is succeeding in standing up effective security
forces, 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 bar
militias, and (5) the prospects for economic reconstruction
and the impact that will have on security and stability.
Provided further, That the Director of National Intelligence
shall submit to Congress the National Intelligence Estimate
prepared under the preceding proviso and this document shall
be submitted in classified form, except that, consistent with
the protection of intelligence sources and methods, an
unclassified summary of key judgments of the National
Intelligence Estimate should be submitted: Provided further,
That is 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 and the date on which
such National Intelligence Estimate will be provided''.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just to take a moment of the Senate's
time, first, I am very grateful to the floor managers, Senator Stevens
and Senator Inouye, and particularly Senator Roberts for the
opportunity to work with him on a matter which I think is of underlying
importance.
We have worked out language which would require an updated national
intelligence estimate on Iraq. The last one that was prepared was 2
years ago. The assessment would address whether Iraq is succeeding in
creating a stable and unity government, and whether it will address the
Sunnis' concerns, the prospect for Iraq's ethnic, religious, and tribal
divisions reconciliation, the progress for controlling severe sectarian
violence that could lead to civil war, whether Iraq has a credible plan
to disarm and demobilize and reintegrate the militias, and whether the
Government is working to obtain a political commitment from the
political parties to ban militias.
For the sake of our men and women in Iraq and for the sake of our
Nation, we need this kind of assessment from the intelligence community
so we can adjust our policy.
John Adams, the great leader from Massachusetts, said: Facts are
stubborn things. We should have an update on the facts as our
intelligence agencies see them and have them available to the
decisionmakers and to the administration.
I very much appreciate the cooperation of Senator Roberts and others
in working out language which I think carries through the purpose of
the initial amendment and I think will be enormously valuable and
helpful to us in charting the course for our Nation in the future.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment has been modified after
consultation with the distinguished chairman of the Senate Intelligence
Committee. I believe it has the support of the Senator from Hawaii.
I suggest the absence of a quorum, Mr. President.
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, as I indicated, we have discussed this
amendment with the Senator from Kansas, the chairman of the Senate
Intelligence Committee. We had a little bit of trouble reading the
writing on the modified amendment. I believe we have that agreed to
now.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise to make a few observations with
regard to the Kennedy amendment to require a new national intelligence
estimate on the situation in Iraq. I very much appreciate the efforts
of Senator Roberts and Senator Stevens to work with Senator Kennedy to
improve his original amendment, and I think the language that we have
agreed to is a big improvement over the original proposal.
I do want to share with my colleagues, however, a concern I have
about what we are asking for here. As everyone in this Chamber knows,
we have had a big debate over the last few years about whether the
intelligence on Iraq was ``politicized'' as we approached the decision
whether to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein in 2003. A
large part of that debate has turned on whether the National
Intelligence Estimate that was submitted to Congress by the
intelligence community on October 1, 2002, was balanced and complete.
It is important to recall that the October 1, 2002, National
Intelligence Estimate was demanded by Members of Congress in September
of 2002. The

[[Page S8690]]

record demonstrates that the Director of Central Intelligence asked for
more time to complete the estimate, and the Members of Congress who
wanted to see that estimate said no. Certainly the pressure from
Congress to produce that document very quickly contributed to whatever
problems have subsequently been identified in that estimate.
A lesson that can be drawn from this experience is that it is not
just executive branch officials who are in a position to politicize or
degrade the quality of intelligence. Members of Congress can do so as
well if they are sloppy in the way they press for information, ask
biased questions, or don't allow enough time for the intelligence
professionals to do their work carefully.
In light of this experience, I would hope that if the Kennedy
amendment is enacted into law, the Director of National Intelligence
will not feel pressured to reach some of the judgments that some
supporters of the amendment clearly want him to reach. Instead, our
intelligence professionals should take their time, work hard, and
articulate conclusions that represent their best judgment about the
situation in Iraq. There simply is too much at stake to permit the work
of our intelligence professionals to be politicized at this late date.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending. Is there further
debate?
Mr. STEVENS. I ask for adoption of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If not, without objection, the amendment is
agreed to.
The amendment (No. 4802), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Iowa wishes to be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

Estate Tax and the Minimum Wage

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman. I did not want to
interrupt any amendments. I just thought as long as there was time when
no one was offering amendments, I would take the opportunity to speak
briefly about the issue that will be confronting us today and tomorrow
outside the action on the Defense appropriations bill, and that is the
so-called deal the House of Representatives sent over to us regarding
estate taxes and the minimum wage.
For 9 long years, the majority party here has blocked any increase in
the minimum wage. During that time, the real value of the minimum wage
has declined by 21 percent. The minimum wage now is a poverty wage. One
can work for a minimum wage, but one is still in poverty. A breadwinner
working full time for minimum wage earns $6,000 less than the Federal
poverty level for a family of three. Yet the Republicans again and
again have adamantly refused to allow an increase.
Just think what it would feel like to anyone here if our salaries we
make as Senators and Congressmen had decreased in value by 21 percent
over the last 9 years. Think how that would feel to you and your
families. How about people at the bottom of the economic ladder? That
is exactly what has happened to them.
However, now 3 months before the election, I think the majority party
is looking at the polls. A Pew poll this week showed that 83 percent of
the American people favor increasing the minimum wage. My friends on
the other side of the aisle don't want to appear coldhearted and
callous, so they have offered us a deal, and what a deal it is. They
have crafted a perverse minimum wage bill that actually cuts wages for
nearly a million workers, then increases the minimum wage for others
over 3 years, and then they say: We will give you this only if you
agree to another giant tax break for some of the wealthiest people in
America.
Let me be specific. What my friends on the other side of the aisle
are saying is that the lowest income working Americans do not deserve
on average a $1,200-a-year increase in the minimum wage; they don't
deserve it. But the estates of billionaires should get a tax break
worth tens of millions--in some cases billions--of dollars.
Let me repeat that. People at the lowest end of the spectrum don't
deserve a $1,200-a-year increase. They will only get it, you see, if we
tie it to another huge tax giveaway for the richest Americans.
This so-called deal we have been given takes cynicism to a new level.
It takes greed to a new level. And by draining the Treasury of more
than three-quarters of a trillion dollars over 10 years to give another
huge tax break to the wealthy, it takes fiscal recklessness to a new
level. Let's be clear. This is a deal the Senate should reject. It is
shameful that the majority party would attempt to hold the minimum wage
hostage to yet another tax bonanza for the wealthy--I might add, the
sixth in 6 years--the sixth tax break for the wealthiest in 6 years.
The Walton family alone--we all know the Walton family; not the ones on
TV, the ones that started the Wal-Mart stores--the Walton family alone
stands to get a tax break worth billions, upwards of $16 billion over
the coming generation if we pass this estate tax near-repeal.

So the near repeal of the estate tax is a tax cut we can't afford,
for people who don't need it, paid for by the children and
grandchildren of the working middle class in America. And the huge loss
of revenue, creating even more massive deficits in the coming decade,
will force deep cuts in health care, education, veterans' benefits,
agriculture, and other programs on which working Americans depend.
But the cynicism doesn't stop there. Republicans have taken the
Democrats' minimum wage bill and they have twisted it in ways that will
actually result in a pay cut--a pay cut--for nearly 1 in 6 Americans
earning the minimum wage. Because of the delayed, 3-year phase-in, the
bill would benefit nearly 2 million fewer workers. And here is the
kicker: The bill before us will nullify laws in seven States that
provide minimum wage protections for workers who earn tips. Those
workers in those seven States actually, under this bill, will receive a
pay cut of up to $5.50 an hour in seven States. I find it interesting
that my friends on the other side who have always championed the causes
of States rights and that the Federal Government should not be taking
power away from the States, with this bill they are telling seven
States: We don't care what you want to do, we are telling you we know
better. We are going to take away your right to give your working
people who earn tips a better deal. We are going to take that away.
So much for States rights.
This is not a deal; it is a deception. It does a grave injustice to
the 6.6 million Americans earning the minimum wage, hard-working people
on the margins of our economy desperate for an increase. With this
bill, my friends on the Republican side are saying to them: You are
hostages. You get nothing. You get nothing unless 3 out of every 1,000
of the wealthiest estates in America get an average tax break of $1.4
million. That is right. This estate tax bill helps only 3 out of every
1,000 estates in America--3 out of 1,000 of the richest estates in
America. So that is their deal: You are hostages. You don't get a thing
unless we help these 3 out of 1,000 of the richest. This violates our
most basic sense of decency, fairness, and justice. And, just as
importantly, the near repeal of the estate tax would pile another
massive load of debt onto our children and grandchildren. It will be
toxic for our Nation's economy.
We will hear our colleagues on the other side tell us it is mostly
teenagers, summertime workers, part-time workers flipping burgers
working for the minimum wage. Facts are nagging things because facts
nag at myths, and this is one of the myths we hear all the time. What
are the facts? Thirty-five percent of those earning the minimum wage
are their family's sole breadwinners. Sixty-one percent of the people
earning the minimum wage in America today are women. You want a women's
issue? This is a women's issue. Sixty-one percent earning the minimum
wage are women. As I said, 35 percent are the sole breadwinners of the
family. Seventy-six percent of the women who would directly benefit
from an increase are over the age of 20. So it is not just teenage
women. In my State of Iowa, if the minimum wage were raised to $7.25 an
hour, which is what we have been proposing, some 257,000 Iowans--that
is, 18 percent of all of the

[[Page S8691]]

workers in my home State--would receive an hourly wage increase
averaging 60 cents. Now, again, of those workers in my State, 75
percent are over the age of 20, 58 percent are female, 42 percent work
full time, and 20 percent are parents.
Well, 3 months before the election, we are proposed this deal. It is
a devil's deal. My friends on the other side say: We will grudgingly
give poor working Americans an increase, but first you have to agree to
a near repeal of the estate tax for the richest of Americans, despite
the fact that we are facing a deficit this year of about $300 billion,
despite the fact that they have run up more than $2 trillion in new
debt since President Bush took office, despite the fact that they have
increased spending by 25 percent in just 5 years' time, despite the
fact that we are spending almost $10 billion a month on seemingly
endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The level of irresponsibility
here is just breathtaking.
As I said, this is a tax break we cannot afford, benefiting people
who don't need it, and it is going to be paid for by the children and
grandchildren of hard-working, middle-class Americans. Slashing the
estate tax would not create a single new job. It will not increase
productivity or competitiveness. It will do nothing to build one
new school or to improve the education of our children. To the
contrary, by driving up the deficits and the debt, it will create more
pressure to cut already underfunded efforts to support education,
health care, veterans, and other domestic priorities.

This Senate went on record this spring in the budget to add $7
billion to the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education. It went on record with an overwhelming vote--
73 to 26--to put in $7 billion--to increase it? No. Just to get us to
the level we were 2 years ago in 2005--just to get us to the level we
were in 2005. Well, through the committees and the conferences, we got
that bill down to $5 billion. So we have a $5 billion increase. So we
can't even get back to the level we were in health care, medical
research at NIH, education, all of the programs that help kids, Title
I, Individuals With Disabilities Education Act--none of those will be
able to get back to the 2005 level.
I am told the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
appropriations bill again is being held hostage, that we won't bring it
up until after the elections. We won't bring it up until after the
elections. Why? Because we will probably vote on putting that $2
billion in there, and it will win--it will win--it will win. I don't
think my friends on the other side want to go into the election having
suffered that kind of defeat here on the Senate floor.
So I take this time, since no one else was offering amendments, to
talk about this so-called deal which is being called a trifecta, for
some reason or another, to just say we have to reject this devil's
deal, as I called it, this deception. What we need to do is to say no
to the House of Representatives and what they have tried to do to us,
defeat that, take the tax extenders on which we all agreed--on which
both sides agreed--put it on the pension bill, and send it back to the
House, and then we will address the issue of the minimum wage and
perhaps estate taxes sometime later.
We should reject this perverse deal being offered. I reject giving
away another three-quarters of $1 trillion in tax breaks for the
wealthiest of Americans. If we are going to pass new tax breaks, let's
focus on working Americans who need them for increased college tuition,
increased gasoline prices, increased heating bills, and increased
health care premiums. Those are the people who need the tax breaks, not
the 3 out of 1,000 who have the biggest estates in America.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note 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 unanimous consent that amendment
No. 4827 in its modified form--I believe it has been modified----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. STEVENS be placed before the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is pending.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask for a vote on this amendment. Are
the yeas and nays ordered?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have been ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask that that order be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 4827), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Coburn amendment No. 4848.
Mr. STEVENS. 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. DeMINT. I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Obstruction

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, we are at a time of year when Congressmen
and Senators leave Washington to spend the month of August back in
their States and districts. As I travel around the State of South
Carolina, I know that my constituents will want to know what we have
done in Congress to secure our homeland, to lower their cost of living,
particularly gas prices, and to protect the values that have made us
strong and unique as a nation. In short, the people of South Carolina,
like the people all across America, will want to know what we have done
to secure their future and to give them hope that their children and
grandchildren will live safe and prosperous lives.
The Democrat leader recently charged this has been a ``do nothing
Congress'' and suggested it is time to go to work on the pressing
problems facing our Nation. Maybe he should have extended that same
admonition to his Democrat colleagues who have tried to block just
about everything that would make our country safer, more prosperous and
protect the values that make America great.
It has been said that everyone is entitled to their own opinion but
not their own facts. And the fact is, thanks to Republican perseverance
and leadership, this Congress has been one of the most productive
Congresses I have been privileged to be a part of. I am looking forward
to giving the people of South Carolina my report.
Let's talk about securing our homeland. I am proud that, thanks to
the leadership from President Bush and the Republican Congress, we have
remained steadfast and forceful in the war against radical Islamic
terrorists all around the world and that there have been no further
attacks on United States soil since September 11.
Republicans understand the war on Islamic Fascism has many fronts:
Afghanistan, Iraq, and we see it now in Israel's struggle against
Hezbollah. There will be many new fronts. If we do not defeat radical
Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon, we will never
defeat them anywhere.
Unfortunately, many of my Democrat colleagues, with the help of their
misguided allies and media outlets such as the New York Times, have
signaled to the terrorists that America is tired, discouraged, and
ready to quit. This has encouraged the terrorists to expand their
attacks in many parts of the world.
Not content just to heckle from the sidelines, many Democrats have
fought to block the tools needed to defend freedom abroad and to defend
our Nation at home. Democrats have blocked reauthorization of the
PATRIOT Act while their leader boasted ``we killed the PATRIOT Act.''
They blocked nominees to critical national security positions,
including U.N. Ambassador John Bolton and the Department of Defense and
intelligence officials. They have blocked expediting our national

[[Page S8692]]

missile defense system, attempting to cut funding by $50 billion this
year, just as the threats from Iran and North Korea increase. They have
opposed the terrorist surveillance programs that are critical
to stopping future attacks, leading to an attempted partisan censure
motion against our President. They blocked measures that would require
background checks on workers with access to sensitive sites such as our
ports, while wringing their hands over port security. They blocked
efforts to secure our border by ending the failed practice of catch-
and-release of illegal immigrants. And they have advocated a variety of
cut-and-run strategies, showing a complete lack of resolve and a basic
misunderstanding about the nature of the global war against radical
Islamic terrorists.

Zell Miller, a Democrat, recently visited South Carolina. He compared
the terrorists to a nest of copperheads under his porch. He said: These
snakes threaten the well-being of my family. I didn't call my neighbors
for help or convene a committee to discuss possible courses of action.
I took what you might call unilateral action and cut off their heads.
Zell Miller is one of the few Democrats who gets it. Terrorists have
proved they are determined to harm us, and they have attacked in
Madrid, London, and a number of other places across the world, with
recent arrests in Canada and Miami. They have shown they are
everywhere. We need to continue our resolve.
There is no in-between choice when it comes to Iraq. Either we run
and allow Iraq to become a safe haven for terrorists and a staging
ground for future attacks or we stay until Iraq is a stable partner in
democracy.
Recently, I met a wounded soldier at Walter Reed Hospital. He had
severe head injuries. He had difficulty remembering some things. His
only request to me was, Don't leave until we win; make sure our
sacrifices were not in vain. He could remember that.
The Republican-led Congress has not forgotten. We have secured
America's homeland by funding critical ongoing needs of our troops, by
increasing funds for border security, bioterror and pandemic
preparedness, by renewing the PATRIOT Act despite Democrat obstruction,
and we have defended the use of military intelligence and law
enforcement resources that have led to the capture of many of al-
Qaida's top leaders and substantially degraded the capability of the
world-wide terrorist network.
Republicans will continue to secure America's homeland. We will
strengthen border security with additional border agents. We will
enforce immigration laws with worker verification. We will secure our
ports with worker background checks. We will modernize the national
emergency alert system to better respond to natural disasters and
terrorist attacks, and we will support surveillance to find and stop
terrorists before they strike, regardless of what the New York Times
says.
I am proud to tell South Carolinians that Republicans are doing what
it takes to secure our homeland from all enemies, and we are committed
to complete our current mission in Iraq and Afghanistan with victory
and honor. We are committed to create a new generation of freedom and
security, of peace and prosperity for America and the world.
Let's talk about our prosperity in America today. I am anxious to
tell the people of South Carolina what we are doing to help them make
ends meet. Republican tax cuts continue to bring strong economic
growth. We have created over 5.4 million new jobs.
As the economy grows and wages rise, family checkbooks still feel the
pressure. If you get a $25-a-week raise but you have to spend $50 a
week more than you did before for gas, food, or medical care, you are
still $25 worse off than you were when you started. Optimism about the
economy is fading as concerns over the cost of living have increased.
There is no quick fix to this dilemma, but Republicans have a plan to
secure America's economic prosperity.
Unfortunately, Democrats have raised the cost of living by blocking
commonsense health care, energy, and education solutions while
promising to raise taxes.
Let's talk about health care. It is one of our largest and most
rapidly growing economic sectors, nearly 20 percent, by most estimates.
We still have access to the best health care in the world, but the
support system that makes all of this possible is on the verge of
collapse--costly premiums, leaving millions uninsured, sky-high
hospital and prescription drug costs, overwhelming amounts of confusing
paperwork, outrageous cost of medical malpractice insurance which
drives doctors out of business and discourages our best and brightest
students from even considering the profession.
In this era of fierce global competition, our overcomplicated and
inefficient third-party payer health insurance system is bankrupting
our companies and raising the cost of living for millions of hard-
working Americans.
Democrats have raised the cost of living for Americans by blocking
commonsense health care solutions for small businesses and families and
opposing prescription drug coverage for seniors.
Republicans have a goal that every American will have a health plan
that they can own, afford, and keep. Our plan is to move toward what
some call ``consumer-directed health care''--or patient-directed health
care--which will unleash the power of free market competition in the
health care industry. It will allow health care to function like the
rest of our growing economy. It will return control to patients and
give them choices so they can shop for the best values. It will
strengthen doctor-patient relationships, improve quality, and reduce
prices. It will allow us to keep our promises to seniors and give them
better choices in the future.
We want to pass small business health plans. We have tried once this
year. The Democrats have blocked it. We hope to bring it back before
the end of the year. We want to expand health savings accounts, which
are a new way to provide tax-free funds for people to shop for health
care without a third-party telling them what is covered. We want to
talk about allowing people in one State to buy health insurance from
any other State in the country. We call it the Choice Act, and it is
something this Senate should look at.
We are at a crossroads in health care. We can continue down the same
path we are on now, where Washington bureaucrats are making many of the
health care decisions, and we can allow the Democrats to continue to
obstruct real change or we can put patients and caregivers in charge
and lower everyone's cost of living.
Let me talk about energy. It is such an important part of the cost of
living and our prosperity. Our Democratic colleagues have a long
history of increasing energy prices for American families. They have
continually called for higher and higher taxes on gasoline,
successfully adding a 4.3-cent tax on every gallon of gas back in 1993.
They blocked a comprehensive national energy policy for 4 years. We
finally succeeded in overcoming that obstruction. They blocked
increasing American oil supplies by opening some Alaskan reserves. They
voted against it eight times over 15 years while gas prices steadily
climbed. They have blocked the expansion of American refining capacity
and streamlining American boutique fuel bureaucracy that needlessly
drives up costs.
This week, over half of the Democrats in the Senate voted against
environmentally friendly American deep sea energy exploration that will
lower the price at the pump and lower the cost of home heating and
cooling. Fortunately, again, we overcame their obstruction and passed
the bill.
Republicans have practical solutions on the table, such as deep sea
development, that will increase America's natural gas and oil supplies,
reduce the cost of gas, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
We have a plan to invest in alternative energy to diversify our
energy infrastructure and encourage conservation. We can supply
affordable, abundant, and environmentally friendly energy. Most
importantly, we can reduce the cost of living for American families.
Democrats can follow their leadership's tired, partisan strategy of
blocking real solutions and then trying to blame Republicans when the
energy crisis does not get solved or we can work together and secure
our prosperity and bring down the cost of living for Americans. The
choice is theirs.

[[Page S8693]]

Education is a big part of America's prosperity. We are in a global
economy, and we must invest in flexibility and choices for students and
parents. We need to train the best workforce in the world to attract
the best jobs in the world right here at home. We can never guarantee
our students a lifetime of employment, but we can invest in innovative
ideas that will ensure them a lifetime of employability. Only then will
success in school actually equate to success in life.
Democrats have blocked education reform for years that will improve
our children's future. They blocked school choice. They blocked the
expanding of charter schools. They blocked the Workforce Investment Act
and the Higher Education Reauthorization Act.
Democrats would rather cater to liberal teacher associations rather
than allow schools to specialize to meet the needs of each child.
Republicans believe we must empower students and parents with more
flexibility in how they use education dollars. We need to allow schools
that are succeeding to continue to do what is working instead of
forcing them to conform to an outdated governmental model.
We need to explore fresh ideas, such as strong professional
application and skills development programs within our educational
system, and more opportunity scholarships and Pell grants for high
school students. These ideas and others can help reinvigorate a
stagnant educational system that is being insulated from reality by the
well-intentioned but misguided policies of the past.
If America is to be prosperous, we need to talk about our tax system
and our budget system. Tax-and-spend Democrats are fierce defenders of
our Tax Code. It is the most complicated Tax Code in the world. It is
among the highest as far as the tax rate. It kills our competitiveness.
It hurts American workers by killing American jobs.
Tax-and-spend Democrats block extending tax relief for American
families. They block the permanent repeal of the death tax that
destroys about 100,000 jobs each year and punishes family farmers and
small businesses. They voted this year en bloc to raid the Social
Security trust fund to pay for wasteful spending. They would not agree
to set aside the Social Security money in a reserve fund.
Republicans believe meaningful Tax Code reform is our only option. At
a minimum, we must extend tax cuts that were passed in 2001 and 2003
that return money to hard-working families and will help continue the
economic growth that is coming from investment around the country.
Republicans believe American businesses should be able to devote the
bulk of their time and resources to doing business, not complying with
the Tax Code.
Republicans believe we should trim Government waste and that we can
and will balance our budget within 5 years. We believe we should pass
the line-item veto to help cut wasteful spending in Washington.

We welcome the Democrats to join us to secure our prosperity and make
America the best place in the world to create jobs and do business.
Hopefully, they will join us to support the Family Prosperity Act that
we will be voting on either today or tomorrow.
This is one of the most important bills of the year, and I have been
disappointed to hear all the misinformation about the bill on the floor
of the Senate. This bill raises the minimum wage; it will not decrease
the minimum wage anywhere in this country. That is a fact. The other
information is, frankly, not true. The Family Prosperity Act will raise
the standard of living for Americans and cut the cost of death.
We need to talk about our values if we are going to secure our
future.
I am also proud to report to my constituents that Republicans are
working to secure our shared values, the values that have defined the
American character, protected our families, and shaped our society for
over 200 years.
I was interested to hear the Democratic leader criticize Republicans
for focusing on value issues, such as protecting marriage and
prohibiting flag desecration, by claiming--in his words--that we have
``divided our country and distracted this Body from more pressing
concerns.''
Over the years, the idea of values has come to be negatively
construed by those who would define freedom as the ability to do
whatever they want and to have no one tell them it is wrong. I am here
to say today that this distorted idea of freedom without values is
actually the greatest form of tyranny.
Unfortunately, I am afraid the Democratic leader and others in his
party have bought stock in a philosophy that is completely bankrupt.
The society that refuses to say that some things are wrong, or give
value to things that are right, condemns its people to live under the
despotism of fear--for the safety of their lives, their families, and
their possessions--and robs them of hope for a better future.
As we fight to secure our homeland, we are opposed by radical Islamic
terrorists who hate us for our shared values. These are the same
terrorists who devalue their own women and use them, and even children,
as shields behind which they carry out their cowardly work. They kill
innocent bystanders to prove a political point. They despise our values
and will stop at nothing to destroy them and destroy us.
As we fight to secure our economic prosperity, we are reminded of
values--the entrepreneurial American spirit and the premium placed on
hard work--that have driven an amazing age of innovation and improved
the quality of our lives for millions here and all around the world.
The fact is, our shared values--things such as respect for life and
the rule of law--are the very basis of our prosperity and security, and
we forget that lesson at our peril.
So I am afraid it is a bit shortsighted of the Democratic leader and
others in his caucus when they dismiss securing our shared values as
unimportant. And, unfortunately, like the other areas I have already
discussed, they do not simply dismiss, they actively obstruct.
I am proud to tell my constituents that Republicans have taken
several important steps to secure our values this year.
The Child Custody Protection Act was one. Parental notification is
required for nearly all medical procedures. School nurses typically
will not even give an aspirin to a teenager without a signed parental
permission slip. An overwhelming majority of Americans believe that
taking a minor across State lines to obtain an abortion without her
parents' knowledge is not consistent with our shared values. This
important legislation protects the rights of parents to care for their
daughters' health.
Democrats have caved to the pressure of their ``abortion at any
cost'' industry donors by blocking the commonsense bill from becoming
law with procedural delays. They are hoping that the American people
will either not notice or forget their obstruction. The cost is the
emotional and physical health and well-being of teenage girls and the
rights of parents who most want to protect them.
Let's talk about the marriage amendment. The Federal Government has
diminished marriage through misguided social programs and court
rulings, and the Federal Government is the only one that can fix the
problem it has created.
Marriage is America's most important institution. It must be
cherished and protected. We cannot allow activist judges to force their
personal views on American families that overwhelmingly support
traditional marriage.
Democrats have blocked the Republican-led efforts to secure our
values by defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Judges are also important to upholding our values. As I travel in
South Carolina, time and time again, South Carolinians have asked me to
fight for judges who will place the rule of law above their personal
opinions. Democrats have consistently blocked and even tarred and
feathered well qualified men and women. Republicans have continued to
fight, with some success--to mention Chief Justice Roberts and Justice
Alito on the Supreme Court, and we have confirmed 14 circuit judges and
34 district judges, overcoming much Democratic obstruction.
I would like to talk about the National Sex Offender Registry as part
of our values agenda as well.
Parents deserve to know when a sex offender moves into their
neighborhood so they can ensure their child's safety.

