[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 109 (Thursday, September 7, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9075-S9098]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 5631, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant 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:

       Rockefeller amendment No. 4906, to strike the section 
     specifically authorizing intelligence and intelligence-
     related activities.

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from West 
Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that that amendment be set aside 
in order to consider the amendment to be offered by the Senators from 
North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4907

  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], for himself, 
     Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Salazar, and Mr. Menendez, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4907.

  Mr. CONRAD. 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 enhance intelligence community efforts to bring Osama bin 
  Laden and other key leaders of al Qaeda to the justice they deserve)

       On page 230, beginning on line 15, strike ``$19,265,000'' 
     and all that follows through line 16 and insert the 
     following: ``$219,265,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2008: Provided, That $200,000,000 of such funds 
     is available only for a unit dedicated to bringing to justice 
     Osama bin Laden and other key leaders of al Qaeda: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary of Defense shall, not later than 
     60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and 
     every 90 days thereafter, submit to the congressional defense 
     committees, the Committee on International Relations of the 
     House of Representatives, and the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations of the Senate a classified report on progress made 
     by the operations in the global war on terrorism for which 
     funding is provided in this Act, including an assessment of 
     the likely current location of terrorist leaders, including 
     Osama bin Laden and other key leaders of al Qaeda, a 
     description of ongoing efforts to bring to justice such 
     terrorists, a description of the cooperation provided by the 
     governments of any countries assessed as likely locations of 
     top leaders of al Qaeda and by other relevant countries, a 
     description of diplomatic efforts currently being made to 
     improve the cooperation of any such governments, and a 
     description of the status of, and strategy for bringing to 
     justice, perpetrators of terrorism including the top 
     leadership of al Qaeda: Provided further, That the Secretary 
     of Defense shall prepare such reports in consultation with 
     other appropriate officials with regard to funds appropriated 
     under this chapter: Provided further, That the amount 
     provided under this heading is designated as making 
     appropriations for contingency operations directly related to 
     the global war on terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-
     related operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con Res. 
     376 (109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of 
     Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress) and 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.''

  Mr. CONRAD. The amendment is on behalf of myself and Senators Dorgan, 
Salazar, and Menendez.
  Five years ago, our Nation was viciously attacked by al-Qaida. We all 
remember the horrific images from that fateful day. I remember so well 
arriving at the Capitol building for early morning meetings and, as we 
entered, security personnel ordered an evacuation. Those of us who were 
evacuated from this building went back to our offices and were again 
evacuated there, as there was a belief that there was a potential 
threat to the Capitol complex. Later on, we saw the results of the 
attack. We saw people jumping from the World Trade Center. We saw the 
attack on the Pentagon. We did not know, in the early hours, who was 
responsible, but we knew the world had changed.
  I remember very well that night, as Members of Congress stood on the 
steps of the Capitol showing that we were shoulder to shoulder in 
defense of America. That night, there were no Republicans, there were 
no Democrats; there were just proud Americans on the steps of this 
Capitol, men and women elected to represent our individual States here 
in this Capitol. In the 20 years I have been in this Chamber, I never 
saw such unity, such a sense of purpose that we would not let these 
acts stand and that those who were responsible would be held to 
account.
  We need to renew that spirit. We need Democrats and Republicans 
standing together to bring to justice those who were responsible for 
these horrific acts. In this photo is the man who planned, financed, 
and organized those operations, Osama bin Laden, the head of al-Qaida. 
It has now been over 1,800 days since those attacks, and this man is 
still on the loose. This man has still not been brought to justice. I 
believe it is one of our Nation's highest priorities that he and the 
other top leadership of al-Qaida be brought to justice. I include Mr. 
al-Zawahiri. I think we also know that Mullah Omar, the leader of the 
Taliban in Afghanistan, has not been apprehended and brought to justice 
either.
  To me, this is centrally important to the war on terrorism. We have 
to get the terrorist leaders who designed the attack on our country. I 
say to my colleagues that I graduated from high school from an American 
military base in Tripoli, Libya, North Africa, Willis Air Force Base. I 
had relatives who were in the intelligence service of the United States 
who served in that part of the world as well. One thing I learned when 
I was in that part of the world is that if a fight started, you better 
get the leaders and you better get them quick; otherwise, it mushroomed 
and escalated. My experience was very minor. It was on the basketball 
court, where we would have shepherds periodically come and start 
throwing

[[Page S9076]]

stones. We found out early that you better get a stone and you better 
nail a couple of their guys or the thing got worse. I think all of us 
who have studied the Arab world know that in that culture, if somebody 
attacks and is not held to account, that person grows in stature in 
that culture.
  We have to hold to account Osama bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, and all of 
the rest of the al-Qaida leadership. I think that is absolutely 
critical for success in the war on terror. Osama bin Laden continues to 
call for attacks on us. We are now seeing a Taliban resurgence in 
Afghanistan. Last month, we saw a plot that may have been orchestrated 
by al-Qaida to blow up airliners flying between Britain and the United 
States. Unfortunately, the latest intelligence--and this is not 
classified, so I am not disclosing any state secrets here--according to 
the National Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism, the number of 
al-Qaida operatives worldwide has grown from 20,000 in 2001 to 50,000 
today.
  Some of our colleagues have likened this to World War II. I don't 
believe that. This is not like World War II. This is fundamentally and 
profoundly different. In World War II, we had Hitler Germany attempting 
to achieve world dominance. In World War II, we had a state, the nation 
of Germany, attacking its neighbors, seeking hegemony throughout Europe 
and beyond. We had Germany attacking its neighbors. We had Germany on 
the move against Great Britain. We had Germany with its allies 
attacking the Soviet Union. That was profoundly different than a 
network of terrorists spread in over 70 countries around the world 
seeking to weaken our country. That is a profoundly different 
circumstance than we faced in World War II. In World War II, we faced 
the sneak attack by Japan on the United States, and Japan being allied 
with Germany in a move to achieve world dominance. That is a profoundly 
different circumstance than the one we face today. And if we don't 
adapt our methods and tactics and strategy, we will be less successful.

  It is critical that we have this debate, and it should not be a 
partisan debate. To me, this is not a matter of Republicans and 
Democrats; this is a question of how does our country succeed in this 
battle against terrorism? How do we best succeed? My own conviction is, 
it starts with this man. It doesn't end there, but it starts here. 
Osama bin Laden has got to be brought to justice. Mr. Zawahiri has got 
to be brought to justice. Mullah Omar has got to be brought to justice. 
And I don't question--I don't question the intention of this 
administration to attempt to do that, but I do note that it has now 
been 5 years, and there has been a failure to get those who organized 
the attack on our country. That is a fact. And we need to deal with 
that fact and we need to adopt new methods, new strategies in order to 
achieve success. That is my conviction.
  These are things that disturb me greatly. In March of 2004, USA Today 
reported:

       In 2002, troops from the fifth special forces group who 
     specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for 
     Osama bin Laden to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. 
     Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish 
     cultures.

  Let's think about that a minute. After Osama bin Laden, who led the 
attacks, we put in special forces to find him who were experts in Arab 
culture and in Arab languages. But when we diverted our attention and 
moved to Iraq, we pulled those forces out of Afghanistan in the search 
for Osama bin Laden and replaced them, according to these news reports, 
with troops with expertise in Spanish culture. There aren't many 
Spanish speakers or much Spanish culture in Afghanistan. I think this 
was a profound mistake.
  The article goes on to say:

       The CIA meanwhile was stretched badly in its capacity to 
     collect, translate, and analyze information coming from 
     Afghanistan.

  When some say the center of the war on terrorism is Iraq, I think 
they have it wrong. The center is in Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden 
and Zawahiri have been located. I am not saying I know that they are 
located there now. We know they were located there; perhaps they are 
somewhere else at this point. But at the time we shifted our focus, I 
believe it was a mistake. I believe we ought to have focused like a 
laser on the leadership of al-Qaida. Al-Qaida attacked us; not Iraq. 
There wasn't a single Iraqi on those airplanes that crashed into the 
World Trade Center. There wasn't a single Iraqi on the plane that hit 
the Pentagon. There wasn't a single Iraqi on the plane that went down 
in Pennsylvania. They were al-Qaida operatives led by Osama bin Laden, 
not Iraqis led by Saddam Hussein.
  I might add that once we took our eye off the ball in getting the 
terrorists and instead went to Iraq, we have now unfortunately freed up 
Iran for all kinds of troublemaking in the Middle East. Iran is behind 
the operations of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Is there any doubt that they 
are the financial muscle behind that operation? This is a battle. It is 
a battle that is critically important to our Nation's security, and we 
have to fight it in a smart and disciplined and focused way if we are 
to succeed. That is my belief.
  Now we learn that the CIA has closed the unit that is focused on the 
capture of Osama bin Laden. This report from July of this year says:

       The Central Intelligence Agency has closed the unit that 
     for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and 
     his top lieutenants. The unit, known as Alec Station, was 
     disbanded late last year and its analysts reassigned within 
     the CIA Counter-Terrorist Center.

  The article goes on to say:

       In recent years, the war in Iraq has stretched the 
     resources of the intelligence agencies and the Pentagon, 
     generating new priorities for American officials.

  I believe the priority remains getting those who attacked us. It 
wasn't Iraq that attacked us; it was al-Qaida that attacked us, and it 
is critically important we hold them to account.
  On August 21, the President said this:

       The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens 
     before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

  He was then interrupted by a reporter who asked:

       What did Iraq have to do with that?

  The President:

       What did Iraq have to do with what?

  The reporter:

       The attacks upon the World Trade Center.

  The President:

       Nothing.

  That is correct, nothing. We know from the 9/11 Commission Iraq was 
not involved in the attacks of 9/11. It was al-Qaida--al-Qaida led by 
Osama bin Laden. That is where we have to focus. And this, to me, is 
not a political debate. This is a question of the strategic policy of 
the United States. How do we best defend America against those who have 
already attacked us and intend to attack us again? I would submit the 
first thing we have to do is get the leadership of the organization 
that is worldwide in scope, that seeks to take us down. Make no 
mistake, this is a battle with real consequences, and we have got to 
fight it in the smartest, most effective way.
  It has now been 1,823 days since Osama bin Laden attacked us. Madam 
President, 1,823 days; that is a long time. That is nearly 5 years. The 
President just issued a new intelligence estimate and analysis. There 
is only one mention of Osama bin Laden in that document, and it is a 
reference in passing.
  I don't think it should be a matter that is mentioned in passing. I 
deeply believe we have to refocus and we have to go after, in a 
disciplined and dedicated way, the leadership of al-Qaida, starting 
with Osama bin Laden, going to Zawahiri, and right down the list. I 
applaud those successes that we have had in getting Zarqawi and others. 
Thank God for that. But we have got to get those at the top.

  This amendment adds $200 million to the intelligence budget for a 
unit explicitly dedicated to bringing Osama bin Laden and other top al-
Qaida leadership to justice. The second part of this amendment requires 
a classified report every 90 days on activities of our Government 
related to bringing Osama bin Laden to justice. A classified report 
because, obviously, we don't want to signal the game plan.
  This is the amendment that I offer, and I thank my colleagues who 
have cosponsored it with me: Senator Dorgan, my colleague from North 
Dakota; Senator Salazar from Colorado; Senator Menendez from New 
Jersey; and now I am informed that additional Senators have asked to 
join, including Senator Lincoln of Arkansas, Senator Kerry of 
Massachusetts, and Senator Obama of Illinois.

[[Page S9077]]

  I ask unanimous consent to add them as original cosponsors of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, Senator Conrad and I have, over the last 
2 days, talked about the need for an amendment of this type to be 
offered to the Defense appropriations bill. We have talked about 
several different ways of offering this amendment and the circumstances 
that require us to come here and draft an amendment and offer it to our 
colleagues. This amendment represents some discussions, as well, with 
colleagues. I want to say that almost all of that which persuaded us to 
do this has now been described by my colleague, Senator Conrad.
  He talked about 9/11 2001. I recall going to Ground Zero in New York 
as the fire was still burning, smoke coming out of the wreckage of the 
World Trade Center from the bombing of the trade center by the 
terrorists and the murder of 3,000 innocent Americans. And as we toured 
just several days after those terrorists had hit the World Trade Center 
in New York, and the smoke was still billowing out of that twisted 
steel wreckage, one of the grizzled firefighters who had not shaved for 
several days, obviously had not slept, had bloodshot eyes, came up to 
me as we were touring--a group of Senators--and he said to me: ``Get 
'em. Ya'll have to get 'em. If you don't get 'em, they are going to do 
it to us again.''
  Having worked in this wreckage of the World Trade Center and having 
seen the carnage and the bodies, what he meant was that if we don't get 
those who did this, they will repeat it. That firefighter was speaking 
with a real passion, a passion that I think is shared by the American 
people. That passion was shared on that day and it is now, today.
  That attack on 9/11--my colleague showed a picture of it--was with 
commercial airplanes loaded with fuel used as weapons. The New York 
Times ran a piece on August 11, 2004, by Nicholas Christoff, about a 
book by Harvard professor Graham Allison called ``Nuclear Terrorism.'' 
Allison told a story in this book that exactly 1 month after 9/11, on 
October 11 in 2001, aides told President Bush that a CIA source named 
Dragon Fire had reported that al-Qaida had obtained a 10-kiloton 
nuclear weapon, apparently stolen from Russian stockpiles, and had 
smuggled it into New York City, and al-Qaida terrorists were now 
prepared to detonate it. This is described in some detail in the book.
  The CIA apparently found this report plausible. They knew that 
apparently Russia had small 10-kiloton nuclear weapons. Russia was 
reported to have lost some nuclear materials. Al-Qaida had made a 
determined effort to acquire them. The CIA had apparently picked up al-
Qaida chatter about an ``American Hiroshima.'' This issue was taken 
very seriously in October of 2001. Later it was determined the lead by 
the agent named Dragon Fire was a false lead. But in retrospect of this 
issue, all of those who evaluated it determined it could well have been 
true.
  It is not implausible that a nuclear weapon could be stolen. After 
all, there are some 30,000 nuclear weapons on this Earth. It is not 
implausible that having a nuclear weapon stolen by a terrorist group, 
it could be detonated. And it is certainly likely they would attempt to 
detonate a nuclear weapon in the center of a major city, especially a 
city in the United States.

  I describe that only to say these issues are critically important. 
Yes, 
9/11 breaks our heart--all of the innocent Americans killed by acts of 
terrorism. But that will be an event that will be small by comparison 
if, in fact, a nuclear weapon is acquired by a terrorist group like al-
Qaida and detonated in an American city in the future.
  There are responsible people who have said they believe there is a 
very substantial likelihood such an event could or will happen in the 
next 10 years, unless this country provides the leadership to stop the 
spread of nuclear weapons, stops the proliferation of nuclear weapons 
and does everything necessary to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands 
of terrorists.
  The evil of terrorism requires and demands a unified American 
resolve. As my colleague has previously said, when it comes to fighting 
terrorism, there are no D's or R's, there are no Republicans or 
Democrats, conservatives or liberals, there are only Americans resolved 
to confront this evil.
  We are determined to confront and defeat those who are intent on 
murdering innocent people in the name of terrorism. We fight terrorism 
to preserve freedom, but we betray rather than serve our freedom if we 
turn a blind eye to the actions which will diminish the very freedoms 
we cherish, even as we confront the actions of terrorists. As we wage 
this fight against terrorism, we do not serve the interests of our 
country by labeling others who may disagree with strategies as 
appeasers, of the type who appeased Nazism. That does not serve 
America's interests either.
  I have heard colleagues today come to the floor to lament that there 
have been some criticisms of Administration strategies. Let's all 
understand no one is perfect. Big mistakes have been made. Mistakes, 
and big mistakes, have been made, both with respect to Iraq and also 
with respect to the war against terrorism.
  In Iraq, we discovered later there were no weapons of mass 
destruction. There was no yellow cake from Niger. The aluminum tubes 
were not for the purpose of building a nuclear capability. There were 
no mobile chemical weapons labs. Would we be treated as liberators as 
was suggested? No. It turns out that was not the case.
  Were mistakes made? Two days ago, a young fellow who left law school 
after 9/11 to enlist in the Army to go to Iraq told me that when he got 
to Iraq his mother, an elementary schoolteacher, had to go on the 
Internet to buy body armor to send it to him. Were mistakes made? You 
darned right mistakes were made. Mistakes were made. Let's understand 
that. Recognizing and understanding that and admitting it allows us to 
decide not to make those mistakes again.
  All of us are here to support our soldiers in their fight against 
terrorism, in their mission in Iraq. Let me say, as an aside as well, 
that the violence and terrorism in Iraq does have an al-Qaida 
component; it does. But by far the bulk and the majority of the 
violence and terrorism in Iraq is Iraqi upon Iraqi, Sunni upon Shia, 
Shia upon Sunni. There was not an Iraq connection with al-Qaida prior 
to the war in Iraq.
  Having said all of that, with respect to the broader war on terror, 
when we open the newspaper this morning and we see the front page of 
the Washington Post--and I suspect every other daily paper in this 
country--and we see the pictures of terrorists who will now be 
transferred to Guantanamo and be brought to justice, all of us say to 
the President it is the right thing to do. We support that. Yes, this 
is progress. We understand that progress and we salute it.
  My colleague and I believe there is more to do, however. When we talk 
about the war against terrorism and we talk about al-Qaida and those 
who have orchestrated the vicious terrorist attacks that have murdered 
so many innocent people in this country and around the world, the point 
is there is one person who is the head of that organization, who has 
admitted ordering the attacks against this country. That is Osama bin 
Laden. It is 5 long years since 9/11, 2001, and Osama bin Laden is 
still here.
  The President, day before yesterday, mentioned Osama bin Laden 17 
times in his speech of 45 minutes. That is appropriate to do, although 
I might observe Osama bin Laden has not been mentioned at all with 
respect to the war on terror by anyone in the Administration for some 
long while until a couple of days ago. But I want to describe why I 
think there is an urgency here and why my colleague, Senator Conrad, 
and I put together an amendment and are offering it to this bill.
  I have a record here going back to December 13, 2001--it is about 
eight pages of Osama bin Laden talking to us, in America, talking to 
people in the rest of the world, and talking to al-Qaida, his 
organization. It is December 13, 2001; November 2, 2002; February 11, 
2003; February 13, 2003; April 7, 2003; September 10, 2003. I shall not 
go through the rest of it. But I want to talk about this year. Just 
this year we have heard from Osama bin Laden on 5 occasions. This chart 
shows January 19 this year. This is from the news report

