[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 137 (Monday, September 17, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11541-S11569]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008--Resumed

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to the consideration of H.R. 1585, which the clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1585) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2008 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Nelson of Nebraska (for Levin) amendment No. 2011, in the 
     nature of a substitute.
       Levin amendment No. 2087 (to amendment No. 2011), to 
     provide for a reduction and transition of United States 
     forces in Iraq.
       Reed amendment No. 2088 (to amendment No. 2087), to change 
     the enactment date.
       Dodd (for Levin) amendment No. 2274 (to the language 
     proposed to be stricken by amendment No. 2011), to provide 
     for a reduction and transition of United States forces in 
     Iraq.
       Levin amendment No. 2275 (to amendment No. 2274), to 
     provide for a reduction and transition of United States 
     forces in Iraq.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate today returns to 
the consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 
year 2008. This bill contains important benefits for our men and women 
in uniform, including pay raises, targeted bonuses and special pays, 
and benefits. It also includes funding and authorities needed to 
provide our troops the equipment and support they will need.
  Prompt Senate action on this bill will send an important message. 
Regardless of our position on the war in Iraq, we all support our men 
and women in uniform. The bill was approved by the Armed Services 
Committee on a unanimous 25-to-0 vote, and it is my hope it will 
receive a similarly strong endorsement from the full Senate.
  We have a lot of hard work ahead of us before that can happen. As of 
today,

[[Page S11542]]

more than 300 amendments have been filed. We are working hard to clear 
as many of these amendments as possible, but some amendments will 
inevitably require votes. Where that is the case, I hope my colleagues 
will work with us to develop appropriate time agreements that protect 
the interests of everybody involved while expediting consideration of 
the bill.
  Congress has enacted a Defense Authorization Act every year for more 
than 40 years. I hope we will build on that record and show our strong 
support for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines by working 
together to pass this bill.
  On a procedural note, I understand the President signed the Honest 
Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 into law on Friday. In 
accordance with the new rules, I am placing into the Record a 
certification that each congressionally directed item in this bill and 
the accompanying report has been identified through lists identifying 
the names of the Senator or Senators requesting the item and that this 
information has been available on the committee's Web site for more 
than 48 hours.
  In addition, the committee is in the process of collecting a 
certification from each such Senator that neither the Senator nor the 
Senator's immediate family has a pecuniary interest in the item, and, 
again, that is consistent with the requirements of the Senate rules 
now. In accordance with the requirements of the new rules, we will make 
these certifications available for public inspection on our Web site as 
soon as practicable.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
my certification of compliance with the requirements of the Honest 
Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    Certification of Compliance With the Requirements of the Honest 
               Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007

                                               September 17, 2007.
       I hereby certify that--
       (1) each congressionally directed spending item, limited 
     tax benefit, and limited tariff benefit, if any, in the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, as 
     reported by the Committee on Armed Services, has been 
     identified through lists, charts, or other similar means 
     including the name of each Senator who submitted a request to 
     the committee for each item so identified; and
       (2) the information described in paragraph (1) has been 
     available on the website of the Committee on Armed Services 
     in a searchable format for more than 48 hours.
                                                       Carl Levin,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we are open to amendments. If Senators want 
to come to the floor now and offer amendments, it will be required we 
set aside a pending amendment. We are hoping to get unanimous consent 
to do that. We expect we will be able to get unanimous consent to do 
that. So Senators who have amendments, if they will come to the floor 
and discuss and describe their amendments, we will be able to hopefully 
make some progress, and then at a later time this afternoon hopefully 
make those amendments in order by a unanimous consent agreement to 
withdraw the pending second-degree amendment.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak as in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Leahy are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')


                           Amendment No. 2022

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I realize it is not possible, because 
agreement has not yet been reached, to set aside the pending 
legislation to bring up the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act as an 
amendment. As the managers of the bill are not on the floor, I 
certainly will not take advantage of that and do it. So let me speak 
about it.
  I now am speaking on the National Defense Authorization Act. At an 
appropriate time, I will bring up amendment No. 2022. I will tell you 
why I will do this.
  Last year, Congress committed an historic mistake by suspending the 
Great Writ of habeas corpus--not just for those confined at Guantanamo 
Bay but for millions of legal residents in the United States. The 
Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing in May on this bill illustrated 
the broad agreement among representatives from diverse political 
beliefs and backgrounds that the mistake committed in the Military 
Commissions Act of 2006 must be corrected. The Habeas Corpus 
Restoration Act of 2007, S.185, the bill on which this amendment is 
based, has 30 cosponsors. The Senate Judiciary Committee reported it on 
a bipartisan basis. I hope Senators will review the committee report on 
this measure.
  Habeas corpus was recklessly undermined in last year's Military 
Commissions Act. Like the internment of Japanese Americans during World 
War II, the elimination of habeas rights was an action driven by fear, 
and it was a stain on America's reputation in the world. This is a time 
of testing. Future generations will look back to examine the choices we 
made during a time when security was too often invoked as a watchword 
to convince us to slacken our defense of liberty and the rule of law.
  The Great Writ of habeas corpus is the legal process that guarantees 
an opportunity to go to court and challenge the abuse of power by the 
Government. The Military Commissions Act rolled back these protections 
by eliminating that right, permanently, for any noncitizen labeled an 
enemy combatant. In fact, a detainee does not have to be found to be an 
enemy combatant; it is enough for the Government to say someone is 
``awaiting'' determination of that status--something detainees cannot 
even contest when they are held in jail.
  The sweep of this habeas provision goes far beyond the few hundred 
detainees currently held at Guantanamo Bay, and it includes an 
estimated 12 million lawful permanent residents in the United States 
today. These are people who work and pay taxes, people who abide by our 
laws and should be entitled to fair treatment. It is, after all, the 
American way. It is what we brag about when we go to their countries. 
But under this law, any of these people can be detained, forever, 
without any ability to challenge their detention in court.
  This is wrong. It is unconstitutional. It is un-American.
  Top conservative thinkers, evangelical activists, and prominent 
members of the Latino community have all spoken out on the need to 
restore these basic American rights. GEN Colin Powell, like many 
leading former military and diplomatic officials, has spoken of the 
importance of these habeas rights. He asked, ``Isn't that what our 
system's all about?''
  Perhaps most powerful for me was the testimony of RADM Donald Guter, 
who was working in his office in the Pentagon as Judge Advocate General 
of the Navy on September 11, 2001, and saw firsthand the effects of 
terrorism. His credibility is unimpeachable when he says that denying 
habeas rights to detainees endangers our troops and undermines our 
military efforts.
  Admiral Guter testified:

       As we limit the rights of human beings, even those of the 
     enemy, we become more like the enemy. That makes us weaker 
     and imperils our valiant troops, serving not just in Iraq and 
     Afghanistan, but around the globe.

  He was right. Whether you are an individual soldier, or a great 
nation, it is difficult to defend the higher ground by taking the lower 
road. The world knows what our enemies stand for. The world also knows 
what this country has tried to stand for and live up to in--the best of 
times, and the worst of times.
  Now, as we work to reauthorize the many programs that compose our 
valiant armed forces, it is the right time to heed the advice of so 
many of our top military lawyers who tell us that eliminating basic 
legal rights undermines our fighting men and women; it does not make 
them stronger.
  I especially want to thank Senator Specter and acknowledge his strong 
and consistent leadership on this issue. Senator Specter and I came to 
this

[[Page S11543]]

floor to offer this amendment back on July 10, when this bill was 
initially being considered, and thereafter. I hope all Senators will 
now join with us in restoring basic American values and the rule of 
law, while making our Nation stronger.
  It is from strength that America should defend our values and our way 
of life. It is from the strength of our freedoms, our Constitution, and 
the rule of law that we shall prevail. I hope all in the Senate, 
Republicans and Democrats, will join us in standing up for a stronger 
America, for the America we believe in, and support the Habeas Corpus 
Restoration Act of 2007.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


Amendments Nos. 2174, as Modified; 2175; 2168; 2108; 2015; 2050; 2120; 
2056; 2147; 2047; 2117; 2190; 2199; 2203; 2201; 2200; 2112; 2099; 2212; 
  2222; 2230, as Modified; 2234, as Modified; 2272; 2220; 2276; 2257; 
2281; 2250; 2254; 2268; 2292; 2305; 2216; 2309; 2308; 2310; 2617; 2313; 
 2863; 2282; 2210; 2291; 2096; 2315; 2176; 2326; 2263; 2294; 2277, as 
                Modified; and 2862 to Amendment No. 2011

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send a series of amendments to the desk 
which have been cleared by myself and Senator Warner. I ask unanimous 
consent that the Senate consider those amendments en bloc, the 
amendments be agreed to en bloc, and the motions to reconsider be laid 
on the table. Finally, I ask unanimous consent to have any statements 
relating to any of these individual amendments printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WARNER. No objection. As a matter of fact, we have worked out in 
a very satisfactory way each of these amendments.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I understand there are 50 amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                    Amendment No. 2174, as Modified

       At the end of subtitle B of title I, add the following:

     SEC. 115. GENERAL FUND ENTERPRISE BUSINESS SYSTEM.

       (a) Additional Amount.--
       (1) In general.--The amount authorized to be appropriated 
     by section 201(1) for research, development, test and 
     evaluation for the Army is hereby increased by $59,041,000.
       (2) Availability.--Of the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 201(1) for research, development test 
     and evaluation for the Army, as increased by paragraph (1), 
     $59,041,000 may be available for the General Fund Enterprise 
     Business System of the Army.
       (3) Supplement not supplant.--The amount available under 
     paragraph (2) for the purpose specified in that paragraph is 
     in addition to any other amounts available in this Act for 
     that purpose.
       (b) Offset.--
       (1) RDTE, army.--The amount authorized to be appropriated 
     by section 101(5) for other procurement for the Army is 
     hereby reduced by $29,219,000, with the amount of the 
     reduction to be allocated to amounts available for the 
     General Fund Enterprise Business System.
       (2) O&M, army.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 301(1) for operation and maintenance for the Army is 
     hereby reduced by $29,822,000, with the amount of the 
     reduction to be allocated to amounts available for the 
     General Fund Enterprise Business System.


                           Amendment No. 2175

   (Purpose: To modify the requirements on the Defense Science Board 
    Review of Department of Defense policies and procedures for the 
                 acquisition of information technology)

         On page 246, strike lines 4 through 6 and insert the 
     following:
       (G) the information officers of the Defense Agencies; and
       (H) the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation and the 
     heads of the operational test organizations of the military 
     departments and the Defense Agencies.

       On page 247, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
       (9) The adequacy of operational and development test 
     resources (including infrastructure and personnel), policies, 
     and procedures to ensure appropriate testing of information 
     technology systems both during development and before 
     operational use.
       (10) The appropriate policies and procedures for technology 
     assessment, development, and operational testing for purposes 
     of the adoption of commercial technologies into information 
     technology systems.


                           Amendment No. 2168

 (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress on the procurement program 
                     for the KC-X tanker aircraft)

       At the end of subtitle D at title I, add the following:

     SEC. 143. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE PROCUREMENT PROGRAM FOR 
                   THE KC-X TANKER AIRCRAFT.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Aerial refueling is a critically important force 
     multiplier for the Air Force.
       (2) The KC-X tanker aircraft procurement program is the 
     number one acquisition and recapitalization priority of the 
     Air Force.
       (3) Given the competing budgetary requirements of the other 
     Armed Forces and other sectors of the Federal Government, the 
     Air Force needs to modernize at the most cost effective 
     price.
       (4) Competition in defense procurement provides the Armed 
     Forces with the best products at the best price.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the Air Force should--
       (1) hold a full and open competition to choose the best 
     possible joint aerial refueling capability at the most 
     reasonable price; and
       (2) be discouraged from taking any actions that would limit 
     the ability of either of the teams seeking the contract for 
     the procurement of KC-X tanker aircraft from competing for 
     that contract.


                           Amendment No. 2108

(Purpose: To require a report on the planning and implementation of the 
               policy of the United States toward Darfur)

       At the end of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. 1205. REPORT ON PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF UNITED 
                   STATES ENGAGEMENT AND POLICY TOWARD DARFUR.

       (a) Requirement for Reports.--Not later than 120 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Defense and the Secretary of State shall submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees a report on the policy 
     of the United States to address the crisis in Darfur, in 
     eastern Chad, and in north-eastern Central African Republic, 
     and on the contributions of the Department of Defense and the 
     Department of State to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
     (NATO), the United Nations, and the African Union in support 
     of the current African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) or any 
     covered United Nations mission.
       (b) Elements.--Each report under subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (1) An assessment of the extent to which the Government of 
     Sudan is in compliance with its obligations under 
     international law and as a member of the United Nations, 
     including under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 
     1706 (2006) and 1591 (2005), and a description of any 
     violations of such obligations, including violations relating 
     to the denial of or delay in facilitating access by AMIS and 
     United Nations peacekeepers to conflict areas, failure to 
     implement responsibilities to demobilize and disarm the 
     Janjaweed militias, obstruction of the voluntary safe return 
     of internally displaced persons and refugees, and degradation 
     of security of and access to humanitarian supply routes.
       (2) A comprehensive explanation of the policy of the United 
     States to address the crisis in Darfur, including the 
     activities of the Department of Defense and the Department of 
     State.
       (3) A comprehensive assessment of the impact of a no-fly 
     zone for Darfur, including an assessment of the impact of 
     such a no-fly zone on humanitarian efforts in Darfur and the 
     region and a plan to minimize any negative impact on such 
     humanitarian efforts during the implementation of such a no-
     fly zone.
       (4) A description of contributions made by the Department 
     of Defense and the Department of State in support of NATO 
     assistance to AMIS and any covered United Nations mission.
       (5) An assessment of the extent to which additional 
     resources are necessary to meet the obligations of the United 
     States to AMIS and any covered United Nations mission.
       (c) Form and Availability of Reports.--
       (1) Form.--Each report submitted under this section shall 
     be in an unclassified form, but may include a classified 
     annex.
       (2) Availability.--The unclassified portion of any report 
     submitted under this section shall be made available to the 
     public.
       (d) Repeal of Superseded Report Requirement.--Section 1227 
     of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364; 120 Stat. 2426) is 
     repealed.
       (e) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means--
       (A) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on 
     Foreign Relations of the Senate; and
       (B) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on 
     Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives.
       (2) Covered united nations mission.--The term ``covered 
     United Nations mission'' means any United Nations-African 
     Union hybrid peacekeeping operation in Darfur, and any United 
     Nations peacekeeping operating in Darfur, eastern Chad, or 
     northern Central

[[Page S11544]]

     African Republic, that is deployed on or after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.


