[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)

       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 development of a Lightweight All 
     Terrain Vehicle (LATV).


                           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)

       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, Defense-Wide'', up to 
     $3,000,000 may be available for Small and Medium Caliber 
     Recoil Mitigation Technologies (PE #1160402BB).


                           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

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Baucus
     Bunning
     Lieberman
  The amendment (No. 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)

       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 Program Element 0602787A for blast 
     protection research.


                    AMENDMENT NO. 4846, AS MODIFIED

       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'', up to $10,000,000 
     may be available for the Combat Support Hospital--Mobile 
     Support Hospital.


                           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)

       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 Program Element 0602105A 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.