[[Page S9078]]

that evening, Osama bin Laden speaking to the people of the United 
States and the people of the world. That is the first message this 
year.
  Here is the second message, Osama bin Laden speaks again, the head of 
al-Qaida, 5 years after 9/11. On April 23, he issues his second tape of 
the year.
  May 23, this year, once again the news reports:

       Bin Laden boasts of masterminding the 9/11 attacks.
       I was responsible for entrusting the 19 brothers. Those 19 
     who attacked this country.
  June 29 of this year, another news report, the fourth tape of the 
year by Osama bin Laden.
  July 1, this year, the fifth tape of the year by Osama bin Laden.
  We are talking a lot about the war on terrorism. We are talking a lot 
about al-Qaida. This is the head of al-Qaida. This is the leader of 
that terrorist group. This is the person who says he masterminded the 
attack against this country, and 5 years after that attack he is still 
sending us messages--five of them in this year alone. My colleague and 
I do not question anyone's commitment to doing the right thing. That is 
not the purpose of our amendment. My colleague, Senator Conrad, and I 
believe, however, that it is important as we put together a piece of 
legislation providing funding for the Department of Defense, for the 
war against terrorism, that we decide on focus and priority with 
respect to one issue and that is bringing to justice the head of an 
organization that attacked this country and is determined to attack 
this country again.
  The amendment we have offered is not a particularly complex 
amendment. It simply does two things. It asks that the unit in the CIA, 
our intelligence community, that used to exist but was closed be 
reconstituted. Let me describe that unit. I will describe it by a New 
York Times, July 4, story. The lead of the story is:

       The Central Intelligence Agency has closed the unit that 
     for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and 
     his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed on 
     Monday. Agency officials said that tracking Mr. bin Laden and 
     his deputies remained a high priority and that the decision 
     to disband the unit was not a sign that the effort had 
     slackened. Instead, the official said, it reflected a belief 
     the agency could better deal with high level threats by 
     focusing on regional trends rather than on specific 
     organizations or individuals.

  Let me quote the former senior CIA official who is quoted by name, 
Mr. Michael Scheuer, a former senior CIA official, who was the first 
head of this unit at the CIA. He said the move ``reflected a view 
within the agency that Mr. Bin Laden was no longer the threat he once 
was.'' Mr. Scheuer says, ``That view is mistaken.''
  Madam President, our amendment would provide the funds to 
reconstitute that unit, to provide focus, clarity and a specific set of 
goals. And, second, to require a quarterly classified report to the 
Congress that would describe, from the standpoint of those in the 
intelligence community and the defense community who are involved, what 
they have done with respect to apprehending and bringing to justice 
those who head the organization called al-Qaida.
  My hope and expectation would be that upon passage of this amendment 
my colleague and I will have provided some more clarity and some more 
focus and even perhaps some more determination that a significant goal 
of ours is the apprehension of the head of the organization that 
attacked our country. I do not think that apprehension will occur by 
accident. I think it will occur if it is in fact a significant goal and 
one that we pursue with the resources and the vigor that is necessary.
  I understand that there will be some who say that we have other 
priorities; this remains a priority but there are many other things to 
do. Let me go back to the position that I started with and that is 
this. We live in a very dangerous world, a very uncertain world. The 
President is dead right when he talks about the war on terrorism being 
a war in which we must prevail. He is absolutely right that we have to 
work together and have to be as one as we confront this evil that 
exists around the world.
  But I also want to point out that we live in a world, now, where, as 
I indicated before, there are almost 30,000 strategic and tactical 
nuclear weapons that exist in this world. Going back to October 11 of 
2001, the threatened loss of one of those nuclear weapons, because of a 
rumor that it had been stolen from the Russian stockpile, caused an 
apoplectic seizure in parts of the government because everyone, at that 
point, in the intelligence community, who had heard of this rumor, knew 
it was plausible and that the detonation of a nuclear weapon in a major 
American city by al-Qaida would be devastating. The consequences of 
that are impossible to describe. The next terrorist act may render the 
attack of 
9/11/2001, a much less significant attack in terms of casualties. Let's 
hope that is not the case.
  That is why it is so urgent for us to determine that we are going to 
apprehend and bring to justice those who head the al-Qaida organization 
and who masterminded the attack against this country on 9/11/2001. That 
is what our amendment seeks to do, to provide the resources and the 
assistance to make that possible.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Pryor be added as an original cosponsor as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask the Senator from Massachusetts if 
he seeks time on this amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, we have time on the floor. I seek 
recognition.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I have not relinquished my right to the 
floor. I simply asked a question.
  Mr. STEVENS. He is right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this amendment is an urgent matter. I hope 
very much our colleagues would support this amendment on a bipartisan 
basis so that we send the clear message that this country intends to 
hold to account those who organized the attack on America. I think that 
is absolutely essential.
  I also say to my colleague, if the Senator from Alaska seeks 
recognition, I will be happy to yield the floor so he can do that.
  I ask him at this point if he would have an interest in a time 
agreement on the amendment? We were approached earlier with a request 
on that matter. I would be happy to explore that, if the Senator from 
Alaska has any interest.
  Mr. STEVENS. If that is an inquiry to me, I am interested in a time 
agreement, without any question. I am happy to set a time to vote, at 
noon or at any time.
  Mr. CONRAD. We would be happy to agree to a time. Would noon be an 
acceptable time?
  Mr. STEVENS. We are checking.
  Mr. CONRAD. Perhaps later on in this discussion we can reach an 
agreement. We would certainly be willing to agree to that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would welcome the opportunity to make 
some brief comments on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has been 
recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend my colleagues from North Dakota 
and Colorado and others who are supporting this amendment. In many 
respects, this gives real focus to what I think is part of the dilemma 
that we are facing in our battles with al-Qaida and the issues of 
security. A number of us opposed the resolution to go to war in Iraq. I 
did. I said it was the best vote that I cast in the U.S. Senate. And I 
did it primarily as a result of listening to military commanders in the 
Armed Services Committee.
  We had testimony--although he didn't testify personally--from General 
Zinni. We listened to General Hoar of the U.S. Marine Corps, actually 
from my own State of Massachusetts. We listened to General Wesley Clark 
and General Nash--a number who have been combat commanders. If you look 
back in terms of the history and the testimony of those military 
commanders, virtually all of them were saying to the Armed Services 
Committee that we ought to keep our focus

[[Page S9079]]

on what was really the challenge: Osama bin Laden, al-Qaida, and 
Afghanistan. That was the testimony before the Armed Services 
Committee.
  I will not take the time now to repeat the series of statements and 
comments that were made by the President and the Secretary of Defense. 
I remember the testimony of the Secretary of Defense before the Armed 
Services Committee when he talked about weapons of mass destruction. He 
was asked at that time by the ranking minority member, Senator Levin. 
His response was they were north, south, east, and west of Baghdad. 
That was where the weapons of mass destruction were. That is the 
testimony of the Secretary of Defense.
  We remember all of those comments. We saw the Nation move and shift 
thinking that there were weapons of mass destruction, and al-Qaida was 
the primary force in bringing about 9/11. Of course, there wasn't 
adequate intelligence to justify that. Even the President admitted that 
there were no weapons of mass destruction. Even the bipartisan 9/11 
Commission's thorough examination shows very clearly that those were 
the representations made by the Vice President of the United States.
  During that period of time, the combat commanders who testified 
understood where we were going--the real challenge was finding Osama 
bin Laden. We saw the extraordinary efforts that were made by the 
military, all of which had this Nation focused on trying to get al-
Qaida. The world was supporting the United States. The world understood 
that the United States had been assaulted and attacked. The world 
intelligence community was coming together and saying we are going to 
help the United States of America find the person who perpetrated the 
9/11 attack in the United States. All of that was happening all over 
the world.
  Then what happened? The judgment and the decision was made in the 
White House: Well, we have the role of going over there to Afghanistan, 
so we are going into Iraq. The rest is history.
  In spite of the fact that Osama bin Laden was on the run, despite the 
fact that the intelligence reports showed that he was just within hours 
of almost getting captured, the diversion of both troops and diversion 
of focus, the diversion of intelligence went to Iraq.
  Now we have an amendment to try to get us back in focus on the 
primary individual who was the organizer of 9/11.
  I share the concerns that have been stated by both Senators and the 
frustration when the judgment and decision was made by the Pentagon 
that they no longer had the priority of going after bin Laden.
  We all understand the complexities of trying to find him in the 
mountainous areas around Afghanistan's border and into Pakistan. We all 
understand those complexities and those difficulties and the political 
problems and all the rest. But, nonetheless, we had the world combined 
to find him and bring him to account. We have failed to do so.
  I think this amendment brings the Senate, in hopefully a bipartisan 
way, to say we want to give focus and attention to finding and bringing 
to justice Osama bin Laden.
  Listening to Senators, I am mindful that at the end of this year we 
will have been fighting the war in Iraq longer than we fought in World 
War II. Understand that we took on the Germans in western Europe, north 
Africa, the Japanese in the Far East, mobilizing 12 million to 14 
million people over this period of time. And we will have by the end of 
the year--we are now in September--we have been fighting in Iraq longer 
than we fought in World War II--28 million people. We virtually 
occupied with air supremacy over the whole country--the top third of it 
and the lower third of it was a heavy embargo, violations of embargoes. 
But the amount was $14 billion a year in terms of the military, and we 
now have servicemen still weighted down over there.

  I agree with those who said the service men and women have done their 
job. The politicians haven't done theirs with regard to Iraq.
  That doesn't get away from the point that our focus has been diverted 
to Iraq.
  We have seen the number of al-Qaida grow. According to the National 
Security Project, in 2001 it was 20,000. In 2006, it is 50,000. The 
number of al-Qaida terrorist attacks 5 years before 1991 was 3. But now 
the number 5 years since 9/11 is 30. We have the growth happening all 
over the world and no accounting for Osama bin Laden.
  This is what has happened with al-Qaida. The number of significant 
global terrorist attacks reported by the U.S. State Department in 2003 
was 175. The number exceeded 3,000 in 2004, and 11,000 in 2005.
  Look at the growth. We are weighted down in Iraq, and Osama bin Laden 
is out there someplace.
  This amendment makes a great deal of sense. I thank both my 
colleagues for doing something. This is a small amount of resources 
which are asked for. Look at what we are spending, more than $200 
million a day in Iraq. I believe this is $20 million--$200 million a 
day we are spending in Iraq.
  Do we realize that if we weren't spending $200 million a day--and 
over $350 billion has been expended--what we could have done with 
regard to homeland security? How could we have protected Americans with 
those resources more effectively? How could we have gone after al-Qaida 
more effectively? How could we have enhanced the security of the 
American people more effectively?
  This has been a catastrophic miscalculation on the part of the 
administration, and the amendment of the Senators is trying to give 
focus and attention and priority to where we ought to give focus and 
attention and priority.
  I commend them for doing something.
  I hope this amendment will be accepted and embraced and passed 
overwhelmingly.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it has been cleared on this side by 
Senator Inouye and myself.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a vote in relation 
to the pending Conrad amendment at 12 noon, with no second-degree 
amendments in order prior to the vote, and with the time equally 
divided between the two managers or their designees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CONRAD. There is no objection on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am, as are the Senators from North 
Dakota, quite worried about this amendment. It is my intention to ask 
the Senate to vote. It is my understanding that they want a vote on 
this amendment. It is my intention to ask every Senator to vote for the 
amendment.
  It is a political season. I understand that. I consider this 
amendment to be a slam at the intelligence community.
  I can tell the Senate that there is more money than this available. 
If I tried to discuss the amount of money which is available, I would 
be violating my oath as far as confidential and classified material. 
For reasons of national security, I cannot elaborate on that.
  I arranged for the two Senators from North Dakota to be briefed about 
the programs which Senator Inouye and I know about. We urged them not 
to offer this amendment. There are many funds dedicated in our bill for 
the global war on terrorism. There are funds in our bill to continue 
the search for Osama bin Laden. That has never lapsed. It does not need 
this amendment.
  The classified annex accompanying this bill provides details of 
classified programs in this bill, and they are available to every 
Senator in room 405 if they want to question my view. Those were 
offered to the Senators from North Dakota. I do not know whether they 
took advantage of that or not.
  We cannot discuss those programs here. We would jeopardize the lives 
of many people if we did so.
  I know of no way to handle this amendment except, as I said, I ask 
all Senators to join and vote for this amendment and to trust Senator 
Inouye and myself to find a way to deal with it in conference. Maybe 
the Senate will listen to us when we come back.
  I remember once, years ago when I offered an amendment to provide 
funds to deal with Osama bin Laden, offering a reward of dead or alive. 
That was objected to by a Member on the other side of the aisle.

[[Page S9080]]

  I note that this amendment says to bring Osama bin Laden to justice. 
To bring him to justice--does that mean dead or alive? Must we keep him 
alive if we find him?
  There are a lot of things we could discuss on the floor of the Senate 
about this issue.
  I am going to sit down in a minute and I am not going to answer any 
questions. I am not going to discuss it any more because I consider it 
to be an irresponsible amendment that should never have been brought 
before the Senate.
  With all of these pictures, it is a campaign period. But to imply to 
the American public that we have not been looking for Osama bin Laden 
for years--I can tell you, I am not going to press my friend from 
Hawaii, but we have spent hours and hours and hours with the 
intelligence community seeing how we can better devise methods to find 
this man.
  I can assure the Senate that without any question the search for 
Osama bin Laden has not been hampered by a lack of funds. It has not 
been hampered by a lack of funds in this bill. If I tried to tell you 
where the funds are, I would violate my oath.
  It is time for us to come to some understanding about what led to 
this amendment. It was the President's statement the other day. I was 
there. The conversation on this floor misses the point. It was not 
Hitler during World War II he was talking about; it was Hitler before 
World War II. Let me quote what he said on September 5. I listened to 
it. He said:

       In the 1920's, a failed Austrian painter published a book 
     in which he explained his intention to build an Aryan super-
     state in Germany and take revenge in Europe and eradicate the 
     Jews. The world ignored Hitler's words, and paid a terrible 
     price. His Nazi regime killed millions in gas chambers, and 
     set the world aflame in war, before it was finally defeated 
     at a terrible cost in lives.
       Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their 
     intention as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. The 
     question is: Will we listen? Will we pay attention to what 
     these evil men say?