[[Page S8694]]

The Republican-led Congress has created a National Sex Offender
Registry to protect our families against criminals and their heinous
acts. A public database has been created by this bill that will help
law enforcement and families track convicted sex predators as they
enter communities. It has been called the toughest piece of child
protection legislation in 25 years, and I am proud that Republicans
took the lead on this.
We also need to talk about stem cell research. Our commitment to
scientific yet ethical research is another shared value that has
defined America for years. I was proud to join President Bush and our
Republican majority to support additional funding for cutting-edge
research with nonembryonic stem cells and to ban ``fetal farming,''
which allows human embryos to be created so they can be destroyed for
research purposes.
Nonembryonic stem cell research has already been used in over 60
successful human therapies to date. It holds unlimited promise for
cures for millions who suffer from debilitating diseases. It proves
that we don't have to choose between science and ethics. We can achieve
both.
For all these reasons and more, I am proud to be part of a Republican
majority committed to securing our shared values.
I think we may be on the 12th or 13th version of the Democratic
agenda. I have lost track; there have been so many. But while Democrats
promise to travel the country staging press events during August,
Republicans are promising, for the rest of this year and as long as we
control the Congress, to continue to work for real, tangible
legislative solutions to the problems Americans face. Democrats may
claim to be the party of compassion, but compassionate rhetoric without
a plan for action is nothing more than an empty promise.
I look forward to telling my constituents that Republicans are
committed to securing our homeland, our prosperity, and our values. I
invite my Democratic colleagues to join us to provide hope and security
for all Americans.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Senator from Massachusetts
is recognized.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Iraq and the Middle East

Mr. KERRY. I came to the floor to speak about the Middle East and
Iraq, and I intend to do so. But obviously, having sat here for the
last almost half hour listening to how the Senator from South Carolina
is going to go back to South Carolina and report, I couldn't help but
listen to him say that he is going to be proud to tell South
Carolinians that he and the Republicans have been doing what it takes
to make America more secure. You can tell them that. But it doesn't
mean it is true.
The fact is, the American people understand, I think pretty well,
what is going on. Because life for the average American is getting
tougher and tougher, they don't think Washington is doing very much for
them at all.
Health savings accounts work just fine for people who can save money.
Ask how many Americans are saving money. If you can't save money and
you don't have the benefit of the tax deduction, then the health
savings accounts don't do anything. That is why there are now 46
million Americans without health care. It has gone up 6 million people
under this President.
Eleven million children have no health care at all in the United
States of America--none, no health care. We are the only industrial
Nation in the world that treats our kids like that. I hope he reports
to the people of South Carolina, where there are a lot of kids who
don't have health care, why there hasn't been a vote on the Senate
floor to give children health care.
When it comes to making America more secure, I hope he tells them
that North Korea has four times the nuclear weapons capability that it
had 4 years ago. Are we more secure?
The fact is, for 3 years this administration didn't even engage with
the British, the Germans, and the French in their efforts to try to
reduce the potential that Iran would nuclearize. Three years standing
on the sidelines, and now Iran is playing out its deadly game with
Syria and Lebanon.
I think by any measure--and this is not what I came to the floor to
talk about--the case is powerful that America is in fact less secure.
Nothing underscores that more than when the Senator from South Carolina
stands there and says how important it is to separate who is willing to
fight terrorists, and we are fighting terrorists, he said, in Iraq.
Iraq is not a war of terrorists today. Iraq is a war principally that
is civil. It is Iraqi killing Iraqi. The fact is, Iraq was never the
central front in the war on terror, which was always in Afghanistan,
always with respect to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. It is al-Qaida
today that is in fact stronger around the world, with 60 to 80
countries in which it now has cells that it didn't have at the time of
September 11, 2001.
I hope we will have this debate. Believe me, we will have this debate
over the next months about whether we are more secure and about how you
actually stand up for the security of the United States. One of the
ways you stand up for the security of the United States is to have a
sensible policy with respect to Iraq.
Yesterday I was at Arlington National Cemetery for the funeral of
Lance Corporal Geoffrey Cayer, a 20-year-old from Massachusetts. Apart
from the obvious heart-wrenching sadness of that moment, I was struck,
as I walked up to the graveside, by the number of new headstones, all
of which read Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom.
One of those now among the fallen is Phillip Baucus, the nephew of
our friend and colleague Senator Max Baucus. Phillip was a proud and
brave Marine Corps corporal who gave his life serving this country last
Saturday in Anbar Province in Iraq. He was an extraordinary young man
from all I have read and from what Max told me personally. I know
from Max what he meant to his family and what a totally devastating
blow this is to all of them. We offer our prayers for Phillip and for
every family that has endured this kind of monumental loss. Phillip and
Geoffrey Cayer and all those who have given their lives are a very
tough reminder to all of us of the incredible sacrifices that America's
children are making every single day.

With the violence in Iraq growing worse by the day, it was stunning
to hear Secretary Rumsfeld come before the Armed Services Committee
this morning with a laundry list of excuses and denials about what is
happening there and its consequences for the region. General Abizaid
candidly acknowledged that ``the sectarian violence is as bad as I have
seen it,'' that he has rarely seen the situation ``so unsettled and so
volatile.'' He warned of coming civil war and that ``failure to apply
coordinated regional and international pressure . . . will further
extremism'' and could lead to a widening and more perilous conflict.
But this morning Secretary Rumsfeld didn't call for that kind of
diplomacy, didn't talk about that kind of diplomacy, didn't lay out a
plan that the administration has for that kind of leadership and
diplomacy, nor has President Bush reached out to undertake the kind of
crisis diplomacy needed in Iraq or to leverage the regional pressure to
stop Iraq from descending into irretrievable chaos.
We ought to try to strip away the labels for a minute, take away
Democrat and Republican, take away the partisanship of this city, just
measure this against history. How many times have any of us as United
States Senators, or even previous to our being here, seen the concerted
effort statesmen on an international level convening efforts in order
to diffuse crises or to make peace where there was war or to try to
stop war where there was conflict?
Instead today Secretary Rumsfeld announced ``there are a number of
good things happening . . . amidst all of this difficulty, the currency
is fairly stable, the schools are open, the hospitals are open, the
people are functioning.'' Secretary Rumsfeld waxed optimistic about an
Iraq where you ``see people out in the fields doing things and people
driving their cars and lining up for gasoline and going about their
business.''
He went to say that ``despite all of the difficulties, there are also
some

[[Page S8695]]

good trend lines that are occurring, and I think the period ahead is an
important period.''
I respectfully think it is a lot more than important. This may well
be the moment that decides the security and the framework for the
security of the Middle East itself. It certainly could be that kind of
moment with the proper vision and the proper statesmanship. It is time
that the administration was candid about the situation and worked on
rescuing what is salvageable in Iraq. The reason that candor is
important, it is the only way to get other countries engaged and
involved.
With now at least 2,578 Americans killed, over 19,000 wounded, and no
end in sight, you can't just offer the ``same old, same old'' as more
kids die for a policy that isn't working. Go to the hospitals, meet the
kids, talk to them. Sure they want us to win. We all want to win. But
ask them what is wounding them, what is killing them by and large. The
vast majority of those killed and wounded are killed and wounded by
IEDs, the new term of a new war, improvised explosive device.
What are our soldiers supposed to do about an improvised explosive
device except go out and find them. And how do they find them? Usually
when they explode, unless they are lucky enough to come across them
some other way. Americans are right to wonder why,
3/\1/2\ years into this effort, it is Americans who have to go out and
do that rather than Iraqis. After all, Iraq was able to fight a 10-year
war with Iran, lost a million people, fought to a stalemate, during
which time, I might add, we were providing a lot of the weapons to
them.
I don't think we should be silent. I don't think we have the right to
be. I can't be while this administration continues to deny reality and
repeat the same mistakes and pursue the ``same old, same old'' policy
day after day which puts more and more lives at risk, more and more
lives on the line, without pursuing a policy that provides the least
risk to our troops and greatest opportunity for success.
I have said it before and I believe it deeply, we in Congress have a
special constitutional responsibility and a moral obligation to hold
the executive branch accountable for making the right choices for our
troops and our country. Frankly, that begins by demanding honesty when
it comes to the war in Iraq.
The bottom line is--and here again the administration has not been
honest--this administration is now sending more U.S. troops into the
crossfire of an escalating civil war in Iraq. They still refuse to come
clean with the American people about it.
I don't think we should endure more half measures, and staged, phoney
debates. It is time for us all to confront and deal with the truth
about the consequences of today's failed policy in Iraq.
No matter what the administration tells us, there is a civil war
raging in Iraq. The President's policy of standing down U.S. troops as
Iraqis stand up, which has been the mantra of the last 2 years or more,
has now been exposed as a misleading myth. In fact, we are actually
increasing the overall troop presence, even as they tell us that more
Iraqi soldiers have been trained, and we have reportedly all but
abandoned the hope of withdrawing significant numbers of troops this
year, even as the Iraqi President tells us that Iraqis can take over
the security responsibility throughout their country by the end of this
year. That is what the Iraqis are telling us, even as U.S. forces are
increasing
Yesterday, we learned more about our dangerously overstretched
military when the top National Guard general warned that more than two-
thirds of the Army National Guard's brigades are not combat ready. Can
you please tell me how the Secretary of Defense can come up to the U.S.
Congress and explain to us how two-thirds of the National Guard's
combat brigades are not ready? And their equipment--large percentages
of it--is in Iraq and it will not come back to the United States. That
is going to cost billions of dollars for the United States, billions of
dollars to replace the equipment and the wear and tear, billions which,
I might add, is not in the budget today. Worst of all, there is no end
in sight and no realistic plan to turn the tide.
Mr. President, if you are going to change course or set the right
course, you have to do it based on the realities. I believe that starts
by acknowledging the reality of the civil war that is going on right
now. The administration denies it because it doesn't fit their
rhetoric, but by objective standards, that is what is happening.
In the first 6 months of this year, 14,338 Iraqi civilians were
killed--civilians--mostly in sectarian violence. They were not killed
by al-Qaida. They were not killed by Islamic terrorists from another
country. They were killed by Shia on Sunni and Sunni on Shia. That is
sectarian violence.
Prime Minister al-Maliki acknowledged last week that an average of
100 Iraqi civilians are being killed every day--civilians. And the
violence has only been getting worse. Mr. President, 2,669 civilians
were killed in May; 3,129 civilians were killed in June. That is nearly
6,000 Iraqi civilians killed in 2 months alone. Since the February 22
bombing of the Shia mosque in Samara, the Government reports that
30,359 families--about 182,000 people--have fled their homes due to
sectarian violence and intimidation. They are refugees, which is part
of the definition of a civil war.
This is not just a civil war; by historical standards, it is a
relatively large-scale one. A recent academic analysis published in the
New York Times showed that the median number of casualties in civil
wars since 1945 is 18,000. Estimates of total casualties in Iraq vary,
but the number is almost certainly above twice that many.
Larry Diamond, whom many Senators know and have talked to, is an
expert. He was over there with Paul Bremer in the Coalition Provisional
Authority. Here is what he said:

In academic terms, this is a civil war, and it is not even
a small one.

The Iraqis from all sides understand what is going on in their
country. They are not afraid to speak the truth.
Haidar al-Lbadi is a prominent Shiite legislator. This is one of the
people we are working with in the democracy that we have offered and
that they have fought for and voted for. He said:

Certainly, what is happening is the start of a civil war.

Saleh al-Mutlaq, a Sunni legislator--so you have Shia and Sunni--also
described the recent violence as:

The start of a civil war.

Another leading Sunni, Adnan al-Dulaimi, said recently:

It is nothing less than an undeclared civil war.

The Iraqis are ready to tell you it is a civil war. Still, the
administration continues to deny the facts about that. If you don't
acknowledge the facts, it is difficult to put together a plan to be
able to adequately deal with them.
This is the same administration, incidentally, that everyone, I hope,
remembers downplayed the insurgency. Do you remember that? Do you
remember when it was first clear that chaos was giving way to a
determined insurgency? What did the administration do month after
month? Secretary Rumsfeld told us they are ``just a bunch of dead
enders.'' At one point, he even suggested that Baghdad was safer than
Washington, DC. Vice President Cheney told us the insurgency was ``in
its last throes.''
Just look at the results. Since then, the number of Iraqi insurgents
has increased by 20 percent, and the insurgency is more than six times
stronger now than in May 2003. Once again, it is our troops who pay the
most significant price. In fact, the number of IED attacks on U.S.
troops has nearly doubled since January.
Now, in the face of all of the evidence to the contrary, the
administration continues to deny that there is a civil war. The only
ones, it appears to me, they are fooling are themselves. This appears
to be one more inconvenient truth they prefer not to deal with. In
fact, Secretary Rumsfeld said just a few months ago that if civil war
did break out, Iraqi forces, not U.S. troops, would be the ones dealing
with it.
I hope everybody hears that. Secretary Rumsfeld, in another one of
his misjudgments, or misstatements, said a few months ago that if civil
war breaks out, Iraqi forces, not U.S. troops, will be the ones to deal
with it. So why are U.S. troops being augmented in their number? Why
did it take sending more troops to the city of Baghdad? One more
misjudgment and misleading statement. So we are sending more troops
into the crossfire. The

[[Page S8696]]

administration doesn't want to say that, but that is what is happening.
When the President announced his plan last week to increase the U.S.
troop presence in Baghdad, he said that the troops would come from
other areas of Iraq. He didn't mention that additional troops had been
sent into Iraq from Kuwait and that current deployments were being
extended as new troops arrive. The net bottom line of that policy,
which he didn't mention but the Washington Post and the New York times
did report, is that the total numbe of U.S. troops in Iraq is going to
increase by several thousand. He didn't mention that the recently
announced deployment schedule could bring the number of U.S. troops in
Iraq even higher in the coming years.

Finally--and this is the most important thing of all--he did not
explain why this strategy, which hasn't been working for these past
several years, is suddenly going to work, and the fact that a few
months ago U.S. and coalition troops in Baghdad increased from 40,000
to 55,000. Guess what happened? The violence got worse. Now the
President says we are going to send a few more thousand.
The question is, Why is this going to be any different? I remember
this psychology very well. Back in 1964 and 1965 when Lyndon Johnson
responded to the so-called attack of the Gulf of Tonkin and we upped
our troop level by 5,000 troops in Vietnam, I responded to that call
and found what we all now know was a matter of history--very different
from what we are being told by our own administration.
One thing is clear to me under this administration's approach: It is
highly unlikely that we are going to be drawing down significant
numbers of U.S. troops from Iraq this year. That is despite the fact
that Secretary Rumsfeld said on Wednesday that there are some 275,000
trained Iraqi security forces, with 325,000 expected to be trained by
the end of the year. General Martin Dempsey, the American general in
charge of training Iraqi forces, said in June that the new Iraqi Army
would be formed and at full strength by the end of this calendar year.
Iraqi President Talabani declared just yesterday that Iraqis could take
over security in the entire country by the end of the year.
If the Iraqis are standing up, as the administration tells us, why
aren't U.S. troops standing down, as they told us they would? I think
the rhetoric of ``as they stand up, we will stand down'' is as hollow
and misleading as the rhetoric that ``we will be greeted as
liberators'' or ``mission accomplished'' or, frankly, ``stay the
course,'' which means more of the same and is not an adequate response
to the needs of dealing with the civil war.
The bottom line is this: The approach hasn't worked because the
underlying assumption that more troops are the solution to the problem
is fundamentally flawed. I will say that again. You can put in a lot
more troops, but our own military leaders have told us there is no
military solution. So why are you putting in more troops? Our own
generals, the Iraqi leaders, and even the Secretary of State herself,
have told us that there is no military solution to the insurgency. And
just today, Secretary Rumsfeld acknowledged there is no military
solution to the sectarian violence. So in fact, all of us can agree
that the only hope for salvaging a measure of lasting success in Iraq,
which I emphasize is what we all want--the difference is not what we
want, the difference is in how you get it. The evidence is mounting
month by month that the course this administration is on is not the
most effective, least risk, most efficient way to get it.
The only way to resolve this insurgency is a political solution that
all of the Iraqis can buy into. So the question then looms large: Why
isn't that happening? If Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and if our
own generals and if the Iraqis themselves say there is no military
solution, why are we adding more troops? Why are the Iraqi troops not
able to deal with the situation? The answer is simple: because until
you resolve the fundamental differences that bring Sunni to kill Shia
and Shia to kill Sunni, you are not going to stop this process.
I believe there is only one way to resolve that, and that is to
engage in the kind of intensive diplomacy that has been so inexplicably
lacking from this administration in its approach to Iraq. I know what
some of the wise guys say in Washington and what some of the pundits
say and what the conventional wisdom is. People love to dismiss
diplomacy these days. It is the easiest thing in the world. Why talk to
them? We have to go out and be tough and so on.
There was a time not so long ago in this country, practiced by
Republican Presidents, such as Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, and Gerald
Ford, as well as Democrats, where diplomacy was exhausted before the
United States resorted to military means. We used to understand that
diplomacy was the primary means of advancing America's national
security interests. We used to remember that war is the ultimate
failure of diplomacy--and the best way to end it.
Unfortunately, our current diplomacy has been almost absent--an
ambassador left to his own devices on the grounds, an occasional fly-in
visit from the Secretary of State or the President, but no ongoing
talks or shuttle diplomacy. In fact, so much of what we used to take
for granted in national security policy has now been called into
question.
We used to know that, despite our differences and political
philosophies in the Senate--and I remember watching the Senate in those
days as a young kid and a student of government--the two great parties
of this country were able to cooperate to craft international policies
in our national interest. We used to understand that the unique and
historic role of the United States in world affairs required a
farsighted and multifaceted approach to protecting our people and our
interests. We used to value as a national treasure the international
alliances and institutions that enhanced our strength, amplified our
voice, and reflected our traditions and ideals in maintaining a free
and secure world. You can look at the history of the Cold War and what
Woodrow Wilson tried to do, as well as Franklin Roosevelt, Harry
Truman, and Dwight Eisenhower, with the Marshall Plan and other efforts
to bring countries together and to try to honor the effort through
statesmanship, to be able to forge viable alliances and peace.
We used to say that politics stopped at the water's edge. We used to
call on our people to share in the sacrifices demanded by freedom. Our
leaders used to raise hopes and inspire trust, not raise fears and
demand blind faith
We used to measure America's strength and security by our moral
authority, our economic leadership, and our diplomatic skills all
together, as well as by the power of our military.
I want people to stop and think about how much things have changed.
Last week, one of the most noted, honored columnists in America, New
York Times' Tom Friedman, wrote the following. He had just come back
from the Middle East. He wrote his previous book ``From Beirut to
Jerusalem,'' which won a Pulitzer prize:

Our President and Secretary of State, although they speak
with great moral clarity, have no moral authority. That's
been shattered by their performance in Iraq.

That moral authority is something that Presidents struggle to hold
onto, to nurture and create, through Republican and Democratic
administrations alike.
I believe the key to any hope of stabilizing Iraq is changing course
and engaging in sustained diplomacy from the highest levels of
America's leadership that matches the effort of our soldiers on the
ground.
History tells us the results of that kind of effort. In 1995, most
recently, there was a brutal civil war in Bosnia involving Serbs,
Croats, and Muslims. Faced with a seemingly intractable stalemate in
the face of horrific ethnic cleansing, the Clinton administration took
action--I might add, they took action that was opposed by a lot of
people on a partisan basis--and led by Richard Holbrooke they brought
leaders in the Bosnian parties together in Dayton, OH. I know at the
time Mr. Yeltsin didn't even want to appear, didn't want to be part of
it. But it took persuasion and leverage that ultimately helped to bring
Russia, then the Soviet Union, to the table. They brought leaders of
the Bosnian parties together in Dayton, OH, and representatives from
the European Union, Russia, and Britain to hammer out a peace agreement
that brought relative stability to the region. That is the kind of
effort we have to engage in if we are

[[Page S8697]]

going to secure Iraq and extricate ourselves ultimately.
While an international process has begun to bring reconstruction and
economic aid to Iraq, a real national compact forged with the support
of countries in the region, is needed to bring about a political
solution to the insurgency and end the cycle of Shia-Sunni violence.
This strategy can work. It is the only strategy that ultimately will
work. No matter what happens ultimately, the hope of bringing American
troops home from Iraq is going to depend on the quality of the
negotiating process which leverages a new security arrangement for the
region. That is the bottom line. We are not going to be able to leave
without it, and Americans ultimately are going to want to leave.
A Dayton-like summit that includes the leaders of the Iraqi
Government, the countries bordering Iraq, the Arab League, NATO, and I
know from talking with members--recently I was in Brussels talking with
members of NATO, I talked with people at the United Nations, I talked
with people with respect to the Arab League--they are all waiting. They
are ready to try to do this, but it takes leadership to pull those
parties together.
The fact is, we can enable the Iraqis to engage in the intensive
diplomacy to forge a comprehensive political agreement that addresses
security guarantees, oil revenues, federalism, and disbanding of the
militias, and all the parties would agree on a process for securing
Iraq's borders.
These are the key elements of a political agreement necessary to
decrease the violence, and they are not the tasks for which U.S. troops
can or should be responsible. They are the responsibility of civilian
personnel, particularly the Iraqis.
Success is going to require the collective effort that engages
members of the international community who share our interest in a
stable Iraq. To enlist their support, we have to address their concerns
about a security arrangement in the region after we have withdrawn from
Iraq. That is why the summit should lay the groundwork for creating a
new regional security structure that strengthens countries in the
regions and the wider community of nations.
That, incidentally, is what we should have been doing all of last
year under resolution 1559 of the United Nations, when we should have
been dealing with the issue of the disarmament of Hezbollah.
I believe--and I think others share this belief--that the only way to
ultimately be successful in Iraq is to lay down a strategy that
extricates the United States because even our generals have said our
large force presence is a magnet for the terrorists and adds to the
problem of the insurgency. So part of the solution is to reduce that
American presence. I believe if we were to redeploy those forces after
we set some responsible timeframes, that is the most effective way to
proceed.
Let me say one or two words in closing. I keep hearing colleagues say
everybody loves the politics of this, but a lot of young people's lives
are on the line. They may want to play to the politics of cut and run
versus stay the course, but that is not what this is about.
If you were to adopt a policy that sets some timeframes and
deadlines, you still leave the President the discretion to be able to
keep certain forces there to complete the training; you leave the
President the discretion to keep forces there to fight al-Qaida; you
leave the President the discretion to use forces to protect American
facilities; and you maintain over-the-horizon ability to protect
American interests in the region.
I think we need to get away from this simplistic sloganeering and get
into a real discussion about how one makes Iraq a success and our
policy in the region a success. We know that Prime Minister Maliki
understands this, which is why he has talked openl about a timeframe
for the reduction of U.S. forces.