                           amendment no. 2015

   (Purpose: To provide for additional members on the Department of 
               Defense Military Family Readiness Council)

       On page 107, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       ``(D) In addition to the members appointed under 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C), eight individuals appointed by the 
     Secretary of Defense, of whom--
       ``(i) one shall be a commissioned officer of the Army or 
     spouse of a commissioned officer of the Army, and one shall 
     be an enlisted member of the Army or spouse of an enlisted 
     member of the Army, except that of the individuals appointed 
     under this clause at any particular time, one shall be a 
     member of the Army and the other shall be a spouse of a 
     member of the Army;
       ``(ii) one shall be a commissioned officer of the Navy or 
     spouse of a commissioned officer of the Navy, and one shall 
     be an enlisted member of the Navy or spouse of an enlisted 
     member of the Navy, except that of the individuals appointed 
     under this clause at any particular time, one shall be a 
     member of the Navy and the other shall be a spouse of a 
     member of the Navy;
       ``(iii) one shall be a commissioned officer of the Marine 
     Corps or spouse of a commissioned officer of the Marine 
     Corps, and one shall be an enlisted member of the Marine 
     Corps or spouse of an enlisted member of the Marine Corps, 
     except that of the individuals appointed under this clause at 
     any particular time, one shall be a member of the Marine 
     Corps and the other shall be a spouse of a member of the 
     Marine Corps; and
       ``(iv) one shall be a commissioned officer of the Air Force 
     or spouse of a commissioned officer of the Air Force, and one 
     shall be an enlisted member of the Air Force or spouse of an 
     enlisted member of the Air Force, except that of the 
     individuals appointed under this clause at any particular 
     time, one shall be a member of the Air Force and the other 
     shall be a spouse of a member of the Air Force.''.


                           amendment no. 2050

  (Purpose: To require a report on surveys of patient satisfaction at 
                     military treatment facilities)

       At the end of title VII, add the following:

     SEC. 703. REPORT ON PATIENT SATISFACTION SURVEYS.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than March 1, 2008, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional 
     defense committees a report on the ongoing patient 
     satisfaction surveys taking place in Department of Defense 
     inpatient and outpatient settings at military treatment 
     facilities.
       (b) Content.--The report required under subsection (a) 
     shall include the following:
       (1) The types of survey questions asked.
       (2) How frequently the surveying is conducted.
       (3) How often the results are analyzed and reported back to 
     the treatment facilities.
       (4) To whom survey feedback is made available.
       (5) How best practices are incorporated for quality 
     improvement.
       (6) An analysis of the impact and effect of inpatient and 
     outpatient surveys quality improvement and a comparison of 
     patient satisfaction survey programs with patient 
     satisfaction survey programs used by other public and private 
     health care systems and organizations.
       (c) Use of Report Information.--The Secretary shall use 
     information in the report as the basis for a plan for 
     improvements in patient satisfaction surveys at health care 
     at military treatment facilities in order to ensure the 
     provision of high quality healthcare and hospital services in 
     such facilities.


                           amendment no. 2120

 (Purpose: To require an additional element in the management plan for 
           the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund)

       On page 415, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       (C) activities for the coordination of research technology 
     development and concepts of operations on improvised 
     explosive defeat with the military departments, the Defense 
     Agencies, the combatant commands, the Department of Homeland 
     Security, and other appropriate departments and agencies of 
     the Federal Government.


                           amendment no. 2056

(Purpose: To provide support and assistance for families of members of 
            the Armed Forces who are undergoing deployment)

       At the end of subtitle G of title V, add the following:

     SEC. 583. FAMILY SUPPORT FOR FAMILIES OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 
                   FORCES UNDERGOING DEPLOYMENT, INCLUDING 
                   NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE PERSONNEL.

       (a) Family Support.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense shall enhance and 
     improve current programs of the Department of Defense to 
     provide family support for families of deployed members of 
     the Armed Forces, including deployed members of the National 
     Guard and Reserve, in order to improve the assistance 
     available for families of such members before, during, and 
     after their deployment cycle.
       (2) Specific enhancements.--In enhancing and improving 
     programs under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall enhance and 
     improve the availability of assistance to families of members 
     of the Armed Forces, including members of the National Guard 
     and Reserve, including assistance in--
       (A) preparing and updating family care plans;
       (B) securing information on health care and mental health 
     care benefits and services and on other community resources;
       (C) providing referrals for--
       (i) crisis services; and
       (ii) marriage counseling and family counseling; and
       (D) financial counseling.
       (b) Post-Deployment Assistance for Spouses and Parents of 
     Returning Members.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense shall provide 
     spouses and parents of members of the Armed Forces, including 
     members of the National Guard and Reserve, who are returning 
     from deployment assistance in--
       (A) understanding issues that arise in the readjustment of 
     such members--
       (i) for members of the National Guard and Reserve, to 
     civilian life; and
       (ii) for members of the regular components of the Armed 
     Forces, to military life in a non-combat environment;
       (B) identifying signs and symptoms of mental health 
     conditions; and
       (C) encouraging such members and their families in seeking 
     assistance for such conditions.
       (2) Information on available resources.--In providing 
     assistance under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall provide 
     information on local resources for mental health services, 
     family counseling services, or other appropriate services, 
     including services available from both military providers of 
     such services and community-based providers of such services.
       (3) Timing.--The Secretary shall provide resources under 
     paragraph (1) to a member of the Armed Forces approximately 
     six months after the date of the return of such member from 
     deployment.

     SEC. 584. SUPPORT SERVICES FOR CHILDREN, INFANTS, AND 
                   TODDLERS OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES 
                   UNDERGOING DEPLOYMENT, INCLUDING NATIONAL GUARD 
                   AND RESERVE PERSONNEL.

       (a) Enhancement of Support Services for Children.--The 
     Secretary of Defense shall--
       (1) provide information to parents and other caretakers of 
     children, including infants and toddlers, who are deployed 
     members of the Armed Forces to assist such parents and 
     caretakers in responding to the adverse implications of such 
     deployment (and the death or injury of such members during 
     such deployment) for such children, including the role such 
     parents and caretakers can play in addressing and mitigating 
     such implications;
       (2) develop programs and activities to increase awareness 
     throughout the military and civilian communities of the 
     potential adverse implications of such deployment (including 
     the death or injury of such members during such deployment) 
     for such children and their families and to increase 
     collaboration within such communities to address and mitigate 
     such implications;
       (3) develop training for early childhood education, child 
     care, mental health, health care, and family support 
     professionals to enhance the awareness of such professionals 
     of their role in assisting families in addressing and 
     mitigating the potential adverse implications of such 
     deployment (including the death or injury of such members 
     during such deployment) for such children; and
       (4) conduct or sponsor research on best practices for 
     building psychological and emotional resiliency in such 
     children in coping with the deployment of such members.
       (b) Reports.--
       (1) Reports required.--At the end of the 18-month period 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, and at 
     the end of the 36-month period beginning on that date, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on the 
     services provided under subsection (a).
       (2) Elements.--Each report under paragraph (1) shall 
     include the following:
       (A) An assessment of the extent to which outreach to 
     parents and other caretakers of children, or infants and 
     toddlers, as applicable, of members of the Armed Forces was 
     effective in reaching such parents and caretakers and in 
     mitigating any adverse effects of the deployment of such 
     members on such children or infants and toddlers.
       (B) An assessment of the effectiveness of training 
     materials for education, mental health, health, and family 
     support professionals in increasing awareness of their role 
     in assisting families in addressing and mitigating the 
     adverse effects on children, or infants and toddlers, of the 
     deployment of deployed members of the Armed Forces, including 
     National Guard and Reserve personnel.
       (C) A description of best practices identified for building 
     psychological and emotional resiliency in children, or 
     infants and toddlers, in coping with the deployment of 
     deployed members of the Armed Forces, including National 
     Guard and Reserve personnel.
       (D) A plan for dissemination throughout the military 
     departments of the most effective practices for outreach, 
     training, and building psychological and emotional resiliency 
     in the children of deployed members.

[[Page S11545]]

                           AMENDMENT NO. 2147

(Purpose: To authorize the Air University to confer additional academic 
                                degrees)

       At the end of subtitle D of title V, add the following:

     SEC. 555. AUTHORITY OF THE AIR UNIVERSITY TO CONFER 
                   ADDITIONAL ACADEMIC DEGREES.

       Section 9317(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(5) The degree of doctor of philosophy in strategic 
     studies upon graduates of the School of Advanced Airpower 
     Studies who fulfill the requirements for that degree in 
     manner consistent with the guidelines of the Department of 
     Education and the principles of the regional accrediting body 
     for Air University.
       ``(6) The degree of master of air, space, and cyberspace 
     studies upon graduates of Air University who fulfill the 
     requirements for that degree in a manner consistent with the 
     recommendations of the Department of Education and the 
     principles of the regional accrediting body for Air 
     University.
       ``(7) The degree of master of flight test engineering 
     science upon graduates of the Air Force Test Pilot School who 
     fulfill the requirements for that degree in a manner 
     consistent with the recommendations of the Department of 
     Education and the principles of the regional accrediting body 
     for Air University.''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2047

(Purpose: To specify additional individuals eligible to transportation 
                   for survivors of deceased members)

       At the end of subtitle D of title VI, add the following:

     SEC. 656. ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUALS ELIGIBLE FOR TRANSPORTATION 
                   FOR SURVIVORS OF DECEASED MEMBERS TO ATTEND THE 
                   MEMBER'S BURIAL CEREMONIES.

       Section 411f(c) of title 37, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by adding at the end the following new 
     subparagraphs:
       ``(D) Any child of the parent or parents of the deceased 
     member who is under the age of 18 years if such child is 
     attending the burial ceremony of the memorial service with 
     the parent or parents and would otherwise be left 
     unaccompanied by the parent or parents.
       ``(E) The person who directs the disposition of the remains 
     of the deceased member under section 1482(c) of title 10, or, 
     in the case of a deceased member whose remains are commingled 
     and buried in a common grave in a national cemetery, the 
     person who have been designated under such section to direct 
     the disposition of the remains if individual identification 
     had been made.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``may be provided to--'' 
     and all that follows through the end and inserting ``may be 
     provided to up to two additional persons closely related to 
     the deceased member who are selected by the person referred 
     to in paragraph (1)(E).''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2117

     (Purpose: To revise the authorized variances on end strengths 
               authorized for Selected reserve personnel)

       At the end of subtitle B of title IV, add the following:

     SEC. 416. REVISION OF AUTHORIZED VARIANCES IN END STRENGTHS 
                   FOR SELECTED RESERVE PERSONNEL.

       (a) Increase.--Section 115(f)(3) of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``2 percent'' and inserting ``3 
     percent''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2007, and shall apply with 
     respect to fiscal years beginning on or after that date.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2190

 (Purpose: To designate the positions of Principal Military Deputy to 
 the Assistant Secretaries of the military departments for acquisition 
               matters as critical acquisition positions)

       On page 269, line 20, insert after ``management.'' the 
     following: ``The position of Principal Deputy shall be 
     designated as a critical acquisition position under section 
     1733 of this title.''.
       On page 270, line 10, insert after ``management.'' the 
     following: ``The position of Principal Deputy shall be 
     designated as a critical acquisition position under section 
     1733 of this title.''.
       On page 270, line 23, insert after ``management.'' the 
     following: ``The position of Principal Deputy shall be 
     designated as a critical acquisition position under section 
     1733 of this title.''.


                           amendment no. 2199

 (Purpose: To require a Comptroller General assessment of the Defense 
        Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research)

       At the end of subtitle D of title II, add the following:

     SEC. 256. COMPTROLLER GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF THE DEFENSE 
                   EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM TO STIMULATE COMPETITIVE 
                   RESEARCH.

       (a) Review.--Not later than one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of 
     the Senate and the House of Representatives an assessment of 
     the effectiveness of the Defense Experimental Program to 
     Stimulate Competitive Research.
       (b) Assessment.--The report under subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (1) A description and assessment of the tangible results 
     and progress toward the objectives of the program, 
     including--
       (A) an identification of any past program activities that 
     led to, or were fundamental to, applications used by, or 
     supportive of, operational users; and
       (B) an assessment of whether the program has expanded the 
     national research infrastructure.
       (2) An assessment whether the activities undertaken under 
     the program are consistent with the statute authorizing the 
     program.
       (3) An assessment whether the various elements of the 
     program, such as structure, funding, staffing, project 
     solicitation and selection, and administration, are working 
     effectively and efficiently to support the effective 
     execution of the program.
       (4) A description and assessment of past and ongoing 
     activities of State planning committees under the program in 
     supporting the achievement of the objectives of the program.
       (5) An analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of 
     having an institution-based formula for qualification to 
     participate in the program when compared with the advantages 
     and disadvantages of having a State-based formula for 
     qualification to participate in supporting defense missions 
     and the objective of expanding the Nation's defense research 
     infrastructure.
       (6) An identification of mechanisms for improving the 
     management and implementation of the program, including 
     modification of the statute authorizing the program, 
     Department regulations, program structure, funding levels, 
     funding strategy, or the activities of the State committees.
       (7) Any other matters the Comptroller General considers 
     appropriate.


                           amendment no. 2203

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress on family care plans and the 
  deployment of members of the Armed Forces who have minor dependents)

       At the end of title X, add the following:

     SEC. 1070. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON FAMILY CARE PLANS AND THE 
                   DEPLOYMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES WHO 
                   HAVE MINOR DEPENDENTS.

       (a) In General.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) single parents who are members of the Armed Forces with 
     minor dependents, and dual-military couples with minor 
     dependents, should develop and maintain effective family care 
     plans that--
       (A) address all reasonably foreseeable situations that 
     would result in the absence of the single parent or dual-
     military couple in order to provide for the efficient 
     transfer of responsibility for the minor dependents to an 
     alternative caregiver; and
       (B) are consistent with Department of Defense Instruction 
     1342.19, dated July 13, 1992, and any applicable regulations 
     of the military department concerned; and
       (2) the Secretary of Defense should establish procedures to 
     ensure that if a single parent and both spouses in a dual-
     military couple are required to deploy to a covered area--
       (A) requests by the single parent or dual-military couple 
     for deferments of deployment due to unforeseen circumstances 
     are evaluated rapidly; and
       (B) appropriate steps are taken to ensure adequate care for 
     minor dependents of the single parent or dual-military 
     couple.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Covered area.--The term ``covered area'' means an area 
     for which special pay for duty subject to hostile fire or 
     imminent danger is authorized under section 310 of title 37, 
     United States Code.
       (2) Dual-military couple.--The term ``dual-military 
     couple'' means a married couple in which both spouses are 
     members of the Armed Forces.