  The world can tell I am close to losing my famous temper. I do have 
one. As I said, I arranged for these Members to be briefed on 
information that is in this classified annex. I don't understand this 
amendment.
  I intend to let the Senators have their half of the time. The balance 
of the time will be spent in a quorum.
  I yield to my friend from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the record should show that there are 
significant amounts of money allocated in this bill to several 
agencies. But to go beyond that and discuss in greater detail would be, 
as the chairman indicated, a violation of the rules of classification. 
I will cease at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I say to my colleague that it is a curious 
conclusion to suggest that adding more resources to the intelligence 
community for the purpose of bringing to justice Osama bin Laden is a 
slap in the face to the intelligence community. It is no slap in the 
face to the intelligence community. If anything, it is a vote of 
confidence in the intelligence community.
  We owe the country this debate and this discussion. I believed when 
we went to Iraq we were making a mistake. I said on the floor of the 
Senate right before that vote that I thought we were diverting our 
attention from those who attacked us. It was al-Qaida, led by Osama bin 
Laden, not Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein. The simple fact is we have not 
brought them to justice.
  The Senator wonders, what does it mean to bring to justice? We all 
know what it means to bring someone to justice. Osama bin Laden 
deserves to be brought to justice. There is no one in this Chamber who 
doesn't know what that means.
  The Senator says this amendment is irresponsible. I think it would be 
irresponsible not to have this amendment.
  The Senator indicated that he asked us to be further briefed 
yesterday. We did that. There is not one thing I heard in that room 
that doesn't tell me that what we are seeking to do here is not the 
right thing, the responsible thing. We cannot talk about those 
briefings, and we will not talk about them.
  Finally, I say to my colleague, this is not political with me. I 
don't need a political amendment. Anyone who has analyzed my race knows 
that what I am saying is true. I don't need a political amendment. I 
have a responsibility to my constituents and to the future of our 
country. I believe deeply we have not done the job of protecting 
America when we have failed for 5 years to get the man and the 
leadership cadre of al-Qaida that organized the attack on this country. 
I don't choose to make this political.
  I made very clear in my statement that I don't question for one 
moment the commitment of this administration to protect America. I 
don't question for one moment the intention of every Member on both 
sides of this aisle to protect our country. I don't question that. I 
did not make this a political matter; I make this a matter of policy--
what is the right thing to do for our country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, there are areas of classified information 
that are not discussed in the Senate. Senator Conrad has just described 
that we both have had access to that information. It is the information 
to which my colleagues allude. There is nothing--I repeat, nothing--
that we are doing here that does anything to injure anything else that 
was being done anywhere, at any time. There is nothing here that does 
injury to anything I know about.
  Frankly, it is far too easy to jump up from a chair in the Senate and 
allege that the amendment you do not like is somehow borne of politics. 
Yes, there is a barrel full of politics around these days, a barrel 
full of politics in this Chamber and downtown. We know it when we see 
it. But I think it ill serves this discussion to talk about 
irresponsibility, to talk about politics on the issue of what the role 
of this country is, the determination and the resolve of this country, 
to decide to provide more focus, more clarity, and more energy to 
apprehending the head of al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden, the person who 
masterminded the attack against this country. Again, there is never a 
circumstance where anyone would find myself or my colleague, Senator 
Conrad, coming to the Senate to do injury to anything else we are doing 
in this country together.
  I indicated when I started that I don't think the fight against 
terrorism is about Democrats or Republicans. It is certainly not about 
politics, or shouldn't be. However, it is almost unbelievable to me 
that this amendment is described as ``political season'' campaign 
period-motivated and, even more, a slam at our national security. 
Nothing could be further from the truth than that. This is not slamming 
anyone. This is trying to provide additional resources, additional 
focus, additional energy toward a goal that I hope every 
single American shares. In fact, I bet we would be hard pressed to find 
an American citizen who says this is not a worthy goal for our country.

  My colleague has said that there has been a continuing, unwavering 
effort to apprehend the top of the terrorist groups, including the 
leaders of al-Qaida. Let me read, from 2002, the President's response 
when asked about Osama bin Laden:

       I don't know where he is. I know I just don't spend much 
     time on him, to be honest. I am not truly that concerned 
     about him. I know he's on the run.

  The fact is, there have been times when we have been diverted to 
other areas. Does anyone here believe Iraq has not detracted 
substantially from what is happening in Afghanistan? Does anyone here 
believe that? Most of us have been over those mountains. I have flown 
over those mountains and looked down at the mountains between 
Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is where most believe Osama bin Laden is 
hiding, among supporters. I understand how difficult it is to apprehend 
someone hiding in that region. I don't diminish the difficulty and the 
complexity of accomplishing that mission.
  My colleague and I offered an amendment which is relatively simple 
which tries to provide more focus and more clarity on the goal, which 
tries to provide resources. These resources are not dramatic or 
substantial resources relative to the amount of money we have been 
spending, for example, in Iraq.
  A Member brings an amendment to the floor and someone says: This is 
political, this is campaign season. That is too easy. I don't think 
that treats serious issues seriously enough. This is an

[[Page S9081]]

issue which is serious. It is an issue that deserves attention by this 
Congress, deserves a statement by this Congress, which I expect we will 
make unanimously, I hope we will make unanimously. It is a statement 
that almost every American, I believe, would say they agree with, a 
statement that says to the American people: Here is a priority, a very 
substantial priority for which we will dedicate the resources and 
rededicate ourselves to address these issues.
  My understanding is the Senator from Alaska will seek a quorum call, 
which is just fine.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I listened with great interest to both of my friends and 
colleagues in their comments.
  As I understand, the amount included in the Senator's amendment is 
$200 million to be expended over a 2-year period?
  Mr. DORGAN. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. And the Senator mentioned a figure, and it is my 
understanding we are spending $200 million a day, virtually, in Iraq at 
the present time. I think that gives some proportion as to requested 
resources--$200 million a day in Iraq and $200 million over a 2-year 
period for this effort.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. DORGAN. I think the Senator puts in perspective the amount of 
money that is being described.
  Let me finally say that I noticed yesterday--I was not in the Senate, 
but I had the television on--noticed the same issue developing 
yesterday on an amendment my colleague offered. There was a suggestion 
that this is all political, all politics, every time someone offers an 
amendment that someone disagrees with. That is total nonsense. This 
issue deserves much more serious treatment and much more serious debate 
than that.
  I am pleased that apparently there will be a unanimous vote.
  I yield the floor, and I reserve the remainder of time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I will discuss a bit more fully what led 
me to this amendment. It is not the President's comments of several 
days ago. That was not the genesis of this amendment. I have believed 
since we went to war in Iraq--anyone can look at the record and what I 
said in this Senate the night of the vote--I said then that I believed 
going to Iraq was a distraction. I believe it diverted our attention 
and resources from going after the al-Qaida leadership that organized 
the attack on America. I said that then. I believed it then. I believe 
it now.
  I have a bit of a different background from many of my colleagues. I 
went to high school at an American military base in Tripoli, Libya, 
North Africa. I lived in the Arab culture. One of the ironies was the 
Senator from Alaska suggested this is a slap in the face at the 
intelligence community. My family served in the intelligence services 
of our country in that part of the world. I am precluded from going 
further than that because of classification issues. I have great 
respect for those who serve in the clandestine and the intelligence 
services of our country. I have consulted many of them in writing this 
amendment.
  I believe deeply this is the right approach to operationalize, to 
more fully fund the efforts, not only to get Osama bin Laden--although 
I believe he is at the top of the list--I also believe it is critically 
important to get Zawahiri, I believe it is critically important to get 
Mullah Omar. I regret deeply that resources were transferred from 
Afghanistan to Iraq. that we had forces that were experts in Arab 
culture and Arab language and we shifted them to Iraq.

  The hard reality is, while there have been successes, which I 
acknowledged in my opening remarks--I would say to the Senator from 
Alaska, there have been very excellent successes. Getting Zarqawi, 
thank God, we got him. Thank goodness for each of those who have been 
captured and taken out of operational involvement in planning 
additional attacks on the country.
  But the job is not done. We know that. I believe very strongly that 
we made a strategic error in going to Iraq. I said it then, I say it 
now. I believe the focus and the energy and the attention ought to have 
gone--the priority ought to have been al-Qaida, its leadership, and its 
worldwide network.
  I believe this is fundamentally different than World War II. I 
believe this is a long and difficult struggle. I believe this is a 
dangerous world. I believe there are people who are plotting right now 
to again attack our country. And I want to be part of an effort to do 
everything we can to stop them. That is why I offer this amendment, and 
for no other reason.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dayton be added 
as an original cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 8 minutes 49 seconds remaining.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me read one additional piece I did not 
describe in my earlier presentation. Let me read from the State 
Department's latest report on terrorism because I think it is important 
for all of us to understand.
  This is, again, from the U.S. State Department's latest report on 
terrorism:

       Al-Qaida's top leaders continue to plot and direct terror 
     attacks worldwide. . . . Over the past four years, al-Qaida, 
     its affiliates and those inspired by the group were also 
     involved in many anti-U.S. or anti-coalition attacks in 
     Africa, Europe, the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and 
     Iraq, including suicide bombings and vehicle-borne improvised 
     explosive devices.

  Again, the first sentence:

       Al-Qaida's top leaders continue to plot and direct terror 
     attacks worldwide. . . .

  ``Direct terror attacks worldwide''--it is why I think there is no 
more important goal for this country than to add additional resources, 
provide additional focus to this question of bringing to justice the 
head of the organization that has attacked this country and that now 
organizes and expands and continues to attack around the rest of the 
world.
  I previously described that just in this year alone we have been the 
recipients of five messages from Osama bin Laden--five just this year. 
It has been dozens since 2001. I think all of us share a goal and the 
view that we need to apprehend and bring to justice those who head the 
organization that attacked this country.
  Fighting terrorism is difficult and dangerous and complex. We 
understand all that. All of us salute our troops. All of us want to 
work together. As I have indicated, this is not about Republicans and 
Democrats. It is about Americans sharing and aspiring to achieve a 
goal. And that goal is to defeat terrorism.
  I think the most effective and important way to defeat terrorism, 
however, is to try to dismantle the organization, and especially 
dismantle the organization by apprehending the head of that 
organization and bringing the head and top officials of that 
organization to justice.
  That has not been done, and we are not blaming anybody. I join my 
colleague, Senator Conrad, in saluting those in our intelligence 
service and our military who risk their lives every day. But I believe 
it is very important for us, as we put together a piece of legislation 
with substantial resources, to provide greater clarity and focus on 
this goal. That is why Senator Conrad and I have written this amendment 
and offer it today.
  I understand there are some who do not want it offered, do not want 
to have this discussion. I respectfully believe they are wrong. I do 
not allege that they have political motives. I just believe they are 
wrong. My hope is,

[[Page S9082]]

when the Senate speaks to this, it will have accomplished something 
that is productive and substantial in its comments on this issue.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, there are other Members who are on their 
way who wish to speak on this matter. I do not know if they will make 
it.
  Senator Menendez has arrived.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). Who yields time?
  Mr. CONRAD. I say to Senator Menendez, we could give you 2 minutes.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to strongly support Senator 
Conrad's and Senator Dorgan's amendment and to join with them in it.
  It seems to me, as someone who on the anniversary of September 11 is 
reminded of the 700 New Jersey lives that were lost on that fateful 
day, as well as all of those other Americans who lost their lives on 
that fateful day, that the central figure, the individual who was the 
mastermind of their deaths, who struck on that fateful day, is Osama 
bin Laden. It is very clear to me that we must either catch or kill 
Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of those attacks.
  I know many Americans were as shocked as I was when they heard the 
news reports that the administration had allegedly closed down or 
realigned the Osama bin Laden unit at the CIA. And while there is a 
very difficult process to publicly confirm these reports, I believe the 
Senate must make it very clear that the United States can in no way 
reduce or dilute our efforts to kill or capture Osama bin Laden.
  With this amendment, we ensure that not only is that unit not 
disbanded and not merged and not diluted, but, in fact, we ensure that 
we increase our efforts.
  To anyone who would like to argue that we do not need to focus on al-
Qaida or bin Laden, I would remind them that just because there has not 
been another terrorist attack on U.S. soil that does not mean al-Qaida 
has been eliminated or that bin Laden has been rendered ineffective.
  So I am in incredibly strong support of Senator Conrad's amendment. 
Perhaps the face of Islamic terrorism has evolved, but he still is our 
central focus.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from North Dakota has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from New 
York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota. 
And I thank both of my colleagues from North Dakota for offering this 
outstanding amendment.
  If there were ever a metaphor for what is wrong with the war on 
terror, it is the fact that Osama bin Laden is alive. He continues to 
taunt us on al Jazeera broadcasts that we have not found him.
  Now, if we said we were doing everything we could to find him, that 
would be one thing. But the unit to get him was disbanded. Many report 
that the number of troops in Afghanistan is not adequate. They have 
just asked for more today. And he is our No. 1 danger.
  So I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support this 
amendment. The fact that 5 years after 9/11 we have not yet found bin 
Laden shows we can do a whole lot better in the war on terror than we 
are doing.
  This amendment will help bring us there. I urge full bipartisan 
support of it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I announce to the Senate that the next 
vote will be Senator Domenici's 13,000th vote.
  I also announce to the Senate that my younger brother, from Hawaii, 
Senator Inouye, has a birthday today.
  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. 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 hope every Senator will vote for the 
amendment. I don't know any Senator who will vote against providing 
money to continue the search for Osama bin Laden. If I could disclose 
to you how much money is in this bill otherwise for a classified 
program, you would understand why this is a superfluous amendment.
  Understanding that nobody would want to vote against something like 
this, if this amendment becomes law, the freedom of information 
provisions would mean all of the activities would be available to 
anybody. This is not a classified $200 million to search for bin Laden. 
Again, it is irresponsible, but I would not vote against the amendment. 
I don't want to be known for voting against additional money to search 
for Osama bin Laden.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Senator's 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 4907 offered by the 
Senator from North Dakota. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. 
Isakson), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 235 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     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
     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
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Chambliss
     Isakson
     Lieberman
     Santorum
  The amendment (No. 4907) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.


       Congratulating Senator Pete Domenici On His 13,000th Vote

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, on this last rollcall vote, No. 235, the 
distinguished Senator from New Mexico, the current chairman of the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and the former long-serving 
chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Pete Domenici, cast his 
13,000th vote in this Chamber--13,000 votes. Senator Domenici now joins 
a very historic and select club of Senators who can claim this 
distinction. Senators now cast more votes than ever in each Congress, 
so while historical records are not perfect, the Senate Librarian says 
that we are safe to conclude that among all Senators who have served 
since the beginning of the Republic, Senator Domenici is in a class of 
only eight. Since the beginning of the Republic, only seven other 
Senators have similarly cast more than 13,000 votes in their careers in 
the Senate, and four of them are serving today. The club of seven now 
becomes the club of eight with Senator Domenici's last vote here today.

[[Page S9083]]

  Those other seven Senators are Senator Clayburn Pell, the current 
President pro tempore, Senator Ted Stevens, Senator Ted Kennedy, 
Senator Daniel Inouye, Senator Ernest Hollings, the late Senator Strom 
Thurmond, and with over 17,733 votes, the all-time record, Senator 
Robert C. Byrd.
  Senator Domenici, I know I speak for all of your fellow Senators when 
I say congratulations on this achievement. But more importantly, thank 
you for your tremendous service over the years to New Mexico, to your 
country, and importantly to the U.S. Senate.
  (Applause, Senators rising.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, why would I, the Democratic leader of the 
Senate, stand to offer effusive praise for my Republican colleague, the 
Senator from New Mexico, Pete Domenici? The reason is, I know him. He 
is my friend. Pete Domenici and I have worked on a subcommittee that is 
so important to this country, Energy and Water. My entire tenure in the 
Senate has been with him. The last many years Senator Domenici and I 
have worked as ranking member and chair. Whoever controls the Senate, 
Democrat or Republican, the person whose party is controlling becomes 
the chairman, the member of the other party becomes the ranking member 
of that committee. It doesn't matter to Pete Domenici or Harry Reid, as 
it relates to that subcommittee, which is the party in power because we 
have worked as partners on that subcommittee. We have done some 
tremendously important things for this country, not only in funding 
important projects but changing policy.
  I like Pete Domenici for a number of reasons. I admire Pete Domenici 
for a number of reasons. As a boy, I wanted more than anything else to 
be a baseball player. I wanted to be a good baseball player. In my 
child's mind, I figured I could be. But as I got older, I didn't run 
very fast. I wasn't as strong as I thought I was, so my baseball career 
was not much to write home about. Pete Domenici's is. Pete Domenici was 
a pitcher. Pete Domenici pitched for a farm club of one of my favorite 
baseball teams, the Dodgers, where my good, close friend, Hall of Famer 
Greg Maddux, now pitches.
  Pete Domenici will not make the Hall of Fame for baseball, but he 
will for U.S. Senator. He is a wonderful man.
  One reason he is as good as he is is because of the woman he married 
in 1958 by the name of Nancy Burke. They are a wonderful team. I admire 
and respect them both very much. They have a wonderful family, a large 
family--two sons and six daughters.
  I congratulate Pete Domenici, a U.S. Senator from New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to add my congratulations to 
Senator Domenici on this great achievement, achieving this milestone of 
becoming one of eight Senators in the history of our country to have 
cast this many votes.
  I have had the good fortune in the 24 years I have been here in the 
Senate to serve with Senator Domenici, and also, of course more 
recently, to serve with him on the Energy Committee as the ranking 
member. I have seen the leadership he has provided to deal with our 
energy issues.
  He is the longest serving Senator to have served from the State of 
New Mexico. Of course, he has cast more votes on behalf of the people 
of the State of New Mexico than anyone in the history of this country. 
For that he deserves great recognition.
  The people of the State I represent recognize his great contribution 
and appreciate it greatly. I congratulate him today on reaching this 
milestone.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first of all, let me say thank you to 
each Senator who commented on my many years of voting, which has 
yielded 13,000 today. I thank you very much and, in particular, I thank 
the majority leader for doing what he has done, by setting aside these 
few moments. I greatly appreciate it.
  I guess it is pretty easy to get to 13,000. You just stick around 
long enough and come and vote and you will get there. I don't know how 
many more I will get but certainly a lot more because there are a lot 
of years left to come. I don't know how many we will be celebrating, 
but this is a very special one because of the special people who are 
here, indicating to me in their own gracious way their appreciation for 
what I do or don't do in the Senate. I thank all of them for that.
  Frankly, I don't feel as if I have cast 13,000 votes, so I don't know 
what that means. Maybe it means I have a lot more to come. I hope so. 
Maybe it means we are voting a lot more in the Senate than we used to.
  In any event, it is a proud day because you all have made it one. 
Thank you very much.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, before I speak to an amendment, let me 
join in the commendations to our colleague, Senator Domenici. I am 
privileged to serve on the Energy Committee which Senator Domenici 
chairs. I appreciate his leadership, as well as his commitment to our 
country. I am pleased to join the many voices that have spoken about 
his service.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4909

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. I ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  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 4909.