We know that Ambassador Khalilzad and General Casey are discussing
with the Iraqi Government the formation of a joint commission to
outline the terms and conditions of the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
We know Mr. Rubaie has already said there is an ``unofficial `road map'
to troop reductions that will eventually lead to a total withdrawal of
U.S. troops.'' And we know that General Casey has drafted a plan for
significantly reducing U.S. troop levels by the end of 2007. And we
know that the polls of Iraqis have shown that 87 percent of Iraqis,
including 94 percent Sunnis and 90 percent Shia, support their
Government endorsing a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. forces.
So it seems to me that if the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi people,
the Ambassador, the top military commander, and a majority of Americans
can see that the time has come for an adequate timeframe to get Iraqis
to fight for democracy for themselves as much as we have done it for
them, why can't the Bush administration?
Even as we consider the way forward in Iraq, we obviously can't lose
sight of what is happening in a war raging on the other side of the
Middle East. Watching the news from the Middle East these days is an
exercise in continual heartbreak as Israel continues military
operations to defend itself against Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the
missiles still rain down on northern Israel.
Our hearts go out to people suffering all across the Middle East. We
all want peace. The death of every child--Lebanese in Qana or Israeli
in Haifa--is an unspeakable tragedy. But we know from the hard lessons
of the past that lasting peace is not going to come easily, and it will
not come without the kind of sustained involvement at the highest
levels of the U.S. Government that, again, as in Iraq, we have not seen
from this administration.
In fact, the violence we are seeing now is in part the bitter fruit
of a number of years of U.S. neglect in the region, neglect which I saw
personally when I visited with President Abbas on the West Bank right
after he was elected. It is another disastrous byproduct of being
distracted and bogged down in Iraq.
Our inattention to diplomacy and the failure to disarm Hezbollah and
stop the flow of weapons from Iran and Syria, as required by U.N.
resolution 1559, left Israel to respond to this terrorist
organization's provocations with a bloody war that threatens to spread
into a larger conflict.
In fact, just a few hours ago, General Abizaid testified that if 1559
had been fully implemented, we wouldn't be in this situation today.
It is clear that our compromised position in Iraq, combined with our
diplomatic isolation in the region, has reduced our leverage and
undermined our ability to bring about the lasting resolution that is so
desperately needed.
Obviously, the people of Israel can count on the stalwart support of
the United States during these difficult times. At the same time, the
Lebanese people must know that Americans also care deeply about
protecting innocent civilians and preserving their fragile democracy.
That is why we have to work urgently to achieve a viable and
sustainable peace agreement that includes an international force
capable of ensuring Israel's security and Lebanon's complete
territorial sovereignty, the return of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers,
and the permanent removal of the threat caused and posed by Hezbollah.
Given these dire circumstances, it is imperative that we do
everything in our power to accomplish this as soon as possible and, Mr.
President, we should not be afraid of talking to any country that will
help us advance this objective, and that includes Syria and Iran. But
that cannot be the end of our involvement. In fact, it has to be the
beginning of a new--entirely new--more significant, greater Middle East
initiative that we undertake in order to create the kind of sustained
diplomatic engagement in the region that is the only way to resolve
these crises.
The unmistakable lesson is that we need more than crisis diplomacy;
we need preventive diplomacy--a preventive diplomacy in the best
traditions of our country that addresses the underlying problems before
they explode. That means putting an end, once and for all, to state
sponsorship of terrorism. And that requires a renewed commitment to
work ceaselessly to achieve a lasting peace in the Middle East.
I yield the floor, and I thank my colleagues for their graciousness.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S8698]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 4842

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 4842. I
ask unanimous consent that the pending business be laid aside for the
purpose of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], for himself and Mr.
DeWine, proposes an amendment numbered 4842.

Mr. KYL. 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 prohibit the suspension of royalties under certain
circumstances, to clarify the authority to impose price thresholds for
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).

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Wyden
not be shown as an original cosponsor of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I notify my colleagues that this is a small
piece of an amendment that yesterday was objected to, properly, under
the rules, but I believe there could be unanimous consent that this
piece would be permitted to proceed. I have given copies of the
amendment to Senators Inouye and Stevens, and Senator Domenici has
approved it. Senator Bingaman has a copy. It deals with royalty relief.
We discussed this yesterday. Really the controversial amendment, as I
say, has been objected to.
I hope my colleagues will agree to allow this to be either voice
voted or approved in some other way. I don't intend to take any more
time on it. Certainly, we would leave time for people to take a look at
it if they want to, to see if there is an issue with it, and if they do
have an issue that they see me about it.
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. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 4853

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, there is a lot of news south of
Florida, 90 miles from Key West. We don't know the condition of Fidel
Castro. Clearly, there is obviously a major medical problem and, for
days now, Raoul Castro, his brother, has been invisible. Even though
the Cuban Government released information which said President Castro
had ended up going in for intestinal surgery, basically, we just don't
know. But what we do know is he is 79, going on 80, and we do know that
none of us are immortal and, therefore, what we know is that there are
a limited number of days of this totalitarian regime, and then there is
going to be a transition to something else.
Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4853.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the
pending amendment? Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Florida [Mr. Nelson] proposes an amendment
numbered 4853.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. 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

AMENDMENT NO. 4853

(Purpose: To appropriate funds for a Cuba Fund for a Democratic Future
to promote democratic transition in Cuba)

On page 238, after line 24, insert the following:
That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2007, for functions administered by the
Secretary of State and for other purposes, namely:

TITLE X

CUBA FUND FOR A DEMOCRATIC FUTURE

Sec. 10001.(a) To promote a transition to a democratic form
of government in Cuba, $40,000,000.
(b) The amount provided under this heading is designated as
an emergency requirement 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.
(c) The amounts provided under this heading shall be
deposited into a fund to be known as the Cuba Fund for a
Democratic Future which is hereby established in the Treasury
of the United States.
(d) The amounts provided under this heading shall be
available to the Secretary of State, in consultation with the
United States Cuba Transition Coordinator, to carry out
activities to empower the people of Cuba and the democratic
opposition in Cuba to take advantage of opportunities to
promote a transition to a democratic form of government in
Cuba, including activities--
(1) to support an independent civil society in Cuba;
(2) to expand international awareness of Cuba's democratic
aspirations;
(3) to break the information blockade put in place by the
regime of Fidel Castro in Cuba, including activities to
promote access to independent information through the
Internet and other sources;
(4) to provide for education and exchanges for the people
of Cuba, including university training from third countries
and scholarships for economically disadvantaged students from
Cuba identified by independent nongovernmental entities and
civic organizations in United States and third country
universities (including historically-black and faith-based
institutions); and
(5) to support international efforts to strengthen civil
society and in transition planning in Cuba.
(e) If the President determines that there exists either a
transition government in Cuba or a democratically elected
government in Cuba, as those terms are defined in section 4
of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act
of 1996 (22 U.S.C. 6023) and submits that determination to
Congress in accordance with section 203(c) of that Act (22
U.S.C. 6063), then the funds made available for the Cuba Fund
for a Democratic Future may be used, at the discretion of the
Secretary of State in accordance with the guidelines set out,
respectively, in subsection (b)(2)(A) or (b)(2)(B) of section
202 of that Act (22 U.S.C. 6062).
(f) The Secretary of State shall ensure that none of the
funds made available in this section or any assistance
carried out with such funds are provided to the Government of
Cuba.
(g) Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, and every 180 days thereafter until all amounts
made available to the Cuba Fund for a Democratic Future are
expended, the Secretary of State shall submit to the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the
Committee on International Relations of the House of
Representatives a report describing the Secretary's progress
in obligating and expending such funds and that such reports
may be submitted in a classified form and the Secretary of
State shall publish any unclassified portions of each such
report.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, now is the time that if the
United States were to supply some direct financial assistance to
dissidents, it could start to have a salutary and immediate effect on
what is happening on the island. Clearly there is going to be a
transition; we just don't know when that transition is going to come.
What we hope is it is going to be a transition ultimately to a
democratic government.
The news this week marks an opportunity that we have been
anticipating for decades. We can only hope that it is a real
opportunity for the Cuban people to move forward, leaving behind a
dictatorship and the repression they have

[[Page S8699]]

experienced for a half century. But we must remind ourselves that the
true celebration is going to come on the day that the Cuban people have
a democratically elected government of their own choosing.
While it seems that we are one step closer toward our shared goal, we
should remind ourselves of the need to continue our support for the
true Cuban heroes: the brave dissidents who struggle every day to
demand and to plead for the very basic human rights, including the
ability to read what they want to read, to say what they want to say,
to live where they want to live, and to study what they want to study--
things that we take for granted in this country, but where, only 90
miles from Key West, people do not have those freedoms.
These heroes in Cuba don't win medals. They are not honored in
ceremonies. Instead, Castro throws them in jail for decades after show
trials in kangaroo courts. Their families are harassed, denied
employment and other basic necessities. Those who are not thrown in
prison are greeted regularly by mobs of government thugs who threaten
and embarrass them in front of their neighbors. As recently as a few
months ago, one of those mobs attacked and beat Marta Beatriz Roque, a
prominent dissident who advocates for democracy on the island.
These are the people who every day choose to fight for democracy
through simple acts of defiance. They risk their limited freedom by
continuing to mobilize and speak out for the basic rights that every
human being deserves. They run independent libraries. They
clandestinely write stories for illegal independent press. They pass
along information to their neighbors or they very bravely sign
petitions calling for democracy.
You will recall a few years back, even under the Cuban constitution,
that 10,000 people signed a petition, petitioning for the basic right
of going in front of the Congress to fight for basic freedoms and
economic freedom. Mr. President, 11,000 very brave souls signed that
petition, and many of them have been harassed.
Now, we here in the United States continue to support the brave
Cubans who struggle every day to fight for democracy and basic human
rights. Despite the regime's attempt to silence them, the work of these
brave dissidents becomes even more important as the opportunity to
foster a real transition in Cuba gets closer and closer, and those
brave Cubans, those dissidents, will be the catalyst that pushes any
post-Fidel government toward democracy.
Let me say that again. Those brave dissidents will be the catalyst
that pushes any government after Fidel toward democracy. Therefore, it
is more important now than ever that we support the dissidents and the
activists in Cuba through direct financial support.
Senator Ensign, who is in the Chair, Senator Martinez, all of us have
introduced the Cuban Transition Act of 2006, and that includes the
Senate majority leader as one of the cosponsors. This legislation will
authorize such funds to directly support dissidents in Cuba. Now, that
has been filed. We are trying to get it hotlined. There are some
Senators I understand on both sides of the aisle who have objected to
bringing it up, so what we will do is continue to work with them over
August to see if we can get agreement.
Mr. President, amendment No. 4853 which I have just offered
appropriates $40 million in emergency money to support the efforts of
dissidents in Cuba. It is important that at this time we send a clear
message of support and commitment to the Cuban people as they continue
their struggle. We will continue this support to the people of Cuba
until the day they have a free democratic government that respects
human rights.
The overall bill that we filed which we are going to have to work on
over August would authorize, over 2 years, $40 million. We already send
stuff--goods. However, under current law, we do not send money to the
dissidents to encourage them. So using the Defense appropriations bill
as a vehicle is very timely. It is to promote in transition a
democratic form of government in Cuba, and the appropriation would be
$40 million.
Now, you wonder under this amendment: What would be some of the
activities that would be supported? For example, to support an
independent civil society in Cuba, to expand international awareness of
Cuba's democratic aspirations, to break the information blockade put in
place by the regime of Fidel, including activities to promote access to
independent information through the Internet and other sources; to
provide for education and exchanges for the people of Cuba, including
university training from third countries and scholarships for
economically disadvantaged students from Cuba that are identified by
independent, nongovernmental entities and civic organizations in the
United States and third-country universities. Another activity would be
to support international efforts to strengthen civil society in the
transition planning in Cuba.
If the President of the United States determines that there exists
either a transitional government in Cuba or a democratically elected
government in Cuba, as those terms are already defined in the statutes,
and he submits that determination to Congress, then the funds made
available may be used at the discretion of the Secretary in accordance
with set guidelines. The Secretary of State shall ensure that none of
the funds made available in this section are provided to the Government
of Cuba.
So the intent of this legislation, while the island of Cuba is front
and center in the eyes of the world, is for the United States to take a
strong stand and start providing some assistance so that those brave
people--the dissidents in Cuba--can look forward to the day of a
democratically elected government. I and my colleagues all look forward
to that day.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I certainly understand the position of
the Senator from Florida. Reluctantly, I raise a point of order that
this is legislation on the appropriations bill, and so it is in
violation of rule XVI. There is also a budget point of order, but I
believe that is sufficient.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained, and the
amendment falls.
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.
Mrs. BOXER. 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. 4858

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4858, and I ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the
pending amendment? Without objection, the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an
amendment numbered 4858.

Mrs. BOXER. 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 prohibit the use of funds by the United States Government
to enter into an agreement with the Government of Iraq that would
subject members of the Armed Forces to the jurisdiction of Iraq
criminal courts or punishment under Iraq law)

At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8109. No funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used by the Government of the
United States to enter into an agreement with the Government
of Iraq that would subject members of the Armed Forces of the
United States to the jurisdiction of Iraq criminal courts or
punishment under Iraq law.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Lindsey Graham be added as the principal cosponsor of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. I am very pleased with that. I am very pleased he is
here. I am also very pleased there appears to be good support for this
amendment. We are going to have a record vote because we both believe
it is very important to send a loud and clear message about the subject
of this amendment.
This amendment ensures that no funds in this bill will be used to
enter into an agreement with the Government of Iraq that would subject
U.S.

[[Page S8700]]

military forces in any way to the jurisdiction of Iraqi criminal courts
or punishment under Iraqi law.
I think it is very important that we all understand that U.S.
military forces are governed by law. They must comply with the Uniform
Code of Military Justice, and they must comply with the Geneva
Conventions. But, currently, U.S. military forces are immune from
Iraq's legal system, and Senator Graham and I want to make sure that
this will continue to be the case.
This policy was set by the Coalition Provisional Authority, Order No.
17, and it is supported by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1546. But
here is the reason we think it is important for us to speak out,
hopefully, with a uniform voice today. Last month, Prime Minister Nuri
al-Maliki said this policy should change. He is the Prime Minister of
Iraq. He said:

We believe that the immunity given to international forces
is what emboldens them to commit such crimes in cold blood.
This requires that such immunity should be reconsidered.

So the Prime Minister said that this immunity from his laws ought to
be reconsidered. It seems, in a difficult time in Iraq--and Lord knows
we won't get into all of it--where there is disagreement among the
factions there, everyone seems to agree that, in fact, changing this
policy to ensure that American troops are under the Iraqi court's
jurisdiction is a good idea. They think it is a good idea. We do not,
and we want to make sure it does not happen.
Prime Minister Maliki also suggested that the Iraqi Parliament review
the policy of immunity for American troops. Let's look at what the
Iraqi Parliament is saying about U.S. troops.
I want to make sure we understand. It is not every member of the
Parliament but some members of the Iraqi Parliament. And let's keep in
mind we have lost in excess of 2,500 troops there. They are gone, never
to come home again. Every day, sadly--it feels like every day--I have
to write a condolence letter to someone who lost a son or daughter. We
now have in excess of 19,000 wounded. We know that we have a third of
our soldiers coming back in the first year seeking mental health help.
We know we have a lot of our soldiers experiencing post-traumatic
stress. We have given, and taxpayers are still giving--it is the gift
that keeps on giving--money, billions of dollars, and the lives of our
soldiers, and wounded soldiers--all the rest.
So when we hear the Speaker of the Iraqi Parliament Mahmoud al-
Mashhadani say, ``The U.S. occupation is butcher's work under the
slogan of democracy, human rights and justice''--and this is someone
who was part of the government, was part of the package when they put
together that government--when we hear those words, we not only take
tremendous offense at those words, we not only get sick about those
words, whether we supported this war or voted against it, we want to
make sure that not one of our soldiers comes under the jurisdiction of
an Iraqi court with political statements behind it like that.
Let me tell you what else the Speaker of the Iraqi Parliament said.
He called for statues to be built for those who kill American soldiers,
saying:

I personally think whoever kills an American soldier in
defense of his country should have a statue built for him in
that country.

This makes me sick, to think that we are still there, year after year
after year. Now, in my opinion--and I certainly do not speak for
someone else when I say this--in this increasingly hostile situation,
one that a British leader said was essentially a civil war, imagine us
turning over our soldiers to the Iraqi courts when the Speaker of the
Parliament, who was part of the Government of Iraq, says:

Whoever kills an American soldier in defense of his country
should have a statue built for him in that country.

Then you have Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of the dominant Shiite
block in Parliament, who called for granting an amnesty for insurgents
who had fought against Americans in Iraq--in other words, an amnesty
for those who hurt our soldiers--but we should allow our solders, who
are fighting for their freedom, to go before an Iraqi court? No way. No
way. That is why this amendment is so important today, and I am so
pleased that Senator Graham and I have agreed on this.
I voted not to go to war. I am working as hard as I can to start
bringing our troops home. Senator Graham has different views on this
which he will express. But on the issue of our troops being tried in an
Iraqi court system, we are in full agreement.
This amendment is necessary because on July 6, the Washington Post
reported:

An Iraqi government official, who spoke on the condition
that he not be named, said Mr. Maliki hoped to revise Order
No. 17 when the United Nations resolution authorizing the
presence of American forces in Iraq is up for renewal at the
end of the year.

Of course, that order is the order I referred to at the beginning of
my comments which protects our troops from being tried in an Iraqi
court.
It is critical that Congress be heard on this issue. I am very
hopeful that we will be heard loud and clear, and I am expecting that
we will.
Senator Graham and I also agree that those who commit crimes have to
be held accountable for their crimes. Of course we do. But as I said
before, there is the Uniform Code of Military Justice and there are the
Geneva Conventions. Our people must be held accountable for their
actions, but we cannot subject our men and women in uniform to an Iraqi
judicial system that is in chaos and, frankly, an Iraqi country that is
in chaos.
Iraq's own Deputy Justice Minister has admitted that Iraqi prisons
are overrun with Shiite Muslim militiamen who have freed fellow members
convicted of major crimes and have executed Sunni Arab inmates. In
Basra, it was reported that militia members took 12 foreign-born
prisoners from their cells and shot them in the head. One Iraqi
parliamentarian has said he saw as many as 120 detainees packed into a
35-by-20-foot cell, many who claimed they had been raped and their
families tortured. We are not going to have Americans in any way get
close to that situation over there.
U.S. personnel must not be subjected to the Iraqi legal system,
especially when you consider that under Iraq's constitution, experts in
Islamic jurisprudence can sit on the supreme court even if they have no
training in civil law or other relevant subjects. The U.S. Commission
on International Religious Freedom reports that ``such limited training
places Iraq's supreme court requirements alongside those of
Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.'' We are not going to let our
soldiers get close to that.
Everyone on both sides--all of us, whether we are for this war or
against this war--voted yes. We all pray and hope that some day in Iraq
there will be a governing body that will bring order, that will bring
democracy, that will be respected, and we all hope things don't go in a
bad direction. But I tell you today that my view is it is very tough
over there. I just told you about some of the things that are happening
in their criminal justice system. We can't allow U.S. military
personnel to be subjected to Iraq's legal system.
Just this morning, GEN John Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services
Committee that ``sectarian violence is probably as bad as I have seen
it.'' He said that today in the Senate Armed Services Committee.
It was reported today that the outgoing British Ambassador to Iraq
wrote a confidential memo to Prime Minister Tony Blair saying that
``the prospect of a low intensity civil war and a de facto division of
Iraq is probably more likely at this stage than a successful and
substantial transition to a stable democracy.'' That is a very
disheartening thing for the American people to hear.
Things are very tough--as tough as they have ever been in Iraq. This
is certainly not the time to leave any impression out there whatsoever
that this is the time we could say that our soldiers would be somehow
trapped inside the Iraqi legal system.
The Boxer-Graham amendment makes common sense. U.S. military
personnel must be held accountable for their actions, but not by the
Iraqi Government, by the U.S. Code of Military Justice, by the Geneva
Conventions.
I am very proud to be working with my friend on this issue. I yield
the floor and hope that at this time, he would be recognized to make
his comments as to why we have come together on this important
amendment

[[Page S8701]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California, Mrs.
Boxer, for bringing this amendment to the floor at a very important
time in our relationship with Iraq.
In relation to Iraq and as to what people in Iraq in political office
have said, you can't judge everyone in the country by the statement of
one political leader, but the fact that a political leader said the
things that Senator Boxer has just described is unnerving.
I would like the Iraqi people to know that when it comes to
disciplining American service men and women serving overseas, we are a
nation committed to following the rule of law and that we have status
of forces agreements with Germany, Japan, and other countries where our
troops have been stationed for decades. Under those status of forces
agreements, we have an agreement with a host country that if a military
man or woman commits a crime, the United States will retain
jurisdiction to prosecute that person who is a military member under
the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
I served in Germany for 4\1/2\ years and prosecuted many cases where
American service men and women committed crimes against German
nationals and civilians in general, and I can assure you that the
American military takes very seriously misconduct by its own.
This idea that Prime Minister Maliki suggests that immunity has been
given to international forces is, quite frankly, wrong. There is no
immunity for an American service man or woman from prosecution for
crimes committed in Iraq. But we have an understanding and an agreement
at this point in time that when the prosecutions are had, we will do
them. We will be the ones responsible for disciplining our troops, just
as we do in almost every other country throughout the world. The idea
that the U.S. military will retain jurisdiction over crimes committed
by service men and women in foreign lands is nothing new. It is the
normal course of business.
Given some of the rhetoric coming out of Iraq, it is very important
that we need to reaffirm that we will be there to help the Iraqi people
achieve democracy, if that is what they want, and to gain their
freedom. We have lost 2,500 lives and have been spent $400 billion. So
America is very serious about helping the Iraqi people. But we need to
be serious--the Senate, the House, and the administration--we need to
understand that as part of our commitment to the Iraqi people, there is
no need or requirement for us to turn over jurisdiction regarding our
soldiers' conduct to the legal system in Iraq. That would be a mistake.
We don't do it in any other place, nor should we do it in Iraq.
I can assure you that when people have engaged in misconduct in Iraq
and we have found out about it, the soldier, airman, sailor, marine, or
whoever is involved is given a trial under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice, they are provided a vigorous defense, and the trial is
something I think we should be proud of in terms of the legal
procedures in the military. But when found guilty, they are severely
punished. There are a lot of high-profile cases now, alleging murder
and rape, against U.S. service men and women, and they will be
prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law because we as a nation
believe very deeply in the rule of law.
Those who serve in the military believe very much in duty, honor, and
country. When a service member commits a crime while wearing the
uniform, it is a stain on all those who wear the uniform. That is why
the military comes down so hard on misconduct by our own, because you
cannot win a war without good order and discipline.
I can assure the Iraqi people and every other nation where we have
troops stationed that when our troops misbehave and commit crimes,
which happens in any society, we take the obligation to punish those
people seriously, and at the same time making sure they have a full and
fair trial.
I join the Senator from California. I urge every Member of this body
to get on record now before these treaties have to be renegotiated and
get ahead of this rhetoric to let everyone know that we are going to be
in Iraq trying to help the cause of freedom, but we are not going to
turn our soldiers and military personnel over to a legal system that
is, quite frankly, not very mature yet. We have never done it in any
other country. There is no need do it.
We can with a great deal of assurance tell the Iraqi people--
politicians included--that we have a great track record of having
people stationed all over the world for decades and that track record
is that when our people engage in misconduct found to have been proven
in a court law, they are severely punished. I can assure every Iraqi
citizen that if something goes wrong on our watch by our military, we
will handle it. We have a great track record of handling it. But under
no circumstances, in my opinion, should we ever go down the road of
changing the rules that now exist. It would be unwise for this Nation
to abandon what has worked for over 50 years; that is, retaining
jurisdiction over misconduct by military members serving abroad. We
have a system that works and, quite frankly, I do not want to change
that because the men and women in Iraq have enough to worry about. They
do not need to be worried about some court in some province that is not
really well constituted coming after one of them.
I yield the floor and urge an absolute 100-to-0 vote.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, in behalf of the managers of the bill, we
have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote
occur at 4 o'clock.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I hope you
could modify the request--that no second-degree amendments be
permitted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request, as amended?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, in the meantime, I suggest the absence of
a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I will speak to the Defense appropriations
bill which is before the Senate and discuss the war in Iraq in the
context of this bill.
This bill includes $50 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Earlier this week, we added another $13.1 billion for emergency funding
for the Army and Marine Corps to repair and replace badly needed
equipment. I supported these additional funds and I support this bill.
I have this vision in my mind of our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan
driving down those dusty roads wondering if a bomb is going to explode,
and I think about us in the safety of this Senate Chamber here at home.
I think to myself, if it were my son or daughter in uniform serving our
country, risking their lives, would I want them to have everything
possible to come home safely? The answer is very obvious.
Although I had great misgivings about the decision which led us into
this war in Iraq. I was one of 23 Senators from both sides of the aisle
who voted against the authorization of force that initiated this war.
My belief at the time as a Member of the Senate Intelligence Committee
was that the American people were not being given the full story, they
were not being given the facts.
We were told that Iraq was a great threat to the United States with
weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons. We were told that
there was some connection between September 11 and al-Qaida terrorism
and Saddam Hussein and Iraq. It turned out that none of those things
were true. It was also very obvious from the outset, as we initiated
this war in Iraq and invaded this country, we did it with the valued
assistance of the United Kingdom and many other countries, but the
burden fell on American soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors more
than

[[Page S8702]]

any others, and the burden fell on American taxpayers and American
families more than any others.
So now we are in the fifth year of this war. We have been briefed
from time to time about the progress we are making, and there are
positive things which we should not overlook. Saddam Hussein is gone.
He was rooted out of a hole in the ground. He is being held for trial.
That is certainly a positive thing in the history of this world. We
also know that the Iraqi people have been given an opportunity which no
one might have dreamed of a few years ago, to have free elections and
to elect their own government. That is a very positive thing. Of
course, the courage of individual Iraqi citizens as well as the courage
of our soldiers is an inspiration to all of us as we consider this
situation.
But we have to say, if we are honest and objective, that the
situation in Iraq is far from peaceful, it is far from stable. Mr.
President, 2,585 American soldiers have given their lives in this
battle, over 100 of them from my home State of Illinois. Almost 20,000
of these soldiers have returned home seriously injured, many of them
amputees, 2,000 of them with serious head injuries. Their lives will be
quite different because of their service to our country and because of
their experience in this war.
We have spent some $320 billion on this war. We are spending at the
rate of $3 billion a week on the war in Iraq. We are cutting back on
spending in our own home budget for things as varied as aid to
education, money for our schools, cutting back at the National
Institutes of Health for medical research, cutting back in so many
areas because war takes money away from a country that might spend it
at home. That is the reality of what we face.
We know the funds in this bill will not carry our military through
the year 2007. The President and Secretary of Defense continue to send
us so-called emergency bills which are supposed to be reserved for
unanticipated surprise expenses. That is how we funded the war in Iraq,
which is now going into its fifth year. These are certainly not
unanticipated expenses. We know a war costs, and it costs greatly.
There are the short-term costs of war, the $320 billion price tag,
but there are other costs that will be with us for a long time. A
Pulitzer Prize-winning economist has estimated that the cost of medical
treatment for veterans with brain injuries from the Iraqi war will be
at least $14 billion over the next 20 years. To date, 1,700 of these
soldiers have returned with serious traumatic brain injury. In a recent
calculation of 115 soldiers who were exposed to blast injuries, such as
IEDs, 62 of the 115 had some form of a traumatic brain injury.
It means, of course, in the most serious cases, extensive surgery and
rehabilitation in an effort to get back to a normal life. It means in
some other cases that they will lapse into epileptic seizures that will
need to be carefully watched and treated for many years to come. This
number, $14 billion for the next 20 years for brain injurie alone
associated with the war in Iraq, tells us that we will pay, as these
soldiers and their families will pay, for a long time to come.