                           amendment no. 2201

(Purpose: To amend the American Servicemembers' Protection Act of 2002 
     to repeal the limitations on providing United States military 
       assistance to parties to the International Criminal Court)

       At the end of subtitle A of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. 1205. REPEAL OF LIMITATIONS ON MILITARY ASSISTANCE UNDER 
                   THE AMERICAN SERVICEMEMBERS' PROTECTION ACT OF 
                   2002.

       (a) Repeal of Limitations.--Section 2007 of the American 
     Servicemembers' Protection Act of 2002 (22 U.S.C. 7426) is 
     repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Such Act is further amended--
       (1) in section 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7422)--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) in the heading, by striking ``Sections 5 and 7'' and 
     inserting ``Section 2005''; and
       (ii) by striking ``sections 2005 and 2007'' and inserting 
     ``section 2005'';
       (B) in subsection (b)--
       (i) in the heading, by striking ``Sections 5 and 7'' and 
     inserting ``Section 2005''; and
       (ii) by striking ``sections 2005 and 2007'' and inserting 
     ``section 2005'';
       (C) in subsection (c)(2)(A), by striking ``sections 2005 
     and 2007'' and inserting ``section 2005'';
       (D) in subsection (d), by striking ``sections 2005 and 
     2007'' and inserting ``section 2005''; and
       (E) in subsection (e), by striking ``2006, and 2007'' and 
     inserting ``and 2006''; and
       (2) in section 2013 (22 U.S.C. 7432), by striking paragraph 
     (13).

[[Page S11546]]

                           amendment no. 2200

 (Purpose: To prescribe that members of the Armed Forces and veterans 
    out of uniform may render the military salute during hoisting, 
                     lowering, or passing of flag)

       At the end of subtitle E of title X, add the following:

     SEC. 1070. CONDUCT BY MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND 
                   VETERANS OUT OF UNIFORM DURING HOISTING, 
                   LOWERING, OR PASSING OF FLAG.

       Section 9 of title 4, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``all persons present'' and all that follows through 
     the end and inserting ``those present in uniform should 
     render the military salute. Members of the Armed Forces and 
     veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the 
     military salute. All other persons present should face the 
     flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the 
     heart, or if applicable, remove their headdress with their 
     right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being 
     over the heart. Citizens of other countries should stand at 
     attention. All such conduct toward the flag in a moving 
     column should be rendered at the moment the flag passes.''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2112

   (Purpose: To require studies on support services for families of 
    members of the Active and Reserve components who are undergoing 
                              deployment)

       At the end of subtitle G of title V, add the following:

     SEC. 583. STUDY ON IMPROVING SUPPORT SERVICES FOR CHILDREN, 
                   INFANTS, AND TODDLERS OF MEMBERS OF THE ACTIVE 
                   AND RESERVE COMPONENTS UNDERGOING DEPLOYMENT.

       (a) Study Required.--
       (1) Study.--The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a study 
     to evaluate the feasibility and advisability of entering into 
     a contract or other agreement with a private sector entity 
     having expertise in the health and well-being of families and 
     children, infants, and toddlers in order to enhance and 
     develop support services for children of members of the 
     Active and Reserve components who are deployed.
       (2) Types of support services.--In conducting the study, 
     the Secretary shall consider the need--
       (A) to develop materials for parents and other caretakers 
     of children of members of the Active and Reserve components 
     who are deployed to assist such parents and caretakers in 
     responding to the adverse implications of such deployment 
     (and the death or injury of such members during such 
     deployment) for such children, including the role such 
     parents and caretakers can play in addressing and mitigating 
     such implications;
       (B) to develop programs and activities to increase 
     awareness throughout the military and civilian communities of 
     the adverse implications of such deployment (and the death or 
     injury of such members during such deployment) for such 
     children and their families and to increase collaboration 
     within such communities to address and mitigate such 
     implications;
       (C) to develop training for early child care and education, 
     mental health, health care, and family support professionals 
     to enhance the awareness of such professionals of their role 
     in assisting families in addressing and mitigating the 
     adverse implications of such deployment (and the death or 
     injury of such members during such deployment) for such 
     children; and
       (D) to conduct research on best practices for building 
     psychological and emotional resiliency in such children in 
     coping with the deployment of such members.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit 
     to Congress a report containing the results of the study 
     conducted under subsection (a).

     SEC. 584. STUDY ON ESTABLISHMENT OF PILOT PROGRAM ON FAMILY-
                   TO-FAMILY SUPPORT FOR FAMILIES OF DEPLOYED 
                   MEMBERS OF THE ACTIVE AND RESERVE COMPONENTS 
                   AND RESERVE.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary of Defense shall carry out a 
     study to evaluate the feasibility and advisability of 
     establishing a pilot program on family-to-family support for 
     families of deployed members of the Active and Reserve 
     components. The study shall include an assessment of the 
     following:
       (1) The effectiveness of family-to-family support programs 
     in--
       (A) providing peer support for families of deployed members 
     of the Active and Reserve components;
       (B) identifying and preventing family problems in such 
     families;
       (C) reducing adverse outcomes for children of such 
     families, including poor academic performance, behavioral 
     problems, stress, and anxiety; and
       (D) improving family readiness and post-deployment 
     transition for such families.
       (2) The feasibility and advisability of utilizing spouses 
     of members of the Armed Forces as counselors for families of 
     deployed members of the Active and Reserve components, in 
     order to assist such families in coping throughout the 
     deployment cycle.
       (3) Best practices for training spouses of members of the 
     Armed Forces to act as counselors for families of deployed 
     members of the Active and Reserve components.
       (b) Report.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit to 
     Congress a report containing the results of the study 
     conducted under subsection (a) not later than 180 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.


                           amendment no. 2099

 (Purpose: To extend the date on which the National Security Personnel 
        System will first apply to certain defense laboratories)

       On page 354, after line 24, add the following:

     SEC. 1070. EXTENSION OF DATE OF APPLICATION OF NATIONAL 
                   SECURITY PERSONNEL SYSTEM TO DEFENSE 
                   LABORATORIES.

       Section 9902(c)(1) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``October 1, 2008'' each place such term 
     appears and inserting ``October 1, 2011'' in each such place.


                           amendment no. 2212

  (Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide for the 
                   protection of certain individuals)

       At the end of title X, add the following:

     SEC. 1070. PROTECTION OF CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS.

       (a) Protection for Department Leadership.--The Secretary of 
     Defense, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary and in 
     accordance with guidelines approved by the Secretary and the 
     Attorney General, may authorize qualified members of the 
     Armed Forces and qualified civilian employees of the 
     Department of Defense to provide physical protection and 
     security within the United States to the following persons 
     who, by nature of their positions, require continuous 
     security and protection:
       (1) Secretary of Defense.
       (2) Deputy Secretary of Defense.
       (3) Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
       (4) Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
       (5) Secretaries of the military departments.
       (6) Chiefs of the Services.
       (7) Commanders of combatant commands.
       (b) Protection for Additional Personnel.--
       (1) Authority to provide.--The Secretary of Defense, under 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary and in accordance 
     with guidelines approved by the Secretary and the Attorney 
     General, may authorize qualified members of the Armed Forces 
     and qualified civilian employees of the Department of Defense 
     to provide physical protection and security within the United 
     States to individuals other than individuals described in 
     paragraphs (1) through (7) of subsection (a) if the Secretary 
     determines that such protection is necessary because--
       (A) there is an imminent and credible threat to the safety 
     of the individual for whom protection is to be provided; or
       (B) compelling operational considerations make such 
     protection essential to the conduct of official Department of 
     Defense business.
       (2) Personnel.--Individuals authorized to receive physical 
     protection and security under this subsection include the 
     following:
       (A) Any official, military member, or employee of the 
     Department of Defense, including such a former or retired 
     official who faces serious and credible threats arising from 
     duties performed while employed by the Department.
       (B) Any distinguished foreign visitor to the United States 
     who is conducting official business with the Department of 
     Defense.
       (C) Any member of the immediate family of a person 
     authorized to receive physical protection and security under 
     this section.
       (3) Limitation on delegation.--The authority of the 
     Secretary of Defense to authorize the provision of physical 
     protection and security under this subsection may be 
     delegated only to the Deputy Secretary of Defense.
       (4) Requirement for written determination.--A determination 
     of the Secretary of Defense to provide physical protection 
     and security under this subsection shall be in writing, shall 
     be based on a threat assessment by an appropriate law 
     enforcement, security or intelligence organization, and shall 
     include the name and title of the officer, employee, or other 
     individual affected, the reason for such determination, and 
     the duration of the authorized protection and security for 
     such officer, employee, or individual.
       (5) Duration of protection.--
       (A) Initial period of protection.--After making a written 
     determination under paragraph (4), the Secretary of Defense 
     may provide protection and security to an individual under 
     this subsection for an initial period of not more than 90 
     calendar days.
       (B) Subsequent period.--If, at the end of the 90-day period 
     that protection and security is provided to an individual 
     under subsection (A), the Secretary determines that a 
     condition described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph 
     (1) continues to exist with respect to the individual, the 
     Secretary may extend the period that such protection and 
     security is provided for additional 60-day periods. The 
     Secretary shall review such a determination at the end of 
     each 60-day period to determine whether to continue to 
     provide such protection and security.
       (C) Requirement for compliance with regulations.--
     Protection and security provided under subparagraph (B) shall 
     be provided in accordance with the regulations and guidelines 
     referred to in paragraph (1).
       (6) Submission to congress.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit to 
     the congressional defense committees a report of each 
     determination made under paragraph (4) to provide protection 
     and security to an individual and of each determination under 
     paragraph (5)(B) to

[[Page S11547]]

     extend such protection and security, together with the 
     justification for such determination, not later than 30 days 
     after the date on which the determination is made.
       (B) Form of report.--A report submitted under subparagraph 
     (A) may be made in classified form.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Congressional defense committees.--The term 
     ``congressional defense committees'' means the Committee on 
     Appropriations and the Committee on Armed Services of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee 
     on Armed Services of the House of Representatives.
       (2) Qualified members of the armed forces and qualified 
     civilian employees of the department of defense.--The terms 
     ``qualified members of the Armed Forces and qualified 
     civilian employees of the Department of Defense'' refer 
     collectively to members or employees who are assigned to 
     investigative, law enforcement, or security duties of any of 
     the following:
       (A) The U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command.
       (B) The Naval Criminal Investigative Service.
       (C) The U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations.
       (D) The Defense Criminal Investigative Service.
       (E) The Pentagon Force Protection Agency.
       (d) Construction.--
       (1) No additional law enforcement or arrest authority.--
     Other than the authority to provide security and protection 
     under this section, nothing in this section may be construed 
     to bestow any additional law enforcement or arrest authority 
     upon the qualified members of the Armed Forces and qualified 
     civilian employees of the Department of Defense.
       (2) Authorities of other departments.--Nothing in this 
     section may be construed to preclude or limit, in any way, 
     the express or implied powers of the Secretary of Defense or 
     other Department of Defense officials, or the duties and 
     authorities of the Secretary of State, the Director of the 
     United States Secret Service, the Director of the United 
     States Marshals Service, or any other Federal law enforcement 
     agency.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2222

    (Purpose: To prevent nuclear terrorism, and for other purposes)

       At the end of title XXXI, add the following:

                Subtitle D--Nuclear Terrorism Prevention

     SEC. 3131. DEFINITIONS.

       In this subtitle:
       (1) The term ``Convention on the Physical Protection of 
     Nuclear Material'' means the Convention on the Physical 
     Protection of Nuclear Material, signed at New York and Vienna 
     March 3, 1980.
       (2) The term ``formula quantities of strategic special 
     nuclear material'' means uranium-235 (contained in uranium 
     enriched to 20 percent or more in the U-235 isotope), 
     uranium-233, or plutonium in any combination in a total 
     quantity of 5,000 grams or more computed by the formula, 
     grams = (grams contained U-235) + 2.5 (grams U-233 + grams 
     plutonium), as set forth in the definitions of ``formula 
     quantity'' and ``strategic special nuclear material'' in 
     section 73.2 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations.
       (3) The term ``Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty'' means the 
     Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, done at 
     Washington, London, and Moscow July 1, 1968, and entered into 
     force March 5, 1970 (21 UST 483).
       (4) The term ``nuclear weapon'' means any device utilizing 
     atomic energy, exclusive of the means for transporting or 
     propelling the device (where such means is a separable and 
     divisible part of the device), the principal purpose of which 
     is for use as, or for the development of, a weapon, a weapon 
     prototype, or a weapon test device.

     SEC. 3132. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The possibility that terrorists may acquire and use a 
     nuclear weapon against the United States is the most horrific 
     threat that our Nation faces.
       (2) The September 2006 ``National Strategy for Combating 
     Terrorism'' issued by the White House states, ``Weapons of 
     mass destruction in the hands of terrorists is one of the 
     gravest threats we face.''
       (3) Former Senator and cofounder of the Nuclear Threat 
     Initiative Sam Nunn has stated, ``Stockpiles of loosely 
     guarded nuclear weapons material are scattered around the 
     world, offering inviting targets for theft or sale. We are 
     working on this, but I believe that the threat is outrunning 
     our response.''.
       (4) Existing programs intended to secure, monitor, and 
     reduce nuclear stockpiles, redirect nuclear scientists, and 
     interdict nuclear smuggling have made substantial progress, 
     but additional efforts are needed to reduce the threat of 
     nuclear terrorism as much as possible.
       (5) Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has 
     said that a nuclear terror attack ``would not only cause 
     widespread death and destruction, but would stagger the world 
     economy and thrust tens of millions of people into dire 
     poverty''.
       (6) United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 (2004) 
     reaffirms the need to combat by all means, in accordance with 
     the Charter of the United Nations, threats to international 
     peace and security caused by terrorist acts, and directs all 
     countries, in accordance with their national procedures, to 
     adopt and enforce effective laws that prohibit any non-state 
     actor from manufacturing, acquiring, possessing, developing, 
     transporting, transferring, or using nuclear, chemical, or 
     biological weapons and their means of delivery, in particular 
     for terrorist purposes, and to prohibit attempts to engage in 
     any of the foregoing activities, participate in them as an 
     accomplice, or assist or finance them.
       (7) The Director General of the International Atomic Energy 
     Agency, Dr. Mohammed ElBaradei, has said that it is a ``race 
     against time'' to prevent a terrorist attack using a nuclear 
     weapon.
       (8) The International Atomic Energy Agency plays a vital 
     role in coordinating efforts to protect nuclear materials and 
     to combat nuclear smuggling.
       (9) Legislation sponsored by Senator Richard Lugar, Senator 
     Pete Domenici, and former Senator Sam Nunn has resulted in 
     groundbreaking programs to secure nuclear weapons and 
     materials and to help ensure that such weapons and materials 
     do not fall into the hands of terrorists.