  Mr. MENENDEZ. 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 for a public relations program 
designed to monitor news media in the United States and the Middle East 
 and create a database of news stories to promote positive coverage of 
                            the war in Iraq)

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:
       Sec. 8019. (a) Prohibition on Use of Funds for Certain 
     Public Relations Activities.--None of the amounts 
     appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be 
     obligated or expended for a public relations program designed 
     to monitor news media in the United States and the Middle 
     East and create a database of news stories to promote 
     positive coverage of the war in Iraq.
       (b) Scope.--The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not 
     apply to programs and activities of the Department of Defense 
     directed at collecting or analyzing information in the news 
     media.

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment that 
would limit funds for any future public relations campaign being 
commissioned by the Pentagon to promote positive coverage of the war in 
Iraq. We first learned about this $20 million PR campaign to improve 
the image of President Bush's Iraq policy in the Washington Post last 
week. In my mind, this proposal is not just irresponsible, it is an 
insult to the thousands of Iraqi citizens and coalition forces who have 
died in this war. At a time when this violent insurgency continues to 
expand and American troops are putting their lives on the line day in 
and day out, what is the administration's focus? A better public 
relations campaign? The Bush administration doesn't need a new PR 
campaign in Iraq. They need a new policy in Iraq.
  We must change the course in Iraq, not waste time or money for public 
relations efforts. We must work to reduce the insurgency, not suppress 
news reports of its existence. We must strive to improve the situation 
on the ground in Iraq, not focus on changing the spin. That is why I am 
offering this amendment that would prohibit funds being used for this 
type of public relations campaign.
  Let me be clear. This amendment prohibits the use of funds for a 
public relations campaign and a database of news stories that is 
designed to promote positive coverage of the war. But the amendment 
specifically does not prohibit the normal work of the Department of 
Defense for collecting or analyzing information in the news

[[Page S9084]]

media. The fact is, we do not need more propaganda. We need a new 
policy. I can certainly understand why the Bush administration would 
want to sugarcoat the news coming out of Iraq. The facts and the 
figures about the reality on the ground tell a somber story.
  When more than 250 Iraqis were killed last week alone, and the 
killings continue today; when kidnapping by those wearing Iraqi 
security force uniforms becomes commonplace, and average Iraqis now 
flee from Iraqis in uniform; when the U.S. Special Inspector General 
for Iraq Reconstruction comes out with a report that paints a picture 
of incompetence, fraud, and failure, and USAID, the agency in charge of 
over $1.4 billion in reconstruction, has been hiding millions of 
dollars in construction overruns and failing to report the true costs 
and problems to the Congress; when some Iraqis are now too afraid to go 
to the morgue to retrieve the bodies of their loved ones for fear of 
being killed or kidnapped themselves; and when instead of reducing 
troops, thousands of troops have been ordered to go to Baghdad, and an 
Army brigade had its tours extended, it is time to change the course in 
Iraq.
  It is certainly easy to see why the Bush administration is afraid of 
the truth, and it is no surprise that a CNN poll released on Monday 
showed that 61 percent of Americans said they oppose the war as it is 
in Iraq, the highest opposition shown in any CNN poll since the war 
began.
  For those in the Bush administration who complain that the media only 
reports bad news coming out of Iraq, I invite them to look at the facts 
and figures offered by the Pentagon itself last week. In its latest 
report to Congress, the Pentagon found that Iraqi casualties are up by 
more than 50 percent in recent months. Violence in Iraq continues to 
rise, and innocent Iraqi civilians are paying the price. The casualty 
rate is now almost 120 a day, compared to 30 a day 2 years ago.
  The President continues to speak of progress, but the numbers tell a 
different story. From the time the new Iraqi Government was established 
on May 20, until August 11, the number of attacks were almost 800 per 
week. That is a huge increase from the beginning of the year and almost 
double from the beginning of 2004. So it is clear that the Bush policy 
in Iraq simply is not working, and it is time for a new direction.
  The President needs to realize that we do not need a new propaganda 
campaign, we need a new policy. Frankly, I personally never believed 
the administration's false arguments about why we should go to war in 
Iraq, and I believe this administration never had a strategy for 
success in Iraq, and that is why I voted against the war in Iraq even 
when that vote was unpopular. That is why I am standing up for a new 
direction in Iraq today.
  The President led us into this war based on false premises and false 
promises. President Bush went into the war without a plan to win the 
peace.
  Unfortunately, this administration still doesn't have a real plan for 
success in Iraq. Our soldiers have performed bravely under the most 
difficult of circumstances. But as Iraq moves closer and closer to an 
all-out civil war, as even the commander, General Abizaid, admitted was 
possible, it is time to change policy.
  The fact is that the war in Iraq has hurt us along the way in terms 
of our national security. By changing course in Iraq, we can make our 
own country more secure.
  I look back at Hurricane Katrina just a year ago. I see the terrible 
price the people of the gulf paid when their National Guard troops were 
away in Iraq and unable to protect their neighbors here at home. Our 
homeland is simply less secure when our National Guard and Reserves are 
being kept in permanent rotation in Iraq.
  This war has also distracted us from the great international security 
threats to the United States. While the administration is focused on 
the war in Iraq, North Korea has only become more defiant because they 
know we are bogged down in Iraq and have lost credibility with the 
international community.
  Under this administration, North Korea has conducted launched missile 
tests and has likely increased the size of its nuclear arsenal. They 
have withdrawn from the Non-proliferation Treaty. The Congressional 
Research Service has estimated that the number of simple, fission-type 
weapons produced by the North Koreans prior to 2001 was between zero 
and two. Now this defiant regime has an estimated three to nine nuclear 
weapons.
  While the administration has been distracted in Iraq, Iran has also 
become more defiant and has started enriching uranium, flaunting an 
international package designed to help end their nuclear weapons 
program, and is supporting Hezbollah's attacks against Israel.
  It is in Afghanistan that we have paid one of the heaviest security 
costs for the war in Iraq. The bottom line is the administration never 
finished the job in Afghanistan. Afghanistan--not Iraq--was the right 
place to pursue the national security of the United States. It was in 
Afghanistan--not Iraq--that the murderers of September 11 were located. 
Our lack of attention and resources in Afghanistan has allowed the 
country to once again become a land of increased turmoil.
  Many of us have been horrified as we have watched the resurgence of 
Taliban and strong anti-American sentiment in Afghanistan. In the past 
3 years, there have been 284 attacks by the Taliban, and the number of 
suicide attacks continues to rise sharply. We have also seen poppy 
cultivation more than double since 1999. That ultimately is what 
emanates the opium on the streets of our cities and across the world.
  I believe it is long past time for the United States to focus 
attention on Afghanistan and on the current threats from Iran and North 
Korea.
  Let me simply say that the war in Iraq has not helped quell 
terrorism. In fact, it has fueled the proliferation of terrorist 
organizations and has increased instability in Iraq at the expense of 
our Nation's economy and the lives of our service men and women. The 
Iraq war has drained our Treasury of $320 billion. Well over 2,600 of 
our bravest men and women have lost their lives, and nearly 20,000 have 
been injured. That is the most fundamental issue facing our country 
today.
  Three and a half years into the war and the administration's 
overhyped spin has become unwound. Predictions that we would be greeted 
as liberators have proven false, and the President's partisan attacks 
on anyone who dares criticize his failed policy have led to the hollow 
truth behind both the original decision to go to war and the propaganda 
he and his supporters still spew forth every day. The facts are as 
clear as the day, and a majority of Americans know the decision to 
invade Iraq was the wrong one.
  In light of this knowledge, it is time to tell the President that we 
don't need a new propaganda campaign; we need a new policy. It is time 
to make clear that the Defense bill should be about flak jackets for 
our troops, not PR flak for the Bush administration. That is why I have 
offered this amendment which tells the administration to forget about 
the spin and concentrate on the mission at hand.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. I object. What is this? I thought we would dispose of 
the Menendez amendment first. Are there further speakers on the 
amendment? I would like to see the amendment. Will the Senator agree to 
a time agreement for a vote on the Menendez amendment? Will Senator 
Menendez agree to vote at a time certain on his amendment?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Sure. I would consider such an agreement.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, will my colleague from Alaska yield?
  Mr. STEVENS. I would be happy to yield.

[[Page S9085]]

  Mr. SCHUMER. I don't believe my amendment will take much time. It 
might be good to dispose of both of them together.
  Mr. STEVENS. Very well. I hope we can get a time agreement for a 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.


                           Amendment No. 4897

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4897.

  Mr. SCHUMER. 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 (No. 4897) is as follows:

 (Purpose: To make available up to an additional $700,000,000 for Drug 
   Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities to combat the growth of 
poppies in Afghanistan, to eliminate the production and trade of opium 
   and heroin, and to prevent terrorists from using the proceeds for 
   terrorist activities in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, and to 
         designate the additional amount as emergency spending)

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:
       Sec. 8109. (a) Additional Amount for Drug Interdiction and 
     Counter-Drug Activities.--The amount appropriated by title VI 
     under the heading ``Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug 
     Activities'' is hereby increased by $700,000,000, with the 
     amount of the increase 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.
       (b) Availability.--Of the amount appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by title VI under the heading ``Drug 
     Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities'', as increased by 
     subsection (a), up to an additional $700,000,000 may be 
     available to combat the growth of poppies in Afghanistan, to 
     eliminate the production and trade of opium and heroin, and 
     to prevent terrorists from using the proceeds for terrorist 
     activities in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere.
       (c) Supplement Not Supplant.--The amount available under 
     subsection (b) for the purpose set forth in that subsection 
     is in addition to any other amounts available in this Act for 
     that purpose.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I will be brief.
  I rise to offer an amendment to the DOD appropriations bill to 
address what is literally a growing problem in the fight on the war on 
terror. We are not really doing enough to counteract an ever-increasing 
production of opium in Afghanistan, a problem that is threatening the 
ever fragile Government. Not only does opium production fuel its heroin 
trade around the globe, but the heroin funds terrorists who aim to 
attack America and our allies around the world.
  We all note the deterioration of the situation in Afghanistan. One of 
the main reasons that situation is deteriorating is the opium 
production is increasing dramatically. It will increase by a huge 50 
percent over last year. A large portion of the opium trade is 
controlled by the Taliban, the very people who provide the ``warm'' 
reception.
  I say that with sarcasm. It is due to bin Laden and al-Qaida. And yet 
the Taliban is increasing their reach, their strength, their hold on 
the country, and their wealth through opium.
  As I mentioned, there has been a surge by over 50 percent over the 
last year's harvest, a surge in production largely in the southern part 
of the country where the Taliban has reasserted control. It is in part 
because we have abandoned Afghanistan and the country is steadily 
descending into chaos as we have less and less to say over it. We have 
abandoned large parts, and opium rules.
  I hope my colleagues will listen to the fact. Afghanistan now 
supplies more than 90 percent of the world's opium. In this year alone, 
there were over 400,000 acres of poppies planted, compared to 250,000 
acres in 2005--a 50-percent increase. Why is this happening? It is 
happening in Afghanistan because the administration failed to finish 
the job when we changed our focus to Iraq, and now the country is 
swarming with corrupt warlords and the Taliban is once again taking 
control over a large portion of the country. Our soldiers fought long 
and hard to rid Afghanistan of terrorists and the Taliban; however, if 
the drug trade continues to surge and consume the nation, their heroic 
efforts may be undone.
  The Taliban draws its strength from the drug trade, and in order to 
prevent them from reclaiming the country, we need to crack down on the 
drugs that fuel its regime. The Taliban generates an amazing 70 percent 
of its income through the production and sale of opium. Those poppies 
generate a whole lot of money. This year's opium harvest is worth 
roughly $4 billion.
  In addition, the Taliban is fueling the production of opium from 
behind the scenes and using the profits to fund its brutal and 
oppressive regime. Every night, the Taliban drops off ``night letters'' 
encouraging poor Afghan farmers to grow poppies in exchange for 
``protection.'' Unfortunately, just like in ``The Godfather,'' that is 
an offer they cannot refuse.
  Now Afghanistan's narcotrade is spreading outside its borders and 
funding insurgents and foreign terrorists in Iraq. Money from the sale 
of Afghan-produced heroin is being used by terrorists to buy weapons 
and equipment, to create improvised explosive devices, and to pay 
ordinary Iraqi citizens to attack U.S. soldiers in Iraq. If foreign 
terrorists are using Afghanistan's opium production to fund their 
deadly activities in Iraq, what is to stop them from using the same 
funds to attack the United States? On 9/11, it is estimated that the 
horrible acts by al-Qaida cost only $500,000 to carry out. Can you 
imagine how many more attacks they could carry out given how huge the 
profits are from Afghanistan's opium?
  Given the magnitude of this problem, a total of $350 million to the 
Departments of State and Defense to fight opium in this part of the 
world is not enough. Those funds weren't enough--it is proven fact--
when the production has doubled in a year's time. I am not saying the 
funds are not being used effectively. They may well be. They are 
clearly not enough. Fighting Afghanistan's drug production and trade is 
elemental to our success in fighting global terrorism. It is essential 
to protect our troops in Iraq, keep Afghanistan from descending into 
chaos, and save American lives here at home.
  My amendment will increase counternarcotics funding in Afghanistan by 
$700 million. With additional funds, the Department of Defense can work 
to ensure that the Taliban and other foreign terrorists don't use 
Afghanistan's opium crop against the United States.
  Last year, the U.S. Government spent less than $350 million fighting 
the drug trade. Afghanistan produced its largest poppy crop in recorded 
history and raised billions of dollars to fund terrorism.
  For people who say this significant amount of money is not useful, it 
sure is. On a cost-effective basis, it is. It costs a lot more to fight 
terrorists who use the money from the poppy trade than to fight the 
poppy trade itself.
  Some may suggest the money is not useful to DOD, but I would argue 
that DOD clearly doesn't have enough resources just on the basis ipso 
facto that the crop doubled last year. We have to make sure the 
Department of Defense and the State Department have all the available 
resources to combat this threat.

  Others may say this issue is not a priority to DOD and we should let 
other agencies take the lead on this issue. The problem clearly is not 
a priority to DOD, but it absolutely should be, and this amendment will 
make clear that is our intent.
  The growing insecurity in Afghanistan clearly requires that DOD take 
a more active role in combating the rise in the Taliban and 
corresponding rise in production of opium. To show that we are serious 
about combating cultivation of poppies and the production and trade of 
opium and heroin, we must put additional resources into the fight. If 
we don't, Afghanistan's drug trade will come back to haunt us.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment when we have a vote on 
it later today. I thank the President and my colleagues from Alaska and 
Hawaii.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feinstein be added as an 
original cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4909

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the Menendez

[[Page S9086]]

amendment be put before the Senate again. I ask unanimous consent that 
it be the pending business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to be as courteous as possible. It 
is not a very good word to use, but it seems to me the Menendez 
amendment places a gag order on the Department of Defense. It says that 
the gains made by our military people and by the Iraqi forces cannot be 
reported to our people or to the Iraqi people.
  It is a strange amendment, if you want to look at it, because it just 
says no funds may be expended for a public relations program to monitor 
news media in the United States and Middle East and create a database 
of news stories to promote a positive image of the war in Iraq.
  The Department's press office normally reports day-to-day activities 
and is doing just that--getting the stories around and making sure we 
at home and the people in Iraq and our people in uniform know the 
positive side of this engagement.
  I can tell you that at home we see the negative side all the time. It 
seems to me that answering questions with positive stories would be 
considered a PR effort. I do think it would have unintended 
consequences potentially impacting intelligence activities. I don't 
want to go into that too much, but the world knows about this 
information and the activities that have been going on for years. They 
have been going on for years.

  We should not allow the Senate to take the position that prevents the 
Department of Defense to report on favorable news and to create a 
program to do that. To me, it constitutes a gag order.
  I move to table the Senator's amendment.