The numbers I have given do not include the billions of dollars which
we will need to repair and replace equipment for the Active-Duty units
and the National Guard and Reserve. LTG Steven Blum of the National
Guard bureau said:

Today, here at home, I have less than 34 percent of the
equipment I'm supposed to have.

In my hometown of Springfield, IL, I visited the National Guard at
the Camp Lincoln facility. I looked at their empty parking lot: 85
percent of our Guard units in Illinois have been over at least once.
They have run this equipment into the ground, and they have left a lot
of it behind; it was just worn out. In a war, equipment is burned up at
four or five times the normal rate. I can understand that. They are
racing to make sure they are safe, and it takes its a toll on vehicles
and equipment.
They come home now to find empty parking lots and empty equipment
lockers. Our National Guard units do not have the equipment they need
to train to be ready if called up again. They do not have the equipment
they need to respond to homegrown emergencies, whether it is a flood or
a situation they need to be there for. Many of them have to beg,
borrow, and scratch to find what they need.
According to Army officials, two-thirds of the Army's active brigades
are not ready for war. There is substantial criticism of previous
Presidents that we had a hollowed-out Army, an Army in name only, that
wouldn't be there if we needed it. Now the Army is being very
forthright and saying, yes, we have paid a heavy toll, not just in
lives--and that is the most important thing--but in training and
readiness and basic equipment.
The Army currently estimates that it needs $17 billion to address
these readiness needs. The Marine Corps needs between $12 and $15
billion. General Blum reports the National Guard is ``even further
behind and even a more dire situation than the active Army. . . .We
both have the same symptoms but [the Guard] has a higher fever.''
The National Guard's budget problems will only grow worse if the
administration's plans are followed. The Army National Guard currently
has 340,000 members, and it is working to recruit up to 350,000. There
was a time in the Persian Gulf war when National Guard units and
Reserve units were almost shunned. The regular Army said: Leave them at
home. We will take a few of them, but we will do the job. We will tell
you if we need you. It did not take long in Iraq and Afghanistan for
our regular Army to understand they needed the National Guard and
Reserve and needed it desperately. The Department of Defense budget
only plans to fund 324,000 guardsmen over the next 5 years when we know
we will need 350,000. That is something we should face more
realistically.
The men and women in our military and their families give everything
we could possibly ask of them. I cannot tell you how many times I have
been to sendoffs and welcome homes in Illinois for Guard and Reserve
units. I cannot tell you what it is like unless you have been there to
stand there with mom and dad in tears watching their soldier, whom they
love so much and respect so much, off to war. It is a story that has
been repeated many times in the history of our Nation, but it never
gets easy for that family sending off someone they dearly love.
In my home State of Illinois, 85 percent of our Guard units have been
mobilized in the last 3 years and many have gone more than once. Of the
34 percent of the Illinois Guard equipment that has not been deployed,
10 percent has been deemed unacceptable due to age and lack of parts
and inadequate armor protection. These dire equipment shortages
undercut the Guard unit's ability to train and be prepared.
Our guardsmen, God bless them, will find a way to serve. They will
make do. They will scratch it together and they will answer the call.
They always do. But we know what has happened. We have had soldiers
stand up and say publicly: We have been digging through landfills to
find armor to try to protect ourselves. Things are getting better.
There are improvements. The humvees which we are now sending are
armored up, at least to the latest threat that we face, even though the
threat seems to change and grow by the day.
Our soldiers deserve the best. They deserve planning and decision
making at the highest levels of Government that respects their
sacrifice and provides the resources they need to fulfill their
missions. We underestimated the cost of this war, it is clear. We
overestimated the danger of Iraq to the United States. That is clear.
We underestimated the insurgency which now threatens our troops. We
underestimated the civil war which now appears to be breaking out. Six
thousand civilians have died in the last 2 months in Iraq. We are
perilously close to a civil war situation. And our soldiers, our
American soldiers, are caught in the middle of this deadly crossfire in
Iraq.
I am afraid that this civil war is underway, and I am afraid it is
not ours to win. This is a war that the Government and people of Iraq
must deal with. They have to find a way to end the sectarian violence,
to reign in the murderous militias. Baghdad, when I visited a year and
a half ago, was the central point for American protection and security.
We were hurried from the airport by convoy, first by helicopter

[[Page S8703]]

and then by convoy, into the so-called green zone, an old palace of
Saddam Hussein's which is guarded in three our four different
perimeters to make sure it was safe--and still it was not. There we
have not only our personnel from the embassy and important decision
makers at the highest level of the military but a lot of soldiers, a
lot of marines, and a lot of sailors. Baghdad, that was the central
place, the central point of our effort for security in Iraq.
Now, unfortunately, the security in that city has deteriorated
dramatically, deteriorated to the point where we need thousands more
American soldiers, not to mention Iraqi soldiers, to move in and make
it safe.
At some point in this terrible situation, there will be a tipping
point when the forces of chaos and hatred will gain the upper hand in
Iraq. I hope it hasn't been reached yet. I am afraid if we don't change
course and the Iraqi Government doesn't change course, we will.
I understand we have a vote scheduled for 4 o'clock, so I conclude by
saying I will support this bill. Although I question the policy that
brought us to this point, although I question this administration's
plan to bring an end to this war in Iraq, my questions cannot be at the
expense of shortchanging our troops. We must have the courage and
vision to chart the right course so that the Iraqis stand up and defend
their own country and that American soldiers start to come home with
their mission truly accomplished.
I yield the floor.
Mr. STEVENS. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The hour of 4 o'clock having arrived, the question is on agreeing to
the Boxer amendment No. 4858.
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. Burr). Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 225 Leg.]

YEAS--97

NOT VOTING--3

Baucus
Bunning
Lieberman
The amendment (No. 4858) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. SUNUNU. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4848

Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally
divided on the Coburn amendment No. 4848, followed by a vote on the
amendment with no second-degree amendments in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Who seeks time?
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this is a simple amendment. This is
transparency. This is about adding an amendment to this bill that says
the earmarks we put in, we know where they go. They are transparent. We
know who did them, and we know who gets the money. It allows the
Defense Department to look at them in comparison to what the overall
mission of the Defense Department is. It talks about the cost of
administering the earmarks, assessment of the utility of the earmarks,
and it is something the American people ought to see. We know some
earmarks are great for the Department of Defense, but we also know some
are terrible. We ought to be evaluating the pertinency and the value of
those earmarks, and we ought to know whether they are valuable at a
time when we are having trouble funding the war.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, for the information of Senators, after
the vote on this amendment, Senator Sessions will offer his amendment
which deals with the conventional Trident modification, a very serious
amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that the vote on this amendment be limited to
10 minutes. I say to the Senate this amendment is on the Defense
authorization bill. I urged the Senator to accept a voice vote, but the
Senator requested a vote. So I request a vote now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent
request?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
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.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the
Senator from Maine (Ms. Snowe).
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 96, nays 1, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 226 Leg.]

YEAS--96

Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
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
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--1

Byrd

NOT VOTING--3

Baucus
Lieberman
Snowe
The amendment (No. 4848) 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.

Amendments Nos. 4774, 4846, as Modified, 4849, 4851, 4761, as Modified,
4840, as Modified, 4801, as Modified, 4864, as Modified, 4841, 4860,
4797, and 4855, En Bloc

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have a managers' package that I would
like to describe:
Amendment No. 4774 for Senator Sessions regarding blast protection;
amendment No. 4846, as modified, for Senator Pryor regarding combat
support hospitals; amendment No. 4849 for Senator Bond regarding
intelligence personnel; amendment No. 4851 for Senator Biden regarding
military bases in Iraq; amendment No. 4761, as modified, for Senator
Lott regarding UAVs;

[[Page S8704]]

amendment No. 4840, as modified, for Senator Levin regarding vehicle
technology; amendment No. 4801, as modified, for Senator DeWine
regarding shipbuilding; amendment No. 4864, as modified, for Senator
Nelson of Florida regarding test and evaluation; amendment No. 4841 for
Senator Allen regarding OEA study; amendment No. 4860 for Senator
Mikulski regarding an intelligence project; amendment No. 4797 for
Senator Voinovich regarding portable batteries; and amendment No. 4855
for Senator Dodd regarding Navy UWVs.
All of these have been approved on both sides, and they have the
clearance of all concerned, to the best of my knowledge.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these amendments which I
send to the desk be considered en bloc and that they be adopted en bloc
and that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments were agreed to, as follows:

amendment no. 4774

(Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Army, up to $1,000,000 for blast protection research)

AMENDMENT NO. 4846, AS MODIFIED

AMENDMENT NO. 4849

(Purpose: To make available up to $8,000,000 for personnel for a
certain intelligence activity)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. Of the amounts available for the activity
described on pages 149 through 159 of Volume VI, Book I of
the Fiscal Year 2007 Congressional Budget Justification Book
of the Intelligence Community, up to $8,000,000 may be
available for personnel for that activity.

AMENDMENT NO. 4851

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for establishing United States
military installations in Iraq or exercising United States control over
the oil resources of Iraq)

At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8109. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be obligated or expended by the
United States government for a purpose as follows:
(1) To establish any military installation or base for the
purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United
States Armed Forces in Iraq.
(2) To exercise United States control over any oil resource
of Iraq.

AMENDMENT NO. 4761, AS MODIFIED

At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8109. (1) Of the amount appropriated by title IV under
the heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation,
Army'', up to $10,000,000 may be available for
experimentation and refinement of tactics and doctrine in the
use of the Class IV unmanned aerial vehicles and ground
stations associated with such vehicles.

AMENDMENT NO. 4840, AS MODIFIED

(Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Army, up to $10,000,000 for Combat Vehicle and Automotive
Technology)

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 $10,000,000 may be available for Combat Vehicle and
Automotive Technology.

AMENDMENT NO. 4801, AS MODIFIED

(Purpose: To make available from Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, up
to $10,000,000 for the Carrier Replacement Program for advance
procurement of nuclear propulsion equipment)

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 ``Shipbuilding and
Conversion, Navy'', up to $10,000,000 may be available for
the Carrier Replacement Program for advance procurement of
nuclear propulsion equipment.

AMENDMENT NO. 4864, AS MODIFIED

On page 218, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
Sec. 8109. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the
Secretary of the Air Force shall, not later than March 31,
2007, submit to the congressional defense committees a cost-
benefit analysis of significant proposed realignments or
closures of research and development or test and evaluation
installations, activities, facilities, laboratories, units,
functions, or capabilities of the Air Force. The analysis
shall include an evaluation of missions served and
alternatives considered and of the benefits, costs, risks,
and other considerations associated with each such proposed
realignment or closure.
(b) The requirement under subsection (a) does not apply to
realignment and closure activities carried out in accordance
with the final recommendations of the Defense Base Closure
and Realignment Commission under the 2005 round of defense
base closure and realignment.

AMENDMENT NO. 4841

(Purpose: To provide that, of the amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by title II for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide, up
to $2,000,000 may be available for the Office of Economic Adjustment of
the Department of Defense to conduct a traffic study and prepare a
report on the improvements required to the transportation
infrastructure around Fort Belvoir, Virginia, to accommodate the
increase in the workforce located on and around Fort Belvoir resulting
from decisions implemented under the 2005 round of defense base closure
and realignment)

At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8109. (a) Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by title II under the heading ``Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', up to $2,000,000 may be
available for the Office of Economic Adjustment of the
Department of Defense to conduct a traffic study on the
improvements that are required to be carried out to the
transportation infrastructure around Fort Belvoir, Virginia,
to accommodate the increase in the workforce located on and
around Fort Belvoir resulting from decisions implemented
under the 2005 round of defense base closure and realignment.
The study shall incorporate the input of the Virginia
Department of Transportation and other State and local
governments and agencies.
(b) Not later than one year after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
congressional defense committees a report on the study
conducted under subsection (a), including a cost estimate for
such improvements and the funding sources, including the
Defense Access Road Program, proposed for such improvements.

AMENDMENT NO. 4860

(Purpose: To make available from Procurement, Defense-Wide, up to
$12,600,000 for the completion of the final phase of a certain
intelligence activity)

At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8019. Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by title III under the heading ``Procurement,
Defense-Wide'', up to $12,600,000 may be available for the
completion of the final phase of the activity described on
pages 337 through 339 of Volume II of Book 1 of the Fiscal
Year 2007 Congressional Budget Justification Book of a
component of the intelligence community.

AMENDMENT NO. 4797

(Purpose: To provide that, of the amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by title IV for the Army for research, development, test and
evaluation, up to $1,000,000 may be available for the Portable Battery
Operated Solid-State Electrochemical Oxygen Generator project)

On page 218, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
Sec. 8109. Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by title IV under the heading ``Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Army'', $1,000,000 may be
available for the Portable Battery Operated Solid-State
Electrochemical Oxygen Generator project for the purpose of
developing a field-portable oxygen generation device to
enable the quick administration of oxygen to members of the
Armed Forces wounded in action.

AMENDMENT NO. 4855

(Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Navy, up to $1,000,000 for Energy Regeneration and
Conversion Fuel Cell Systems to address Navy Unmanned Underwater
Vehicle requirements)

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 Energy Regeneration and Conversion Fuel
Cell Systems to address Navy Unmanned Underwater Vehicle
requirements.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, since I have been a U.S. Senator, I have
been an advocate of what is known as the tip credit. I have always
urged for the tip credit to be included in increases in the minimum
wage. In no way have I done this to try to lower someone's wage, but to
try to help employers and restaurants to keep their doors open and
increase job growth.
We are debating, among other things, the minimum wage-death tax
compromise. It has come to my attention

[[Page S8705]]

that some of our friends in the Chamber are trying to construe the tip
credit in a way that I believe is very tortured and, frankly, very
wrong. So I have come to the Chamber today to try to explain and
alleviate anybody's fears as to what the effect of this law is to be.
Let me make clear what the language of the bill is. It says:

A worker cannot be paid less than the cash wage paid such
employee which is required under such law, ordinance,
regulation, or order on the date of enactment.

So what employees are receiving under their State laws is what they
will continue to receive. As a minimum wage increase goes into effect,
the current wage level will be the floor. If a State, such as my State
of Oregon, currently has a minimum wage of $7.50 an hour, this amount
will be the wage the employee receives. No one's wage will go decrease.
Yet, some are suggesting that if a State does act, or if a court
misunderstands the statute, then tipped employees' wages will be
lowered. That is not the intent of this tip credit provision.
I urge my colleagues to consider the tip credit for the employee for
whom we are raising this minimum and for their employer, who is simply
trying to comply with this law.
In my experience, when the executive agrees to the content of a law,
the legislature drafts it, and the affected stakeholders agree with it,
then that is what becomes law. At this time, some continue to want to
misrepresent what the tip credit is. For that reason, I would like to
include two letters with my statement. The first letter is by the U.S.
Department of Labor and the second letter is from the National
Restaurant Association. We are all saying the same thing,
notwithstanding the efforts of others to try to defeat this compromise
bill by distorting what the tip credit means.
The U.S. Department of Labor's Director of Wage and Hour Division has
written to the majority leader stating the following:

The Wage and Hour Division would read Section 402 as
protecting the current minimum wages of the tipped employees
in the seven States that now exclude a tipped employee's tips
from being considered as wages because to do otherwise would
be inconsistent with what we understand to be the intent of
Congress and the Fair Labor Standards Act, which the Wage and
Hour Division enforces.

If a Republican administration is saying we will not reduce anyone's
wages, I don't believe a Democratic administration would. A Republican
House of Representatives has applied the same interpretation to the tip
credit provision, and I believe a vast majority of the Senate would
agree with the House's interpretation.
But what about those affected by the tip provision, the ones who pay
the wages? This is a statement from John Gay, the senior vice president
for government affairs and public policy, of the National Restaurant
Association. He writes:

The tip credit provision in the minimum wage bill protects
employee wages at their current level. No provision results
in the lowering of wages for any worker. The purpose of the
provision is to allow employers with tipped employees to
count their employees' tips as wages for purposes of meeting
their minimum wage obligation. There are 43 States that allow
this practice now. The tip credit provision in the minimum
wage bill allows the other seven--

We are talking about seven States, Oregon being one of them--

allows the other seven States to do so. In those seven
States, employers would only be permitted a tip credit once
their State minimum wage is raised in the future. For
example, the minimum wage is currently $7.50 per hour in
Oregon. If the current Federal minimum wage bill passed and
was signed into law, the State wage would remain at $7.50--

It wouldn't drop to $7.10, it would remain at $7.50--

until the State legislature or inflation increases the
State's minimum wage in the future. If the State minimum wage
was increased $1, to $8.50, only then would the employers be
permitted a tip credit of the amount of the minimum wage
increase.

I have never understood the belief of some that you can love
employees and hate employers, but that seems to be what is driving this
attempt to misrepresent the tip credit. We are trying to be fair to
employees. We are trying to help employers to continue to retain and
compensate their employees.
I will simply conclude by saying again that when all parties--the
ones who write the law, the ones who enforce the law, and the ones who
live under the law--agree with the content of the law, then that is the
law. And under this proposal, no employee's minimum wage will be
reduced. Anyone saying anything to the contrary is shooting from the
peanut gallery. These people are not part of the group--the writers of
the law, the enforcers of the law, and those who live under the law.
I urge its passage. If we are going to raise the minimum wage--and I
support doing so--I think in fairness to the employers, we ought also
to include the tip credit. This is a good compromise. There is so much
important in this bill that is essential for the health of our economy
and for the settling of some important issue, including planning
people's estates, supporting airline pensions, and helping those at the
lowest rung of the income scale receive a raise. I am support all of
this. And I believe this provision only helps--it does not hurt--those
on the minimum wage because it enables more people to have jobs
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The Senator from Alabama is
recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation to the
Senator from Oregon for his thoughtful and careful analysis of the tip
credit issue. I have heard a lot of things said about it recently, and
a lot of them are quite off base, and it is good that we hear the
matter carefully discussed and explained.

Amendment No. 4844

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4844.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a second?
Would the Senator agree to a time limit so that we would vote at 6:15
on the amendment?
Mr. SESSIONS. That would be fine.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on
this amendment take place at 6:15, with no second-degree amendments
being allowed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions] proposes an amendment
numbered 4844.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 4844

(Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation, Navy, up to $77,000,000 for the Conventional Trident
Modification Program)

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,
Navy'', up to $77,000,000 may be available for Advanced
Conventional Strike Capability (PE #64327N) for the
Conventional Trident Modification Program.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I offer this amendment to restore the
military funding request of $77 million under research and development
for the Conventional Trident Modification Program. The Quadrennial
Defense Review--that is, the 4-year review of the military's world
strategic plan--made this finding:

We need to make greater progress in fielding prompt,
accurate, nonnuclear global strike capabilities, and that we
also make further modest reductions in a strategic nuclear
force.

So they have looked at that nuclear posture review and as a result
have concluded, as General Cartwright and Admiral Giambastiani, as vice
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a letter to Senator Inouye,
that these capabilities as requested in this request for the
Conventional Trident Modification fulfill the military's need for a
prompt strike weapon. So this is what they requested. The Conventional
Trident Modification Program is designed

[[Page S8706]]

to demonstrate the feasibility of using existing Trident super
submarine-launched ballistic missiles with nonnuclear warheads to
provide the President an important strategic capability for countering
serious threats to the United States and to do so in time-urgent
situations. It will use an inert warhead--someone said it could even be
concrete--and a warhead traveling at the speed that this missile
travels would have sufficient impact with an inert warhead of
nonexplosive capability to meet the needs of the military.
So while the Senate-passed National Defense Authorization Act for
fiscal year 2007 fully funds this effort, the Senate Defense
appropriation bill that is now before us would eliminate all funding
for this critical program. According to the report accompanying the
appropriations bill, the Defense Committee:

Believes that fundamental issues about the use of this
weapon must be addressed prior to investing in this effort.

The committee also believes that other potentially less provocative
alternatives have yet to be considered, it says.
I will try to address specifically these two concerns, but first
allow me to remind my colleagues that this issue was thoroughly
considered and debated by the Armed Services Committee prior to and
during its markup of the Defense authorization bill. The Strategic
Forces Subcommittee, of which I am the chairman, held a hearing on this
specific issue--the global strike capabilities--during which we
discussed it in depth. During our markup, moreover, the Armed Services
Committee adopted an amendment proposed by the Democratic members of
the committee that would limit spending on the CTM beyond $32 million
of research and development pending the submission by the Defense
Department of a report by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of
State addressing the military, political, and international issues
associated with the conventional Trident missile modification.
But I would argue that this capability is just too important for our
Nation to allow another year to slip by without proceeding at least
with research and development. To accommodate the concerns of some of
my colleagues, the amendment before you would restore only the research
and development funds associated with the CTM Program. Not included is
the $50 million requested by the Department of Defense for acquisition
activities related to the CTM Program. I believe this was a reasonable
compromise, an effort to gain broad support for this new system. I
believe further that to provide R&D funds to demonstrate the concept,
while withholding procurement funding until Congress has an opportunity
to review the required report, meets and goes beyond, really, the needs
and concerns that our colleagues have raised.
To speak directly to the matter, why do we need a submarine-launched
ballistic missile that can strike virtually anywhere on the face of the
globe with precision, with a conventional warhead, within 30 minutes or
less? Former Secretaries of Defense Harold Brown, under a Democratic
administration, and James Schlesinger, under a Republican
administration, said it well in a recent op-ed article they wrote
together, the two of them--Secretaries of Defense, men of wisdom and
experience. They said:

In a world in which terrorist groups may have access to
nuclear weapons it is imperative to give future U.S.
Presidents more options to prevent nuclear attack.