     SEC. 3133. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE PREVENTION OF NUCLEAR 
                   TERRORISM.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the President should make the prevention of a nuclear 
     terrorist attack on the United States of the highest 
     priority;
       (2) the President should accelerate programs, requesting 
     additional funding as appropriate, to prevent nuclear 
     terrorism, including combating nuclear smuggling, securing 
     and accounting for nuclear weapons, and eliminating, 
     removing, or securing and accounting for formula quantities 
     of strategic special nuclear material wherever such 
     quantities may be;
       (3) the United States, together with the international 
     community, should take a comprehensive approach to reducing 
     the danger of nuclear terrorism, including by making 
     additional efforts to identify and eliminate terrorist groups 
     that aim to acquire nuclear weapons, to ensure that nuclear 
     weapons worldwide are secure and accounted for and that 
     formula quantities of strategic special nuclear material 
     worldwide are eliminated, removed, or secure and accounted 
     for to a degree sufficient to defeat the threat that 
     terrorists and criminals have shown they can pose, and to 
     increase the ability to find and stop terrorist efforts to 
     manufacture nuclear explosives or to transport nuclear 
     explosives and materials anywhere in the world;
       (4) within such a comprehensive approach, a high priority 
     must be placed on ensuring that all nuclear weapons worldwide 
     are secure and accounted for and that all formula quantities 
     of strategic special nuclear material worldwide are 
     eliminated, removed, or secure and accounted for; and
       (5) the International Atomic Energy Agency should be funded 
     appropriately to fulfill its role in coordinating 
     international efforts to protect nuclear material and to 
     combat nuclear smuggling.

     SEC. 3134. MINIMUM SECURITY STANDARD FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND 
                   FORMULA QUANTITIES OF STRATEGIC SPECIAL NUCLEAR 
                   MATERIAL.

       (a) Policy.--It is the policy of the United States to work 
     with the international community to take all possible steps 
     to ensure that all nuclear weapons around the world are 
     secure and accounted for and that all formula quantities of 
     strategic special nuclear material are eliminated, removed, 
     or secure and accounted for to a level sufficient to defeat 
     the threats posed by terrorists and criminals.
       (b) International Nuclear Security Standard.--In 
     furtherance of the policy described in subsection (a), and 
     consistent with the requirement for ``appropriate effective'' 
     physical protection contained in United Nations Security 
     Council Resolution 1540 (2004), as well as the Nuclear Non-
     Proliferation Treaty and the Convention on the Physical 
     Protection of Nuclear Material, the President, in 
     consultation with relevant Federal departments and agencies, 
     shall seek the broadest possible international agreement on a 
     global standard for nuclear security that--
       (1) ensures that nuclear weapons and formula quantities of 
     strategic special nuclear material are secure and accounted 
     for to a sufficient level to defeat the threats posed by 
     terrorists and criminals;
       (2) takes into account the limitations of equipment and 
     human performance; and
       (3) includes steps to provide confidence that the needed 
     measures have in fact been implemented.
       (c) International Efforts.--In furtherance of the policy 
     described in subsection (a), the President, in consultation 
     with relevant Federal departments and agencies, shall--
       (1) work with other countries and the International Atomic 
     Energy Agency to assist as appropriate, and if necessary, 
     work to convince, the governments of any and all countries in 
     possession of nuclear weapons or formula quantities of 
     strategic special nuclear material to ensure that security is 
     upgraded to meet the standard described in subsection (b) as 
     rapidly as possible and in a manner that--
       (A) accounts for the nature of the terrorist and criminal 
     threat in each such country; and
       (B) ensures that any measures to which the United States 
     and any such country agree are sustained after United States 
     and other international assistance ends;

[[Page S11548]]

       (2) ensure that United States financial and technical 
     assistance is available as appropriate to countries for which 
     the provision of such assistance would accelerate the 
     implementation of, or improve the effectiveness of, such 
     security upgrades; and
       (3) work with the governments of other countries to ensure 
     that effective nuclear security rules, accompanied by 
     effective regulation and enforcement, are put in place to 
     govern all nuclear weapons and formula quantities of 
     strategic special nuclear material around the world.

     SEC. 3135. ANNUAL REPORT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than September 1 of each year, 
     the President, in consultation with relevant Federal 
     departments and agencies, shall submit to Congress a report 
     on the security of nuclear weapons, formula quantities of 
     strategic special nuclear material, radiological materials, 
     and related equipment worldwide.
       (b) Elements.--The report required under subsection (a) 
     shall include the following:
       (1) A section on the programs for the security and 
     accounting of nuclear weapons and the elimination, removal, 
     and security and accounting of formula quantities of 
     strategic special nuclear material and radiological 
     materials, established under section 3132(b) of the Ronald W. 
     Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2005 (50 U.S.C. 2569(b)), which shall include the following:
       (A) A survey of the facilities and sites worldwide that 
     contain nuclear weapons or related equipment, formula 
     quantities of strategic special nuclear material, or 
     radiological materials.
       (B) A list of such facilities and sites determined to be of 
     the highest priority for security and accounting of nuclear 
     weapons and related equipment, or the elimination, removal, 
     or security and accounting of formula quantities of strategic 
     special nuclear material and radiological materials, taking 
     into account risk of theft from such facilities and sites, 
     and organized by level of priority.
       (C) A prioritized diplomatic and technical plan, including 
     measurable milestones, metrics, estimated timetables, and 
     estimated costs of implementation, on the following:
       (i) The security and accounting of nuclear weapons and 
     related equipment and the elimination, removal, or security 
     and accounting of formula quantities of strategic special 
     nuclear material and radiological materials at such 
     facilities and sites worldwide.
       (ii) Ensuring that security upgrades and accounting reforms 
     implemented at such facilities and sites worldwide using the 
     financial and technical assistance of the United States are 
     effectively sustained after such assistance ends.
       (iii) The role that international agencies and the 
     international community have committed to play, together with 
     a plan for securing contributions.
       (D) An assessment of the progress made in implementing the 
     plan described in subparagraph (C), including a description 
     of the efforts of foreign governments to secure and account 
     for nuclear weapons and related equipment and to eliminate, 
     remove, or secure and account for formula quantities of 
     strategic special nuclear material and radiological 
     materials.
       (2) A section on efforts to establish and implement the 
     international nuclear security standard described in section 
     3134(b) and related policies.
       (c) Form.--The report may be submitted in classified form 
     but shall include a detailed unclassified summary.


                    amendment no. 2230, as modified

       Strike section 1215 and insert the following:

     SEC. 1215. LIMITATION ON ASSISTANCE TO THE GOVERNMENT OF 
                   THAILAND.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Thailand is an important strategic ally and economic 
     partner of the United States.
       (2) The United States strongly supports the prompt 
     restoration of democratic rule in Thailand.
       (3) While it is in the interest of the United States to 
     have a robust defense relationship with Thailand, it is 
     appropriate that the United States has curtailed certain 
     military-to-military cooperation and assistance programs 
     until democratic rule has been restored in Thailand.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) Thailand should continue on the path to restore 
     democratic rule as quickly as possible, and should hold free 
     and fair national elections as soon as possible and no later 
     than December 2007; and
       (2) once Thailand has fully reestablished democratic rule, 
     it will be both possible and desirable for the United States 
     to reinstate a full program of military assistance to the 
     Government of Thailand, including programs such as 
     International Military Education and Training (IMET) and 
     Foreign Military Financing (FMF) that were appropriately 
     suspended following the military coup in Thailand in 
     September 2006.
       (c) Limitation.--No funds authorized to be appropriated by 
     this Act may be obligated or expended to provide direct 
     assistance to the Government of Thailand to initiate new 
     military assistance activities until 15 days after the 
     Secretary of Defense notifies the Committees on Armed 
     Services and Foreign Relations of the Senate and the 
     Committees on Armed Services and Foreign Affairs of the House 
     of Representatives of the intent of the Secretary to carry 
     out such new types of military assistance activities with 
     Thailand.
       (d) Exception.--The limitation in subsection (c) shall not 
     apply with respect to funds as follows:
       (1) Amounts authorized to be appropriated for Overseas 
     Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid.
       (2) Amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated by this 
     Act and available for humanitarian or emergency assistance 
     for other nations.
       (e) New Military Assistance Activities Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``new military assistance activities'' 
     means military assistance activities that have not been 
     undertaken between the United States and Thailand during 
     fiscal year 2007.


                    amendment no. 2234, as modified

       At the end of subtitle E of title III, the following:

     SEC. 358. AUTHORITY FOR DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TO PROVIDE 
                   SUPPORT FOR CERTAIN SPORTING EVENTS.

       (a) Provision of Support.--Section 2564 of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c), by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraphs:
       ``(4) A sporting event sanctioned by the United States 
     Olympic Committee through the Paralympic Military Program.
       ``(5) Any national or international paralympic sporting 
     event (other than a sporting event described in paragraphs 
     (1) through (4))--
       ``(A) that--
       ``(i) is held in the United States or any of its 
     territories or commonwealths;
       ``(ii) is governed by the International Paralympic 
     Committee; and
       ``(iii) is sanctioned by the United States Olympic 
     Committee;
       ``(B) for which participation exceeds 100 amateur athletes; 
     and
       ``(C) in which at least 10 percent of the athletes 
     participating in the sporting event are members or former 
     members of the armed forces who are participating in the 
     sporting event based upon an injury or wound incurred in the 
     line of duty in the armed force and veterans who are 
     participating in the sporting event based upon a service-
     connected disability.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Funding for Support of Certain Events.--(1) Amounts 
     for the provision of support for a sporting event described 
     in paragraph (4) or (5) of subsection (c) may be derived from 
     the Support for International Sporting Competitions, Defense 
     account established by section 5802 of the Omnibus 
     Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997 (10 U.S.C. 2564 note), 
     notwithstanding any limitation under that section relating to 
     the availability of funds in such account for the provision 
     of support for international sporting competitions.
       ``(2) The total amount expended for any fiscal year to 
     provide support for sporting events described in subsection 
     (c)(5) may not exceed $1,000,000.''.
       (b) Source of Funds.--Section 5802 of the Omnibus 
     Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997 (10 U.S.C. 2564 note) 
     is amended--
       (1) by inserting after ``international sporting 
     competitions'' the following: ``and for support of sporting 
     competitions authorized under section 2564(c)(4) and (5), of 
     title 10, United States Code,''; and
       (2) by striking ``45 days'' and inserting ``15 days''.


                           amendment no. 2272

(Purpose: To extend and modify the authorities on Commission to Assess 
   the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack)

       At the end of subtitle E of title X, add the following:

     SEC. 1070. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES ON COMMISSION TO 
                   ASSESS THE THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES FROM 
                   ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE ATTACK.

       (a) Extension of Date of Submittal of Final Report.--
     Section 1403(a) of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (as enacted into law 
     by Public Law 106-398; 50 U.S.C. 2301 note) is amended by 
     striking ``June 30, 2007'' and inserting ``November 30, 
     2008''.
       (b) Coordination of Work With Department of Homeland 
     Security.--Section 1404 of such Act is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Coordination With Department of Homeland Security.--
     The Commission and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     jointly ensure that the work of the Commission with respect 
     to electromagnetic pulse attack on electricity 
     infrastructure, and protection against such attack, is 
     coordinated with Department of Homeland Security efforts on 
     such matters.''.
       (c) Limitation on Department of Defense Funding.--The 
     aggregate amount of funds provided by the Department of 
     Defense to the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United 
     States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack for purposes of the 
     preparation and submittal of the final report required by 
     section 1403(a) of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (as amended by 
     subsection (a)), whether by transfer or otherwise and 
     including funds provided the Commission before the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, shall not exceed $5,600,000.

[[Page S11549]]

                           amendment no. 2220

  (Purpose: To authorize the payment of inactive duty training travel 
              costs for certain Selected Reserve members)

       At the end of subtitle A of title VI, add the following:

     SEC. 604. PAYMENT OF INACTIVE DUTY TRAINING TRAVEL COSTS FOR 
                   CERTAIN SELECTED RESERVE MEMBERS.

       (a) Payment of Travel Costs Authorized.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 7 of title 37, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 408 the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 408a. Travel and transportation allowances: inactive 
       duty training

       ``(a) Allowance Authorized.--Under regulations prescribed 
     by the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary concerned may 
     reimburse a member of the Selected Reserve of the Ready 
     Reserve described in subsection (b) for travel expenses for 
     travel to an inactive duty training location to perform 
     inactive duty training.
       ``(b) Eligible Members.--A member of the Selected Reserve 
     of the Ready Reserve described in this subsection is a member 
     who--
       ``(1) is--
       ``(A) qualified in a skill designated as critically short 
     by the Secretary concerned;
       ``(B) assigned to a unit of the Selected Reserve with a 
     critical manpower shortage, or is in a pay grade in the 
     member's reserve component with a critical manpower shortage; 
     or
       ``(C) assigned to a unit or position that is disestablished 
     or relocated as a result of defense base closure or 
     realignment or another force structure reallocation; and
       ``(2) commutes a distance from the member's permanent 
     residence to the member's inactive duty training location 
     that is outside the normal commuting distance (as determined 
     under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense) for 
     that commute.
       ``(c) Maximum Amount.--The maximum amount of reimbursement 
     provided a member under subsection (a) for each round trip to 
     a training location shall be $300.
       ``(d) Termination.--No reimbursement may be provided under 
     this section for travel that occurs after December 31, 
     2010.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 7 of such title is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 408 the following new 
     item:

``408a. Travel and transportation allowances: inactive duty 
              training.''.