                           Amendment No. 4897

  It is my intention now to ask the Senate to make the Schumer 
amendment the pending business. I ask unanimous consent that is the 
pending business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Vitter). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, funding in this current year for 
activities in Afghanistan is $116.5 million.
  That money is being used to build border crossing points and police 
headquarters and to train and equip Afghan national police and other 
security forces in drug detection and eradication.
  A significant portion of those funds is still being programmed to be 
spent. There was a delay in getting that bill ready for expenditures 
for 2006 so there will be some carryover into 2007. We don't know how 
much that will be.
  The President asked for an additional $18.5 million for this year in 
this bill, and the committee supported that request.
  In addition to the funding in the Department of Defense 
appropriations bill before the Senate, the fiscal year 2007 Foreign 
Operations bill as reported to the Senate has $297 million for 
counterdrug activities in Afghanistan. The Commerce Science Justice 
bill includes $30.5 million for counterdrug activities in Afghanistan. 
This means in the current bills pending for approval, there is already 
$346 million for counterdrug activities in Afghanistan for 2007, 
notwithstanding the carryover money that is available. This means there 
is approximately $400 million that will be available in 2007 already 
and the Senator wants to add $700 million to that. That is an enormous 
amount of money.
  The British Government actually takes the lead in counterdrug 
operations in Afghanistan. As we all know, NATO is in there now. The 
United States should not offer to take the entire financial burden of 
this operation. It is a multinational effort.
  The Senator is right in his premise that poppy production sales are a 
funding mechanism for terrorist activities in Afghanistan. We do 
support poppy eradication efforts. However, we do not need to throw 
money at that problem. Four-tenths of a billion dollars ought to be 
enough for one year.
  We have reviewed the counterdrug budgets for DOD and other agencies, 
and we believe they are sufficiently budgeted not only for this current 
year but for the 2007 year. If the Department needs additional funds 
for 2007, we will have a supplemental in the spring. I would be the 
first to support it if the Department came in and said they needed more 
money. However, in view of the fact that we are working with NATO and 
working with the British Government, which has the lead on this 
program, I do not think doubling the amount available for this program 
is prudent.
  As a matter of fact, obviously from the experience in the current 
year, it would not be spent.
  That should not be voted upon by the Senate. I move to table Senator 
Schumer's amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent at 2 p.m. today the Senate proceed to a vote 
in relation to the pending Menendez amendment, to be followed by a vote 
in relation to the Schumer amendment--I have always made the motions to 
table--that no second-degree amendments be in order prior to the vote, 
and there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to the vote on each 
amendment. I believe this has been cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I don't wish to seem preemptory about this. I thank the 
Senators for their courtesy in bringing the amendments to the Senate.
  Can we make the second vote 10 minutes? I ask unanimous consent the 
vote on the Menendez amendment be a 15-minute vote and the Schumer 
amendment be a 10-minute vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent it be in order for me to ask for 
the yeas and nays on both amendments at the same time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. 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. REED. 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. 4911

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to lay aside 
the pending amendment and send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for himself and 
     Mr. Bayh, proposes an amendment numbered 4911.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To make available an additional $65,400,000 for additional 
appropriations for Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, for the procurement 
of Predators for Special Operations forces, and to designate the amount 
                      as an emergency requirement)

       At the end of title IX, add the following:
       Sec. 9012. (a) Additional Amount for Aircraft Procurement, 
     Air Force.--The amount appropriated by chapter 3 of this 
     title under the heading ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force'' 
     is hereby increased by $65,400,000, with the amount of the 
     increase designated as appropriations for contingency 
     operations directly related to the Global War on Terrorism, 
     and other unanticipated defense-related operations, pursuant 
     to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376 (109th Congress), as made 
     applicable to the House of Representatives by H. Con. Res. 
     818 (109th Congress) and 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.
       (b) Availability for Procurement of Predators.--Of the 
     amount appropriated by chapter 3 of this title under the 
     heading ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force'', as increased by 
     subsection (a), up to $65,400,000 may be available for 
     procurement of Predators for Special Operations forces.
       (c) Supplement Not Supplant.--The amount available under 
     subsection (b) for the purpose specified in that subsection 
     is in addition to any other amounts available in this Act for 
     that purpose.

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment along with my 
colleague from Indiana, Senator Evan Bayh, which would provide an 
additional $65.4 million for the procurement of Predators for our 
special operations forces. The Predator is an unmanned aerial vehicle--
or UAV, for

[[Page S9087]]

short--used for armed reconnaissance, airborne surveillance, and target 
acquisition. It has become a critical asset in the war on terror. It is 
a small, remotely piloted aircraft that brings the battlefront to the 
military.
  Through the use of cameras and other sensors, the Predator monitors, 
in real time, buildings or people. Because it is unmanned, it is ideal 
for use in areas that are inaccessible to the U.S. military such as 
areas where the airspace is unsecure, the terrain is unpassable, or the 
environment is contaminated by chemical or biological weapons. The 
Predator system's hardware consists of a small monoplane with sensors, 
a ground control station, and data communications system.
  The special operations forces--the front line in our war on terror--
rely on Predator surveillance as part of their work to capture and kill 
the terrorists targeting our troops and the Governments of Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  There has been a lot of discussion recently about the war on terror. 
This is actually one of the systems which has been most decisive in 
killing the terrorists. That is why I think we have to support 
additional funding for this antiterrorist system.
  Right now, special operations forces depend upon Air Force assets, 
which are already in high demand, for Predator support. With more 
Predators, we can be more effective in going after and taking out the 
terrorists. According to the Defense News article entitled ``Inside the 
Zarqawi Takedown: Persistent Surveillance Helps End 3-Year Manhunt,'' 
the capture of the terrorist Abu Mus'Ab al-Zarqawi--the leader of al-
Qaida in Iraq, notorious for his despicable conduct--was facilitated 
decisively by Predator surveillance provided to special operations 
forces.
  The Quadrennial Defense Review recognized that special operators need 
dedicated UAV support and called for the establishment of a UAV 
squadron organic to special operations forces.
  The QDR reads:

       To achieve the future force characteristics for SOF--
     special operations forces--and to build on progress to date, 
     the Department will: . . . establish a SOF unmanned aerial 
     vehicle squadron to provide organic capabilities to locate 
     and target enemy capabilities in denied or contested areas.

  This special operations squadron would eventually provide coverage 24 
hours a day, 7 days a week, to assist the forces working to capture and 
kill terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. The objective, according to 
GEN Doug Brown, Commander of the Special Operations Command, SOCOM, is 
to establish an ``unblinking eye,'' which would help special operators 
targeting terrorists.
  The President's budget request for fiscal year 2007 included funding 
sufficient to begin to build the squadron, including the purchase of 
eight UAVs.
  On April 6, VADM Eric Olson, Deputy Commander of SOCOM, testified to 
the Armed Services Committee that the command did not have sufficient 
surveillance platforms. On April 27, Senator Bayh sent a letter to the 
Armed Services Committee expressing his intent to address this issue 
via legislation. Subsequently, the Appropriations Committee took action 
in the fiscal year 2006 supplemental and accelerated funding for this 
purpose. This funding would have allowed the initial operating 
capability to be achieved in 2007, rather than 2008, and for the 
squadron to be fully operational with 24 UAVs in 2010 instead of 2011.
  I believe this acceleration would have been significantly 
contributing to the capability of our Special Operations Command. 
However, the acceleration was reversed by the Appropriations Committee 
just a few months later when it cut the funding for the UAV procurement 
for SOCOM--a cut to the Air Force aircraft procurement line.
  According to the Special Operations Command, this cut ``would negate 
the effect of the FY2006 Supplemental, . . . causing Full Operation 
Capability to revert back to the original timeline. This delay will 
adversely affect AFSOC's urgent ongoing requirement to conduct 
persistent intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and targeting 
missions.''
  The amendment Senator Bayh and I are offering would put the 
acceleration back on track by adding $65.4 million for six UAVs and 
associated equipment.
  Just 2 weeks ago, during a trip to Afghanistan and Iraq, the Armed 
Services Committee staff was told by the special operations forces in 
both countries, who are working hard to track the terrorists targeting 
our troops and the Governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, that their No. 
1 need is for Predator coverage. They need dedicated UAV support.
  We have not captured Osama bin Laden yet, and unfortunately there are 
many more targets for the special operators to conduct reconnaissance, 
surveillance, and, we hope, preemption. There is no rationale for not 
accelerating the establishment of the UAV squadron.
  SOCOM wants this, and they have stated such. They can execute this in 
the timeframe they have given the Congress. We need to increase the 
pressure on al-Qaida operatives in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as 
other terrorists attacking U.S. and coalition troops. These terrorists 
are threatening, each day, the success of our operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan and the safety of our personnel.
  If we really want to carry the fight to the terrorists, if we really 
want to individually and collectively go after and take out these 
terrorists, the Predator, according to our special operations forces, 
is a key ingredient in this effort. Rather than rhetoric about fighting 
the war on terrorism, let's give these special operators the tools to 
effectively fight and destroy terrorists wherever they may be.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I was off the floor, but I was informed 
of the amendment offered by Senators Reed and Bayh. It is my 
understanding--the Senator from Hawaii concurs--we would be willing to 
accept this amendment.
  Does the Senator want a vote on it? We would be happy to take it by 
voice vote if he is ready to let us accept it.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, my preference would be 
for a recorded vote, if possible. I think this is an important point 
about providing adequate resources to our special operators. Also, I 
would like to at least confer with Senator Bayh.
  Mr. STEVENS. Very well. I have no objection. This money, if nothing 
else, would be available to replace some of the Predators that have 
been lost. So we are willing to accept it, but if the Senator wishes a 
vote, I would ask that--Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on 
his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for 
voting on this amendment be delayed until we can confer with the 
leadership.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. 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. 4909

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the amendment 
offered by my friend and colleague from New Jersey, Senator Menendez. 
As has been his tradition, as has been his experience, he brings forth 
an issue that I think is of special importance at this moment because 
while we discussed in these last few days the honesty with which we get 
information and data, we have recognized that there is often an attempt 
to obscure the truth from the American people about the war we are in 
at the moment.
  We see it in different ways. We see it in the fact that, for 
instance, flag-draped coffins are not permitted to be photographed when 
the remains of our most courageous people fighting the

[[Page S9088]]

battle in Iraq are returned home. They come to a base in the State of 
Delaware, and it is prohibited to take pictures of those flag-draped 
coffins. That testimonial the country gives to these fallen soldiers is 
denied public view, as is the fact that there is another American, or 
more, lost in this quest to bring democracy to a country in which there 
is considerable doubt about whether they want our form of democracy. 
This amendment would make certain that no Department of Defense funds 
are used for propaganda.
  Last week, we learned that the Defense Department wants to pay a 
company $20 million to monitor and analyze American and Middle East 
media to help improve the image of the U.S. Government and the 
military. I fully agree with him on the importance of limiting these 
funds for a propaganda campaign. I will not support the use of these 
funds in that manner.
  The contractor being hired is expected to put together a database of 
news stories and assess their tone to come up with ways to get more 
glowing news coverage for the administration to try to convince the 
American people that things are going pretty much to plan and it just 
needs more time.
  We don't talk about the fact that it needs, very often, more troops 
to do this assignment, without regard to whether we ought to be there 
at this time or whether they deserve the protections and equipment that 
is often missing. But we are not just talking about the Middle East 
press. This is Department of Defense money provided by U.S. taxpayers 
to comb American newspapers to track and evaluate their stories.
  I can't say I am surprised by this development. After all, this 
administration has mastered the art of propaganda, and after I asked 
for investigations of the administration's propaganda activity, the 
Government Accountability Office, GAO, ruled that the administration 
violated law in several cases. Propaganda efforts by the Department of 
Health and Human Services and the Department of Education were ruled 
illegal by GAO.
  So what did the administration do? Did it agree to abide by the law? 
Of course not. That is not their customary action, not this 
administration. The administration announced that it would ignore the 
GAO rulings. The administration sees the rule of law as kind of a speed 
bump, not a roadblock. That is why Congress has to cut off these funds 
for these propaganda efforts.
  This isn't the Soviet Union. We promote a free press in this country. 
It is essential to our democratic functioning. Learn the truth, 
pleasant or unpleasant, and deal with it as we should--honestly. We 
should not be manipulating the news media in our country.
  I want the news about Iraq to be better, too. We all have great 
respect and affection for those who are on the front line who are doing 
their duty in spite of questions about what the purpose is or when the 
return to their homes begins. But maybe if we made some changes in our 
leadership and in our strategy we wouldn't need a PR campaign to 
improve our image here or abroad. Instead of trying to make the current 
situation look better, we ought to focus on actually making it better.
  If we have any money to spare, let's spend it on our troops making 
sure that everybody has body armor, the latest there is, to protect 
them, or that the humvees and other vehicles are appropriately armored 
to see if we can defend ourselves better against these roadside bombs 
and these attacks on our troops, or on developing better strategies to 
fight terrorism and to defend our country.
  We are on the eve of the commemoration of 9/11. It was one of the 
events in American history that still shocks our psyche. The fact that 
in a single day almost 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil by 
foreign intervention still astounds even the grimaced imagination. The 
fact that these two tall towers fell--I had an office in one of those 
towers when I was a commissioner of the Port Authority of New York and 
New Jersey before I came to the Senate. They stood like cities, with 
50,000 people going in and out, moving to their jobs, to their 
assignments, to their responsibilities, to their families, not only to 
their companies, not only to the services they provided. And we are 
still in search of the perpetrators.
  We all want to see victory come out of this war. The problem is I am 
not sure we can define victory. It is too late for us to resume our 
lives as we used to live them without constantly having to show an ID, 
without constantly having to be in lines waiting, interfered with in 
our normal routine. The last thing we need is to cover up reality. That 
is what is taking place. This is an attempt to further cover up the 
reality, cover up the losses we are enduring, cover up the expense it 
is costing us. The financial costs are secondary to the loss of life, 
but, nevertheless, that is reality.
  I commend my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Menendez. He has 
brought thoughtful discourse to this body, and we welcome his attempt 
to clear the air, to make sure we are not spending money to color the 
issues, to give it a rosy tone, but to tell the truth and to not spend 
$20 million of taxpayer money on glossing over what is a very painful 
reality.
  I hope our colleagues will fully support this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided on the Menendez amendment. Who yields time? The Senator from 
New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the 
motion to table the amendment. With all due respect, this isn't about 
any gag order. It is not about promoting whatever gains are made. We 
are happy to see whatever gains are made in the Defense Department, in 
the White House, and all of the Republican administration. They can 
roll out all of the good news they have. But what we don't need and 
what I hope the Senate will not vote for is $20 million of taxpayer 
funds for the purpose of having a public relations firm ultimately 
generate ``good press out of Iraq.'' That is not what we need. We need 
a change in policy, not a $20 million public relations contract.
  Our amendment specifically allows the Department of Defense to 
continue to collect or analyze information in the news media, as they 
do now, but we do not need a $20 million public relations program. If 
my colleagues vote for the motion to table, they are voting to have 
that $20 million public relations program that the taxpayers will fund.
  We can generate whatever good news may exist, but what we need is a 
change in policy. We don't need a PR program. This bill should be about 
flack jackets for our soldiers, not for the administration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator 
from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator's amendment will prohibit 
spending monies for a program to create a database for news stories 
that are positive. I do think there is an exception to that which says 
it does not apply to collecting and analyzing information in the news 
media. So they can spend money to analyze all the negative aspects of 
our news media, but they cannot spend money to collect the data that is 
necessary to provide the positive side of what our people are doing and 
what the Iraqi people are doing in Iraq in this terrible situation over 
there. I really think it is a gag order. I don't see why they should be 
able to collect all the news stories, but they can't collect the 
information that is positive and make it available.
  So I move to table this, and I believe we will have a vote here 
fairly soon. The 2 minutes equally divided will be after this 
amendment; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Yes.
  Mr. STEVENS. The yeas and nays have been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. 
Chambliss), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), and the Senator 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?

[[Page S9089]]

  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 236 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

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

                                NAYS--44

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

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Isakson
     Lieberman
     Santorum
  The motion 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.


                           Amendment No. 4897

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes evenly divided prior to 
the vote on the motion to table the Schumer amendment. The Senator from 
New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. The 
Taliban is gaining huge parts of Afghanistan, southern Afghanistan. The 
Taliban is all over the place. How do they fund themselves? How do they 
spread their hegemony? It is through opium. Opium production has 
doubled in a year. While we are making some efforts to fight it, we are 
not doing close to enough. If we want to stop the Taliban from going 
back to where they were before 9/11, we must stop the way they prosper, 
survive, and fund themselves. It is opium production. They make 90 
percent of the world's heroin.
  This amendment, very simply, adds money to the DOD budget so we can 
fight the scourge of opium and the scourge of terrorism to which it is 
interlinked in Afghanistan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, NATO is in charge, now, of Afghanistan. 
The British Government is the lead agency in counterdrug operations. 
Notwithstanding that, in this budget we have $346 million for 
counterdrug efforts in Afghanistan. In addition to that, there is a 
carryover available from 2007. It will be almost $400 million already, 
and the Senator wishes to add another $700 million. It is not our 
function. The lead agency is NATO, now, in Afghanistan.
  I have made a motion to table. I urge the Senators to vote to table 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The 
yeas and nays were ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. 
Chambliss), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 237 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich

                                NAYS--51

     Akaka
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Talent
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Isakson
     Lieberman
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment remains pending. If there is no 
further debate on the amendment, the question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4897) was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. SMITH. 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. KENNEDY. 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. 4857

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I had filed an amendment on behalf of 
myself and the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, amendment No. 4857, and I 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for himself 
     and Mr. Hatch, proposes an amendment numbered 4857.