I think that says it all. Indeed, it is likely that by the time this
system is ready to be fielded, President Bush will not be here to
utilize it, but his actions, and our actions as a Congress today, can
provide future Presidents with these needed options. To be sure, we are
not dealing with an academic debate. It was reported in a 9/11
Commission report that on August 11, 1998, a cruise missile attack
against bin Laden, who was then hiding in Afghanistan, missed its
intended target ``by a few hours.'' How might the course of history
have been altered that day if the President had at his disposal a
prompt global strike capability?
In another example, it was reported by the press that the initial
attack against Saddam Hussein, at the outset of Operation Iraqi
Freedom, took some 4 hours to reach the target using Stealth fighters
and sea-launched cruise missiles--ample time for the enemy to escape.
In addition to targets in the war against terrorism, one can imagine
other important uses for a conventional weapon that can strike targets
across the globe in minutes, for example, destroying a ballistic
missile armed with weapons of mass destruction as it is being prepared
to be launched against the United States; intercepting a weapon of mass
destruction which is being loaded into a container ship heading for a
U.S. port; or disrupting key enemy command-and-control facilities so
that they cannot execute an attack plan; thwarting enemy moves to seize
strategic advantage at the outset of some crisis.
It is true that some of these targets could be attacked using
existing strike forces such as cruise missiles, bombers and precision-
guided weapons, fighter aircraft launching from carriers or perhaps
special operations forces. But each of these alternative strike
platforms carries risks to U.S. personnel, require complex planning and
support infrastructure, and cannot reach their target in minutes. It is
hours.
CTM is indeed a niche capability. But the regrets of not having this
option are just too high to contemplate, given today's security
environment. Wouldn't we want any President to have this capability?
I believe all can agree on the strategic value of the conventional
Trident program. Let me address what I understand to be the principle
concerns of some of its critics, which are that the launch of a
conventional Trident missile might be mistaken for a launch of a
nuclear-armed missile and prompt a catastrophic nuclear response from
some third-party nation that believes it is under attack.
The Defense Department has taken seriously this concern. As a matter
of fact, the first thing they have done, and decided to do from the
beginning, is to be absolutely open to the world about the capability
they have in these missiles and their plans to convert a nuclear
missile to a conventional missile; but they have, in addition, put in
place a comprehensive approach for mitigating this risk.
But before examining these specific steps, I ask my colleagues to
look more carefully at the fundamental underlying concern. Would a
nuclear power with ballistic missiles, such as China or Russia,
perceive the launch of one or even two ballistic missiles, as an attack
against its territory, starting a nuclear war? I think not. Even during
the darkest days of the Cold War such an attack by a single missile was
considered implausible. People always talked openly, among the defense
forces of all these nations, about the situation in which a single
missile might be launched by mistake. It is well known if people are
going to kick off a nuclear war and have a number of missiles, they
would launch their entire fleet, hundreds of missiles at a time, trying
to catch the Nation's adversary unaware and perhaps destroy their
retaliatory capability on the ground. All that was the strategy
involved in Mutual Assured Destruction--a thing, basically, of the
past, frankly, and thankfully it appears to be so. But we have to be
concerned and cannot forget the lessons of that period.

But let's take this further. Very few States can currently detect a
launch of a missile and track the trajectory of its warhead. Very few
nations have the capability of detecting our launch. The country that
has the most capability in this regard would be Russia, but we are told
by Defense officials that once the Russians detect a launch, their
system capability is such they will know it is not aimed at them. They
will know where it will land, and they will know it poses no threat.
They are not going to kick off a war over this.
Assuming the above context is not enough to assuage our concerns, the
Department of Defense has in place a comprehensive strategy to mitigate
risks posed by the misperception or ambiguity problems. One of the
measures that they plan is advanced notification to leaders of select
States. For example, the United States maintains a robust set of
communication links between U.S. leaders and their Russian counterparts
and military counterparts all over the world. We have that capability
and, in fact, communicate on a

[[Page S8707]]

fairly frequent basis, and additional communication links with senior
Russian officials are planned, such as the Joint Data Exchange Center
for shared early warning. In this case, Russian and U.S. officials
would sit side by side in a jointly staffed early warning center. Isn't
that a good step forward?
What do we have as a strategy for the United States today? We are
reducing significantly the number of our nuclear warheads, and we are
creating a center for early warning, where our military people sit down
side by side to further eliminate any possibility of a mistake. There
are political exchanges and military-to-military talks with Russians
and other nations to inform them of our plans for the CTM. These
efforts are already underway. We are right upfront with the military
leaders around the world about what we are developing and why we are
doing it.
Operational measures, such as distinctive command and control
procedures for the conventional Trident missile, would differ from
procedures for nuclear-armed Tridents, and potential visits and
inspections to build confidence through transparency are planned. Our
Defense Department talked openly with other defense departments. We
will take every effort to make sure there is no risk from this.
In summary, the risk of a country misinterpreting the launch of a
conventionally armed Trident missile as a nuclear attack are low to
nonexistent. The Department of Defense risk mitigation strategy will
further eliminate that risk--indeed, eliminate it totally. In this
post-September 11 world, we need strategic capabilities to promptly
thwart dangerous threats to the United States, where time is of the
essence and the regret of not acting is too high to imagine. The
conventional Trident option provides our leaders the capability to go
after high-value targets where access may be difficult or where other
U.S. forces are not present. It is a capability that will be reserved
for extreme national emergencies. It is a capability we need today. It
is an option any President can have if we move forward and should have.
I close by asking my colleagues to think carefully about this
amendment. It is a very important issue. I can understand that people
might have raised concerns. But what I want to say to my colleagues is
we had a hearing on this. We had General Cartwright and others testify.
General Cartwright is the Commander of the Strategic Command. This is
under his direction. He is a very impressive general. We asked him
tough questions about all these issues, and he was quite forthcoming
and open about it. He answered every single one of them.
Our Armed Services Committee has voted this out in a compromise
fashion to guarantee even further study before the system goes to full
development. But we do not need to waste another year. We do not need
to go another year without the future President of the United States
having the capability that we have the power to give him, to launch a
nonnuclear strike anywhere in the world and hit a target within 30
minutes. It is the right thing to do. It is very important for our
Defense Department. They strongly support it as part of their 4-year
Quadrennial Defense Review. We have letters from General Cartwright,
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and others supporting this
matter, and the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. Indeed,
Secretary Rumsfeld said in his letter, just a few days ago:

The Department [of Defense] strongly supports this
amendment. Failure to fund this program would delay a
capability we need now to respond promptly and precisely to
time-sensitive, high-value targets anywhere in the world.

This capability is within our grasp. It will work. It is simply a
matter of developing the warhead and doing training with it. But the
capability we have is such that these missiles can hit the most precise
targets within 30 minutes anywhere on the globe.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I join my colleague from
Alabama to offer this amendment that will provide funding to enable a
new and indeed needed capability known as Prompt Global Strike. In
March of this year, prior to an Armed Services subcommittee hearing, I
met with General James Cartwright, of the U.S. Strategic Command, to
discuss this capability. He explained to me that the need for it was
urgent and why. It is designed for situations where the time to act is
short and access may be denied or difficult, U.S. forces are not
present, and the regret of not acting is high.
For instance, we could be in a situation that required a quick strike
on a mobile ballistic missile launcher or WMD transshipment point or
high-value terrorist target or an enemy command center. In order to hit
these targets in a time-critical manner, General Cartwright has asked
for authorization for some Trident missiles to be modified for
conventional use.
Trident missiles have longer ranges than Tomahawk cruise missiles,
and in situations where airspace is restricted, are safer to employ
than long-range bombers. Now the need is obvious. The attacks on
September 11, the war on terrorism, and the spread of weapons of mass
destruction demand prompt global strikes.
I would argue that in the wake of North Korea's missile tests that
having this capability becomes even more necessary as an option.
One of the main arguments against CTM is that other countries could
mistake a conventional missile launch for a nuclear missile attack.
Even though I am told that is a very low likelihood, to ensure that
other countries don't mistake a conventional missile for a nuclear
missile, the Department of Defense is developing assurance measures
such as: Advance notification; Shared early warning; Inspections and
transparency.
And General Cartwright said to me that ``the lines of communication
are more open than ever between the United States and Russia and
China.''
Additionally, the Department has studied alternatives. Conventional
Trident Modification--CTM--is the only concept available within the
next 2 to 3 years. Other options may be available by the middle of the
next decade and are being pursued.
The Armed Services Committee, on which I serve, considered this issue
and included language on CTM in the Defense Authorization bill. The
Strategic Forces Subcommittee held a hearing and briefings; there was
full committee discussion during markup and a compromise was reached to
fully fund the CTM request, but limit spending beyond $32,000,000 of
R&D funds pending submission of a joint DoD/State Dept report
addressing virtually all concerns and alternatives.
Unfortunately, the Defense Appropriations Committee did not fund the
program, and required a National Academy of Science study of the
underlying mission requirement and options.
General Cartwright and the Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, Admiral Giambastiani, believe these questions have already been
answered by the JASONs, the Defense Policy Board, the STRATCOM
Strategic Advisory Group, and the STRATCOM staff.
In a joint letter from Admiral Giambastiani and General Cartwright
they state:

We are aware . . . of a range of issues associated with the
use of conventionally-modified Trident missiles, and
understand that Congress may desire assurances that these
issues be resolved prior to deployment of such a capability.
We are confident that the DoD, with the Department of State,
can satisfactorily allay these concerns in parallel with
continued research and development. This capability is too
important to the nation to delay.

Senator Sessions and I also have a letter from Secretary Rumsfeld
indicating his very strong support for funding of the Conventional
Trident Modification program. He said, ``Failure to fund this program
would delay a capability we need now to respond promptly and precisely
to time-sensitive, high value targets anywhere in the world.''
The House Armed Services Committee and the House Defense
Appropriations Committee had similar concerns, but they have provided
R&D funding--$30,000,000--while awaiting response to their questions.
The benefit of our amendment, and this compromise approach, is that
the program will move forward with research and development funding--
not procurement funding--while DoD addresses the concerns of CTM
critics.
It's a good, bipartisan compromise amendment and I hope our colleages
in the Senate will support it.

[[Page S8708]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment
proposed by the Senator from Alabama. The premise advanced by the
Senator from Alabama is that we have such a robust relationship with
other nuclear powers, such as Russia, that it would be easy to
coordinate this; there would be no mistaking a launch of a conventional
missile from a Trident submarine. But I think that is contradicted by
what the Russians themselves say.
General Cartright went out and met his counterpart, General
Baluyevsky, the chief of the Russian general staff, and tried to talk
to him about these threats of terrorists needing to strike at long
distance. And General Baluyevsky said this could be a costly move which
not only won't guarantee his destruction--referring to Bin Laden--but
could provide an irreversible response from a nuclear-armed state which
can't determine what warhead is fitted on the missile.
That is the strong support, constant communication with Russia that
we have today, which could easily discern and disseminate information
about a potential launch of a conventional weapon from a Trident
platform.
The Trident submarine contains missiles which are all armed with
nuclear weapons. They are part of our strategic triad--probably the
most secure part of our triad. And the practical problem for anyone in
the world is to determine, if we shoot one of these missiles at them,
is it a conventional warhead or is it a nuclear warhead?
If anyone believes they have nuclear weapons and are being attacked
by a nuclear device, I think there is a strong fear, on my part at
least, that they would retaliate before they could ever verify what was
going on.
Another aspect of this whole proposal is that it is premised on the
fact that we would only have minutes or so to strike a target. But I
think you have to ask yourself, reasonably and realistically, if that
is the case, how do we know the target is so dangerous? I presume, in
terms of developing our intelligence sources, we first have a
suspicion, then we have information, we go out and verify it, and in
that process I would assume and would hope that our national security
officials would begin to move assets into the area which could conduct
a strike with precision weapons.
Again, I think the record of the intelligence community, frankly, in
terms of determining targets is one that is spotty at best. That is
because of the difficulty of doing this type of intelligence work.
Recall now the first blow in the Iraq war was a precision strike to
decapitate their leadership by killing, essentially, Saddam Hussein. It
turned out he wasn't there.
Think about if that type of intelligence prompted the firing of a
Trident missile, and a nuclear power was unsure that it was not a
nuclear weapon or a conventional weapon and retaliate. I think we are
going down a very dangerous path.
Let me also suggest something else, which is inherent in the argument
of Senator Sessions. I guess the question would be, would we wait, if
it is so dangerous and so insistent to act so quickly, would we wait to
ensure that the other parties understood--the other parties being
Russia or China--that this was a nonnuclear launch? How much time would
that take? How could we be sure that we have effectively communicated
it? None of this has been investigated.
The comments by the Russian chief of general staff suggests that. So
I think we have an obligation to look carefully at this issue before we
go down this path.
That is essentially what was agreed to in the Defense authorization
bill. The Defense authorization bill says no funds can be expended for
R&D until 30 days after a report, which is specified in the committee
legislation, is given to the relevant committees in the Senate and the
House. If they have all these answers right now, and they are
compelling and persuasive, I presume it could be delivered within a few
days, starting the 30-day period to be told or to expire. I think this
is a prudent thing to do. To go ahead and avoid this report not only
contradicts the sentiment on the authorizing committee, but also I
think it disregards the difficult questions that have to be asked.
Where is this instantaneous assured notification to others that this
is a conventional weapon and not a nuclear weapon? I think that
question alone requires an evaluation.
I hope in the disposition of this amendment we would let this report
requirement stand, would let the committee do what they have
essentially done--roughly the same thing--allowing R&D funding to go
forward pending reports of one kind or another. That is the prudent and
appropriate thing to do. I hope we would do that.
I yield the floor.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition.
I have spent many hours in discussions on this program with
supporters of this program. I have listened to their arguments. And,
believe me, I have put in much thought about this matter.
I have concluded that this is not the time to begin development of a
conventional Trident missile. Instead, the chairman and I agree--and
the Appropriations Committee concurred--that before proceeding to
develop this or any alternative program, the Congress needs to have a
truly independent study.
As such, the bill includes $5 million for the National Academy of
Sciences to conduct a study to examine the conventional Trident and
other alternatives.
I think most Americans are not aware of what we are speaking of when
we say a Trident submarine or Trident missile. A Trident submarine is a
nuclear-powered submarine that carries 24 tubes. Each tube can have a
nuclear-tipped missile, an intercontinental ballistic missile. All of
the military is well aware of this. The Russians know about this. The
North Koreans know about this. The Koreans, the Japanese, the Chinese--
it is no secret to them. And the proposal is to have four of these
missiles conventional, not nuclear.
That sounds reasonable. The argument is that the Russians know that
if we fire one, it is not intended to be an attack because if we were
to attack a nation, we would have hundreds flying.
But let's turn this around a bit. What if one of those Russian
missiles--and they have nuclear-powered submarines that can shoot out
from their tubes intercontinental ballistic missiles--let's say they
fired one toward Canada, and because of the curvature of the Earth, it
has to fly over Washington, DC, or New York City, and the Russians told
us: No; we are not firing at you. We are firing at Canada. What do you
think our reaction would be? Would we say, go right ahead? The least we
will do is put our country on full alert. What is full alert? It is the
finger is right over the button, and sometimes a mistake can be made
and sometimes the finger gets a bit too heavy.
No. 1, we don't need the conventional warhead.
No. 2, the risk is too great.
How would the North Koreans take it if they saw a missile flying in
their direction? How would the Chinese take it? There is no
transparency. Today, yes, we can call up on all the nations and say we
are going to test a Trident missile, and it is going to fly out of here
and it is going to land there, and they can all watch and monitor. But
if we were out to demolish something, the question is, Will we notify
the world? The answer is obvious. If you want a surprise to get Osama
bin Laden, are we going to tell the whole world, ``Yes, we are going to
fire into that mountain because we want to get Osama bin Laden''? Guess
how long he will stick around.

The committee did the right thing by setting aside $5 million for an
independent agency to make the study, not some agency connected to the
Department of Defense. I hope my colleagues will vote against this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate my colleague so much. I express my
appreciation to Senator Nelson of Nebraska for being a cosponsor and
for his work on the Committee on Armed Services. I failed to mention
that Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska is also a cosponsor of this
amendment.
We have so many ideas about how to defend America that we should not
disrespect others who may disagree every now and then on how something
should

[[Page S8709]]

be done. I respect Senator Inouye. He is a patriot and an expert on
defense. I have seen his leadership on national missile defense, which
is seen today as a very wise investment. If a single missile moved
toward the United States for the first time in history, we now have
some capability to knock that down. In fact, in a few years, we will
have a powerful capability to knock that down, but we have some
capability right now. I believe we could successfully knock down one of
those missiles.
I will share a few thoughts. My colleague, Senator Reed, talked about
the Russians, who had a meeting with our people. The Russians said they
might not like it if we launched a missile like this. If we had this
capability, they might not like it.
It is interesting that we are openly talking with them about the
capability, and letting them know what our plans are. The experts tell
us they could tell, shortly after a launch, whether or not a missile
was aimed at them. Certainly we are not going to launch World War III,
no nation would, if a single missile was aimed toward them. We need to
think this through.
With regard to the review and the studies, my colleague, Senator
Reed, on the Committee on Armed Services, and I serve together. He may
have misunderstood what this amendment would do. The authorization bill
we passed that authorized spending on this missile system required a
study. It said that study must be completed and no more than $32
million could be spent until it was completed. It would require not
only the Defense Department to participate but the State Department to
participate. That was to allay the concerns being raised.
That language is not undermined by this amendment. This amendment
does not refer to it. It would be absolutely mandated by the language
in the Defense authorization bill. We certainly want that report. There
is no attempt, I say to my colleagues, to undermine that requirement.
That requirement remains in place.
The effect of failing to fund this program, a program that was based
upon a need identified by the formal 4-year Quadrennial Defense Review
of the Department of Defense, a study was made to identify how best to
meet that need. This conventional Trident was decided to be the best
way to have that need met in short order. That is why the Defense
Department has asked for it. They have never been secretive about it.
They have been absolutely open about it. They have made sure they have
gone the extra mile to carry out a series of steps that would make us
not mislead any country. It is the right thing to do.
Our submarines carry 24 nuclear missiles today that can hit a target
around the world within 30 minutes. I have a son-in-law in Hawaii who
is an officer on a nuclear submarine. I am very proud of him. My
daughter is in Hawaii today. I know a little bit about those
submarines. They carry nuclear weapons.
We don't want the President of the United States to have a real
serious threat to America existing for a short period of time, and the
only response he or she may have is a nuclear weapon. We want them to
have extra options, an option to use a non-nuclear weapon.
There was some suggestion by Senator Reed, almost like he is afraid
for us to have this capability. We have the capability now to launch
cruise missiles on shorter range targets where there is more time. We
don't go willy-nilly launching cruise missiles. This is a non-nuclear
weapon. It would do no more damage than a cruise missile would, maybe
less if it is not an explosive warhead. I don't see the danger.
I know the concern. We have had a hearing on it. We have talked about
it. The Defense Department, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
and General Cartwright, Strategic Commander, one of the most able
officers in the military, one of the most respected, say we need this.
They have asked us and written us to do it this year. It is affordable.
It will use existing missiles. It will be a missile that now has the
capability to launch and is designed to carry nuclear weapons. We are
going to ``non-nuclear'' it and make it a conventional weapon. It is
very much needed.
A former Secretary of Defense, Harold Brown, under Jimmy Carter, and
former Secretary of Defense, James Schlesinger, under President Reagan,
have both asked for this to be done. They said, in an op-ed they
voluntarily published, we need this capability.
I urge my colleagues to think this through. If we authorize it,
additional studies will be required. My colleagues, please know when
you vote on this you are not building and deploying the system but
simply doing the research and development. We will have another step in
between with the full extra study we have asked by the Defense
Department before we make a final decision to go forward.
That is where we are. It is a reasonable approach, an approach that
has listened to the concerns of some of our colleagues and tried to
respond to those in a way that keeps this on track. We don't want to
end up 2, 3, 4 years from now not having done this, leaving the
President of the United States in the future without the capability,
without an option to protect the people of America.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I don't recall a time I have had a
dispute with Senator Sessions on defense policy but I do on this issue.
In the first place, the Committee on Armed Services provided an
authorization for the money but told us it cannot be spent until there
is a study. I don't support this amendment because I do not agree with
the urgency to commit to this solution and commit funds for it when we
lack a full understanding of the requirement and a thorough review of
the alternatives.
What we needed and what the Defense appropriations bill before us now
provides is a comprehensive analysis. This follows the path of the
Committee on Armed Services, a review that considers the military
factors as well as the political and international factors of what is
needed--not money upfront. Our Defense appropriations bill contains
language for such a review and report. The Senate Committee on Armed
Services was concerned about this capability. They included the
extensive report language, as well. Our Appropriations Subcommittee has
gone one step further, and we have withheld funds for the fiscal year
2007.
Given the concerns raised by some Senators, our committee does not
agree we must fund this initiative now. Funding for defense is very
tight, as the Senate knows. Given the serious concerns about prompt
global strike and the limited fund for defense this year, the Committee
on Appropriations--in particular, our subcommittee--has carefully
decided to fund only those programs that have been fully explained and
justified.
There are three principal reasons why I am concerned about pursuing
the conventional Trident missile, or CTM, solution. I have reservations
about the international political opinion and the potential for
misinterpretation of our actions. A country that picks up or identifies
a CTM launch might legitimately worry whether the weapon carries a
nuclear or conventional payload. This could be a provocative action, if
taken. This issue is larger than the Defense Department. There are
serious international implications that the State Department should be
more involved before we go forward with CTM capability.
Second, the demand for a prompt strike capability is not well
supported by the timeliness of our intelligence or its decision-making
processes. It takes time to validate intelligence information, and the
decision to strike takes time. It should be carefully analyzed before
making that decision. This capability would offer the opportunity for
risky, even reckless strikes, rather than deliberate, clearly thought-
out action. Congress needs to thoroughly understand the implications
and uses of the concept of prompt global strike.
My third concern with CTM is my preference to do more with our
forward-deployed conventional strike assets which may be called back
and under positive control under the combatant commanders until final
commitment. Our committee recommended the Defense Department look again
at how and where our conventional strike forces should be deployed to
develop a more responsive means to meet the need for a faster strike
capability.
The facts are that Congress does not have sufficient information to
make a

[[Page S8710]]

decision on a conventional Trident missile today. This missile is not
something that is needed in the near term. Therefore, I recommend the
Senate not approve this amendment and support our Defense
appropriations bill which calls for further study.
Is there a time set for the vote?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is set for 6:15.
Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. 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. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have such respect for Senator Inouye
and Senator Stevens, but I do want to mention a couple of things that
are important for my colleagues. This is a high priority for our
military leaders. They believe it is critical to have this capability.
As former Secretary of Defense Harold Brown said, along with James
Schlesinger:

The detonation of a nuclear weapon in the United States by
a terrorist group would be an unprecedented disaster. It is
essential [essential] that Congress approve the funds for
this program. Moreover, a small reprogramming action in
the current fiscal year could accelerate the missiles'
initial deployments. In a world in which terrorist groups
may have access to nuclear weapons, it is imperative to
give future U.S. presidents more options to prevent
nuclear attacks.

They go on in quite a long article and deal with this.
My colleague, in talking about this, mentioned that: Well, this could
be recklessly used. But any weapon we have could be recklessly used.
Some have said President Clinton was not wise when he launched a cruise
missile into the Sudan. I defended it when he did it. But he made that
decision. He made that decision. That is a conventional weapon.
The only difference, really, colleagues, in a conventional Trident
launch and a cruise missile launch is it is quicker. We talked about
there are multiple hours many times, they are not as fast, they have to
be launched often from an aircraft or from ships that are not readily
available, they are not readily available to be launched. So we are
talking about delays.
This would allow us the capability of launching a nonnuclear weapon,
much like our cruise missiles and Tomahawk missiles, to hit a precise
target that could represent a deadly threat to the people of the United
States of America.
It is unbelievable, really, that we have this capability. Right now
the President can do it, but the only missiles he has that he could
launch that could hit a target within 30 minutes are nuclear missiles.
It would be unlikely we would ever launch one nuclear weapon like that
that I can imagine. It could happen, I guess, but it certainly would be
cause for the greatest anguish and concern, and it would be unlikely to
ever be done.
So I am just saying this is the plan that our experts, who are
working on strategic issues in the Department of Defense, believe gives
the President a capability and gives the Defense Department, our
military, a capability that can help protect America with a
conventional weapon. Maybe it will be an inert warhead, inert substance
in what would be the warhead, that it is not even an explosive. And it
could strike a target around the world that could save thousands and
thousands of lives, tip the balance of some sort of military conflict.
So that is where we have reached some disagreement. I am very
respectful of the chairman and ranking member of this Appropriations
Committee. They have defended America personally, putting their lives
on the line for our country. They have, for many years, preserved,
protected, and defended this country through very able Defense budgets.
Many times it was not so popular. But they have been there, and they
have fought for them. And we now have the finest military the world has
ever known. I salute them for it. We just have a disagreement on this
single matter. I think it is important or I would not raise it.
I urge my colleagues to consider it.
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. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the senior
Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden, be added as a cosponsor to amendment
No. 4827 to the fiscal year 2007 Defense appropriations bill that is
already adopted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. 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. SESSIONS. Mr. President, there are 2 or 3 minutes before the
vote, and I will take a brief minute to summarize this matter.
The Secretary of Defense personally has written us and asked that we
allow the Department to go forward with this conventional Trident
missile capability saying:

Failure to fund this program would delay a capability we
need now to respond promptly and precisely to time-sensitive,
high-value targets anywhere in the world.

This has also been the subject of an op-ed by former Secretary of
Defense Harold Brown, who served under Jimmy Carter, and former
Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger, who served under Presidents
Nixon and Ford and served in President Carter's Cabinet also. They say
we need this now.
It would not deploy this system but would allow research and
development, and requires, before any more than $30 million is spent--
before any more than $30 million is spent--that the Defense Department
and the State Department must complete a study and present that to
Congress before we go forward.
We do not need to delay. If we wait another year or 2, we will allow
another year or 2 or 3 or 4 to go by without the President having the
capability within 30 minutes to hit any target on the globe with a
nonnuclear weapon.
The concern over misinterpretation of the missile launch intent has
been dealt with openly and directly by the military. They have talked
with foreign nations about it. We will make every effort to ensure that
does not happen. And it, indeed, as I have explained earlier, should
not be a problem, as these former Secretaries of Defense stated.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on
agreeing to the Sessions amendment.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from 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 31, nays 67, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 227 Leg.]