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2007. No reimbursement may be 
     provided under section 408a of title 37, United States Code 
     (as added by subsection (a)), for travel costs incurred 
     before October 1, 2007.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2276

   (Purpose: To require a report on the implementation of the green 
            procurement policy of the Department of Defense)

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:

     SEC. 876. GREEN PROCUREMENT POLICY.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) On September 1, 2004, the Department of Defense issued 
     its green procurement policy. The policy affirms a goal of 
     100 percent compliance with Federal laws and executive orders 
     requiring purchase of environmentally friendly, or green, 
     products and services. The policy also outlines a strategy 
     for meeting those requirements along with metrics for 
     measuring progress.
       (2) On September 13, 2006, the Department of Defense hosted 
     a biobased product showcase and educational event which 
     underscores the importance and seriousness with which the 
     Department is implementing its green procurement program.
       (3) On January 24, 2007, President Bush signed Executive 
     Order 13423: Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and 
     Transportation Management, which contains the requirement 
     that Federal agencies procure biobased and environmentally 
     preferable products and services.
       (4) Although the Department of Defense continues to work to 
     become a leading advocate of green procurement, there is 
     concern that there is not a procurement application or 
     process in place at the Department that supports compliance 
     analysis.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the Department of Defense should establish a system to 
     document and track the use of environmentally preferable 
     products and services.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit 
     to Congress a report on its plan to increase the usage of 
     environmentally friendly products that minimize potential 
     impacts to human health and the environment at all Department 
     of Defense facilities inside and outside the United States, 
     including through the direct purchase of products and the 
     purchase of products by facility maintenance contractors.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2257

     (Purpose: To provide that the study on the national security 
interagency system shall focus on improving interagency cooperation in 
    post-conflict contingency relief and reconstruction operations)

         At the end of section 1043, insert the following:
       (f) Focus on Improving Interagency Cooperation in Post-
     Conflict Contingency Relief and Reconstruction Operations.--
       (1) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (A) The interagency coordination and integration of the 
     United States Government for the planning and execution of 
     overseas post-conflict contingency relief and reconstruction 
     operations requires reform.
       (B) Recent operations, most notably in Iraq, lacked the 
     necessary consistent and effective interagency coordination 
     and integration in planning and execution.
       (C) Although the unique circumstances associated with the 
     Iraq reconstruction effort are partly responsible for this 
     weak coordination, existing structural weaknesses within the 
     planning and execution processes for such operations indicate 
     that the problems encountered in the Iraq program could recur 
     in future operations unless action is taken to reform and 
     improve interdepartmental integration in planning and 
     execution.
       (D) The agencies involved in the Iraq program have 
     attempted to adapt to the relentless demands of the 
     reconstruction effort, but more substantive and permanent 
     reforms are required for the United States Government to be 
     optimally prepared for future operations.
       (E) The fresh body of evidence developed from the Iraq 
     relief and reconstruction experience provides a good basis 
     and timely opportunity to pursue meaningful improvements 
     within and among the departments charged with managing the 
     planning and execution of such operations.
       (F) The success achieved in departmental integration of 
     overseas conflict management through the Goldwater-Nichols 
     Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 (Public Law 
     99-433; 100 Stat. 992) provides precedent for Congress to 
     consider legislation designed to promote increased 
     cooperation and integration among the primary Federal 
     departments and agencies charged with managing post-conflict 
     contingency reconstruction and relief operations.
       (2) Inclusion in study.--The study conducted under 
     subsection (a) shall include the following elements:
       (A) A synthesis of past studies evaluating the successes 
     and failures of previous interagency efforts at planning and 
     executing post-conflict contingency relief and reconstruction 
     operations, including relief and reconstruction operations in 
     Iraq.
       (B) An analysis of the division of duties, 
     responsibilities, and functions among executive branch 
     agencies for such operations and recommendations for 
     administrative and regulatory changes to enhance integration.
       (C) Recommendations for legislation that would improve 
     interagency cooperation and integration and the efficiency of 
     the United States Government in the planning and execution of 
     such operations.
       (D) Recommendations for improvements in congressional, 
     executive, and other oversight structures and procedures that 
     would enhance accountability within such operations.


                           amendment no. 2281

 (Purpose: To require a report on the control of the brown tree snake)

       At the end of subtitle B of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 314. REPORT ON CONTROL OF THE BROWN TREE SNAKE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The brown tree snake (Boiga irregularis), an invasive 
     species, is found in significant numbers on military 
     installations and in other areas on Guam, and constitutes a 
     serious threat to the ecology of Guam.
       (2) If introduced into Hawaii, the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands, or the continental United States, 
     the brown tree snake would pose an immediate and serious 
     economic and ecological threat.
       (3) The most probable vector for the introduction of the 
     brown tree snake into Hawaii, the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands, or the continental United States is 
     the movement from Guam of military aircraft, personnel, and 
     cargo, including the household goods of military personnel.
       (4) It is probable that the movement of military aircraft, 
     personnel, and cargo, including the household goods of 
     military personnel, from Guam to Hawaii, the Commonwealth of 
     the Northern Mariana Islands, or the continental United 
     States will increase significantly coincident with the 
     increase in the number of military units and personnel 
     stationed on Guam,
       (5) Current policies, programs, procedures, and dedicated 
     resources of the Department of Defense and of other 
     departments and agencies of the United States may not be 
     sufficient to adequately address the increasing threat of the 
     introduction of the brown tree snake from Guam into Hawaii, 
     the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or the 
     continental United States.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit 
     to the congressional defense committees a report on the 
     following:
       (1) The actions currently being taken (including the 
     resources being made available) by the Department of Defense 
     to control, and to develop new or existing techniques to 
     control, the brown tree snake on Guam and to ensure that the 
     brown tree snake is not introduced into Hawaii, the 
     Commonwealth of

[[Page S11550]]

     the Northern Mariana Island, or the continental United States 
     as a result of the movement from Guam of military aircraft, 
     personnel, and cargo, including the household goods of 
     military personnel.
       (2) Current plans for enhanced future actions, policies, 
     and procedures and increased levels of resources in order to 
     ensure that the projected increase of military personnel 
     stationed on Guam does not increase the threat of 
     introduction of the brown tree snake from Guam into Hawaii, 
     the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or the 
     continental United States.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2250

(Purpose: To provide for a review of licensed mental health counselors, 
 social workers, and marriage and family therapists under the TRICARE 
                                program)

       At the end of title VII, add the following:

     SEC. 703. REVIEW OF LICENSED MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELORS, SOCIAL 
                   WORKERS, AND MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPISTS 
                   UNDER THE TRICARE PROGRAM.

       (a) Review Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall enter 
     into a contract with the Institute of Medicine of the 
     National Academy of Sciences, or another similarly qualified 
     independent academic medical organization, for the purpose 
     of--
       (1) conducting an independent study of the comparability of 
     credentials, preparation, and training of individuals 
     practicing as licensed mental health counselors, social 
     workers, and marriage and family therapists under the TRICARE 
     program to provide mental health services; and
       (2) making recommendations for permitting such 
     professionals to practice independently under the TRICARE 
     program.
       (b) Elements.--The study required by subsection (a) shall 
     provide for each of the health care professions referred to 
     in subsection (a)(1) the following:
       (1) An assessment of the educational requirements and 
     curriculums relevant to mental health practice for members of 
     such profession, including types of degrees recognized, 
     certification standards for graduate programs for such 
     profession, and recognition of undergraduate coursework for 
     completion of graduate degree requirements.
       (2) An assessment of State licensing requirements for 
     members of such profession, including for each level of 
     licensure if a State issues more than one type of license for 
     the profession. The assessment shall examine requirements in 
     the areas of education, training, examination, continuing 
     education, and ethical standards, and shall include an 
     evaluation of the extent to which States, through their scope 
     of practice, either implicitly or explicitly authorize 
     members of such profession to diagnose and treat mental 
     illnesses.
       (3) An analysis of the requirements for clinical experience 
     in such profession to be recognized under regulations for the 
     TRICARE program, and recommendations, if any, for 
     standardization or adjustment of such requirements with those 
     of the other professions.
       (4) An assessment of the extent to which practitioners 
     under such profession are authorized to practice 
     independently under other Federal programs (such as the 
     Medicare program, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the 
     Indian Health Service, Head Start, and the Federal Employee 
     Health Benefits Program), and a review the relationship, if 
     any, between recognition of such profession under the 
     Medicare program and independent practice authority for such 
     profession under the TRICARE program.
       (5) An assessment of the extent to which practitioners 
     under such profession are authorized to practice 
     independently under private insurance plans. The assessment 
     shall identify the States having laws requiring private 
     insurers to cover, or offer coverage of, the services of 
     members of such profession, and shall identify the 
     conditions, if any, that are placed on coverage of 
     practitioners under such profession by insurance plans and 
     how frequently these types of conditions are used by 
     insurers.
       (6) An historical review of the regulations issued by the 
     Department of Defense regarding which members of such 
     profession are recognized as providers under the TRICARE 
     program as independent practitioners, and an examination of 
     the recognition by the Department of third party 
     certification for members of such profession.
       (c) Providers Studied.--It the sense of Congress that the 
     study required by subsection (a) should focus only on those 
     practitioners of each health care profession referred to in 
     subsection (a)(1) who are permitted to practice under 
     regulations for the TRICARE program as specified in section 
     119.6 of title 32, Code of Federal Regulations.
       (d) Clinical Capabilities Studies.--The study required by 
     subsection (a) shall include a review of outcome studies and 
     of the literature regarding the comparative quality and 
     effectiveness of care provided by practitioners within each 
     of the health care professions referred to in subsection 
     (a)(1), and provide an independent review of the findings.
       (e) Recommendations for TRICARE Independent Practice 
     Authority.--The recommendations provided under subsection 
     (a)(2) shall include specific recommendation (whether 
     positive or negative) regarding modifications of current 
     policy for the TRICARE program with respect to allowing 
     members of each of the health care professions referred to in 
     subsection (a)(1) to practice independently under the TRICARE 
     program, including recommendations regarding possible 
     revision of requirements for recognition of practitioners 
     under each such profession.
       (f) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives a report on the review required by subsection 
     (a).


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2254

 (Purpose: To require a Department of Defense Inspector General report 
      on physical security of Department of Defense installations)

       At the end of subtitle E of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 358. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT ON 
                   PHYSICAL SECURITY OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                   INSTALLATIONS.

       (a) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of the 
     Department of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on 
     the physical security of Department of Defense installations 
     and resources.
       (b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (1) An analysis of the progress in implementing 
     requirements under the Physical Security Program as set forth 
     in the Department of Defense Instruction 5200.08-R, Chapter 2 
     (C.2) and Chapter 3, Section 3: Installation Access (C3.3), 
     which mandates the policies and minimum standards for the 
     physical security of Department of Defense installations and 
     resources.
       (2) Recommendations based on the findings of the 
     Comptroller General of the United States in the report 
     required by section 344 of the John Warner National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-366; 
     120 Stat. 2155).
       (3) Recommendations based on the lessons learned from the 
     thwarted plot to attack Fort Dix, New Jersey, in 2007.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2268

   (Purpose: To provide for an increase in the number of nurses and 
                                faculty)

       At the end of subtitle D of title V, add the following:

     SEC. 555. NURSE MATTERS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense may provide for 
     the carrying out of each of the programs described in 
     subsections (b) through (f).
       (b) Service of Nurse Officers as Faculty in Exchange for 
     Commitment to Additional Service in the Armed Forces.--
       (1) In general.--One of the programs under this section may 
     be a program in which covered commissioned officers with a 
     graduate degree in nursing or a related field who are in the 
     nurse corps of the Armed Force concerned serve a tour of duty 
     of two years as a full-time faculty member of an accredited 
     school of nursing.
       (2) Covered officers.--A commissioned officer of the nurse 
     corps of the Armed Forces described in this paragraph is a 
     nurse officer on active duty who has served for more than 
     nine years on active duty in the Armed Forces as an officer 
     of the nurse corps at the time of the commencement of the 
     tour of duty described in paragraph (1).
       (3) Benefits and privileges.--An officer serving on the 
     faculty of an accredited school or nursing under this 
     subsection shall be accorded all the benefits, privileges, 
     and responsibilities (other than compensation and 
     compensation-related benefits) of any other comparably 
     situated individual serving a full-time faculty member of 
     such school.
       (4) Agreement for additional service.--Each officer who 
     serves a tour of duty on the faculty of a school of nursing 
     under this subsection shall enter into an agreement with the 
     Secretary to serve upon the completion of such tour of duty 
     for a period of four years for such tour of duty as a member 
     of the nurse corps of the Armed Force concerned. Any service 
     agreed to by an officer under this paragraph is in addition 
     to any other service required of the officer under law.
       (c) Service of Nurse Officers as Faculty in Exchange for 
     Scholarships for Nurse Officer Candidates.--
       (1) In general.--One of the programs under this section may 
     be a program in which commissioned officers with a graduate 
     degree in nursing or a related field who are in the nurse 
     corps of the Armed Force concerned serve while on active duty 
     a tour of duty of two years as a full-time faculty member of 
     an accredited school of nursing.
       (2) Benefits and privileges.--An officer serving on the 
     faculty of an accredited school of nursing under this 
     subsection shall be accorded all the benefits, privileges, 
     and responsibilities (other than compensation and 
     compensation-related benefits) of any other comparably 
     situated individual serving as a full-time faculty member of 
     such school.
       (3) Scholarships for nurse officer candidates.--(A) Each 
     accredited school of nursing at which an officer serves on 
     the faculty under this subsection shall provide scholarships 
     to individuals undertaking an educational program at such 
     school leading to a degree in nursing who agree, upon 
     completion of such program, to accept a commission as an 
     officer in the nurse corps of the Armed Forces.
       (B) The total amount of funds made available for 
     scholarships by an accredited school of nursing under 
     subparagraph (A) for each officer serving on the faculty of 
     that school under this subsection shall be not less than the 
     amount equal to an entry-level full-time faculty member of 
     that school for each year