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

 (Purpose: To provide that none of the funds appropriated by this Act 
   may be available for the conversion to contractor performance of 
 certain activities or functions of the Department of Defense in cases 
   where the contractor receives a competitive advantage by offering 
inferior retirement benefits to workers who are going to be employed in 
 the performance of such activities or functions than those offered by 
            the Department to comparable civilian employees)

       On page 160, line 7, strike ``; or'' and insert a 
     semicolon.
       On page 160, line 14, strike the period at the end and 
     insert the following: ``; or
       (C) offering to such workers a retirement benefit that in 
     any year costs less than the annual retirement cost factor 
     applicable to Department of Defense civilian employees under 
     chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we know that vast numbers of Americans 
are increasingly concerned about their economic future. More than half 
of all workers describe themselves as ``worried'' or ``stressed'' about 
the state of the economy, and growing numbers of workers fear they will 
not be able to meet, much less surpass, the standard of living of their 
parents.
  One of the primary factors contributing to these fears is the 
worsening crisis in the Nation's retirement system. The cornerstones of 
retirement security--private pensions, private savings, and Social 
Security--are increasingly at risk. Far too many working Americans will 
face retirement with little in their pocket--and with nothing to show 
for their long years of loyal service and hard work.
  The pension reform legislation enacted this year will help companies 
keep the pension promises they have already made to workers, but we 
need to do much more to encourage employers to provide adequate 
retirement benefits to their hardworking employees.

[[Page S9090]]

Today, less than half of all private-sector employees have any 
retirement plan at all at work, and the number of workers with a secure 
defined-benefit pension plan has been cut in half since 1980.
  Employer-provided retirement plans are essential for retirement 
security for working families. Workers are far more likely to save 
money for retirement through an employer-offered pension than if they 
are left to save on their own.
  Unfortunately, instead of encouraging more companies to provide good 
retirement benefits to their employees, current Federal contracting 
rules actually discourage many private companies from helping their 
employees save for retirement. The competitive bidding process for 
contracts favors private employers who shortchange their workers on 
retirement benefits. Firms that provide no retirement benefits or only 
meager benefits often win bid to perform Government work even when the 
cost savings from their bid are attributable solely to the lack of 
retirement benefits they provide.
  This unfair policy creates a dangerous race to the bottom in which 
private sector companies compete against each other to see who can 
provide the fewest benefits to their workers. As a result, the bidding 
process is actually increasing the number of Americans whose retirement 
security is in jeopardy. That is both illogical and unconscionable.
  In addition, this skewed privatization policy is fundamentally unfair 
to Federal workers who lose contracts simply because they receive 
decent benefits. Valued Federal employees are losing their jobs because 
they cannot compete on an unfair playing field with employers who are 
shortchanging their workers.
  Defense workers are particularly at risk. Now, this year alone, the 
Department of Defense is putting more than 10,000 civilian employees at 
risk of unfair termination--more than any other Federal agency--and it 
has announced plans to increase this number in the future.
  Thirty-five percent--35 percent--of civilian Defense employees are 
veterans. Hundreds more are active reservists currently serving in the 
Iraq war. The least we can do for these dedicated and patriotic 
Americans is to let them compete on a level playing field to save the 
jobs they come home to after their service to their country.
  The amendment Senator Hatch and I are offering will protect these 
workers by preventing contractors from winning bids for Government work 
solely because they provide inadequate retirement benefits to their 
employees or no retirement benefits at all. Our goal is obvious: to 
protect hard-working Federal employees from unfair competition. They 
should not lose their jobs because they cannot compete with private 
contractors on an unlevel playing field.
  The amendment does not dictate the retirement benefits that employers 
must provide or require contractors to change their existing benefits. 
It simply levels the playing field for Federal employees and contract 
employees by excluding costs related to retirement from a privatization 
review. All the amendment does is prevent contractors from winning bids 
solely because they offer inferior retirement benefits.
  The underlying bill already includes provisions to level the playing 
field for health care benefits. We need to do the same for retirement 
benefits.
  Our bipartisan amendment is an issue of basic fairness. It is fair to 
private sector workers who will otherwise lose their retirement 
benefits in a ``race to the bottom.'' And it is fair to Federal 
employees who will otherwise lose their jobs to unfair competition.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support our amendment.
  Mr. President, just a few additional comments. The question that is 
raised is, is this going to add complicated accounting procedures? The 
answer is, quite clearly, no. We have seen, for example, that when we 
eliminated the current health issues out of the contracting, that 
worked out very easily and worked out in a way to ensure a greater 
fairness. As I mentioned, a great percentage of these workers are both 
men and women who have been in the military; a great percentage of them 
are both in the Reserve and the Guard. It is an unusually high 
percentage of them because we know that preference is given, and 
legitimately so, when there is an opening in the contracting for 
veterans.
  So there is a particularly and disproportionately high number of 
these workers who have served their country in the service, in the 
Reserves, and in the National Guard.
  This is really what we are doing. I have the good opportunity to be 
with my chairman, Senator Enzi, chairman of our conference on pensions. 
We worked very closely with the members of the Finance Committee, 
Senators Grassley and Baucus, in an often tedious conference. We spent 
a great deal of the time on retirement benefits and on what is 
happening to those benefits for workers. We have seen the results. 
Savings are way down. We are going to have to give focus and attention 
to the issues on Social Security. Pensions are the third part of that 
stool, which is absolutely essential in terms of a secure retirement.
  In so many instances, those pension rights, as we read in the 
newspapers every day, are increasingly threatened, and increasingly at 
risk, and increasingly lost. I agree with Senator Hatch and others that 
it would be poor policy for us to have as a matter of Federal 
preference competitions. These Federal employees have certain kinds of 
retirement benefits, and that is being held against them in a 
competition in which they otherwise would be successful. That will 
obviously result in companies that want to do business with the Federal 
Government getting rid of their pension plans, and it will disadvantage 
those who are working in the Federal employment system.
  Mr. President, I commended our colleagues previously for taking into 
consideration the current health issues and comparisons. We are talking 
about retirement benefits. I think the case is strong and, hopefully, 
we can take this to conference and have the opportunity to explore it. 
I have talked to both the chairman and the ranking minority member over 
the last few days. I believe the staffs are familiar with the issue. 
Hopefully, we can accept this and take it to conference. Senator Hatch 
and I would be glad to respond to additional questions.
  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.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 4913, as Modified

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4913 and ask 
unanimous consent to send a modification of the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4913, as modified.

  Mrs. BOXER. 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, as modified, is as follows:

(Purpose: To require a report on procedures and guidelines in the event 
                     of further sectarian violence)

       At the end of title IX, add the following:
       Sec. 9012. (a) Not later than 30 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit 
     to the appropriate committees of Congress a report setting 
     forth procedures and guidelines of the Department of Defense 
     to protect United States military and civilian personnel 
     (should sectarian violence further increase in Iraq.)
       (b) Form.--The report required by subsection (a) may be 
     submitted in classified form.
       (c) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined. In this 
     section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' 
     means--
       (1) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on 
     Foreign Relations, the Select Committee on Intelligence, and 
     the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and
       (2) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on 
     International Relations, the Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence, and the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives.


[[Page S9091]]


  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, my amendment simply requires the Secretary 
of Defense to submit a report on the procedures and guidelines 
necessary to protect U.S. military and civilian personnel in the event 
of a further increase in sectarian violence in Iraq.
  Right off the top, I thank Senator Stevens and his staff and Senator 
Inouye and his staff. They really helped me in getting this amendment 
accepted. It means a lot to me because I worry deeply about this 
situation.
  The reason I worry is, as we look at this war, we just have not seen 
plans. We have not seen that we have been ready for the contingencies 
we face. We never seem to plan for the worst-case scenario. Frankly, I 
think we need to do that in this case because we have not been right in 
predicting what would happen. We have seen, over time, that we have not 
had enough body armor, we have not had enough up-armored HMMWVs or 
countermeasures against roadside bombs.
  Frankly, the American people are losing confidence that we are 
prepared to protect our troops in the case of a full-scale sectarian 
conflict.
  There was a quote in the paper recently from the commander of day-to-
day operations in Iraq. This is the quote:

       Quite frankly, in 33 years in the United States Army, I 
     never trained to stop a sectarian fight.

  Let me repeat that. This is from the commander on the ground in Iraq:

       Quite frankly, in 33 years in the United States Army, I 
     never trained to stop a sectarian fight.

  Now, for 6 months I have been asking Secretary Rumsfeld for a plan 
for our troops in the event there is a full-blown civil war in Iraq. 
And I have not received any kind of answer on it. After I sent my first 
letter to the Secretary asking for such a plan, I got a letter back 
from Under Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman. And he said:

       Recent acts of violence intended to spark civil war have 
     failed.

  That is the answer to my letter. When I asked: What is your plan in 
case civil war breaks out, he said: Well, there isn't a civil war. 
Obviously, that is not good enough.
  My second letter to Secretary Rumsfeld was answered by Deputy 
Secretary Gordon England. He told me:

       Iraq's enemies are intent on provoking widespread 
     intercommunal conflict but they are not succeeding.

  So, again, a lot of reassurances but no plan.
  So, once again, I did not receive any type of answer that gave me any 
solace that there is some planning to protect our troops and our 
civilian personnel if things get worse over there.
  Now, we know the number of monthly incidents of sectarian violence 
increased from 5 per month in 2003 to 250 per month in 2006. Let me say 
that again. Monthly incidents of sectarian violence increased from 5 
per month in 2003 to 250 per month in 2006.
  Well, why do we need a plan now? I think the facts speak for 
themselves. The Pentagon's latest report that we received on conditions 
in Iraq, which was dated August 2006, said:

       Concern about civil war within the Iraqi civilian 
     population and among some defense analysts has increased in 
     recent months.

  And this is what they said:

       Conditions that could lead to civil war exist in Iraq.

  So if the Pentagon is telling us conditions that could lead to civil 
war exist in Iraq, the least we can expect from our Pentagon leadership 
is for them to provide some kind of contingency plan to protect our 
troops and civilian workers we have over there.
  July saw the highest level of weekly attacks since military 
operations in Iraq began. Since last spring, the number of daily 
casualties, both military and civilian, reached nearly 120 per day, up 
from approximately 80 per day.
  According to the United Nations--and I believe this is also quoted in 
this report, so this is the Pentagon quoting the United Nations--an 
estimated 22,977 families--or 137,862 individuals--have been displaced 
in Iraq due to sectarian strife since the February 22, 2006, Samarra 
Mosque bombing.
  So for those people who put their head in the sand and say, this 
sectarian strife, it is going to go away, the people really do not want 
it, the facts belie that. I would say to my colleagues, think of one of 
your towns. And 137,862 would be one of your very large towns. If 
everyone in that town left that town, that is how many people have been 
displaced in Iraq due to sectarian strife.
  General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, acknowledged to one 
of our committees there is a possibility of the situation in Iraq 
evolving into civil war. And he did not anticipate such a situation a 
year ago.
  So when I heard about that, I sent a third letter--a third letter--to 
Secretary Rumsfeld asking: What is the plan in case of civil war? That 
letter remains unanswered.
  Now, there is no reason the Secretary of Defense cannot provide the 
relevant committees in the House and the Senate a plan in case of civil 
war. My amendment will allow for this plan to be submitted in a 
classified form. I think that is very important because we certainly do 
not want that published. But we want to know that it exists and that 
there is a plan to protect our troops and civilians. Congress has the 
responsibility to provide oversight of the executive branch. Congress 
failed to ensure that the administration had a plan to win the peace in 
Iraq. We all know that. I saw Senator Biden just briefly on the Senate 
floor, and he was one of those voices, along with Senator Lugar--
bipartisan--way early asking: Where is the plan? Where is the plan? 
Where is the plan? We never had it.
  Now the President says: We will be in Iraq. As long as I am 
President, we will stay in Iraq.
  That is not a plan. That is an admission of no plan, no exit 
strategy. So at least let us have a plan, a contingency plan, that if 
the sectarian violence escalates, we know that our people will be 
protected.
  I again thank Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens, and their staffs 
because I have to say without their help--this was a bit contentious, 
but we worked on it until we got it so that it could be accepted on 
both sides. I am very grateful.
  At this time, I yield the floor and ask, at the appropriate time, we 
have a voice vote on this amendment.
  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. BURNS. 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. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dorgan 
and I be added as cosponsors to amendment No. 4914.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BURNS. 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. 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, the pending business is the Boxer 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the adoption of the Boxer amendment at this 
time with a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
4193, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 4193), as modified, 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.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Kennedy 
amendment No. 4857 be agreed to, with the motion to reconsider laid 
upon the table. I further ask unanimous consent that the Rockefeller 
amendment No. 4906 be withdrawn, and further, that the managers' 
amendment, which has been cleared by both managers, which is at the 
desk, be considered and agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid 
upon the table. I ask unanimous consent that following this action, the 
Senate proceed to vote in relation to

[[Page S9092]]

the Reed amendment No. 4911, with no second-degree amendment in order 
to the amendment prior to the vote and that there be 4 minutes for 
debate equally divided prior to that vote. I ask unanimous consent that 
following disposition of that amendment, the only other amendment in 
order to the bill be the Bingaman-Domenici-Burns-Dorgan amendment 
relating to firefighters, and that following disposition of that 
amendment, the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to vote 
on final passage of the bill, the Senate then insist on its amendments, 
request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to 
appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 4857) was agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4906) was withdrawn.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 4900

(Purpose: To make available up to $2,000,000 for infrastructure for the 
                   Afghanistan military legal system)

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:
       Sec. 8109. Of the amounts appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act, up to $2,000,000 may be available for 
     infrastructure for the Afghanistan military legal system.


                           amendment no. 4894

    (Purpose: To make available from Other Procurement, Army, up to 
    $1,500,000 for a Convoy Training Simulator for the Montana Army 
                            National Guard)

       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 ``Other Procurement, 
     Army'', up to $1,500,000 may be available for a Convoy 
     Training Simulator for the Montana Army National Guard.


                           amendment no. 4916

   (Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test and 
 Evaluation, Navy, up to $300,000 for independent testing of the Joint 
              Improvised Explosive Device Neutralizer III)

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:
       Sec. 8109. Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by the title IV under the heading ``Research, 
     Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy'', up to $300,000 may 
     be available for independent testing of the Joint Improvised 
     Explosive Device Neutralizer III, with such test to be 
     designed and conducted by the Marine Corps Warfighting 
     Laboratory.


                           amendment no. 4901

   (Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test and 
  Evaluation, Defense-Wide, up to $1,500,000 for the development of a 
               field-deployable hydrogen fueling station)

       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 
     $1,500,000 may be available for the development of a field-
     deployable hydrogen fueling station.


                           amendment no. 4903

   (Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test and 
Evaluation, Defense-Wide, up to $6,000,000 for research and development 
                   on bioterrorism threats to troops)

       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 
     $6,000,000 may be available for bioterrorism protection 
     research (PE #0601384BP).


                           amendment no. 4917

(Purpose: To provide the Secretary of the Army the ability to reimburse 
   servicemembers and their families for financial hardships due to 
                     extended deployment overseas)

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:
       SEC. 8109. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of the Army may reimburse a member for expenses 
     incurred by the member or family member when such expenses 
     are otherwise not reimbursable under law:
       Provided, That such expenses must have been incurred in 
     good faith as a direct consequence of reasonable preparation 
     for, or execution of, military orders:
       Provided further, That reimbursement under this section 
     shall be allowed only in situations wherein other authorities 
     are insufficient to remedy a hardship determined by the 
     Secretary, and only when the Secretary determines that 
     reimbursement of the expense is in the best interest of the 
     member and the United States:
       Provided further, That this provision shall only apply to 
     soldiers assigned to the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team.


                           amendment no. 4912

   (Purpose: To increase by $20,000,000 the amount made available by 
 chapter 2 of title IX for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide for 
       the purpose of assisting the African Union force in Sudan)

       At the end of title IX, add the following:
       Sec. 9012. (a) Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Despite the signing of the Darfur Peace Agreement on 
     May 5, 2006, the violence in Darfur, Sudan, continues to 
     escalate and threatens to spread to other areas of Sudan and 
     throughout the region.
       (2) The African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) currently 
     serves as the primary security force in Sudan, but is 
     undermanned and under-equipped.
       (3) Although the United Nations has approved sending a 
     peacekeeping force to Darfur, the African Union Mission in 
     Sudan (AMIS) will need to expand its manpower and capability 
     in order to assist or serve as a bridge force until the 
     United Nations peacekeeping force can be deployed.
       (b) The amount appropriated or otherwise made available by 
     chapter 2 of this title under the heading ``Operation and 
     Maintenance Defense-Wide'' is hereby increased by 
     $20,000,000.
       (c) Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made available 
     by chapter 2 of this title under the heading ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', as increased by subsection (b), 
     $20,000,000 may be available--
       (1) to assist in the training, support, and equipping of 
     the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) to bolster its 
     efforts to protect the civilian population in Darfur;
       (2) to facilitate the air-lifting of AMIS forces into the 
     Darfur region as quickly as possible; and
       (3) to assist and expand the logistics capability of the 
     African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS).
       (d) The amount made available by subsection (b) is 
     designated as appropriations for contingency operations 
     directly related to the global war on terrorism, and other 
     unanticipated defense-related operations, pursuant to section 
     4502 of H. Con. Res. 376 (109th Congress), as made applicable 
     to the House of Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th 
     Congress) and 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.
       (e) The Secretary of Defense may transfer funds made 
     available by subsection (b) to other appropriations to 
     accomplish the purposes of this section. This transfer 
     authority is in addition to any other transfer authority 
     available to the Department of Defense. The Secretary shall, 
     not fewer than five days prior to making transfers from this 
     appropriation account, notify the congressional defense 
     committees in writing of the details of any such transfer.