YEAS--31

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bunning
Chambliss
Coburn
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Hagel
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Landrieu
Martinez
McConnell
Nelson (NE)
Sessions
Specter
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Warner

NAYS--67

Akaka
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray

[[Page S8711]]

Nelson (FL)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Voinovich
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Baucus
Lieberman

The amendment (No. 4844) was rejected.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if we can get order, I can inform the
Senators of what I know of the schedule. The Senator from Arizona, Mr.
Kyl, has an amendment he wishes to discuss. It has been cleared on both
sides. I understand he will take about 20 minutes. We have another
managers' package, and I will continue to work on packages.
After Senator Kyl has his amendment adopted by a voice vote, we will
turn to the amendment to be offered by Senator Stabenow, which I
understand will take some time. I tell the Senate, after those two, I
know of no other Senator who has asked to call up an amendment.
If there is no amendment to be offered and debated, I will move for
third reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, everyone should know that we have cooperated
on this bill every step of the way. There was no reason to do a motion
to proceed to this. We allowed this to take place in spite of the fact
that there were many other things going on taking the attention of the
Senators.
We have been very cooperative in offering amendments. This is a bill
that is very important to the country. I think they should allow us a
little bit of time to determine what is in the bill and what should be
in the bill.
There are people who have amendments to offer, and for my friend, the
distinguished senior Senator from Alaska, to come here and threaten us
that he is going to try to stop debate on this bill is not in keeping
with the decorum of the Senate.
We have amendments to offer. I have offered, starting this morning,
that we come up with a list of finite amendments and finish this bill
in a reasonable amount of time when we get back. We are not going to be
able to finish this bill now. We have the so-called trifecta, we have
the pensions program we have to deal with that affects 45 million
people directly, 145 million people indirectly.
In addition to that, we have these tax extenders.
We, the Democrats, didn't put us in this procedural quagmire. Had it
not been for the distinguished Congressman from Tennessee, who said: We
outfoxed the Democrats--no Democrat was outfoxed. The American people
haven't been outfoxed. We didn't put anyone in this position. We are
here because of what the majority decided to do.
Don't give us the hustle on the Defense bill. We have been ready to
move to this Defense bill for a long time. But we can't do it because
we are stuck on the road to legislative heaven the Republicans have,
which is the estate tax repeal. So don't come here like I was born
yesterday and tell me what you are going to do because I wasn't born
yesterday.
We are ready to cooperate, and we have been, but don't threaten my
Senators that they are not going to be able to offer amendments.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, do I have the floor? I thought I had the
floor.
I am pleased to hear the distinguished minority leader mention this
fact. Let's be sure: Senator Inouye and I have managed this bill now,
one or the other of us, since 1981. We have never been on this floor
longer than 3 days for the Defense bill. All I said was I am going to
move to third reading if no one is here to offer an amendment. I didn't
block anybody's amendment. All it takes, if I do move to third reading,
all it takes is someone to ask for the floor or offer an amendment.
Let me tell the Senate this, though: We know what is happening. When
we get back, we will have other business that will come ahead of this
bill. We have to get this bill passed and to the President before the
end of this fiscal year. When the House comes back, we can't get to
conference if we don't finish it tonight or tomorrow until about the
third week of September, and it takes time to confer on a bill such as
this. It takes a lot of time, staff time. It is an enormous bill now
because we have added considerable moneys to it that the House hasn't
even considered.
When we come back, this bill has to be to the President before
September 20. What the Senator is suggesting, as I understand it, is
that we will take a couple days after we finish whatever is carried
over from this session, if cloture is voted tomorrow, and this bill
goes back on the calendar; do you know that? It would take unanimous
consent to call it back up.
All I am saying is we manage this bill with the idea o protecting
these people in uniform. Anyone can raise an amendment. I am prepared
to stay all night tonight, all day tomorrow, all the next night. If you
want to debate, debate. That is what we used to do in this society is
be a debate society. It is not society.

I take umbrage with the fact that the good Senator said I threatened
him. I didn't threaten anybody. I said I was going to offer a motion or
make a request to go to third reading if no one has an amendment to
debate. I say that again. It is not a threat; it is a promise, Mr.
President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to get along with everybody. I really
have tried. I came here this morning at 9:30, and I said: We are ready
to vote on the big bill that cloture was filed on last night. I am
ready to do that. We were ready to do that this morning. I want to
finish the pensions bill. I want to do something on the extenders. That
is where I hoped we would have been--to have completed all this.
No one has to worry about moving this when we get back. We want this
bill to be completed. We want it to be done right. No one questions the
capability of Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens on the Defense
appropriations bill. But we can see the light at the end of the tunnel.
Hey, listen, some of my Senators are leaving. They don't need to be
here to vote on cloture. Some of them would like to be here to vote on
cloture. What I suggest is we have a program to complete the work
around here.
People have come to me--Democrats and Republicans--asking: What do
you propose? I propose we vote on the so-called trifecta--I have
another name for it--and do the pensions bill and try to get the
extenders done. That is not easy lifting. That is a big project for us.
And the Defense bill, I am sorry it was brought up when it was and it
wasn't done sooner.
As I said, we have cooperated with this body. We intend to continue
to do that. And if the distinguished Senator wants to stay here all
night, then fine, that is fine, we will have a cloture vote in the
morning. As everybody knows, after the cloture vote, there aren't going
to be a lot of people around here.
I have agreed not for endless amendments--we want to finish this
bill--but that we have a list of finite amendments. These two good
managers--I know when we get to these amendments, some of them will not
be able to be taken, so to speak, and will be headed to the dark hole
of the conference. Some amendments will have to have votes, but not
many.
I said to the majority leader personally, and I say here: We will
finish this bill and take no more than 2 days when we get back. I am
not going to agree on a time for final passage, but I told the
distinguished majority leader that. We are not trying to do anything
other than to just move along.
There have been a few times--not often--I probably raised my voice a
little more than I should have. If I offended anyone, I am sorry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, while we are all on the Senate floor,
everyone knows the business we have before us before we begin our
recess, and part, I think, of what we see rise here is we have a lot to
do in a short period of time. All the business is very important.
Indeed, people have been very cooperative. We were allowed to go to the
Department of Defense appropriations bill by unanimous consent on
Wednesday night or Tuesday--was it Tuesday night? We all agreed to go
to the bill. We have had a good debate and a fair number of amendments.
Now it is almost 7 o'clock and the business we need to do is the
Department of Defense appropriations. We do

[[Page S8712]]

have the trifecta bill which, as everybody knows, by normal procedure
will be tomorrow morning--we will agree upon a time, an hour after we
come in, but we can agree to do that at 9:30. It is normal procedure.
Then we do have to deal with pensions. We know how important it is to
get that done before we leave.
The Democratic leader mentioned trying to do something with
extenders. I think we made good progress. We have some pending
amendments. I wouldn't put it out of the realm--but I would like to
hear the Democratic leader's response--if we worked hard for the next
4, 5 hours and really plowed through the amendments, that we could even
finish the appropriations bill and tonight go to the trifecta bill,
dispose of that--however the votes fall--and we all know that will be
very close. Then immediately deal with the pensions bill tonight. Then
we would have everything done.
I know probably the response will be that there is no way to finish
the Department of Defense appropriations bill, given the long list of
the amendments we referred to, although if we did stay here and spend 5
hours, 6, 7 hours or 3 hours, 4 hours and just plowed through the
amendments and addressed them, finish that--this has to be done by
unanimous consent--go to the trifecta bill, go t pensions, and then go
home.

I would be interested in the Democratic leader's response.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have worked with my caucus and I have
other Senators working with each Senator. We have done a number of
hotlines to find out amendments that are pending. We have a number of
amendments that are pending. People feel very strongly about that. We
are not going to finish the bill tonight. I guess if we worked all
night, if that would be the choice, it would be by attrition. I think
it is just a strange way to do business.
I know people want to get the work done, but we have been willing to
do this bill for a long time. I have been on the floor and talked about
it: Why don't we move to the Defense appropriations bill?
We have spent all week on things, but it seems to me we should have
been doing things other than estate tax repeal, which we have dealt
with so many times. I have already given my speech on that. People know
how I feel about that issue.
I think we are being totally reasonable. I am not telling the leader
he has to file cloture on this bill. I am saying there are a lot of
amendments. We have about 50 amendments on our side. We know that as
time goes on they will be whittled down. These managers will accept
some. The Republicans have amendments.
I say with all due respect to my friend, the distinguished majority
leader--and I know his job is a lot harder than mine; I know that--we
can't finish the Defense bill tonight, as much as he wants to, and as
much as the two distinguished managers want to. We just can't do it. It
just won't happen.
As I said, no one has to file cloture. I have told you--I say it here
in front of all my colleagues--we will finish the bill in 2 days when
we get back. I don't think with all the turmoil going on around the
world today involving our fighting men and women--I think it might not
be a bad idea to have the break to find out where we need to go when we
get back because things are moving very rapidly all over the world.
Anyway, I don't think we can do it, I say to the leader. I think we
would be much better off finishing this bill in a couple days when we
get back, and I think we will be more in tune to do it. We will finish
it as is scheduled, as I indicated to all my Senators here.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, while we are talking about it, we will be
out for, I guess, 4 weeks and then Labor Day, and we will come back
that Tuesday. Again, I haven't talked with the chairman or ranking
member, but does that mean we can finish it late Wednesday night; spend
that Tuesday and Wednesday on it?
Mr. REID. We come in Tuesday, work on the bill Tuesday, finish it
Wednesday. It may be a late night, but we will finish. I told you 2
days, and all my Senators are here, and we will finish it in 2 days.
Mr. FRIST. That just helps clarify so we know what we are working
with. I know the chairman wants to make a comment. Right now the way
things exist, because I filed cloture last night, we should say right
now we will be voting at 9:30 tomorrow morning on trifecta. We still--
and I don't want to close that down--have the option, the opportunity
of maybe doing it tonight. We can go back in the cloakroom and talk
about what the schedule will be.
I will turn to the chairman. I know he wants to make a comment, but
let's not close finishing tonight. It would have to be under a very
tight agreement of how we complete this Department of Defense bill.
This is an absolutely critical bill for this country.
I have heard very clearly--and the Democratic leader and I have been
talking about it--if we had to put it off and if we can finish it late
that Wednesday night is something we can consider. The chairman and
ranking member need to think about that. It means we need to continue
to work tonight before we do the trifecta.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I don't want to be disrespectful to
anybody, and I consider every person--at least I consider every person
on this floor my friend. I am old enough to know that I have outlived
most of my enemies.
As a practical matter--I don't want to get a little maudlin about
this, but these men and women overseas, they are not taking August off.
They are not in a rush to get on an airplane. We could finish this
bill.
My notice of going to go to third reading if there were no amendments
is normal. Filibusters started around this Senate when people didn't
want to go to third reading so they offered amendment after amendment
after amendment so the leader could not take us to third reading.
We developed a procedure, a family thing here now, that now we do it
like Marcus of Queensbury rules. I remember being on this floor
overnight for two and three nights in a row, and so does my friend from
Hawaii. I don't disagree with this procedure--it is a more humane
procedure--but I do think we have a job to do, and the No. 1 job to do
is to get this Defense bill to the President before the fiscal year
starts.
Now, I understand we can get a commitment that we will finish by
Wednesday night. Wednesday night means we can't get the papers to the
House until Thursday or Friday, and it will be the next week before we
confer, and then we will confer at least a week with the House, and
that would be reasonable because both the House and Senate have other
things to do than just confer with each other. We are going to get back
here with this bill sometime around I would say the 21st, and then
guess what. Then we would probably go home--it is just before the
election--and we probably wouldn't get around to this bill because
first we have to wait for the House to get it to us, as a matter of
fact, because it is an appropriations bill. So we are looking at
getting this bill back sometime around the 26th or the 27th, if
everything goes right--if everything goes right.
I would prefer to have a time agreement for Wednesday night and that
we would vote at a time certain, but I will take our friend's point of
view and say: OK, we will commit as Senators that we will finish this
vote on Wednesday night. I wish we could do a lot better. I think we
are going to be criticized, every one of us, for deciding to go home
rather than finish this bill.
Now, I have heard a lot of rhetoric from the other side during this
year. You have not had that kind of rhetoric from me so far this year,
but if people want to keep it going, we can debate whether we should
get this thing done and if we can get it done. I can guarantee you the
Senator from Hawaii and I could finish this bill tonight if we had
cooperation. There is not one amendment I know of that will take all
night--nothing in this bill requires something that would take all
night.
So again, I am not the leader. You two are leaders. You make up your
minds. But I am going to be super critical of this Senate if this bill
doesn't go to the President in time to have this bill become law by the
end of the fiscal year.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, let me just say, if the chairman and the
ranking member believe this bill can be finished tonight, even if it
takes all night, we ought to finish it tonight. There is

[[Page S8713]]

no question in terms of the importance of this bill. If it looks as if
that is impossible, which we have heard, then we should entertain the
proposal put forth by the Democratic leader of finishing Wednesday
night. But if there is any way we can finish, I think we should finish
tonight. I think everybody would be willing to stay, as it is that
important to this country.
Again, I just heard the chairman saying we could finish it tonight.
It is going to be hard, but if we stay here and literally stay on the
floor and march through the amendments with the appropriate debate,
then that is what we should do. I don't think we need to make a
decision right this second because we can make it among ourselves when
we are not before the American people. But if we can finish it, we
should finish it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. We all know the talent of the senior Senator from Alaska, a
wonderful man, and it is good that he hasn't been upset with us
recently. But where was my friend when we were spending all the time on
gay marriage and other such things when we should have been working on
this?
We don't run this place; the majority runs the Senate. We do our best
to represent our constituents. But we don't need to be told it is our
fault the Defense appropriations bill is not going forward. We have
been willing to work on the Defense appropriations bill, and I say as
someone who has managed a lot of bills here on the floor, if we were
attempting to stall, there are a lot of other ways of doing that.
We had very short debates on these amendments. Any one of these
amendments, I say to the leader, could have taken all day, but we set
reasonable times for our amendments and we voted on them. I think the
record is very clear that we have tried to cooperate.
However, there is too much to do, and I think it is asking too much,
especially when we look down the road. I talked to one of my friends on
the other side of the aisle. If we don't do this pensions bill, we have
two airline companies that are going to dump their pensions. Everyone
knows it is Delta and Northwest Airlines. They are in bankruptcy. They
are going to dump those pensions, affecting tens of thousands of people
working for those two airlines.
So no matter how strongly the Senator from Alaska feels about moving
his bill forward, we have a lot of other things to do that are
extremely important also. We understand the importance of the fighting
men and women in this country, and we have been stalwarts in working
with the majority in taking care of the Defense authorization bill,
which moved quite quickly, considering all of the other things we had
to do at the time
So I say that we will continue plowing through these amendments, but
we won't finish them, no matter if we stay here all night.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I believe the various proposals are on the
table in terms of how we might spend the next 24 hours. I will talk to
the Democratic leader and we can talk to our colleagues. What I would
suggest is that we turn the podium and the floor back over to the
managers and we proceed with the amendments. I think we have a couple
of amendments that are ready to go, and then we will have more to say
about the schedule.
As it exists right now, unless there is some other agreement, we will
be voting on the Family Prosperity Act at around 9:30 in the morning,
but we may come to some other agreement in our conversations, and we
will continue to vote and keep plowing ahead on this particular bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.

Amendment No. 4842

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order, and I call up
amendment No. 4842, and I ask unanimous consent that Senator Ensign be
added as a cosponsor and indicate that I am ready to vote, and I do not
call for a rollcall vote or the yeas and nays at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Arizona will suspend until we can hear from the
Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, from what I understand, if the Senator
would defer for a moment, we are checking one item pertaining to that
amendment.
I have another managers' package, Mr. President. I will present it
later. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President. I am not sure what the status is
now. Is the regular order to take the vote on amendment No. 4842?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That amendment is pending.
Mr. KYL. As I said, Mr. President, I am prepared to vote and will not
call for the yeas and nays.
Mr. STEVENS. I think someone should explain the amendment.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am happy to explain this amendment.
This amendment deals with royalty relief and requires that the
Secretary of the Interior put a price threshold on any royalty relief
in the future and confirms his authority to have done so in the past.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am told it has been cleared by
leadership on both sides, and under the circumstances I would ask for a
voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 4842) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider that action.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 4767, 4867, as Modified, 4757, and 4868, En Bloc

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if the Senator from Michigan would allow
me to, I will present a managers' package including amendment No. 4767,
for Senator Sessions, regarding body armor; amendment No. 4867, as
modified, for Senator Byrd, regarding Camp Perry; amendment No. 4757,
for Senator Santorum, regarding electromagnetic guns; and amendment No.
4868, for Senator Clinton, regarding families of the Guard and Reserve.
I send these amendments to the desk, having been cleared on both
sides, and I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be considered
en bloc, agreed to en bloc, and that the motions to reconsider be laid
upon the table en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments were agreed to, as follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 4767

(Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Army, up to $1,000,000 for Thermoplastic Composite Body
Armor research)

AMENDMENT NO. 4867, as modified

(Purpose: To provide that, of the amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by title II for the Army National Guard for operation and
maintenance, up to $7,500,000 may be available to renovate and repair
existing barracks at Camp Perry, Port Clinton, Ohio)

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 National Guard'', up to $7,500,000 may be
available to renovate and repair existing barracks at Camp
Perry, Port Clinton, Ohio.

AMENDMENT NO. 4757

(Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Army, up to $3,000,000 for Advanced Switching and Cooling
Concepts for Electromagnetic Gun Applications)

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 $3,000,000
may be available for Weapons and Munitions Advanced
Technology (PE #603004A) for Advanced Switching and Cooling
Concepts for Electromagnetic Gun Applications.

AMENDMENT NO. 4868

On page __, between lines __ and __, insert the following:
Sec. __. Of the amount appropriated by title __ under the
heading ``Operation-Maintenance Defense-Wide'', up to
$6,000,000 may be used for community-based programs

[[Page S8714]]

that provide mental health and readjustment assistance to
members of the National Guard and Reserve and their families
on their return from deployment.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for allowing me to go
ahead.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allen). The Senator from Michigan.

Amendment No. 4875

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on
behalf of myself, Senator Reed of Rhode Island, Senator Reid of Nevada,
Senator Leahy, and Senator Levin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Ms. T tabenow], for herself, Mr.
Reid, Mr. Reed, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Levin, proposes an
amendment numbered 4875.

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

amendment no. 4875

(Purpose: To increase by $200,000,000 the amount appropriated or
otherwise made available by title IX for the purpose of supplying
needed humanitarian assistance to the innocent Lebanese and Israeli
civilians who have been affected by the hostilities between Hezbollah
and the Government of Israel)

On page 238, after line 24, add the following:
Sec. 9012. (a) The amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by this title is hereby increased by $200,000,000.
(b) Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made available
by this title, as increased by subsection (a), $200,000,000
may be made available for humanitarian assistance, including
food, water, cooking fuel, shelter, medicine, and other
assistance, for the innocent Lebanese and Israeli civilians
who have been affected by the hostilities between Hezbollah
and the Government of Israel.
(c) The amount made available under subsection (a) is
designated as an emergency requirement 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.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to
provide $200 million for humanitarian assistance to the innocent
Lebanese and Israeli citizens who have been caught in the hostilities
between Hezbollah and Israel. The last 3 weeks have brought horrific
bloodshed on both sides of the Israeli and Lebanese border. The
Secretary of State has pledged $30 million in humanitarian aid. That is
a good first step, but considering the extent of the humanitarian
suffering in both Lebanon and Israel, it certainly is not enough.
On July 25, the U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon, Jeffrey Feltman, declared
a humanitarian emergency in Lebanon, and since that time the situation
for innocent people has worsened. The violence affects mothers and
fathers and sisters and brothers and children and whole communities on
both sides who need our assistance. Many innocent Americans from both
sides of the Israeli-Lebanon border have fled back to Michigan and to
other places in the country to escape the violence.
Thousands of people from Michigan, including buses of schoolchildren
who went to Israel for a trip and thousands of people who went to
Lebanon for summer vacation, for weddings, for funerals, for the
ability to visit grandpa and grandma to have them see the new
grandchildren, and family members who are sharing with each other
during the summer, as we all do, found themselves caught in a situation
that was certainly unexpected when Hezbollah attacked Israel. Many
citizens have been able to escape the violence, but unfortunately some
have been too poor to relocate or frankly don't want to leave their
homes. Too many innocent people, families with elderly relatives, small
children, have had a horrific front row seat to this conflict.
The Lebanese Government estimates there are 841 dead as of today,
3,243 injured, and over 700,000 Lebanese civilians--one-quarter of the
population of the country--have been displaced internally or to other
countries. The stories of innocent citizens have weighed heavily on me,
and I believe we must do something to help them. I know my colleagues
feel that way as well.
In Israel, it is the same. There are 51 dead, and more than 300
civilians have been wounded by rocket attacks. More than 500,000
Israeli citizens are spending a significant amount of time in bomb
shelters, their children terrified, with families trying to console
each other in constant fear, terrorized by Hezbollah rockets.
I believe, and I hope my colleagues will agree, that the U.S.
Government must assert its leadership at this critical point in time.
It must assert its leadership to stop the violence as soon as possible.
We must also make it clear that we will step forward as a country to
provide humanitarian aid at this critical time. So many people from
these two countries have friends and relatives here in America who are
desperately concerned about what is happening, who are asking us in
America to step up and to help.
Time is really of the essence. This is a critical time to both send
the dollars and send a message that we in America, with big hearts, are
willing to reach out and make a difference in terms of humanitarian aid
that is needed at this critical time. I hope my colleagues will join
with me in supporting this amendment.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from Michigan yield for a question?
Ms. STABENOW. I will be happy to.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I say through the Chair, I commend the
Senator from Michigan. I know she has a substantial Lebanese population
in her State. We have a substantial Lebanese population as well. They
are fine people, good people, who have made a success here in America,
proud of their heritage in Lebanon. They are following every day, every
minute the news that is coming back that reminds us of the suffering
that is taking place both in Israel and in Lebanon.
I am glad the Senator from Michigan has addressed this issue. I would
like to ask the Senator this. I have prepared a bill, with Senator
Sununu and Senator Feingold as cosponsors, which addresses another
aspect of this issue. There are many Lebanese who are currently
visiting in the United States or studying in the United States here
legally on visas, whose visas may expire at any time--tomorrow or in
the next week or month. Many of them are concerned about being forced
to return to a war zone, being asked to return to a place that may be
dangerous.
We know we evacuated American citizens out of Lebanon for fear for
their own safety and warned the others not to stay. We know many other
countries did the same.
I ask the Senator from Michigan, in addition to her excellent
amendment relative to humanitarian assistance for those both in Lebanon
and Israel, does she feel this temporary protected status which we
would offer on a temporary basis should be expedited as well so these
visitors will have a chance, if they want, to stay in the United States
in a safe place until the hostilities have ended?
Ms. STABENOW. I thank my friend and our leader from Illinois, and I
commend him for this legislation. In fact, I am proud to lend my name
to the legislation. I hope we move urgently to let people know that
they will not be required to go home to a place where we have been
evacuating thousands and thousands of people, sending ships in to
evacuate Americans.
I must say, we have had over 25,000 people from Michigan alone. We
have seen over 13,000 come back. Those who are still there are
desperately concerned about their family members, not being able to
hear from them. Often there is no phone, no computer. So the idea of
sending people here back into that violence makes absolutely no sense.
I commend the Senator. I hope part of what we would do before we
leave is to make it clear that we would not ask those innocent people
to return to a war zone.
Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will further yield for a question through
the Chair, I am sure the Senator is aware that we have done this
before. When people are visiting in the United States and hostilities
break out in their homeland, we have offered them a chance to stay here
on a temporary basis.
I might add, there are safeguards built into this process. If there
is anyone about whom we have a question as to whether or not they are
safe to remain in the United States, they will not receive this
temporary status.

[[Page S8715]]

That goes without saying. We want to make certain that the people who
remain here are truly those innocent travelers--students, members of
families--who are concerned about whether returning home could endanger
them or people who are here.
I ask the Senator from Michigan, if we are in a predicament where a
family is here visiting their relatives in Chicago or Detroit and they
have small children and they are from one of the parts of southern
Lebanon that has been under fire, does it not stand to reason that we
as a compassionate people would say to them: You can wait. Stay with
your family. We are not going to force you to leave. We have done this
in the past, and I hope the Senator from Michigan believes, as I do,
that it is reasonable to do it under these circumstances.
Ms. STABENOW. I say to my friend from Illinois, I could not agree
more. When you talk about people who come to visit, I think about the
group of families and children I met with on Saturday who actually came
home from Lebanon--escaped, essentially--but were talking about their
family members who are here. Bint Jbeil--that is the town in southern
Lebanon where they identified a Hezbollah stronghold--is also a place
that 15,000 people in Michigan call their hometown. People have come to
visit in the summer, to do the things that we all do: to go to the
family wedding, to visit grandpa and grandma; as older citizens, coming
to visit the grandchildren. There are all kinds of families who come
back and forth all the time. That we would have people that are here be
forced to go back to a war zone is really unthinkable.