[[Page S11551]]

     that such officer so serves on the faculty of that school.
       (C) The total number of scholarships provided by an 
     accredited school of nursing under subparagraph (A) for each 
     officer serving on the faculty of that school under this 
     subsection shall be such number as the Secretary of Defense 
     shall specify for purposes of this subsection.
       (d) Scholarships for Certain Nurse Officers for Education 
     as Nurses.--
       (1) In general.--One of the programs under this section may 
     be a program in which the Secretary provides scholarships to 
     commissioned officers of the nurse corps of the Armed Force 
     concerned described in paragraph (2) who enter into an 
     agreement described in paragraph (4) for the participation of 
     such officers in an educational program of an accredited 
     school of nursing leading to a graduate degree in nursing.
       (2) Covered nurse officers.--A commissioned officer of the 
     nurse corps of the Armed Forces described in this paragraph 
     is a nurse officer who has served not less than 20 years on 
     active duty in the Armed Forces and is otherwise eligible for 
     retirement from the Armed Forces.
       (3) Scope of scholarships.--Amounts in a scholarship 
     provided a nurse officer under this subsection may be 
     utilized by the officer to pay the costs of tuition, fees, 
     and other educational expenses of the officer in 
     participating in an educational program described in 
     paragraph (1).
       (4) Agreement.--An agreement of a nurse officer described 
     in this paragraph is the agreement of the officer--
       (A) to participate in an educational program described in 
     paragraph (1); and
       (B) upon graduation from such educational program--
       (i) to serve not less than two years as a full-time faculty 
     member of an accredited school of nursing; and
       (ii) to undertake such activities as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate to encourage current and prospective 
     nurses to pursue service in the nurse corps of the Armed 
     Forces.
       (e) Transition Assistance for Retiring Nurse Officers 
     Qualified as Faculty.--
       (1) In general.--One of the programs under this section may 
     be a program in which the Secretary provides to commissioned 
     officers of the nurse corps of the Armed Force concerned 
     described in paragraph (2) the assistance described in 
     paragraph (3) to assist such officers in obtaining and 
     fulfilling positions as full-time faculty members of an 
     accredited school of nursing after retirement from the Armed 
     Forces.
       (2) Covered nurse officers.--A commissioned officer of the 
     nurse corps of the Armed Forces described in this paragraph 
     is a nurse officer who--
       (A) has served an aggregate of at least 20 years on active 
     duty or in reserve active status in the Armed Forces;
       (B) is eligible for retirement from the Armed Forces; and
       (C) possesses a doctoral or master degree in nursing or a 
     related field which qualifies the nurse officer to discharge 
     the position of nurse instructor at an accredited school of 
     nursing.
       (3) Assistance.--The assistance described in this paragraph 
     is assistance as follows:
       (A) Career placement assistance.
       (B) Continuing education.
       (C) Stipends (in an amount specified by the Secretary).
       (4) Agreement.--A nurse officer provided assistance under 
     this subsection shall enter into an agreement with the 
     Secretary to serve as a full-time faculty member of an 
     accredited school of nursing for such period as the Secretary 
     shall provide in the agreement.
       (f) Benefits for Retired Nurse Officers Accepting 
     Appointment as Faculty.--
       (1) In general.--One of the programs under this section may 
     be a program in which the Secretary provides to any 
     individual described in paragraph (2) the benefits specified 
     in paragraph (3).
       (2) Covered individuals.--An individual described in this 
     paragraph is an individual who--
       (A) is retired from the Armed Forces after service as a 
     commissioned officer in the nurse corps of the Armed Forces;
       (B) holds a graduate degree in nursing; and
       (C) serves as a full-time faculty member of an accredited 
     school of nursing.
       (3) Benefits.--The benefits specified in this paragraph 
     shall include the following:
       (A) Payment of retired or retirement pay without reduction 
     based on receipt of pay or other compensation from the 
     institution of higher education concerned.
       (B) Payment by the institution of higher education 
     concerned of a salary and other compensation to which other 
     similarly situated faculty members of the institution of 
     higher education would be entitled.
       (C) If the amount of pay and other compensation payable by 
     the institution of higher education concerned for service as 
     an associate full-time faculty member is less than the basic 
     pay to which the individual was entitled immediately before 
     retirement from the Armed Forces, payment of an amount equal 
     to the difference between such basic pay and such payment and 
     other compensation.
       (g) Administration and Duration of Programs.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish requirements 
     and procedures for the administration of the programs 
     authorized by this section. Such requirements and procedures 
     shall include procedures for selecting participating schools 
     of nursing.
       (2) Duration.--Any program carried out under this section 
     shall continue for not less than two years.
       (3) Assessment.--Not later than two years after commencing 
     any program under this section, the Secretary shall assess 
     the results of such program and determine whether or not to 
     continue such program. The assessment of any program shall be 
     based on measurable criteria, information concerning results, 
     and such other matters as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.
       (4) Continuation.--The Secretary may continue carrying out 
     any program under this section that the Secretary determines, 
     pursuant to an assessment under paragraph (3), to continue to 
     carry out. In continuing to carry out a program, the 
     Secretary may modify the terms of the program within the 
     scope of this section. The continuation of any program may 
     include its expansion to include additional participating 
     schools of nursing.
       (h) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``school of 
     nursing'' and ``accredited'' have the meaning given those 
     terms in section 801 of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 296).


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2292

    (Purpose: To provide for continuity and efficiency of the depot 
 operations of the Department of Defense to reset combat equipment and 
        vehicles in support of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 358. CONTINUITY OF DEPOT OPERATIONS TO RESET COMBAT 
                   EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLES IN SUPPORT OF WARS IN 
                   IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The United States Armed Forces, particularly the Army 
     and the Marine Corps, are currently engaged in a tremendous 
     effort to reset equipment that was damaged and worn in combat 
     operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
       (2) The implementing guidance from the Under Secretary of 
     Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics related to 
     the decisions of the 2005 Defense Base Closure and 
     Realignment Commission (BRAC) to transfer depot functions 
     appears not to differentiate between external supply 
     functions and in-process storage functions related to the 
     performance of depot maintenance.
       (3) Given the fact that up to 80 percent of the parts 
     involved in the vehicle reset process are reclaimed and 
     refurbished, the transfer of this inherently internal depot 
     maintenance function to the Defense Logistics Agency could 
     severely disrupt production throughput, generate increased 
     costs, and negatively impact Army and Marine Corps equipment 
     reset efforts.
       (4) The goal of the Department of Defense, the Defense 
     Logistics Agency, and the 2005 Defense Base Closure and 
     Realignment Commission is the reengineering of businesses 
     processes in order to achieve higher efficiency and cost 
     savings.
       (b) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than June 1, 2008, the Secretary 
     of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense 
     committees a report on the challenges of implementing the 
     transfer of depot functions and the impacts on production, 
     including parts reclamation and refurbishment.
       (2) Content.--The report required under paragraph (1) shall 
     describe--
       (A) the sufficiency of the business plan to transfer depot 
     functions to accommodate a timely and efficient transfer 
     without the disruption of depot production;
       (B) a description of the completeness of the business plan 
     in addressing part reclamation and refurbishment;
       (C) the estimated cost of the implementation and what 
     savings are likely be achieved;
       (D) the impact of the transfer on the Defense Logistics 
     Agency and depot hourly rates due to the loss of budgetary 
     control of the depot commander over overtime pay for in-
     process parts supply personnel, and any other relevant rate-
     related factors;
       (E) the number of personnel positions affected;
       (F) the sufficiency of the business plan to ensure the 
     responsiveness and availability of Defense Logistics supply 
     personnel to meet depot throughput needs, including potential 
     impact on depot turnaround time; and
       (G) the impact of Defense Logistics personnel being outside 
     the chain of command of the depot commander in terms of 
     overtime scheduling and meeting surge requirements.
       (3) Government accountability office assessment.--Not later 
     than September 30, 2008, the Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall review the report submitted under 
     paragraph (1) and submit to the congressional defense 
     committees an independent assessment of the matters addressed 
     in such report, as requested by the Chairman of the Committee 
     on Armed Services of the House of Representatives.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2305

 (Purpose: To require a report on counternarcotics assistance for the 
                          Government of Haiti)

       At the end of subtitle B of title X, add the following:

     SEC. 1012. REPORT ON COUNTERNARCOTICS ASSISTANCE FOR THE 
                   GOVERNMENT OF HAITI.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than 120 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this

[[Page S11552]]

     Act, the President shall submit to Congress a report on 
     counternarcotics assistance for the Government of Haiti.
       (b) Matters to Be Included.--The report required by 
     subsection (a) shall include the following:
       (1) A description and assessment of the counternarcotics 
     assistance provided to the Government of Haiti by each of the 
     Department of Defense, the Department of State, the 
     Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of 
     Justice.
       (2) A description and assessment of any impediments to 
     increasing counternarcotics assistance to the Government of 
     Haiti, including corruption and lack of entities available to 
     partner with in Haiti.
       (3) An assessment of the feasability and advisability of 
     providing additional counternarcotics assistance to the 
     Government of Haiti, including an extension and expansion to 
     the Government of Haiti of Department of Defense authority to 
     provide support for counter-drug activities of certain 
     foreign governments.
       (4) An assessment of the potential for counternarcotics 
     assistance for the Government of Haiti through the United 
     Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti.
       (c) Form.--The report required by subsection (a) shall be 
     submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified 
     annex.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2216

(Purpose: Relating to satisfaction by members of the National Guard and 
    Reserve on active duty of applicable professional licensure and 
                      certification requirements)

       At the end of subtitle C of title V, add the following:

     SEC. 536. SATISFACTION OF PROFESSIONAL LICENSURE AND 
                   CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS BY MEMBERS OF THE 
                   NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE ON ACTIVE DUTY.

       (a) Additional Period Before Re-Training of Nurse Aides Is 
     Required Under the Medicare and Medicaid Programs.--For 
     purposes of subparagraph (D) of sections 1819(b)(5) and 
     1919(b)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i-
     3(b)(5), 1396r(b)(5)), if, since an individual's most recent 
     completion of a training and competency evaluation program 
     described in subparagraph (A) of such sections, the 
     individual was ordered to active duty in the Armed Forces for 
     a period of at least 12 months, and the individual completes 
     such active duty service during the period beginning on July 
     1, 2007, and ending on September 30, 2008, the 24-
     consecutive-month period described subparagraph (D) of such 
     sections with respect to the individual shall begin on the 
     date on which the individual completes such active duty 
     service. The preceding sentence shall not apply to an 
     individual who had already reached such 24-consecutive-month 
     period on the date on which such individual was ordered to 
     such active duty service.
       (b) Report on Relief From Requirements for National Guard 
     and Reserve on Long-Term Active Duty.--Not later than 120 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report 
     setting forth recommendations for such legislative action as 
     the Secretary considers appropriate (including amendments to 
     the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. App. 501 et 
     seq.)) to provide for the exemption or tolling of 
     professional or other licensure or certification requirements 
     for the conduct or practice of a profession, trade, or 
     occupation with respect to members of the National Guard and 
     Reserve who are on active duty in the Armed Forces for an 
     extended period of time.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2309

  (Purpose: To require a report on the airfield in Abeche, Chad, and 
   other resources needed to provide stability in the Darfur region)

       At the end of subtitle C of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. 1234. REPORT ON THE AIRFIELD IN ABECHE, CHAD, AND OTHER 
                   RESOURCES NEEDED TO PROVIDE STABILITY IN THE 
                   DARFUR REGION.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the airfield located in Abeche, Republic of Chad, could 
     play a significant role in potential United Nations, African 
     Union, or North Atlantic Treaty Organization humanitarian, 
     peacekeeping, or other military operations in Darfur, Sudan, 
     or the surrounding region; and
       (2) the capacity of that airfield to serve as a substantial 
     link in such operations should be assessed, along with the 
     projected costs and specific upgrades that would be necessary 
     for its expanded use, should the Government of Chad agree to 
     its improvement and use for such purposes.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall, in 
     coordination with the Secretary of State, submit to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress a report on the matters as 
     follows:
       (1) The current capacity of the existing airfield in 
     Abeche, Republic of Chad, including the scope of its current 
     use by the international community in response to the crisis 
     in the Darfur region.
       (2) The upgrades, and their associated costs, necessary to 
     enable the airfield in Abeche, Republic of Chad, to be 
     improved to be fully capable of accommodating a humanitarian, 
     peacekeeping, or other force deployment of the size foreseen 
     by the recent United Nations resolutions calling for a United 
     Nations deployment to Chad and a hybrid force of the United 
     Nations and African Union operating under Chapter VII of the 
     United Nations Charter for Sudan.
       (3) The force size and composition of an international 
     effort estimated to be necessary to provide protection to 
     those Darfur civilian populations currently displaced in the 
     Darfur region.
       (4) The force size and composition of an international 
     effort estimated to be necessary to provide broader stability 
     within the Darfur region.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2308

(Purpose: To authorize, with an offset, an additional $162,800,000 for 
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide, to combat 
 the growth of popies 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)

       On page 395, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

     SEC. 1405A. ADDITIONAL AMOUNT FOR DRUG INTERDICTION AND 
                   COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES WITH RESPECT TO 
                   AFGHANISTAN.

       (a) Additional Amount for Drug Interdiction and Counter-
     Drug Activities, Defense-Wide.--The amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 1405 for Drug Interdiction and 
     Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide, is hereby increased by 
     $162,800,000.
       (b) Availability.--Of the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 1405 for Drug Interdiction and 
     Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide, as increased by 
     subsection (a), $162,800,000 may be available for drug 
     interdiction and counterdrug activities with respect to 
     Afghanistan.
       (c) Supplement Not Supplant.--The amount available under 
     subsection (b) for the purpose specified in that paragraph is 
     in addition to any other amounts available under this Act for 
     that purpose.
       (d) Offset.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 1509 for Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug 
     Activities, Defense-wide, for Operation Iraqi Freedom and 
     Operation Enduring Freedom is hereby decreased by 
     $162,800,000.


                           amendment no 2310

  (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress regarding Department of 
Defense actions, to address the encroachment of military installations)
       At the end of title XXVIII, add the following:

     SEC. 2864. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ACTIONS 
                   TO ADDRESS ENCROACHMENT OF MILITARY 
                   INSTALLATIONS.

       (a) Findings.--In light of the initial report of the 
     Department of Defense submitted pursuant to section 2684a(g) 
     of title 10, United States Code, and of the RAND Corporation 
     report entitled ``The Thin Green Line: An Assessment of DoD's 
     Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative to Buffer 
     Installation Encroachment'', Congress makes the following 
     findings:
       (1) Development and loss of habitat in the vicinity of, or 
     in areas ecologically related to, military installations, 
     ranges, and airspace pose a continuing and significant threat 
     to the readiness of the Armed Forces.
       (2) The Range Sustainability Program (RSP) of the 
     Department of Defense, and in particular the Readiness and 
     Environmental Protection Initiative (REPI) involving 
     agreements pursuant to section 2684a of title 10, United 
     States Code, have been effective in addressing this threat to 
     readiness with regard to a number of important installations, 
     ranges, and airspace.
       (3) The opportunities to take effective action to protect 
     installations, ranges, and airspace from encroachment is in 
     many cases transient, and delay in taking action will result 
     in either higher costs or permanent loss of the opportunity 
     effectively to address encroachment.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the Department of Defense should--
       (1) develop additional policy guidance on the further 
     implementation of the Range and Environmental Protection 
     Initiative (REPI), to include additional emphasis on 
     protecting biodiversity and on further refining procedures;
       (2) give greater emphasis to effective cooperation and 
     collaboration on matters of mutual concern with other Federal 
     agencies charged with managing Federal land;
       (3) ensure that each military department takes full 
     advantage of the authorities provided by section 2684a of 
     title 10, United States Code, in addressing encroachment 
     adversely affecting, or threatening to adversely affect, the 
     installations, ranges, and military airspace of the 
     department; and
       (4) provide significant additional resources to the 
     program, to include dedicated staffing at the installation 
     level and additional emphasis on outreach programs at all 
     levels.
       (c) Reporting Requirement.--Not later than 90 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall review Chapter 6 of the initial report 
     submitted to Congress under section 2684a(g) of title 10, 
     United States Code, and report to the congressional defense 
     committees on the specific steps, if any, that the Secretary 
     plans to take, or recommends that Congress take, to address 
     the issues raised in such chapter.