                           amendment no. 4918

   (Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test and 
Evaluation, Defense-Wide, up to $1,000,000 for research and development 
                    on the heavy fuel diesel engine)

       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'' for DARPA 
     Management Headquarters, up to $1,000,000 may be available 
     for the Heavy Fuel Diesel Engine (PE #0603286E).

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, that now means the floor is open for 
consideration of the Bingaman-Domenici-Burns-Dorgan amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                           Amendment No. 4915

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself, 
     Mr. Domenici, Mr. Burns, Mr. Dorgan, and Ms. Cantwell, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4915.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. 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 appropriate funds for emergency wildlfire suppression)

       On page 230, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:


                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

       For an additional amount for ``Wildland Fire Management'' 
     under the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR'' of title I 
     of the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-54), 
     $100,000,000 for the conduct of emergency wildfire 
     suppression activities of the Secretary of the Interior, 
     Provided, That 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.

[[Page S9093]]

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

       For an additional amount for ``Wildland Fire Management'' 
     under the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE'' of title III 
     of the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-54), 
     $175,000,000 for the conduct of emergency wildfire 
     suppression activities of the Secretary of Agriculture, 
     acting through the Chief of the Forest Service, Provided, 
     That 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.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment is the one that the floor 
manager, the chairman, indicated was to be considered now. It relates 
to wildfire management and is one that has strong support on both sides 
of the aisle. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  I know Senator Burns wishes to speak as well.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my understanding this is a modified 
amendment, modified from the original form. I ask the Senator from New 
Mexico if that is the case.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, that is correct. This is in modified 
form from what was earlier filed as an amendment. I believe the 
concerns earlier raised have been resolved.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator and ask for adoption 
of the amendment.
  Does Senator Burns wish to comment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska. I thank 
Senator Bingaman for his work on this amendment. We heartily approve 
the amendment. It has strong support on this side of the aisle.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. President. Before I make my statement, I 
want to take a moment to thank Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye for 
their leadership in getting this vitally important defense 
appropriations bill to the Senate floor. I know that that the chairman 
and ranking member believe, as I do, that ensuring sufficient funding 
for our brave fighting men and women during this incredibly challenging 
Iraq war is an urgent national priority. I appreciate their hard work 
and look forward to making sure we complete work on this legislation 
before the end of the fiscal year.
  Today, I am here to speak on another issue critical to Washington 
State, and many States throughout the Nation: the threat of wildfires. 
To date, we are in the midst of the most active fire year of the 
decade. That may surprise many of my colleagues who remember the 
devastating fires a few years ago. But as of today, more than 8.4 
million acres have burned as a result of 84,000 fires across the Nation 
this year. To put this year into perspective--compared to the 10-year 
national average, this year 73 percent more acres have already burned. 
Already, this is the third worst fire year since 1960.
  As we speak, our brave wildland firefighters across the Nation are 
fighting 62 wildfires that have burned more than 1 million acres and 
continue to burn in 11 States. Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and 
Wyoming all have active fires that have burned at least 25,000 acres.
  In my State, Washington, an area nearly half the size of Rhode Island 
is ablaze. More than 309,000 acres have burned in Washington State as a 
result of 13 active fires. The largest fire in Washington, the Tripod 
Complex Fire, has burned 163,000 thousand acres. In Southeastern 
Washington, residents and farmers alike have been dealing with and 
fighting the Columbia Complex Fire. That fire has burned more than 
90,000 acres--including some homes and valuable wheat crops--forcing 
the evacuation of hundreds of Columbia County residents in and around 
the city of Dayton during the last month.
  Fighting these fires has truly been a national priority and I want to 
thank all of the firefighters, soldiers, local and State officials, and 
many others who have worked so hard to protect our citizens and 
property. Last week, when my office called the Incident Command Center 
for the Columbia Complex Fire in Waitsburg, Washington, a firefighter 
from Louisiana picked up the phone. Louisiana joined firefighting 
personnel from the State of Washington, Oregon, Arizona and New Mexico, 
the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Australia, 
Canada, and New Zealand.
  This year the Department of Defense has been involved for the first 
time since 2003. ``Task Force Blaze,'' a 550-soldier battalion was 
mobilized from Fort Lewis to assist with firefighting activities on the 
Tripod Fire last month. Air National Guard Units in Wyoming, Colorado, 
Oregon, and California have been mobilized as part of the firefighting 
effort.
  This situation is all too familiar to this part of the Pacific 
Northwest. Citizens in Columbia County were forced to deal with the 
School Fire last year that raged for 13 days, burning 52,000 acres and 
destroying 215 homes and other structures. Unfortunately, we are facing 
another all too familiar situation, running out of money to fight these 
fires.
  While Congress is aware of this perennial problem, and has wisely 
boosted wildland fire fighting money the last few years, this season's 
unusually high fire activity in Washington State and across the Nation 
has strained us further still. In Washington State for example, more 
than 3,300 firefighting personnel are bravely fighting these stubborn 
blazes. That is why I am a cosponsor of Mr. Bingaman's critical 
amendment.
  Any day now, the Federal Government will have spent all of its 
available funding for wildland firefighting for this fiscal year. This 
will leave our primary firefighting agencies--the Forest Service and 
the Department of Interior--stuck with the choice of either cutting 
back firefighting efforts from the more than 1 million acres burning 
today, or cutting back from other necessary activities. Without these 
emergency funds, national forests throughout the country would likely 
have to cut back on vital maintenance or services to the public. And if 
we are forced to tap into the land and water conservation fund, we 
might have to forgo preserving pristine or unique lands.
  In these extraordinary circumstances with thousands of people 
affected by wildfires from Montana to Washington to Wyoming--I believe 
that providing Federal wildland firefighting agencies with the adequate 
resources should be a top priority. That's why I support the Bingaman 
amendment to provide an additional $275 million in emergency funding 
for wildfire suppression activities. Specifically, based on the 
resource projections provided to us by the administration, $175 million 
would be made available for the Forest Service and $100 million to the 
Department of Interior. These funds will help assure the thousands of 
our citizens in communities across the Nation that the Federal 
Government will have the adequate resources to continue fire 
suppression activities without borrowing from other important programs.
  When we run out of funding, we will have depleted available 
appropriations for fire suppression and a nearly $500 million reserve 
fund to deal with these emergencies. I recognize that we will probably 
need to do a lot more for firefighting and I look forward to supporting 
those efforts. However, based on available projections from the Federal 
Government providing $275 million now will help provide some immediate 
relief.
  While this is an extraordinary fire year, this is not a new issue for 
Congress to deal with. Over the last few years, Congress has added 
emergency appropriations and reserve accounts in response to wildfire 
suppression activities and other fire-related activities. As recently 
as 2004, we added $500 million in emergency funding to the fiscal year 
2005 Defense appropriations bill for wildfire suppression activities.
  With a million acres burning across the Nation in 11 States--American 
citizens deserve to know that the Federal Government is doing 
everything it can to protect them, their property, and their 
communities. I think it is critical to provide these additional funds 
and I urge adoption of the Bingaman amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
No. 4915.
  The amendment (No. 4915) was agreed to.

[[Page S9094]]

  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.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, are there any other pending amendments 
not taken care of by the unanimous consent agreement? It is my 
understanding from the unanimous consent agreement that the only other 
amendment to be considered on this bill was the Bingaman amendment, and 
we now have a vote on the Reed amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Reed amendment is 
the only remaining amendment under the unanimous consent agreement.
  Mr. STEVENS. There is 4 minutes equally divided. I suggest the 
absence of a quorum, awaiting the arrival of the Senator from Rhode 
Island.
  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.


                           Amendment No. 4911

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I understand the pending business is the 
Reed amendment with 4 minutes equally divided; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Conrad 
be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, this amendment that is offered by myself and 
Senator Bayh would add $64.7 million to continue an accelerated 
acquisition of Predator. These are unmanned aerial vehicles that are 
critical to our war on terror. They were instrumental in the detection 
and the ultimate destruction of Zarqawi and other terrorists. They are 
the chief tool of our special operations forces in terms of going 
after, seeking, finding, and destroying terrorists and terrorist 
networks.
  There was a plan to accelerate the deployment of these UAVs. That 
plan was disrupted, if you will, because of decisions previously made. 
But I think today we can send a uniform and unanimous message that we 
need to acquire these six additional UAVs to create ultimately a 
squadron of UAVs for our special operations command. With these weapons 
systems, we can continue to deal effective and decisive blows against 
terrorists. I urge unanimous passage of this legislation adding $64.5 
million. I commend Senator Bayh because he really was a leader in this 
effort in terms of drawing the attention of the committee to this 
shortfall in funding and requesting that it be added with this 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of any time remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we were willing to accept this amendment 
when the Senator first brought the Predator to the attention of this 
Congress. I am delighted to see more Predators being bought. This is 
sort of a premature type of advance. These monies would have been 
requested anyway for 2007, but we checked with the Department and they 
are willing to proceed with it now.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the remainder 
of my time.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.
  Mr. REED. 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 question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
4911.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 238 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     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--2

       
     Chafee
     Lieberman
  The amendment (No. 4911) was agreed to.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Funding Traumatic Brain Injury

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, as the Senate prepares for final 
passage of H.R. 5631, the fiscal year 2007 Defense appropriations bill, 
I would like to thank my colleagues for accepting an amendment that I 
cosponsored which addresses the growing concern of a number of veterans 
returning from combat operations overseas that may have traumatic brain 
injury, TBI.
  According to reports, preliminary research by the center shows that 
about 10 percent of all service personnel, and up to 20 percent of 
frontline personnel, suffer concussions during combat tours. Like any 
medical condition, early diagnosis is the key to successful 
intervention and treatment.
  Unfortunately, many are not being properly screened for this serious 
and debilitating condition. TBI clinically presents many of the same 
signs and symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder, PTSD. These two 
serious but very different medical conditions require separate and 
distinct treatment programs.
  Because it is so important that our veteran care facilities have the 
proper training to distinguish between these two illnesses, I included 
language in the fiscal year 2007 Military Construction and Veterans 
Affairs appropriations bill requesting the Department of Veterans 
Affairs to establish a separate education program to better diagnose 
TBI.
  With final passage of this bill, we have another opportunity to 
further strengthen our efforts to better understand and treat TBI. I am 
proud to cosponsor this amendment which will add an additional $12 
million in funding for the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center, 
DVBIC. The DVBIC is a collaboration between the Defense Department and 
the VA to deliver care to patients with TBI.
  During testimony earlier this year, leaders of the DVBIC testified 
that the center needed $19 million in funding for fiscal year 2007. 
This amendment brings the total funding from the $7 million requested 
to a total of $19 million. This funding level is important because it 
will ensure our combat veterans receive the quality care they deserve.
  Mr. ALLEN. I thank my good friend from Texas for her support by 
cosponsoring my amendment. I have enjoyed a wonderful working 
relationship with Senator Hutchison on a number of issues, especially 
veterans issues. We have worked together to increase veterans health 
care funding as well as veterans research funding. We just recently 
worked together on an amendment to provide credit monitoring services 
to Veterans and active duty servicemembers at no cost in response to 
the theft of a Veterans Administration laptop computer.
  Senator Hutchison and I, as well as other Senators from both sides of 
the aisle, are here today in an effort to give our veterans the health 
care they

[[Page S9095]]

so rightfully deserve. Those returning servicemembers who suffered a 
traumatic brain injury need the best quality care available and this 
amendment is a long step in that direction. I thank the Senior Senator 
from Texas for her support and her leadership as chairman of the 
Veterans Affairs Appropriations Committee on this issue.


                       Operation and Maintenance

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to ask the chairman and ranking 
member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee for clarification of 
language that appears in title IX, on page 238 of the committee's 
report. Under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance'' there is a 
writeup entitled ``Pre-Deployment and Post-Deployment Training.'' The 
committee states in part ``The Committee believes that costs accrued at 
home station for the aforementioned activities are allowable costs for 
the use of title IX funding. To the extent that such training, 
maintenance and reset activities displace normal peacetime training 
events, the amounts provided to the Department in title IX operation 
and maintenance accounts should be used to ensure full support of pre-
deployment and post-deployment operations, as well as for continuing 
combat and security operations in support of the global war on 
terror.''
  Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens, is it the committee's intent that 
funds provided in this title for national and field level reset repair 
be available for the reset of equipment used for pre-deployment and 
post training but not otherwise deployed?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes, that is the committee's intent.
  Mr. INOUYE. I concur with the Senator from Alaska in regards to the 
committee's intended purpose of funds provided for Army reset programs.
  Mr. KOHL. Given this interpretation, I urge the committee to work 
with the Army to ensure that funds provided in this title and elsewhere 
in this bill should be used for upgrading equipment to current 
production type, model, and series, where determined by the Army 
Acquisition Executive to be required and cost effective, to include 
equipment used for predeployment training but not otherwise deployed.
  Mr. STEVENS. The committee will encourage the Army to do so and 
thanks the Gentleman from Wisconsin for raising this important issue.
  Mr. INOUYE. Yes, thank you.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, next week we will be commemorating an 
event that none of us can forget and none of us wants to relive.
  We mark September 11, 2001, as a day of national tragedy. But out of 
the ashes rose a determination to bring the sponsors of this terrorism 
to justice and to reform the intelligence system that that we depend on 
to prevent such predatory attacks in the future.
  In those first weeks and months after the attacks, we were united as 
a nation and enjoyed the sympathy and support of the world. We went 
after Osama bin Ladin and the government that hosted him, with some of 
America's best and bravest. We assembled some of our wisest and most 
experienced leaders to investigate the events leading up to the attack 
and to recommend a path of reform.
  Since 2001 when I joined the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have 
worked to bring about intelligence reform. The Intelligence Reform and 
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 was an important milestone on this 
journey. Important structural changes were made to our intelligence 
community and barriers removed to information sharing between agencies.
  But where are we now?
  The operational failure of 9/11 was followed by an analytical failure 
in Iraq. The hidden agenda of the White House and the President's lack 
of interest in objective analysis compounded the consequences of flawed 
intelligence. The President did not level with the public before the 
war. He did not keep his eye on hunting down al-Qaida. Instead, he led 
us into an unnecessary and disastrous war in Iraq.
  Instead of providing oversight of the executive branch, congressional 
leadership has provided a rubberstamp. Instead of providing an 
independent voice, it has offered an echo chamber. Instead of helping 
the Senate Intelligence Committee investigate the Iraq intelligence 
failure, it has helped the White House push roadblocks in our path. And 
instead of taking care to safeguard liberty as we enhance security, it 
has closed its eyes on violations of the law and betrayal of our 
values.
  In spite of some strong disagreements on specific issues, the Senate 
Intelligence Committee has come together on a bipartisan basis to 
implement the reforms already adopted and advance additional reform 
measures.
  But last year, the leadership in the Senate did not allow the 
committee's authorization bill to be debated and voted on by the full 
Senate. For the first time in 28 years, the committee was blocked from 
carrying out its most basic function--the authorization of U.S. 
intelligence programs.
  This month, we have learned that the majority leader does not intend 
to bring the fiscal year 2007 intelligence authorization bill to the 
floor before the Senate's fall recess. Again we face the prospect of 
the leadership preventing the Intelligence Committee from doing its 
job.
  This is irresponsible and unacceptable. The authorizing committee 
should be the congressional vehicle for intelligence reform. The 
members of the committee spend the time needed to understand the 
issues. And we operate under special rules to keep our Nation's most 
sensitive secrets.
  As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I will do my best 
to make sure the intelligence community is adequately and appropriately 
funded. But providing direction and guidance for intelligence 
activities is the job of the Intelligence Committee.
  Senator Rockefeller, the distinguished vice chairman of the 
Intelligence Committee, elaborated from the floor this week about what 
is at stake. The fiscal year 2007 intelligence authorization bill, 
passed unanimously by the committee, included provisions: to enhance or 
clarify the authority of the Director of National Intelligence; to 
encourage information sharing and access; to establish a statutory 
inspector general of the intelligence community; to elevate the heads 
of the technical intelligence agencies by requiring them to be 
appointed by the President with Senate advice and consent; to improve 
the timeliness and completeness of information provided to the 
committee, and; to streamline the security clearance process for 
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency employees and contractors.
  These measures are not trivial. If enacted, they will save lives and 
they will save money. They will help restore congressional oversight 
where it is lacking. They will help prevent abuses in intelligence 
operations, which bring dishonor to our nation.
  In short, these measures are critical to our national security. They 
should not be casually discarded.
  Senator Rockefeller has repeatedly raised his concerns with the lack 
of congressional oversight of the warrantless surveillance program 
conducted by the National Security Agency. I join him in expressing 
those concerns from the perspective of a member whose state proudly 
hosts the headquarters of that invaluable agency.
  After a long struggle against White House foot-dragging, members of 
congressional intelligence committees are finally being briefed on this 
5-year-old program.
  But as Senator Rockefeller points out, we have still not received the 
information necessary to adequately understand and evaluate the 
program. Nor have we been allowed to use the Intelligence Committee's 
specialized staff--such as the minority counsel and the NSA monitor--
who are best qualified to help us with this task.
  Under these conditions, the Senate cannot evaluate the need for the 
warrantless surveillance program and cannot propose legislative 
remedies for the alleged deficiencies of the current law. These 
circumstances must change.
  Mr. President, intelligence is at the forefront in our fight against 
terrorism, just as it was in our long Cold War struggle against 
communism. Congress has a duty under the Constitution to be a critical 
and coequal partner in this fight. I join Senator Rockefeller in urging 
the leadership of the Senate to let us get on with it.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to discuss the Defense 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2007, which is one of the most 
important of the appropriations measures that we consider annually. 
This legislation will provide critical funding for the men and women in