I commend again our distinguished Senator from Illinois for his
leadership, focusing on this issue which is so critical. I hope we
would in fact bring that bill before the Senate for a vote or seek
unanimous consent before we leave. It is absolutely critical.
I hope, again, we are going to make it clear that for those, whether
they are in Lebanon or Israel, who have found themselves without any
prior warning to be in a situation where they are innocently caught in
the violence that has occurred, we, as Americans, need to do what we
know how to do, which is to reach out and to help and be a part of a
worldwide humanitarian effort. We need to address those issues--whether
it is food, clothing, shelter, crucial issues to so many people, tens
of thousands of people, probably hundreds of thousands, who find
themselves in a situation where they are looking around for someone to
help them.
America needs to be an important leader in lending our support. I am
hopeful this amendment of $200 million will be included as an emergency
spending category in this legislation.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a
cosponsor to the pending amendment by the Senator from Michigan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Ms. STABENOW. I am happy to yield.
Mr. DURBIN. I would like to finish the comments I made about this
temporary protected status so the record is clear for colleagues who
are following this important debate--and particularly our Lebanese-
American friends who are watching this, I am sure, with great interest,
because of the efforts of the Senator from Michigan--I would like to
put in the Record at this point that in 1990, Congress enacted the
Temporary Protected Status Statute. It grants that for 1 year nationals
from El Salvador who were residing in the United States the right to
stay. That was done of course because of hostilities.
After that, the Attorney General, administratively, in consultation
with the State Department, granted this as well to residents from the
following countries: Kuwait, Rwanda, Lebanon--this was during the
period from 1991 to March of 1993--Kosovo, the provinces of Serbia,
Bosnia, and Herzegovina, and Angola and Sierra Leon.
I might also say to the Senator from Michigan, what we are hoping to
add, as a separate bill that might pass independently or be part of
this bill, is consistent with what we are currently doing. We have
offered this temporary relief from deportation or temporary protected
status to those who are from the countries of Burundi, El Salvador,
Honduras, Liberia, Nicaragua, Somalia, and Sudan.
The reason I raise these issues is I want all my colleagues to know
what we are suggesting is entirely consistent with the values of
previous administrations of both political parties. It is an act of
compassion and humanitarianism which I think reflects well on the
United States, as does the amendment by the Senator from Michigan.
This may not be in the form of a question--it might not qualify for
``Jeopardy''--but I say to her: I commend her for her humanitarian
assistance, and I hope she will join us in helping to pass the other
amendment as a separate issue.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
Ms. STABENOW. Yes.
Mr. KENNEDY. I want to join, as the ranking member of the Immigration
and Refugee Committee, in support of what the Senator from Illinois has
stated. The idea of temporary status has been longstanding. We have
extended it in circumstances which do not even compare to the
conditions that we have seen now in Lebanon. So I have joined being a
cosponsor of that amendment.
It can be done administratively, as the Senator from Illinois and
others have pointed out. We certainly welcome that. If you look back in
the history of that, you will find that legislation in a number of
instances was introduced and then the administration moved, and moved
rapidly, when it was brought to their attention. That certainly ought
to be done now in the most expeditious way.
Second, I welcome the opportunity to join the Senator on the
humanitarian aid and assistance. We had an opportunity to talk to the
representatives of the NGOs on several different occasions over the
period of these past days, as well as with the representatives of the
Israeli Government. There is a process now to try to extend
humanitarian aid and assistance--both from the point of view of the
Israeli Government but also in support of U.N. agencies and
nongovernmental agencies.
There are supplies that are in the area that need to get through. I
think that needs focus and attention and support by all of the
interested parties. But what we are basically talking about with the
Defense appropriations is hopefully there will be a meaningful cease-
fire that will take place. What the Senator from Michigan is talking
about now is to reflect the concern for Lebanon and what has happened
to that country, reflecting the fact that we here ought to extend
humanitarian aid and assistance.
I commend her. I think this makes a great deal of sense. I hope the
amendment will be accepted.
Ms. STABENOW. Reclaiming my time, Mr. President, and I thank my
colleague from Massachusetts very much, let me also just say when it
comes to the temporary protected status, the legislation the Senator
from Illinois has spoken about, I would add one more occasion recently
in which we moved in this direction.
On another piece of legislation, Senator Levin and I offered an
amendment that was accepted by this Senate to address the concerns of
those from Iraq who are in the Chaldean community, who are Christians
in Iraq, who are truly the true minority religious community in Iraq,
and concerns that those who are here, who are Chaldeans, do not have to
be returned now that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power because they
in fact continue to find themselves in a situation of religious
persecution.
So we have passed that in another bill, supported by colleagues on
both sides of the aisle, which continues the whole premise of making
sure that while those who are here on a temporary legal status would
not be required to return if, in fact, their lives are in jeopardy; if
we are putting them back into a danger zone.
I wholeheartedly agree and appreciate what the Senator from Illinois
has done.
I once again ask colleagues--I see my friend from New Hampshire on
the floor so I will bring this to a close. I am hopeful that we will
come together and that we could unanimously move

[[Page S8716]]

forward in this effort to provide humanitarian assistance to those in
Lebanon and in Israel who are innocent citizens, caught in the middle
of the violence that has occurred.
Many, many people have suffered. I hope we will send a strong message
that we will stand with those who are working very hard to bring
humanitarian assistance.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Landrieu of Louisiana be added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 2724.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I very much appreciate what the Senator
from Michigan is trying to do with the amendment. We have seen vivid
images on television that depict the impact and destruction of the
infrastructure--bridges, powerplants, the airport in Beirut, and, of
course, the huge civilian toll that has been taken in Lebanon.
We all understand there is going to be a real need, and an immediate
need, for humanitarian assistance. The State Department has taken steps
to provide resources and assistance both in funding and material in the
pipeline. But there is no question that additional funding is going to
be needed in order to help the Government of Lebanon and the people of
Lebanon rebuild and establish normalcy once again, in addition to all
the assistance and work that will be done to ensure not just a strong
government but compliance with U.N. resolutions, the demilitarization
of Hezbollah, which is going to be so important to that country.
The Senator from Michigan, the Senator from Illinois, and others have
also worked with the State Department to ensure that there are
humanitarian corridors available to get assistance to those towns and
villages in southern Lebanon that have been most heavily hit in terms
of civilian casualties.
We need resources and funding. We need material, but we also need
those humanitarian corridors.
I want to specifically speak a little bit about the protective status
legislation that I cosponsored with Senator Durbin and others. This is
essential to send the right message to the Lebanese people and to the
world that we are not going to send immigrants back into a war zone
simply because their immigration status has changed. This is a
temporary measure but an absolutely crucial one. It is the right thing
to do while the fighting in southern Lebanon rages on.
We have funding needs, we have needs for humanitarian corridors, we
have needs for protective status. All of these are essential if we are
going to put Lebanon on the path to a peaceful resolution to their
situation.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the bilateral assistance account has $4
billion in it. The Economic Support Fund has $12 billion in it. I am
talking about in the fiscal year we are in right now. There is no shown
need for additional moneys to assist the State Department. The State
Department has an enormous amount of funds set aside for such cases. It
has an international disaster and famine assistance account, the
emergency refugees and migration assistance account. We have no reports
at all that the administration and all of the people involved in all of
these activities have run out of money. Even if they did, if they are
close to that, the foreign assistance bill will be before us in
September that deals with these various sums.
The Stabenow amendment causes the bill to violate its 302(b)
allocation by providing $200 million, if the emergency designation is
not removed.
This is a rule XVI problem. This is not authorized. There are
specific accounts already authorized, as I have said. There is existing
for this fiscal year alone $6 billion involved in the area which could
provide assistance.
I raise a point of order that this violates rule XVI.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained, and the
amendment falls
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Alaska if he
would join us in working through those accounts to make sure that the
dollars are, in fact, available. We understand that an amount has been
identified of possibly $300 million needed, at least by the State
Department. It is my understanding about $100 million has been pledged
by other countries, leaving a $200 million gap.
I ask the chairman if he would work with myself and others who care
deeply about this to identify specific funds to be able to go toward
this desperately needed humanitarian effort.
Mr. STEVENS. I would be happy to author along with the Senator a
sense-of-the-Senate resolution that the administration should proceed
as rapidly as possible to use the funds which are in existence now and,
if they are not sufficient, to submit a request for those funds.
I am not against the funds, but I believe that bill is coming along.
The Appropriations Committee is coming along. It has a substantial
amount of money in it this year. I don't see the need to add it to this
bill.
If this amendment were agreed to, it would mean that we would have to
confer with even another committee when we get back in September in
order to satisfy the necessity to get a conference report to the
President in time.
I reluctantly raised this point of order.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment
offered by the Senator from Michigan to provide $200 million in
emergency humanitarian and reconstruction aid to Lebanese and Israeli
civilians affected by the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel.
I commend Senator Stabenow for this amendment. If this conflict and
the terrible loss of innocent lives and destruction of civilian
infrastructure in Lebanon and Israel had occurred three months ago when
we were debating the fiscal year 2006 emergency supplemental, there
would have been no question that we would have included this aid.
To date, the U.S. Government has pledged $30 million in humanitarian
aid to Lebanon. While welcome, this is only a tiny fraction of what is
needed.
Over 900,000 Lebanese citizens--one in five--have fled their homes
and are either displaced in Lebanon, living in schools and public
buildings, or are refugees in Syria. Estimates are that 200,000 people
are in immediate need of humanitarian aid including food, water, fuel,
shelter and medical care.
Basic goods are in short supply and hospitals in the south of Lebanon
are facing electricity and water shortages. Just getting access to
people who are in the greatest need has been a difficult challenge for
relief organizations.
The United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross
have been doing their best to evacuate people and deliver medical
supplies, shelter materials, and food to affected people in southern
Lebanon.
Current estimates are that at least $300 million will be needed in
the next 3 months to meet their basic needs.
The international community has pledged assistance, but if past
practice is any indicator, pledges often do not turn into actual
contributions.
This additional $200 million in humanitarian and reconstruction aid
would demonstrate the commitment of the United States to help the
innocent victims on both sides of this conflict.
The funds should be used by USAID's Office of Foreign Disaster
Assistance and the State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees
and Migration, which have already depleted much of their available
funds and without this amendment will be forced to rob funds that are
needed to respond to other humanitarian disasters--in Darfur, the Horn
of Africa, and elsewhere.
I thank the Senator from Michigan for offering this amendment and
urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.

Amendment No. 4863

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I call up my amendment, which is at the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The assistant
legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] proposes an
amendment numbered 4863.

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

[[Page S8717]]

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To make available from Operation and Maintenance, Navy, up to
an additional $3,000,000 to fund improvements to physical security at
Navy recruiting stations and to improve data security)

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, Navy'', up to $3,000,000 may be available to the
Navy to fund improvements to physical security at Navy
recruiting stations and to improve data security.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, this amendment is in response to some
breaches in our security as they relate to critical information about
recruits that we are seeking in the Armed Services of the United
States.
In May of this year, we learned about the security breach at the
Veterans' Administration that jeopardized the personnel records of 26.5
million of our Nation's veterans. Fortunately, the stolen laptop that
contained this information was recovered, but we know this is not an
isolated incident.
In June of this year, nearly 28,000 Navy sailors and their family
members had their information compromised when it was posted on a Web
site. Information, including their names, Social Security numbers, and
birth dates was on line for anyone to see and use for any nefarious
purpose. Millions of people had access to the most sensitive personal
information, and the long-term damage that it may have caused cannot be
measured.
But the security failures don't end there. Just last week, we learned
that in my home State of New Jersey, two laptop computers were stolen
from Navy officers. These computers contained the personal information
of some 31,000 Navy recruiters and applicants. The theft jeopardized
potentially the security of thousands of New Jerseyans, including high
school students who were actively being recruited.
Our country has some very strict laws to protect minors, but all of
these efforts are meaningless if criminals can easily get their hands
on the names and personal information of our young people by simply
snatching a laptop.
Senator Lautenberg and I wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Navy
requesting a full accounting on how the theft occurred and the action
the Navy has taken in response. The Navy came to my office and briefed
us about where they are in this process. They are having a full
investigation. But during the course of that discussion, it became
rather clear to me that, in fact, they need assistance in trying to
improve the physical security at these Navy recruiting stations, and
also to improve data security.
In view of what we learned during the course of these discussions, we
come to the Senate floor because we believe that this is something that
is incredibly important. If you are going to recruit people from our
communities and say come join the Armed Services of the United States,
in this case the Navy, and we ask for critical information from them as
they make a decision to join, or to be considered and to be further
recruited, we want people to have confidence that the critical
information they give about themselves--Social Security number, birth
date, and other critical information--is ultimately secure, that they
can feel secure that the information will be secure.
It is very important when we see these breaches that have taken place
to, in fact, move forward in a way that helps us give people a sense of
satisfaction that when they go to a recruiting entity, regardless of
which branch of the service it is, that, in fact, the information they
give will be secure.
We know identity theft jeopardizes one's financial future, personal
safety, and constitutional right to privacy, and allowing it to happen
to men and women who seek to serve in our military is absolutely
unacceptable
We believe our amendment, which basically makes available from the
operation and maintenance of the Navy, up to an additional $3 million
to fund improvements to physical security at Navy recruiting stations
and to improve data security is, in fact, critically important. We
specifically note the Navy because it was in June and July of this year
that we have seen two breaches of security.
I think it is important to ensure that at a time in which we are
already pretty dramatically stretched in terms of the Armed Forces of
the United States, and we are asking Americans to consider joining the
services, we are going to provide them a guarantee that their personal
information, critical personal information, does not become public
information, information that can ultimately dramatically affect them.
This amendment basically would move in the direction of trying to
ensure that these Navy recruiting sites where this information is often
kept--because it is the first source of where the recruiting goes on
between, in this case, the Navy and those in the communities in which
the stations find themselves--can be secure so that we do not
experience what we experienced in New Jersey last week.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we are prepared to accept the amendment.
If the Senator wants the yeas and nays, he is entitled to them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator withdraw the request?
Mr. REID. No.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is now a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I think we have to have some time to
notify people when the vote is going to take place. I ask the
cloakrooms to tell us what time to have this amendment voted on.
There have been 114 amendments filed on this bill so far. We have
taken care of five of them in the managers' packages and several of
them in the form of colloquies that have satisfied the issue raised by
the amendments. Seven have been voted on or have been withdrawn because
of a point of order under rule XVI.
I believe we have about 20 active amendments still pending before us.
I still say it is possible that we could finish tonight, if we wanted
to. It is a leadership decision. I am not the leader. If the leaders
make the decision that we will not finish tonight, that is fine for me.
But for now, we are prepared to accept this amendment. I have no debate
against it.
I ask that the rollcall commence at any time the leader says it
should be. I would say we ought to have at least 10 minutes of debate
before we vote on it. I know some people are having dinner and will
have to come back.
I ask unanimous consent that the vote commence at 8 o'clock.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the only thing I ask is that the
distinguished manager of the bill amend his consent to indicate there
will be no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I agree to that, and I make that request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. 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. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Any other pending amendments?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The only amendment pending is 4863, the
Menendez amendment, which is, under the previous order, to be voted on
at 8 o'clock.
The hour of 8 p.m. having arrived, under the previous order, the
question is on agreeing to the Menendez amendment. The yeas and nays
have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the
Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) and the Senator from Mississippi
(Mr. Lott).
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 96, nays 0, as follows:

[[Page S8718]]

[Rollcall Vote No. 228 Leg.]

YEAS--96

Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeMint
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
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
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--4

Baucus
Domenici
Lieberman
Lott
The amendment (No. 4863) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on
the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Waste Management on Military Bases

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I request to engage Senator Alexander in a
colloquy about the costs and methods of managing waste on military
bases. I ask my friend if he shares my conclusion that it would be
prudent for the Department of Defense to consider a variety of options
when dealing with municipal solid waste on military bases. Waste
removal currently consumes significant sums of defense spending, and
significant cost savings from improved waste management could be
applied to critical defense needs. Military bases on islands, where
waste is usually removed by barge, suffer acute cost and space
challenges.
New technologies are giving the Department of Defense better waste
management options on military bases and creating new choices to re-use
and recycle waste. Currently there is a development project under
consideration at Fort Campbell that uses a continuous flow process that
recycles 90 percent of municipal solid waste (MSW) without any
separation prior to processing. In fact, testing at Fort Campbell in
2001 and Fort Benning 2002 demonstrated the feasibility of the
technology and that the process and products made from the derivative
from this waste processing technique were safe and highly effective as
a soil application at DoD test and training ranges. It is my hope that
the Department of Defense will consider this process of managing
municipal solid waste as it looks to streamline its operational costs.
Does my friend from Tennessee agree with this assessment that the
Department of Defense should consider this as an option for waste
management?
Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank my friend from Tennessee and agree that the
Department of Defense should consider all options when managing
municipal waste on military bases and facilities. The waste management
testing that my colleague from Tennessee references suggests that waste
management costs for military bases can be reduced over the long term
and that landfill space needs can be greatly reduced. The technology in
question addresses two major needs faced by our military bases.
First, all bases produce large amounts of municipal solid waste,
which is sent to a declining number of landfills. Executive Order 13101
directs the Department of Defense to develop targets for landfill
diversion and directs the Department of Defense, along with other
Federal agencies, to take the lead in pollution prevention efforts.
The second need is military test and training ranges, which are often
severely depleted of vegetation. The resulting soil erosion and
increase of dust in the air impairs our ability to rapidly train
military forces at these facilities, and the application of sterilized,
processed waste to vegetation depleted training grounds can reduce
erosion and airborne dust. This technology could solve both problems,
and I agree with my friend from Tennessee that this process should be
considered by the Department of Defense when examining base waste
management and overall facilities operations.

northern california institute for research and education

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, Senator Feinstein and I would like to
thank the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Hawaii for their
outstanding leadership on this bill and especially for their dedication
to ensuring that our Nation's combat-wounded service members receive
the best possible services and care.
I would like to ask both Senators to work with us during conference
negotiations in support of funding for the Northern California
Institute of Research and Education, NCIRE.
This funding will support the work of the Neuroscience Center of
Excellence at the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center--a
state-of-the-art facility dedicated to the diagnosis, prevention, and
management of neurodegenerative diseases, brain and spinal cord
injuries, and neuropsychiatric disorders such as post-traumatic stress
disorder, PTSD, that occur in U.S. warfighters.
I had the privilege of recently visiting NCIRE. Let me tell you, the
work they are doing is cutting-edge and absolutely vital to our
Nation's warfighters and veterans. They are developing new ways to
diagnose and treat PTSD in an effort to ensure that our more recent
veterans do not share the same fate as so many of those from earlier
conflicts, including Vietnam. I had the honor of meeting a Vietnam
veteran during my visit to NCIRE who told me that he just got his life
back because of NCIRE's work. This is a man who served his country and
came back to spend much of his time jobless, homeless, and without
hope. NCIRE is working to make sure that our Iraq and Afghanistan
veterans do not share the same fate.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I share my home State colleague's support for the
great work the Northern California Institute for Research and Education
is doing on behalf of our veterans. NCIRE was founded in 1988 to
administer research at the San Francisco VA Medical Center. It is the
largest of over 90 nonprofit research institutes associated with the
VA. It is also designated as a Department of Defense Center of
Excellence in Neuroscience and Neuroimaging for its work benefiting our
more recent veterans, including gulf war illness, post-traumatic stress
disorder, neurotrauma and closed-head injury resulting from combat.
The Neuroscience Center of Excellence is the VA's premier research
instrument for neurodegenerative diseases and brings together VA and
Defense resources to conduct medical research in the areas most
important for our active military and veterans. Research in
neuroimaging, neuropsychiatry and basic neuroscience is targeted at
diagnosis, prevention and management of neurodegenerative diseases,
brain and spinal cord injuries, and neuropsychiatric disorders such as
post-traumatic stress disorder.
In the near future, NCIRE will be working to enhance high-resolution
imaging strategies to predict and prevent combat-related damage to the
brain and the nervous system, expand neuropsychiatric studies into
PTSD, and understanding of vulnerabilities to PTSD and its effect on
combat performance.
I would note that the House version of this bill provides $4 million
for the Neuroscience Center of Excellence's research in neuroimaging
and neuropsychiatric trauma in U.S. warfighters. I understand the
chairman's concern about the growth of health research spending in this
bill, but would point out that this facility is designated as a DoD
Center of Excellence.
I look forward to working with Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye as
we go to conference. It is my hope that we can work together to support
this important funding provided in the House version of this bill.
Mr. STEVENS. I share my colleagues' interest in ensuring that our
active military and veterans receive the best health care possible. I
am hapy to work with them as we move this legislation through
conference.
Mr. INOUYE. I concur with the chairman. The Senators have my
commitment that I will work with them on

[[Page S8719]]

this important funding during conference negotiations.

KC-135 Tanker Replacement Program

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the subject of
the Air Force's KC-135 Tanker Replacement Program. Like my colleagues,
one of my top priorities is to keep our Nation safe, and I am working
to ensure that our servicemembers have the best equipment possible. Our
Air Force has a fleet of aging refueling tankers that are currently
experiencing problems. I simply do not believe we can wait 35 years to
replace them.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I agree with the senior Senator from
Alabama. Our warfighters need air refueling tankers to ensure that the
United States can keep both our military and humanitarian commitments
abroad. It is critical that our armed forces have the equipment to
respond quickly and in force. However, the Defense Subcommittee's
allocation was $9 billion less than the President's budget. Tough
choices had to be made. The Tanker Replacement Program was deemed to
have sufficient funds from previous years, given the schedule delays
that will impact fiscal year 2007.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, as we move towards conference on the
fiscal year 2007 Defense appropriations and authorization bills, it has
come to my attention that the authorizers and appropriators may be
receiving differing information regarding the necessity for funding in
fiscal year 2007. I have a letter from the Air Force's Deputy for
Budget dated August 2, 2006, stating that the Air Force needs a minimum
of $70 million in research, development, test & evaluation funds for
fiscal year 2007 in addition to the funds remaining in the tanker
transfer fund. I want to make certain that both the Armed Services
Committee and Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations are receiving
identical funding information from the Air Force. To that end, I am
committed to working with my colleagues to ensure that we are all
receiving the same information and have the same understanding of the
needs for this program to move forward.
Further, Mr. President, while I understand that the subcommittee's
recommendation to reduce funding was based upon their belief that there
are sufficient funds remaining in fiscal year 2005 and 2006 to support
systems development and demonstration, the Air Force has stated that
they would need at least $70 million in fiscal year 2007 to move
forward and award a contract in 2007. I greatly appreciate Chairman
Stevens' assistance with this program and look forward to continuing to
work with him to replace our aging tanker fleet.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I whole-heartedly agree with my colleague
from Alabama that it is essential that we all have the same
understanding of the requirements for this program. In March 2006, the
Air Force indicated that, among other things, tanker replacement monies
in fiscal year 2007 would be ``early to need.'' Thus, by the Air
Force's own estimate, there is no need for additional funds for fiscal
year 2007. I do support the Department of Defense's interest in
recapitalizing its fleet of aging tankers. However, we need to ensure
that the Air Force is committed to full and open competition on the
program. To protect taxpayers' interests and national security, the Air
Force must exercise a competition that is straightforward and
traditional. In particular, the Air Force should rigorously follow an
acquisition process based on established legal and regulatory
guidelines, specifically setting aside any factors from its procurement
evaluation that may improperly eliminate competition before bids are
actually submitted. Our Armed Forces need the best tanker solution
possible, and that means that any source with a reliable, high quality
product that can provide aerial refueling services in a timely and
cost-effective fashion, should be considered.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleagues from
Alaska and Arizona.

vaccine health care centers

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking member for
taking the time to discuss an issue that is very important to me and to
the well-being of our military personnel.
As both of you well know, the military today relies on vaccines as an
element of force protection. In order to keep our military healthy and
to protect against biological threats, we require personnel to be
vaccinated. These vaccines are generally considered to be ``safe'', but
they are still drugs that are put into the body. As such, there are
always a small number of personnel that have adverse reactions.
These personnel are our responsibility. While serving their Nation,
they are required to take these vaccinations. If they are made ill by
that requirement, we must give them the best possible care, just as we
do for those who lose a limb serving the Nation.
In 2001, Congress recognized that we needed to develop specific
expertise for treating these rare and complicated cases and created the
vaccine health care centers. Last year, the vaccine health care centers
treated 708 personnel. That is a caseload increase of 83 percent since
they began operations in 2001.
Today, the centers are unique in the Nation for their expertise in
adult vaccinations and adverse reactions to them. They are a critical
component of force protection, assuring our military personnel that if
they become ill from a mandatory vaccination, they will get adequate
care.
Mr. STEVENS. I want to thank my colleague for again raising this
important issue. He has been a consistent advocate of our need to care
for those injured by mandatory vaccines. The vaccine health care
centers are a vital component in regular force protection. The centers
help military medical providers administer vaccines in the most
effective and safe manner and they provide expert care for that small
number of personnel who have complicated adverse reactions.
Mr. BIDEN. I want to also thank my colleague for including $2 million
specifically for the vaccine health care centers in the fiscal year
2007 Defense appropriations bill. I believe it was the committee's
intent, in a difficult budget year, to show their support for keeping
the centers intact pending the GAO report expected in mid-fiscal year
2007. Is that correct?
Mr. STEVENS. Yes. In the past, the centers have been funded with
supplemental funds. Last year we provided a portion of the funding in
the regular budget and sought to show our support again this year. We
understand that in the past, the Army has used supplemental funds to
help cover the annual operating costs of all the centers, which is
approximately $6 million. This year, we sought to provide some
assistance by designating a portion of the regular budget in fiscal
year 2007, $2 million, for the vaccine health care centers. It is not
meant to be a cap on what can and should be spent.
Mr. BIDEN. I thank my colleague. It was also my understanding, based
on discussions during consideration of the last supplemental in the
spring, that the military was fully committed to retaining the complete
capabilities of the vaccine health care centers in their current form
pending the completion of the GAO report.
As my friend knows, Congress would also like to see a plan from the
Department of Defense for meeting this need. On this year's Defense
authorization bill, the Senate agreed unanimous to my amendment
prohibiting the restructuring or downsizing of the current vaccine
health care centers until the Department provides Congress with a
report outlining their plans to meet the needs of our military
personnel for pre- and post-vaccination care over the next decade.
Mr. STEVENS. Again, I agree with my colleague. I understand the
Department of the Army has covered the costs of operating all these
centers, even though some are located on Air Force and Navy
installations. It is my hope that the Assistant Secretary for Health
Affairs for the Office of the Secretary of Defense can provide that
plan and look at how to support and maintain the vaccine health care
centers in a joint setting. It was the committee's understanding that
these centers would be fully funded and kept intact pending the report
from GAO.
Mr. BIDEN. I would ask both of my friends if they are committed to
ensuring that happens?
Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
Mr. INOUYE. Yes.
Mr. BIDEN. I thank my colleagues for their assistance. I hope that
next year we will have a comprehensive and

[[Page S8720]]

useful GAO report and a DOD report that will help us ensure that we are
meeting the unique force protection needs created by mandatory
vaccinations in the best possible way. Until then, I greatly appreciate
their commitment to ensuring that we do not lose the capabilities that
have been established to date and are regularly utilized by our
military personnel.

funds for improving polygraphs

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I engage my colleague the distinguished
chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in a short colloquy
to clarify the intended use of funds provided in the fiscal year 2007
Department of Defense appropriations bills.
Mr. STEVENS. I would be glad to engage in a colloquy with my friend
the distinguished senior Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the current standard in polygraph use is
woefully inadequate. Last year's Defense appropriations bill included
funding for a project that would improve the use of polygraphs within
the Department of Defense. The project will ultimately benefit all
institutions that use polygraphs to assure security. The project
research will lead to the polygraph becoming a fully standardized,
machine administered, scientifically based test, thus getting rid of
the flaws that are inherent in the current use of polygraphs. Boise
State University in my home State of Idaho is well qualified to do this
research and develop the standardized technology. It is my hope that
the funds that were appropriated in fiscal year 2006 will be made
available soon and that the funds in the fiscal year 2007 Senate
defense appropriations bill will be available to continue the work that
will begin with last year's appropriation. Is it the expectation of the
distinguished Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee that
the Department of Defense make last year's funds available as soon as
possible to assure that this important research goes forward and that
fiscal year 2007 funds be used to continue this important work?
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator raises a valid concern. It is this
chairman's expectation that the funds provided by our subcommittee in
last year's bill be made available quickly by the Department of Defense
and that this important research be conducted in an expedient manner.
Mr. CRAIG. I thank my colleague from Alaska for clarifying this point
and for his interest in this issue.