[[Page S11553]]

                           AMENDMENT NO. 2617

 (Purpose: To provide further protection for contractor employees from 
            reprisal for disclosure of certain information)

       Beginning on page 223, strike line 20 and all that follows 
     through page 227, line 19, and insert the following:
       (2) by striking ``information relating to a substantial 
     violation of law related to a contract (including the 
     competition for or negotiation of a contract)'' and inserting 
     ``information that the employee reasonably believes is 
     evidence of gross mismanagement of a Department of Defense 
     contract, grant, or direct payment if the United States 
     Government provides any portion of the money or property 
     which is requested or demanded, a gross waste of Department 
     of Defense funds, a substantial and specific danger to public 
     health or safety, or a violation of law related to a 
     Department of Defense contract (including the competition for 
     or negotiation of a contract), grant, or direct payment if 
     the United States Government provides any portion of the 
     money or property which is requested or demanded''.
       (b) Acceleration of Schedule for Denying Relief or 
     Providing Remedy.--Subsection (c) of such section is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by inserting after ``(1)'' the following: ``Not later 
     than 90 days after receiving an Inspector General report 
     pursuant to subsection (b), the head of the agency concerned 
     shall determine whether the contractor concerned has 
     subjected the complainant to a reprisal prohibited under 
     subsection (a).''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(D) In the event the disclosure relates to a cost-plus 
     contract, prohibit the contractor from receiving one or more 
     award fee payments to which the contractor would otherwise be 
     eligible until such time as the contractor takes the actions 
     ordered by the head of the agency pursuant to subparagraphs 
     (A) through (C).
       ``(E) Take the reprisal into consideration in any past 
     performance evaluation of the contractor for the purpose of a 
     contract award.'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3)(A) In the case of a contract covered by subsection 
     (f), an employee of a contractor who has been discharged, 
     demoted, or otherwise discriminated against as a reprisal for 
     a disclosure covered by subsection (a) or who is aggrieved by 
     the determination made pursuant to paragraph (1) or by an 
     action that the agency head has taken or failed to take 
     pursuant to such determination may, after exhausting his or 
     her administrative remedies, bring a de novo action at law or 
     equity against the contractor to seek compensatory damages 
     and other relief available under this section in the 
     appropriate district court of the United States, which shall 
     have jurisdiction over such an action without regard to the 
     amount in controversy. Such an action shall, at the request 
     of either party to the action, be tried by the court with a 
     jury.
       ``(B) An employee shall be deemed to have exhausted his or 
     her administrative remedies for the purpose of this 
     paragraph--
       ``(i) 90 days after the receipt of a written determination 
     under paragraph (1); or
       ``(ii) 15 months after a complaint is submitted under 
     subsection (b), if a determination by an agency head has not 
     been made by that time and such delay is not shown to be due 
     to the bad faith of the complainant.''.
       (c) Legal Burden of Proof.--Such section is further 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (g); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(e) Legal Burden of Proof.--The legal burdens of proof 
     specified in section 1221(e) of title 5 shall be controlling 
     for the purposes of any investigation conducted by an 
     inspector general, decision by the head of an agency, or 
     hearing to determine whether discrimination prohibited under 
     this section has occurred.''.
       (d) Requirement To Notify Employees of Rights Related to 
     Protection From Reprisal.--Such section, as amended by 
     subsection (c), is further amended by inserting after 
     subsection (e) the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Notice of Rights Related to Protection From 
     Reprisal.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each Department of Defense contract in 
     excess of $5,000,000, other than a contract for the purchase 
     of commercial items, shall include a clause requiring the 
     contractor to ensure that all employees of the contractor who 
     are working on Department of Defense contracts are notified 
     of--
       ``(A) their rights under this section;
       ``(B) the fact that the restrictions imposed by any 
     employee contract, employee agreement, or non-disclosure 
     agreement may not supersede, conflict with, or otherwise 
     alter the employee rights provided for under this section; 
     and
       ``(C) the telephone number for the whistleblower hotline of 
     the Inspector General of the Department of Defense.
       ``(2) Form of notice.--The notice required by paragraph (1) 
     shall be made by posting the required information at a 
     prominent place in each workplace where employees working on 
     the contract regularly work.''.
       (e) Definitions.--Subsection (g) of such section, as 
     redesignated by subsection (c)(1), is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4), by inserting after ``an agency'' the 
     following: ``and includes any person receiving funds covered 
     by the prohibition against reprisals in subsection (a)'';
       (2) in paragraph (5), by inserting after ``1978'' the 
     following: ``and any Inspector General that receives funding 
     from or is under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of 
     Defense''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(6) The term `employee' means an individual (as defined 
     by section 2105 of title 5) or any individual or organization 
     performing services for a contractor, grantee, or other 
     recipient if the United States Government provides any 
     portion of the money or property which is requested or 
     demanded (including as an employee of an organization).
       ``(7) The term `Department of Defense funds' includes funds 
     controlled by the Department of Defense and funds for which 
     the Department of Defense may be reasonably regarded as 
     responsible to a third party.''.


                           Amendment no. 2313

  (Purpose: To commend the founder and members of Project Compassion)

       At the end of subtitle H of title X, add the following:

     SEC. 1070. SENSE OF SENATE ON PROJECT COMPASSION.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) It is the responsibility of every citizen of the United 
     States to honor the service and sacrifice of the veterans of 
     the United States, especially those who have made the 
     ultimate sacrifice.
       (2) In the finest tradition of this sacred responsibility, 
     Kaziah M. Hancock, an artist from central Utah, founded a 
     nonprofit organization called Project Compassion, which 
     endeavors to provide, without charge, to the family of a 
     member of the Armed Forces who has fallen in active duty 
     since the events of September 11, 2001, a museum-quality 
     original oil portrait of that member.
       (3) To date, Kaziah M. Hancock, four volunteer professional 
     portrait artists, and those who have donated their time to 
     support Project Compassion have presented over 700 paintings 
     to the families of the fallen heroes of the United States.
       (4) Kaziah M. Hancock and Project Compassion have been 
     honored by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion, 
     the Disabled American Veterans, and other organizations with 
     the highest public service awards on behalf of fallen members 
     of the Armed Forces and their families.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) Kaziah M. Hancock and the members of Project Compassion 
     have demonstrated, and continue to demonstrate, extraordinary 
     patriotism and support for the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and 
     Marines who have given their lives for the United States in 
     Iraq and Afghanistan and have done so without any expectation 
     of financial gain or recognition for these efforts;
       (2) the people of the United States owe the deepest 
     gratitude to Kaziah M. Hancock and the members of Project 
     Compassion; and
       (3) the Senate, on the behalf of the people of the United 
     States, commends Kaziah M. Hancock, the four other Project 
     Compassion volunteer professional portrait artists, and the 
     entire Project Compassion organization for their tireless 
     work in paying tribute to those members of the Armed Forces 
     who have fallen in the service of the United States.


                           Amendment no. 2863

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on collaborations between 
  the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs on 
                   health care for wounded warriors)

       At the end of title VII, add the following:

     SEC. 703. SENSE OF SENATE ON COLLABORATIONS BETWEEN THE 
                   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF 
                   VETERANS AFFAIRS ON HEALTH CARE FOR WOUNDED 
                   WARRIORS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) There have been recent collaborations between the 
     Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
     and the civilian medical community for purposes of providing 
     high quality medical care to America's wounded warriors. One 
     such collaboration is occurring in Augusta, Georgia, between 
     the Dwight D. Eisenhower Army Medical Center at Fort Gordon, 
     the Augusta Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 
     the Medical College of Georgia, and local health care 
     providers under the TRICARE program.
       (2) Medical staff from the Dwight D. Eisenhower Army 
     Medical Center and the Augusta Department of Veterans Affairs 
     Medical Center have been meeting weekly to discuss future 
     patient cases for the Active Duty Rehabilitation Unit (ADRU) 
     within the Uptown Department of Veterans Affairs facility. 
     The Active Duty Rehabilitation Unit, along with the 
     Polytrauma Centers of the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
     provide rehabilitation for members of the Armed Forces on 
     active duty.
       (3) Since 2004, 1,037 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and 
     marines have received rehabilitation services at the Active 
     Duty Rehabilitation Unit, 32 percent of whom served in 
     Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom.

[[Page S11554]]

       (4) The Dwight D. Eisenhower Army Medical Center and the 
     Augusta Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center have 
     combined their neurosurgery programs and have coordinated on 
     critical brain injury and psychiatric care.
       (5) The Department of Defense, the Army, and the Army 
     Medical Command have recognized the need for expanded 
     behavioral health care services for members of the Armed 
     Forces returning from Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation 
     Enduring Freedom. These services are currently being provided 
     by the Dwight D. Eisenhower Army Medical Center.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that 
     the Department of Defense should encourage continuing 
     collaboration between the Army and the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs in treating America's wounded warriors and, when 
     appropriate and available, provide additional support and 
     resources for the development of such collaborations, 
     including the current collaboration between the Active Duty 
     Rehabilitation Unit at the Augusta Department of Veterans 
     Affairs Medical Center, Georgia, and the behavioral health 
     care services program at the Dwight D. Eisenhower Army 
     Medical Center, Fort Gordon, Georgia.


                           Amendment no. 2282

  (Purpose: To establish a National Guard yellow ribbon reintegration 
                                program)

       At the end of subtitle F of title VI, add the following:

     SEC. 683. NATIONAL GUARD YELLOW RIBBON REINTEGRATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Defense, shall 
     establish a national combat veteran reintegration program to 
     provide National Guard and Reserve members and their families 
     with sufficient information, services, referral, and 
     proactive outreach opportunities throughout the entire 
     deployment cycle. This program shall be known as the Yellow 
     Ribbon Reintegration Program.
       (b) Purpose.--The Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program shall 
     consist of informational events and activities for Reserve 
     Component members, their families, and community members to 
     facilitate access to services supporting their health and 
     well-being through the four phases of the deployment cycle:
       (1) Pre-Deployment.
       (2) Deployment.
       (3) Demobilization.
       (4) Post-Deployment-Reconstitution.
       (d) Organization.--
       (1) Executive agent.--The Secretary shall designate the OSD 
     (P&R) as the Department of Defense executive agent for the 
     Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program.
       (2) Establishment of the office for reintegration 
     programs.--
       (A) In general.--The OSD (P&R) shall establish the Office 
     for Reintegration Programs within the OSD. The office shall 
     administer all reintegration programs in coordination with 
     State National Guard organizations. The office shall be 
     responsible for coordination with existing National Guard and 
     Reserve family and support programs. The Directors of the 
     Army National Guard and Air National Guard and the Chiefs of 
     the Army Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, Navy Reserves and Air 
     Force Reserves may appoint liaison officers to coordinate 
     with the permanent office staff. The Center may also enter 
     into partnerships with other public entities, including, but 
     not limited to, the U.S. Department of Health and Human 
     Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
     Administration, for access to necessary substance abuse and 
     mental health treatment services from local State-licensed 
     service providers.
       (B) Establishment of a center for excellence in 
     reintegration.--The Office for Reintegration Programs shall 
     establish a Center for Excellence in Reintegration within the 
     office. The Center shall collect and analyze ``lessons 
     learned'' and suggestions from State National Guard and 
     Reserve organizations with existing or developing 
     reintegration programs. The Center shall also assist in 
     developing training aids and briefing materials and training 
     representatives from State National Guard and Reserve 
     organizations.
       (3) Advisory board.--
       (A) Appointment.--The Secretary of Defense shall appoint an 
     advisory board to analyze and report areas of success and 
     areas for necessary improvements. The advisory board shall 
     include, but is not limited to, the Director of the Army 
     National Guard, the Director of the Air National Guard, 
     Chiefs of the Army Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, Navy 
     Reserve, and Air Force Reserve. The Assistant Secretary of 
     Defense for Reserve Affairs, an Adjutant General on a 
     rotational basis as determined by the Chief of the National 
     Guard Bureau, and any other Department of Defense, Federal 
     Government agency, or outside organization as determined by 
     the Secretary of Defense. The members of the advisory board 
     may designate representatives in their stead.
       (B) Schedule.--The advisory board shall meet on a schedule 
     as determined by the Secretary of Defense.
       (C) Initial reporting requirement.--The advisory board 
     shall issue internal reports as necessary and shall submit an 
     initial report to the Committees on Armed Services not later 
     than 180 days after the end of a one-year period from 
     establishment of the Office for Reintegration Programs. This 
     report shall contain--
       (i) an evaluation of the reintegration program's 
     implementation by State National Guard and Reserve 
     organizations;
       (ii) an assessment of any unmet resource requirements;
       (iii) recommendations regarding closer coordination between 
     the Office of Reintegration Programs and State National Guard 
     and Reserve organizations.
       (D) Annual reports.--The advisory board shall submit annual 
     reports to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
     the House of Representatives following the initial report by 
     the first week in March of subsequent years following the 
     initial report.
       (e) Program.--
       (1) In general.--The Office for Reintegration Programs 
     shall analyze the demographics, placement of State Family 
     Assistance Centers (FAC), and FAC resources before a 
     mobilization alert is issued to affected State National Guard 
     and Reserve organizations. The Office of Reintegration 
     Programs shall consult with affected State National Guard and 
     Reserve organizations following the issuance of a 
     mobilization alert and implement the reintegration events in 
     accordance with the Reintegration Program phase model.
       (2) Pre-deployment phase.--The Pre-Deployment Phase shall 
     constitute the time from first notification of mobilization 
     until deployment of the mobilized National Guard or Reserve 
     unit. Events and activities shall focus on providing 
     education and ensuring the readiness of service members, 
     families, and communities for the rigors of a combat 
     deployment.
       (3) Deployment phase.--The Deployment Phase shall 
     constitute the period from deployment of the mobilized 
     National Guard or Reserve unit until the unit arrives at a 
     demobilization station inside the continental United States. 
     Events and services provided shall focus on the challenges 
     and stress associated with separation and having a member in 
     a combat zone. Information sessions shall utilize State 
     National Guard and Reserve resources in coordination with the 
     Employer Support of Guard and Reserve Office, Transition 
     Assistance Advisors, and the State Family Programs Director.
       (4) Demobilization phase.--
       (A) In general.--The Demobilization Phase shall constitute 
     the period from arrival of the National Guard or Reserve unit 
     at the demobilization station until its departure for home 
     station. In the interest of returning members as soon as 
     possible to their home stations, reintegration briefings 
     during the Demobilization Phase shall be minimized. State 
     Deployment Cycle Support Teams are encouraged, however, to 
     assist demobilizing members in enrolling in the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs system using Form 1010EZ during the 
     Demobilization Phase. State Deployment Cycle Support Teams 
     may provide other events from the Initial Reintegration 
     Activity as determined by the State National Guard or Reserve 
     organizations. Remaining events shall be conducted during the 
     Post-Deployment-Reconstitution Phase.
       (B) Initial reintegration activity.--The purpose of this 
     reintegration program is to educate service members about the 
     resources that are available to them and to connect members 
     to service providers who can assist them in overcoming the 
     challenges of reintegration.
       (5) Post-deployment-reconstitution phase.--
       (A) In general.--The Post-Deployment-Reconstitution Phase 
     shall constitute the period from arrival at home station 
     until 180 days following demobilization. Activities and 
     services provided shall focus on reconnecting service members 
     with their families and communities and providing resources 
     and information necessary for successful reintegration. 
     Reintegration events shall begin with elements of the Initial 
     Reintegration Activity program that were not completed during 
     the Demobilization Phase.
       (B) 30-day, 60-day, and 90-day reintegration activities.--
     The State National Guard and Reserve organizations shall hold 
     reintegration activities at the 30-day, 60-day, and 90-day 
     interval following demobilization. These activities shall 
     focus on reconnecting service members and family members with 
     the service providers from Initial Reintegration Activity to 
     ensure service members and their families understand what 
     benefits they are entitled to and what resources are 
     available to help them overcome the challenges of 
     reintegration. The Reintegration Activities shall also 
     provide a forum for service members and families to address 
     negative behaviors related to combat stress and transition.
       (C) Service member pay.--Service members shall receive 
     appropriate pay for days spent attending the Reintegration 
     Activities at the 30-day, 60-day, and 90-day intervals.
       (D) Monthly individual reintegration program.--The Office 
     for Reintegration Programs, in coordination with State 
     National Guard and Reserve organizations, shall offer a 
     monthly reintegration program for individual service members 
     released from active duty or formerly in a medical hold 
     status. The program shall focus on the special needs of this 
     service member subset and the Office for Reintegration 
     Programs shall develop an appropriate program of services and 
     information.