[[Page S9096]]

our armed forces who, at this very moment, are in harm's way. We must 
support them, and, for that reason, I will vote in favor of its 
passage. But I have serious concerns over the earmarks contained in the 
committee report accompanying this bill.
  The bill reported out of committee appropriates over $453 billion. 
This is more than $9 billion below the President's request and I am 
discouraged that it required a $13 billion amendment designated as 
emergency funding to get back to the President's requested funding 
level. Also, as is the case with so many of the appropriations bills 
that come to the floor, the report accompanying it contains hundreds of 
earmarks that were neither requested nor authorized--to the tune of 
over $4 billion. During a time of war we should be making every effort 
to support the President's budget request instead of slashing it and 
then adding earmarks for favored projects.
  Every day we ask the brave men and women who fight for freedom on 
behalf of our great nation to make sacrifices. They sacrifice in Iraq 
and Afghanistan as well as several other places around the globe. Our 
soldiers have sacrificed and their families have sacrificed. And so, we 
in the Congress should exercise some degree of self-restraint and 
sacrifice as well.
  Let me mention a few of the add-ons that were included in the bill's 
accompanying report that were not requested in the President's budget 
and were not on any of the armed services unfunded priority lists--some 
of which have next to nothing to do with the Department of Defense or 
its mission:
  $2 million for automotive research;
  $2 million for Precision Polishing of Large Objects;
  $3 million for improved shelf-life for Vegetables;
  $2 million for Brown Tree Snakes;
  $117 million for an Oceanographic Survey Ship;
  $75 million for the Allegany Ballistics Lab in West Virginia;
  $18.5 million for a Air Force C-17 Maintenance Training System in 
Hawaii;
  $8 million for the Allen Army Airfield in Alaska;
  $1.5 million for Fort Detrick in Maryland;
  $4 million for disposable dental masks; and
  $3.5 million for Hibernation Genomics.
  Once again, there are also many earmarks that may be for worthy 
causes, such as ovarian cancer research, but there is no compelling 
national defense reason for these items to be funded through this 
legislation. These earmarks include:
  $115 million for Breast Cancer Research;
  $80 million for Prostate Cancer Research;
  $6 million for Integrated Trans- lational Prostate Disease Research;
  $34 million for the Hawaii Federal Health Care Network; and
  $15 million for Ovarian Cancer Research.
  Mr. President, as we are engaged fully in the global war on terror, 
it is imperative that we get the most of each and every defense dollar. 
The money that is being diverted to projects like the ones I have 
mentioned could instead be used for body armor or other critical needs 
to protect our troops and help win the war on terror. The earmarks I 
have mentioned are just a small sampling of the many, unrequested 
earmarks that fill the accompanying report. These earmarks are draining 
our precious resources and are not vital to our long term national 
security. I strongly encourage the Federal agencies affected to use 
their judgement to ensure they are not allocating resources to projects 
that are not legislatively mandated or authorized, but rather, are 
merely the wish lists of the committee.
  Beyond the earmarks contained in the Senate report, this bill 
contains numerous authorizing provisions, some of which are outside of 
the scope of defense policy. Some of these provisions include:
  Authorizing medical services at Army medical facilities located in 
Hawaii for civilian patients;
  Authorizing the use of up to $50 million for operational ranges 
managed by the Air Force in Alaska; and
  A provision that protects jobs in Hawaii and Alaska.
  Mr. President, I have no doubt that some of these provisions may be 
important while others are questionable at best. What is important is 
that we follow the authorization process and restrain ourselves from 
using appropriations bills to authorize projects on this bill that have 
not been requested by the Department of Defense, nor approved by the 
authorizing committee.
  I would also like to discuss the Buy America restrictions that cost 
the Department of Defense and the American taxpayers. Like in previous 
appropriations bills, this year's bill imposes a number of Buy America 
restrictions.
  For example, the bill would prevent the purchase of ball bearings 
unless domestically produced. It requires that welded shipboard anchor 
and mooring chain be manufactured in the United States. Another section 
prohibits the Department of Defense from purchasing supercomputers from 
a foreign source.
  I continue to be very concerned about the potential impact on 
readiness of our restrictive trade policies with our allies. From a 
philosophical point of view, I oppose these types of protectionist 
policies. I believe free trade is an important element in improving 
relations among all nations and essential to economic growth. From a 
practical standpoint, ``Buy America'' restrictions could seriously 
impair our ability to compete freely in international markets and also 
could result in the loss of existing business from long-standing trade 
partners.
  Some legislative enactments over the past several years have had the 
effect of establishing a monopoly for a domestic supplier in certain 
product lines. This not only adds to the pressure for our allies to 
``Buy European'' but it also raises the costs of procurement for DOD 
and cuts off access to potential state-of-the-art technologies. DOD 
should have the ability to make purchases from a second source in an 
allied country covered by a defense cooperation memorandum of 
understanding when only one domestic source exists. This would ensure 
both price and product competition.
  Defense exports improve interoperability with friendly forces with 
which we are increasingly likely to operate in coalition warfare or 
peacekeeping missions. They increase our influence over recipient 
country actions, and in a worse case scenario, allow the U.S. to 
terminate support for equipment. Exports lower the unit costs of 
systems to the U.S. military. In recent years they have kept mature 
lines open while the U.S. has developed new systems that will go into 
production around the turn of the century. Finally, these exports 
provide the same economic benefits to the U.S. as all other exports--
well paying jobs, improved balance of trade, and increased tax revenue. 
These are really issues of acquisition policy, not appropriations 
matters.
  Mr. President, I would prefer not to criticize this legislation. It 
is very important to the ultimate success of our ongoing war on terror. 
Yet I believe it is important to point out to the American taxpayer 
where some of their money is going. And some of it is not going to 
projects that have anything to do with our defense.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as the Senate prepares to vote on the 
Department of Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007, I want 
to thank all of our brave soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines for 
their hard work in the ongoing fight against terrorism, in Iraq, in 
response to natural disasters here at home, and in the many other 
missions to which they have been assigned around the world. These 
dedicated men and women, along with their families, are making great 
sacrifices in service to our country. We owe a tremendous debt of 
gratitude to the members of the United States Armed Forces for their 
selfless service.
  I am pleased that the Senate is about to pass the Defense Department 
appropriations bill. While I continue to have grave concerns about the 
misguided strategy this administration is pursuing in Iraq, the Senate 
bill includes funds for many important programs and priorities for our 
servicemen and women. In particular, the bill includes a well-deserved, 
although modest, 2.2 percent across-the-board pay raise for our 
military personnel. It also increases funding for vital equipment for 
those in uniform facing daily dangers in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am 
also pleased to support a number of good

[[Page S9097]]

provisions in this bill that seek to ensure that our troops have the 
equipment they need to perform their duties on the ground, including 
increased funding for body armor and personal protection equipment, as 
well as additional funding for up-armored humvees.
  I am also pleased to support increased funds for the National Guard 
and Reserve, including an additional $340 million for force protection 
equipment. This bill includes critical funding that will help the 
National Guard repair its equipment and reinstate a superior readiness 
level so that it is capable of defending our country and responding to 
natural disasters within the continental United States.
  While I strongly support increased funding for the National Guard, 
and for border security, I opposed Senator Sessions' amendment to 
appropriate nearly $2 billion to the Army National Guard solely to 
build hundreds of miles of fencing along the southern border. I did so 
because it is difficult to justify pouring massive Federal dollars into 
efforts that have not been shown to be effective. We must improve 
border security but we simply do not have the data to show that border 
fences are an effective deterrent to illegal immigration. For that 
reason, I opposed the authorization of this fencing when it was 
proposed as an amendment to S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration 
Reform Act of 2006, and I opposed appropriating the funds for it in 
this appropriations bill.
  The better approach would be to first implement another provision of 
S. 2611 that directs the Attorney General, in cooperation with other 
executive branch officials, to conduct a study on this question. The 
study would analyze the construction of a system of physical barriers 
along the southern international land and maritime border, including 
the necessity, feasibility, and impact of such barriers on the 
surrounding area. It is estimated that construction costs for these 
border fences is more than $1 million per mile. And that doesn't 
include the cost of maintaining these structures. Furthermore, there 
are very serious concerns about the environmental impact this type of 
massive construction project would have. Before we commit to pouring 
precious Federal dollars into a massive fencing system, at the very 
least we should do a thorough analysis of the most effective and 
fiscally responsible means of securing our borders against illegal 
transit.
  While I support much of the funding for intelligence activities 
contained in the bill, I am deeply concerned at the failure of this 
Congress to pass an intelligence authorization bill. Congressional 
oversight of intelligence has never been more important. Strengthening 
our Nation's intelligence capabilities after the attacks of September 
11 requires the involvement of Congress, which is why the 9/11 
Commission described strengthened oversight as one of its most 
important recommendations. The disastrous failures of intelligence 
related to Iraq, both by the intelligence community and by the 
administration, further highlight the importance of thorough 
congressional scrutiny. Recently revealed programs such as the NSA's 
illegal warrantless wiretapping and secret CIA detention facilities, 
are among the intelligence activities that the congressional 
intelligence committees must examine. Thirty years after the Senate 
Intelligence Committee was created in the aftermath of well-documented 
abuses, we need to ensure that Congress does not abdicate its important 
oversight responsibilities.
  While I do support many of the provisions in this bill, I am deeply 
disappointed that the bill fails to put our Iraq policy on a better 
footing. My vote for this bill in no way signals support for that 
policy, which is hurting our national security. 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. The costs we are incurring in Iraq are devastating and 
they are not advancing our national interests particularly when they 
are undermining our military's capacity to defeat the terrorist 
networks that attacked us on 9/11. I will continue to call for the 
redeployment of our forces from Iraq so that our military remains 
strong and so that our country can refocus on fighting the terrorist 
networks that attacked us on 9/11.
  Unfortunately this spending bill contains many unnecessary items. The 
administration continues to request large amounts for Iraq and 
Afghanistan through ``additional'' or ``emergency supplemental'' 
appropriations not subject to limits on total discretionary Federal 
spending and not subject to the full congressional authorization and 
appropriations review process. I continue to be deeply concerned about 
this administration's priorities and about the process by which we 
consider the Department of Defense authorization and appropriations 
bills, a concern I voice every year at this time. However, on balance, 
this legislation contains many good provisions for our men and women in 
uniform who serve our country selflessly around the world. That is why 
I support it.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, in the course of attending a funeral 
today, I missed two votes. On the Conrad amendment No. 4907, I ask that 
the record reflect that, had I been here, I would have voted ``aye.'' 
And on the motion to table the Menendez amendment No. 4909 I ask that 
the record reflect that I would have voted ``aye.''
  Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for Department of 
Defense funding for the National Drug Intelligence Center in Johnstown, 
PA.
  The National Drug Intelligence Center, NDIC, established in 1993, is 
a component of the U.S. Department of Justice and a member of the 
intelligence community. The General Counterdrug Intelligence Plan, 
implemented in February 2000, designated NDIC as the Nation's principal 
center for strategic domestic counterdrug intelligence. NDIC's mission 
is to provide strategic drug-related intelligence and assistance to the 
drug control, public health, and national security authorities of the 
United States in order to reduce the adverse impact of drug 
trafficking, drug abuse, and related harms in this country.
  Since September 11, 2001, we have become gravely aware of the 
importance of intelligence to all aspects of our national defense. This 
lesson is certainly applicable when assessing the resources generated 
by drug trafficking among terrorist groups and their sympathizers. I 
have been told that, since January 2005, NDIC has provided support to 
the Department of Treasury's Office of Terrorism and Financial 
Intelligence to produce the Nation's first National Money Laundering 
Threat Assessment. For this effort, NDIC received a letter of 
commendation from the Treasury Department for its ``extraordinary 
contribution'' to this effort. This is but one example of the fine work 
that is provided by those who serve this country at NDIC. The center is 
also actively contributing to the Department of Homeland Security's 
Office of Counter Narcotics Enforcement on an ongoing drug/terror nexus 
project. Further, NDIC personnel support the Drug Enforcement 
Administration's Special Operations Division which targets the 
convergence of terrorism and traditional drug trafficking networks. 
These contributions go along with the center's Document Exploitation 
Division which, I am told, is second to none in extracting useful 
information from lawfully-seized evidence.
  NDIC is providing a valuable service to this country. It is the only 
agency with the independence to provide the National Drug Threat 
Assessment while still maintaining the versatility to assist in the 
ongoing operations and assessments conducted by the organizations that 
I have mentioned. The people of Johnstown who staff this facility are 
of the highest professional capabilities. It is important that we 
maintain these capabilities as we fight the war on Islamic fascism on 
many different fronts.
  The House Defense appropriations bill provides $39 million for the 
center. I look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member 
to ensure that this funding is included in the final conference report 
with the House. I firmly believe that the National Drug Intelligence 
Center is an important instrument in providing for our Nation's 
security. I believe that the administration should include it in its 
budget in future fiscal years. I will be writing President Bush in the 
coming days to make this case. At a time

[[Page S9098]]

when the nexus between drug traffic and terrorist groups is becoming 
more acute, we need to make funding for our intelligence capabilities 
one of our highest priorities.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the next vote will be on passage of the 
Defense appropriations bill. I congratulate the managers. It has been a 
job well done.
  We are going to be on the port security bill tomorrow and on Monday. 
The managers are here, and they are ready to debate and take up 
amendments. We will not be voting tomorrow.
  I remind my colleagues that we have scheduled an event on Monday at 6 
o'clock to commemorate the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. We 
invite all Members to participate.
  There will be no more votes tonight. We will not be voting tomorrow. 
We want to have all opening statements tonight and tomorrow on the port 
security bill.
  We will have announcements tomorrow morning as to whether we will be 
voting on Monday. The Democratic leader and I will make that 
announcement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendments and third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read a third time.
  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 bill having been read for the third time, the question is, Shall 
the bill pass? On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, 
and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) is necessarily absent.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 239 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     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--2

     Chafee
     Lieberman
       
  The bill (H.R. 5631), as amended, was passed.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate insists on its amendments, requests a conference with the House, 
and the Chair appoints the following conferees: Mr. Stevens, Mr. 
Cochran, Mr. Specter, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Bond, Mr. McConnell, Mr. 
Shelby, Mr. Gregg, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Burns, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Byrd, Mr. 
Leahy, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Reid, Mrs. Feinstein, 
and Ms. Mikulski.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to thank my staff 
for all their hard work on this bill, especially my clerk, Sid 
Ashworth. As always, she has done the work on this bill and a multitude 
of amendments, along with the staff. And Charlie Houy, on Senator 
Inouye's staff, has given good advice and leadership.
  I also thank my colleague and partner, Senator Inouye. It is a nice 
birthday present to pass a bill of this size, I say to the Senator.
  As I said, Charlie Houy, Betsy Schmid, Nicole Di Resta, and Kate 
Fitzpatrick for their support on this bill.
  There is a large staff that works on this bill. We do not often name 
them all, but I will do it this time. This was a tough bill. I give 
credit to Kate Kaufer, Brian Wilson, Brian Potts, Alycia Farrell, Mark 
Haaland, Ellen Maldonado, Michael Pollock, Alison Garfield, Bridget 
Zarate, Jennifer Chartrand, and Janelle Treon. Miss Treon is not with 
us. She recently left the committee, but she was a vital partner in the 
creation of the bill. We wish her good luck in her new life in North 
Carolina. She can learn to dodge the hurricanes.
  Thank you very much.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________