LUPUS

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I wish to speak about lupus, a chronic
and devastating autoimmune disease which affects a growing number of
military personnel, their family members, and veterans. I would like to
have this disease included in the Department of Defense Peer Reviewed
Medical Research Program. I am glad to see my friend Chairman Stevens
is on the floor to discuss this issue with me.
Mr. STEVENS. I am happy to discuss this program with the Senator from
New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. For the past 2 years, Congress has included lupus as one
of the diseases eligible for research funding through this highly
regarded DOD program. This program has proven effective in filling
essential gaps in research efforts funded by private industry and other
public sources.
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from New York is correct. This disease has
been listed in the program by the Congress for priority consideration.
Mr. SCHUMER. This disease predominantly affects women and African
Americans, which are a growing demographic in today's military. This
debilitating disease damages vital organs and can cause disability or
even death. Despite its prevalence and seriousness, lupus is
notoriously difficult to diagnose, and no new treatments have been
developed in more than 25 years.
Chairman Stevens, because of the expert research that is conducted in
this area through the Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program, I hope
you agree, and support adding lupus to the list of diseases eligible
for funding under the DOD Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program.
Mr. STEVENS. I assure the Senator from New York I will do everything
I can in conference to add this disease to the peer reviewed medical
research list for consideration by the Department of Defense.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the chairman for his commitment.

TISSUE ENGINEERING RESEARCH

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I wish to engage in a brief colloquy
with the distinguished chairman of the Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee regarding innovative research being used to treat our
soldiers.
Tissue engineers in the U.S. are applying principles of biology and
engineering to grow human replacement tissue for virtually every part
of the human body--tissues that will replace those damaged by disease
or injury. Recently, enormous national attention was focused on the
creation of fully functioning tissue-engineered bladders--bladders
grown in the laboratory and implanted in children with spina bifida.
One day, tissue engineering may eliminate the need for organ
transplantation. In the near term, this exciting field of biomedicine
has developed several products for immediate use, some of which have
important implications for wounded military personnel.
Novel biological scaffolds for wound treatment are being developed to
eliminate the need for skin grafts. The work is based upon extensive
preliminary research that shows biologic scaffolds from extracellular
matrix--a component of virtually every tissue--can promote tissue
growth that very closely resembles tissue regeneration. The scaffolds,
called urinary bladder matrix, or UMB, have two ``layers'': a membrane
surface upon which skin cells may grow and differentiate quite readily
and a lower surface that may integrate well into the underlying wound
bed. This UBM scaffold represents new hope for soldiers who have a need
for skin grafts.
A significant amount of this work is being done at the Pittsburgh
Tissue Engineering Initiative's Soldier Treatment and Regeneration
Consortium, STRaC. The potential benefits of this research are
boundless, and I am proud to have consistently supported STRaC and its
mission. I thank the distinguished Chairman for his past support of
this research.
As part of this initiative, scientists are working to develop a
tissue-engineered ear utilizing a patient's own cells to grow a
replacement ear for one severely damaged in combat in Iraq. In the
first phase of this 12-month project a small biopsy of healthy tissue
will be taken and, using known techniques, scientists will isolate
cells and from them millions of additional cells will be grown in the
lab. A specially modified scaffold prepared from an FDA-approved
implant will be ``seeded'' with these cells. After biocompatibility and
long-term durability of this implant are established in an animal
model, a biopsy will be taken from a soldier currently awaiting
treatment at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio. Cartilage and
skin cells will be used to create a patient-specific ear replacement.
These techniques are expected to be useful in replacement therapies for
numerous other body parts for our soldiers returning from Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Mr. President, I will ask unanimous consent that a letter be printed
in the Record from COL John Holcomb, Commander of the U.S. Army
Institute of Surgical Research at Fort Sam Houston, TX, that expresses
his views on this line of research. Colonel Holcomb's facility is the
primary receiving site for all significantly burned casualties from the
war in Iraq. He stipulates that integrating the opportunities currently
underway in regenerative medicine are important for both short- and
long-term advances for military medical research and clinical care.
Mr. President, I ask the distinguished chairman of the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee to comment on the research that I have
described and which the Army has been using to the benefit of our men
and women returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the research the Senator from
Pennsylvania is describing is exactly the reason that the committee
provided $45 million for the Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program. We
need to get innovative treatments to our men and women in uniform as
quickly as possible. I urge the Department to give the tissue
engineering research proposal described by the Senator from
Pennsylvania full and fair consideration.

[[Page S8721]]

Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent that the letter to which I
referred be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Department of the Army, U.S. Army Institute of Surgical
Research,
Fort Sam Houston, TX, July 24, 2006.
Dr. Alan Russell,
Director, Institute for Regenerative Medicine, University of
Pittsburgh School of Medicine Pittsburgh, PA.
Dear Dr. Russell: I am writing to share with you our
continuing interests in your work on Regenerative Medicine. I
am the Commander of the US Army Institute of Surgical
Research at Fort Sam Houston, Texas and the Army Surgeons
General Trauma Consultant. I have been in Iraq 8 times since
the war started and my facility is the primary receiving site
for all significantly burned casualties from the war. Our
experiences have convinced us that partnering with your
world-class research programs and integrating the
opportunities currently underway in regenerative medicine are
important for both short and long term advances for military
medical research and clinical care.
Areas of particular interest for us continue to be
hemostasis, resuscitation, bone tissue injury) soft tissue
injury, trauma informatics and clinical trauma research.
These six areas all focus on saving soldiers' lives and
returning them back to duty as soon as possible.
Collaboration with you continues to help us in our medical
mission to serve these soldiers.
I sincerely look forward to our continuing this important
partnership and using the technologies available today and in
the future so we can meet these increasingly complex
challenges to better serve our warfighters.
Sincerely,
John B. Holcomb,
Colonel, U.S. Army, Chief, Trauma Division, Trauma
Consultant for the Surgeon General Commanding.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I have an amendment that calls for a
Pentagon report on several aspects of the assistance we provide to the
widows and children of our fallen soldiers. In his second inaugural
address, President Lincoln said, ``let us strive on to finish the work
we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall
have borne the battle and for his widow, and his orphan.'' That simple,
eloquent phrase has become the motto of the Department of Veterans
Affairs, but it certainly applies to programs run by the Department of
Defense as well. Today we are considering the bill that funds the
Department of Defense, including the offices that provide benefits to
the survivors of our servicemen and servicewomen killed in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
I have recently seen and heard about enough instances of wives who
are having problems getting the survivor benefits they should be
getting, of delays in implementing a new health care benefit for the
children of servicemembers who died on active duty, and similar
problems that I think the Congress should hear from the Pentagon about
them. In 18 months the regulations for this new health care program are
not finished. That is costing a widow money or it is keeping her
children from the health care they need. Or both. I would like to hear
from the Pentagon what is taking so long.
A number of problems and delays I have heard or read of in the
various benefit programs may be attributable to a simple lack of enough
personnel to process forms, take calls, and get payments out. I want to
hear from the Pentagon if there are enough people on board to get this
important job done so that the families of our fallen soldiers do not
suffer any more hardship than they already must.
I do commend the Defense Department for setting up a new call center
that is designed to help survivors navigate the process through which
they sign up for and receive these various benefits. I also want to
know how that's working. For these reasons I am introducing an
amendment that asks the Secretary of Defense to report back to Congress
on these questions. It is fine for us to establish benefit programs but
just as important to keep an eye on them and make sure they work, and
without delays. I hope this amendment will be adopted, and I ask my
colleagues for their support.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would like to discuss the Kennedy
amendment, which passed the Senate earlier today by unanimous consent.
This amendment would require that the Director of National Intelligence
submit to Congress a new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's
security situation. At the outset, I would note that Senators Roberts
and Stevens should both be applauded for their efforts to improve the
original Kennedy amendment.
That said, I would like to make clear my understanding of the Kennedy
amendment, as modified. I believe that the Kennedy amendment, if
enacted, should be interpreted to mean that the intelligence community
should undertake an objective analysis of the situation in Iraq. The
original Kennedy amendment included questions that appeared to drive
toward predetermined answers, thus potentially distorting the
intelligence value of the report. I believe the administration should
take notice of the changes that were made to the original Kennedy
amendment language and recognize that these changes, which moved the
amendment toward requesting information in a more objective manner,
were the reason the amendment was able to pass by unanimous consent.
I share the majority leader's concern that those in the intelligence
community should take the time they need to conduct a dispassionate
analysis of the Iraq situation and not be swayed by the political
context within which this amendment was initially offered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is
considering the Defense Department appropriations bill. As many of my
colleagues have noted, this bill provides essential funding for the men
and women in uniform who are serving bravely around the world. It
provides a well-deserved 2.2 percent across-the-board pay raise for our
military personnel, along with funding money to help equip and resupply
our military, which has been strained to the breaking point by the war
in Iraq.
Before I discuss what I believe are the broader implications of this
bill, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the men and women
in uniform and their families, who are bearing the heaviest burden of
our Nation's military operations around the world. The brave men and
women who make up our military are serving in desolate, harsh, and too
often deadly conditions throughout the world, and their
professionalism, dedication, and honor are appreciated by all of us in
this body.
I specifically commend the men and women of Wisconsin who are
currently serving, or have served, in the military. Wisconsin has lost
58 of its sons and daughters in Iraq, and 4 in Afghanistan. I am proud
of the service and accomplishments of the citizens of my State and am
grateful for their contributions to our country.
The greatest tribute we could pay to the men and women of the Armed
Forces, however, would be to create a national security policy that
addresses the most serious threats to our country, and that makes all
of us more secure. Unfortunately, the administration has failed to
provide such a policy--in fact, its Iraq policy has actually undermined
our national security--and this appropriations bill fails to put things
right. While this bill provides necessary and valuable support for our
military and their families, this bill does not address the fundamental
fact that members of the military are being asked to put their lives on
the line in Iraq for a policy that has not succeeded, has very little
chance of succeeding, and does not appear to have any end in sight. And
let's not forget that the American taxpayer is footing the enormous and
growing bill for this unsuccessful policy.
Much of the funding in the bill is associated with the fallout of
this administration's failed policy in Iraq, and with a military that
has been strained by the current pace of operations in Iraq, to the
point where it has a diminished readiness level to respond to other
crises. And we have no shortage of other potential crises these days.
For anyone following developments in Iraq, it is abundantly clear
that this administration is pursuing a flawed and damaging strategy
there. It is clear that the presence of 130,000 U.S. military personnel
in Iraq is not contributing to political stability in Iraq or quelling
sectarian violence; that the administration has failed to articulate a
policy or strategy for establishing long-term stability in Iraq; and
that

[[Page S8722]]

the administration failed to take into account what an unending and
devastating commitment in Iraq could do to our military capability and
to our national security.
Sectarian violence is on the rise. Security is not getting better in
Iraq. The United Nations has reported that an average of 100 civilians
were killed per day in June. The U.N. just released a report suggesting
that over 6,000 civilians have died over the past 2 months. And the
administration seems unable to settle on an appropriate strategy to
address these worsening conditions. Just 2 months ago General Casey
came to Washington to discuss the significant drawdown of U.S. troops
from Iraq. Now, just a few weeks later, troop deployments are being
extended beyond a year, and we are no closer to helping Iraqis
establish stability in their country than we were over a year ago.
It is clear that our current approach in Iraq is not going to
establish stability in Iraq. We need a new strategy--a political and
economic strategy--that will help establish long-term stability in
Iraq. Perpetuating the massive presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is not
the answer. We need a new strategy in Iraq so that we can repair our
military and strengthen our national security. Anything short of a
change in course will ensure more of the same.
It is also clear that the war in Iraq is having a negative--and
dramatic--effect on our military's capability and readiness levels.
Because of the heavy usage of military equipment in Iraq, the Army
National Guard's 34 brigades are not combat-ready, and it will be no
easy task getting our physical capacity back up to full strength.
While I applaud the efforts of Senators Dodd and Reed of Rhode Island
to include in this bill sufficient ``reset'' funds for the U.S. Army
and Marine Corps, I think it is imperative to remember that this is a
war of choice. This is a war that this administration designed and
pressed on the American people as ``urgent.'' This is a war that was
based on false pretenses, launched with poor planning, and implemented
without any concept whatsoever of how significant the drain on our
national resources would be. This is a war that the administration
chose the ``time and place'' for but that now cannot seem to end. And
now, after years, it is apparent that stability cannot be won
militarily. The costs we are incurring in Iraq are devastating, they
are endless, and they are not advancing our national interests--
particularly when our military is losing its capacity to respond to
future threats globally and to defend our country from the terrorist
networks that attacked us on 9/11.

I would like to quote the Army Chief of Staff, General Peter
Schoomaker, who testified in front of the House in June. He painted a
dire picture of our military's equipment in Iraq:

This sustained strategic demand has placed a tremendous
strain on the Army's people and equipment which have been
employed in the harsh operating environments of Iraq and
Afghanistan. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, for example, crews
are driving tanks in excess of 4,000 miles a year--five times
more than the programmed annual usage rate of 800 miles. Army
helicopters are experiencing usage rates roughly two to three
times programmed rates. Our truck fleet is experiencing some
of the most pronounced problems of excessive wear, operating
at five to six times programmed rates.

This testimony highlights not only the physical strain that military
operations in Iraq are having on our military capability but also the
strain on our readiness to deal with the serious threats to our
national security around the world. We were ill prepared for our
operations in Iraq, and now Iraq is making us ill prepared to respond
to other crises.
Lieutenant General Blum, head of the National Guard, also painted a
dire picture yesterday when he noted that three-quarters of the
National Guard are not ready for combat. A significant portion of our
Special Forces personnel are deployed to Iraq, and there is no doubt
about the draining effect that operations in Iraq are having on the
rest of our government.
This is a major concern. While this bill includes some important
funds to help restore readiness levels, we are not addressing the root
causes of what is placing such a strain and limitation on our military.
With that said, I would like to shift to the very work--
reconstruction--that was originally designed to help develop a sound
political and economic infrastructure in Iraq and, as the
administration has consistently repeated, help set the ``conditions for
success.'' Unfortunately, there isn't much to report.
Reconstruction efforts in Iraq are troubled. The SIGIR released a new
quarterly report this week on U.S. reconstruction efforts in Iraq, and
it is clear that, after billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent,
major obstacles remain. SIGIR has concluded that large unforeseen
security costs, massive corruption within the Iraqi Government,
administrative overhead, and waste have crippled original
reconstruction strategies and have prevented the completion of up to
half of the work originally called for in critical sectors such as
water, power, and electricity.
It is also troubling that the recent SIGIR report suggests that there
still is no strategy for transitioning the responsibility for
reconstruction efforts in Iraq from the United States to the Iraqi
Government. Reconstruction efforts in Iraq have been dominated for more
than 3 years by U.S. funding and companies, and now as it comes time to
transfer the responsibility and management of reconstruction efforts to
the Iraqis, it has become clear that Iraqis don't have the capacity to
complete the many projects left unfinished.
Most troubling, in my mind, is the fact that the GAO has recently
reported that there does not currently exist a strategy that links
reconstruction efforts to broader political and strategic goals in
Iraq. I am not sure how we will achieve any goals in Iraq if we don't
have a sense of how reconstruction efforts, political efforts, and
security efforts fit together. Given that stability in Iraq will only
come through political and economic progress, it is troubling to know
that no strategy exists to link any of this together.
While this bill doesn't address reconstruction funding, it is clear
that unless there is a comprehensive strategy to bring these efforts
together, security conditions in Iraq won't get better. This has a
direct impact on the troops currently in Iraq, which in turn has a
direct impact on our national security.
Mr. President, our ongoing military presence in Iraq is hurting our
national security. It is putting a tremendous strain on our military
itself and it is limiting our capacity to deal with other crises around
the world, including Lebanon, Iran, North Korea, Somalia, and
Afghanistan.
We need a drastic change of course in Iraq. We need to redeploy our
troops so that we can focus on these very real threats to our national
security, and on al-Qaida and its allies. We need a strong military,
and we also need a strong national security strategy that honors the
men and women in uniform who serve our country selflessly around the
world.
Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to speak about
amendment No. 4783 which has been filed and accepted into this bill.
I would like to thank my colleagues, Chairman Stevens and Ranking
Member Inouye, for agreeing to accept this amendment and for their
management of this bill which is so critical to funding the needs of
those who serve our country.
When our service men and women, fighting so bravely in the face of
such grave danger, go into battle, they should have all the resources
and technology they need to not only get the job done but come home
healthy and safely to their families.
This is why I was dismayed to learn that our troops in Iraq and
Afghanistan are not equipped with the medical bandages they need to
stop heavy bleeding from potentially fatal wounds. These hemostatic
agents--which are small enough to be easily carried by all soldiers--
can literally save lives.
Unfortunately, those supplies are being stockpiled in medical units
and soldiers are writing home to their friends and families to say that
they need these bandages on the front lines.
Take a moment to think about that. Imagine a mother or father,
sitting in their living room, scared stiff every day that they might
not see their son or daughter alive again, reading a letter begging
them to send bandages so their son or daughter can take care of
themselves if they are hurt.

[[Page S8723]]

We need to do better because sending these men and women into harm's
way without the medical equipment they need is simply unacceptable.
Hemostatic agents are chemical compounds that have been tested and
proven to help save soldiers' lives by forming powerful clots which
halt blood loss so a wounded soldier has a better chance of getting to
an operating room.
Stopping rapid blood loss from a wound is critically important
because, according to the American Red Cross, half of all military
deaths on the battlefield are a result of excessive blood loss.
Distribution problems can be no excuse. We must ensure that every
single soldier has at least one of these bandages or packets with them
at all times. And, of course, the medical units should have as many as
they see fit.
Mr. President, it is more than obvious that our men and women who are
risking their lives should have access to any and all life saving
items, such as these hemostatic agents.
A group on Long Island called Jacob's Light Foundation has taken
matters into its own hands and is raising money to buy these bandages
and packets to send them directly to soldiers. I am grateful for their
efforts, but the bottom line is, this is the military's responsibility,
not the families'.
Families who have already sacrificed so much should not have to dip
into their own pockets to ensure their children survive an attack.
That is why when we debated the Department of Defense Authorization
bill a few weeks ago, we added language to ensure that there are plenty
of the bandages to go around.
My amendment on this bill, which I am proud to note that Senators
Coleman and Clinton have joined me on, will ensure that sufficient
funds are available during the fiscal year to make that happen. It
provides $11 million to purchase these hemostatic agents and get them
to our troops on the front lines.
Mr. President, we have the means to prevent unnecessary deaths on the
battlefield instead, we are nickel and diming our troops.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, Lonnie Stubblefield is 17, a recent
graduate of Macon County High School in Lafayette, TN. He enjoys Sudoku
puzzles and brainteasers--he likes to challenge himself. He doesn't
look the part, but he's in the Army now.
Zach Khan is 38, a small business owner and an insurance agent. He
wanted to do something meaningful in life. He was looking for something
with plenty of future opportunities, great benefits, and maybe even a
little prestige. He's in the Army now.
Linda Yanez is 19, a first generation American with Mexican roots who
calls herself ``a small-town girl from the woods.'' She was looking for
a way to make ``a difference somewhere to someone.'' She's in the Army
now.
Jesse Alexander is also 19, a 2003 grad of Maplewood High in
Nashville, TN. He's a student majoring in education at Tennessee State
University, and works part-time as a security guard. He's earnest,
self-disciplined--and he's in the Army now.
Why do I mention Lonnie, Zach, Linda, and Jesse? Because they have
something in common. Each walked into a local recruiting office in the
Volunteer State--Tennessee--and joined America's Volunteer Army.
I cannot tell you how very proud I am of them.
Soon, they will join the ranks of the many thousands of Tennesseans
already risking their lives--day-in and day-out--to defend our freedom.
Currently, roughly 14,000 Tennesseans serve in the National Guard.
Across the globe, in more than 130 countries, some 247,000 troops and
civilians are on the frontline. Every day, they are risking their lives
to defend our freedom--and the freedom of the people in whose countries
they are stationed.
No one would have guessed, almost 5 years ago, now, that we would be
free from having suffered another major terrorist attack on our soil.
We have been extraordinarily fortunate.
And we have been safe because our brave fellow Americans are putting
their lives on the line to protect this country.
Our troops provide us an invaluable service--fighting daily to defend
our priceless ideals. These are young Americans--men and women who have
never seen the world. Yet they have the pride and the courage--and most
importantly, the faith--to join our military and become our bravest
defenders.
Mr. President, we owe our troops a debt of honor. For their
invaluable service, we owe them the very best resources. And as U.S.
Senators, it's our responsibility to provide those resources to them.
That is why the bill before us today--the Defense Appropriations
bill--is so very important. It provides our soldiers with the
resources, training, technology, equipment, and authorities they need
to win the global war on terror.
From cutting edge technologies to personnel protection systems--the
spending bill keeps our military strong so that our men and women in
uniform can keep America safe.
The bill provides nearly $470 billion in resources for the Department
of Defense--funding key readiness programs critical to combating
terrorism and enhancing homeland defense.
It includes an additional $55 billion in emergency funding for
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan--that is, operations related to the
global war on terror.
And it contains provisions aimed at improving the quality of life of
our service members--including a 2.2 percent across-the-board pay raise
for all military personnel.
I am confident that the bill before us today will enable our troops
to continue anticipating and meeting the challenges and threats of
tomorrow--while maintaining high levels of readiness today.
Our brave men and women place their lives at grave risk when they
volunteer to join our military and become our Nation's defenders at the
frontline. We owe them nothing less than first-class training, the
latest in modern technology and equipment, and quality infrastructure.
Senators Stevens and Inouye have worked hard to ensure that the bill
before us now delivers the funding for the cutting edge resources and
service our troops deserve. I thank them for their dedication to seeing
this bill through.
As we wrap up debate on this bill, I urge my fellow Senators to join
me in supporting this bill. I ask them to join me in providing the
funding critical to keeping our troops prepared and at the ready.
America's security depends on our troops. And our troops are
depending on us.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.