                           amendment no. 2210

              (Purpose: To modify a reporting requirement)

       At the end of title XXXI, add the following:

[[Page S11555]]

     SEC. 3126. MODIFICATION OF REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

       Section 3111 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163; 119 Stat. 3539) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by striking ``March 1, 2007'' and 
     inserting ``March 1 of 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013'';
       (2) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections 
     (d) and (e), respectively;
       (3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection (c):
       ``(c) Form.--The report required by subsection (b) to be 
     submitted not later than March 1 of 2009, 2011, or 2013, 
     shall be submitted in classified form, and shall include a 
     detailed unclassified summary.''; and
       (4) in subsection (e), as redesignated, by striking ``(c)'' 
     and inserting ``(d)''.


                           amendment no. 2291

(Purpose: To require a report on the search and rescue capabilities of 
            the Air Force in the northwestern United States)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 358. REPORT ON SEARCH AND RESCUE CAPABILITIES OF AIR 
                   FORCE IN NORTHWESTERN UNITED STATES.

       (a) Report.--Not later than April 1, 2008, the Secretary of 
     the Air Force shall submit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees a report on the search and rescue capabilities of 
     the Air Force in the northwestern United States.
       (b) Content.--The report required under subsection (a) 
     shall include the following:
       (1) An assessment of the search and rescue capabilities 
     required to support Air Force operations and training.
       (2) A description of the compliance of the Air Force with 
     the 1999 United States National Search and Rescue Plan (NSRP) 
     for Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana.
       (3) An inventory and description of search and rescue 
     assets of the Air Force that are available to meet such 
     requirements.
       (4) A description of the utilization during the previous 
     three years of such search and rescue assets.
       (5) The plans of the Air Force to meet current and future 
     search and rescue requirements in the northwestern United 
     States, including with respect to risk assessment services 
     for Air Force missions and compliance with the NSRP.
       (c) Use of Report for Purposes of Certification Regarding 
     Search and Rescue Capabilities.--Section 1085 of the Ronald 
     W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2005 (Public Law 108-375; 10 U.S.C. 113 note) is amended by 
     striking ``unless the Secretary first certifies'' and 
     inserting ``unless the Secretary, after reviewing the search 
     and rescue capabilities report prepared by the Secretary of 
     the Air Force under section 358 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, first certifies''.
       (d) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees'' 
     means--
       (1) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on 
     Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the Committee on 
     Energy and Natural Resources, and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate; and
       (2) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on 
     Homeland Security, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the 
     Committee on Natural Resources, and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives.


                           amendment no. 2096

(Purpose: To require a comprehensive accounting of the funding required 
 to ensure that the plan for implementing for final recommendations of 
  the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission remains on 
                               schedule)

       On page 501, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 2842. COMPREHENSIVE ACCOUNTING OF FUNDING REQUIRED TO 
                   ENSURE TIMELY IMPLEMENTATION OF 2005 DEFENSE 
                   BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT COMMISSION 
                   RECOMMENDATIONS.

       The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress with the 
     budget materials for fiscal year 2009 a comprehensive 
     accounting of the funding required to ensure that the plan 
     for implementing the final recommendations of the 2005 
     Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission remains on 
     schedule.


                           amendment no. 2315

(Purpose: To authorize a land conveyance at the Lewis and Clark United 
          States Army Reserve Center, Bismarck, North Dakota)

       At the end of subtitle E of title XXVIII, add the 
     following:

     SEC. 2854. LAND CONVEYANCE, LEWIS AND CLARK UNITED STATES 
                   ARMY RESERVE CENTER, BISMARCK, NORTH DAKOTA.

       (a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may 
     convey, without consideration, to the United Tribes Technical 
     College all right, title, and interest of the United States 
     in and to a parcel of real property, including improvements 
     thereon, consisting of approximately 2 acres located at the 
     Lewis and Clark United States Army Reserve Center, 3319 
     University Drive, Bismarck, North Dakota, for the purpose of 
     supporting Native American education and training.
       (b) Reversionary Interest.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), if the Secretary 
     determines at any time that the real property conveyed under 
     subsection (a) is not being used in accordance with the 
     purposes of the conveyance specified in such subsection, all 
     right, title, and interest in and to the property shall 
     revert, at the option of the Secretary, to the United States, 
     and the United States shall have the right of immediate entry 
     onto the property. Any determination of the Secretary under 
     this subsection shall be made on the record after an 
     opportunity for a hearing.
       (2) Expiration.--The reversionary interest under paragraph 
     (1) shall expire upon satisfaction of the following 
     conditions:
       (A) The real property conveyed under subsection (a) is used 
     in accordance with the purposes of the conveyance specified 
     in such subsection for a period of not less than 30 years 
     following the date of the conveyance.
       (B) The United Tribes Technical College applies to the 
     Secretary for the release of the reversionary interest.
       (C) The Secretary certifies, in a manner that can be filed 
     with the appropriate land recordation office, that the 
     condition under subparagraph (A) has been satisfied.
       (c) Payment of Costs of Conveyance.--
       (1) Payment required.--The Secretary shall require the 
     United Tribes Technical College to cover costs to be incurred 
     by the Secretary, or to reimburse the Secretary for costs 
     incurred by the Secretary, to carry out the conveyance under 
     subsection (a), including survey costs, costs related to 
     environmental documentation, and other administrative costs 
     related to the conveyance. If amounts are collected from the 
     United Tribes Technical College in advance of the Secretary 
     incurring the actual costs, and the amount collected exceeds 
     the costs actually incurred by the Secretary to carry out the 
     conveyance, the Secretary shall refund the excess amount to 
     the United Tribes Technical College.
       (2) Treatment of amounts received.--Amounts received as 
     reimbursements under paragraph (1) shall be credited to the 
     fund or account that was used to cover the costs incurred by 
     the Secretary in carrying out the conveyance. Amounts so 
     credited shall be merged with amounts in such fund or account 
     and shall be available for the same purposes, and subject to 
     the same conditions and limitations, as amounts in such fund 
     or account.
       (d) Description of Real Property.--The exact acreage and 
     legal description of the real property to be conveyed under 
     subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory 
     to the Secretary.
       (e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require such additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United 
     States.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2176

 (Purpose: To require the Comptroller General of the United States to 
    review the application of certain authorities under the Defense 
            Production Act of 1950, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. GAO REVIEW OF USE OF AUTHORITY UNDER THE DEFENSE 
                   PRODUCTION ACT OF 1950.

       (a) Thorough Review Required.--The Comptroller General of 
     the United States (in this section referred to as the 
     ``Comptroller'') shall conduct a thorough review of the 
     application of the Defense Production Act of 1950, since the 
     date of enactment of the Defense Production Act 
     Reauthorization of 2003 (Public Law 108-195), in light of 
     amendments made by that Act.
       (b) Considerations.--In conducting the review required by 
     this section, the Comptroller shall examine--
       (1) existing authorities under the Defense Production Act 
     of 1950;
       (2) whether and how such authorities should be statutorily 
     modified to ensure preparedness of the United States and 
     United States industry--
       (A) to meet security challenges;
       (B) to meet current and future defense requirements;
       (C) to meet current and future energy requirements;
       (D) to meet current and future domestic emergency and 
     disaster response and recovery requirements;
       (E) to reduce the interruption of critical infrastructure 
     operations during a terrorist attack, natural catastrophe, or 
     other similar national emergency; and
       (F) to safeguard critical components of the United States 
     industrial base, including American aerospace and 
     shipbuilding industries;
       (3) the effectiveness of amendments made by the Defense 
     Production Act Reauthorization of 2003, and the 
     implementation of such amendments;
       (4) advantages and limitations of Defense Production Act of 
     1950-related capabilities, to ensure adaptation of the law to 
     meet the security challenges of the 21st Century;
       (5) the economic impact of foreign offset contracts and the 
     efficacy of existing authority in mitigating such impact;
       (6) the relative merit of developing rapid and standardized 
     systems for use of the authority provided under the Defense 
     Production Act of 1950, by any Federal agency; and
       (7) such other issues as the Comptroller determines 
     relevant.

[[Page S11556]]

       (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 120 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller shall submit a 
     report to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
     Affairs of the Senate on the results of the review conducted 
     under this section, together with any legislative 
     recommendations.
       (d) Rules of Construction on Protection of Information.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
       (1) the provisions of section 705(d) of the Defense 
     Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2155(d)) shall not 
     apply to information sought or obtained by the Comptroller 
     for purposes of the review required by this section; and
       (2) provisions of law pertaining to the protection of 
     classified information or proprietary information otherwise 
     applicable to information sought or obtained by the 
     Comptroller in carrying out this section shall not be 
     affected by any provision of this section.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2326

      (Purpose: To grant a Federal charter to Korean War Veterans 
                       Association, Incorporated)

       At the end of subtitle E of title X, add the following:

     SEC. 1070. GRANT OF FEDERAL CHARTER TO KOREAN WAR VETERANS 
                   ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED.

       (a) Grant of Charter.--Part B of subtitle II of title 36, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking the following:

                     ``CHAPTER 1201--[RESERVED]'';

       and
       (2) by inserting after chapter 1103 the following new 
     chapter:

     ``CHAPTER 1201--KOREAN WAR VETERANS ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED

``Sec.
``120101. Organization.
``120102. Purposes.
``120103. Membership.
``120104. Governing body.
``120105. Powers.
``120106. Restrictions.
``120107. Tax-exempt status required as condition of charter.
``120108. Records and inspection.
``120109. Service of process.
``120110. Liability for acts of officers and agents.
``120111. Annual report.
``120112. Definition.

     ``Sec. 120101. Organization

       ``(a) Federal Charter.--Korean War Veterans Association, 
     Incorporated (in this chapter, the `corporation'), a 
     nonprofit organization that meets the requirements for a 
     veterans service organization under section 501(c)(19) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and that is organized under the 
     laws of the State of New York, is a federally chartered 
     corporation.
       ``(b) Expiration of Charter.--If the corporation does not 
     comply with the provisions of this chapter, the charter 
     granted by subsection (a) shall expire.

     ``Sec. 120102. Purposes

       ``The purposes of the corporation are those provided in the 
     articles of incorporation of the corporation and shall 
     include the following:
       ``(1) To organize as a veterans service organization in 
     order to maintain a continuing interest in the welfare of 
     veterans of the Korean War, and rehabilitation of the 
     disabled veterans of the Korean War to include all that 
     served during active hostilities and subsequently in defense 
     of the Republic of Korea, and their families.
       ``(2) To establish facilities for the assistance of all 
     veterans and to represent them in their claims before the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs and other organizations 
     without charge.
       ``(3) To perpetuate and preserve the comradeship and 
     friendships born on the field of battle and nurtured by the 
     common experience of service to the United States during the 
     time of war and peace.
       ``(4) To honor the memory of the men and women who gave 
     their lives so that the United States and the world might be 
     free and live by the creation of living memorial, monuments, 
     and other forms of additional educational, cultural, and 
     recreational facilities.
       ``(5) To preserve for the people of the United States and 
     posterity of such people the great and basic truths and 
     enduring principles upon which the United States was founded.

     ``Sec. 120103. Membership

       ``Eligibility for membership in the corporation, and the 
     rights and privileges of members of the corporation, are as 
     provided in the bylaws of the corporation.

     ``Sec. 120104. Governing body

       ``(a) Board of Directors.--The composition of the board of 
     directors of the corporation, and the responsibilities of the 
     board, are as provided in the articles of incorporation of 
     the corporation.
       ``(b) Officers.--The positions of officers of the 
     corporation, and the election of the officers, are as 
     provided in the articles of incorporation.

     ``Sec. 120105. Powers

       ``The corporation has only those powers provided in its 
     bylaws and articles of incorporation filed in each State in 
     which it is incorporated.

     ``Sec. 120106. Restrictions

       ``(a) Stock and Dividends.--The corporation may not issue 
     stock or declare or pay a dividend.
       ``(b) Political Activities.--The corporation, or a director 
     or officer of the corporation as such, may not contribute to, 
     support, or participate in any political activity or in any 
     manner attempt to influence legislation.
       ``(c) Loan.--The corporation may not make a loan to a 
     director, officer, or employee of the corporation.
       ``(d) Claim of Governmental Approval or Authority.--The 
     corporation may not claim congressional approval, or the 
     authority of the United States, for any activity of the 
     corporation.
       ``(e) Corporate Status.--The corporation shall maintain its 
     status as a corporation incorporated under the laws of the 
     State of New York.

     ``Sec. 120107. Tax-exempt status required as condition of 
       charter

       ``If the corporation fails to maintain its status as an 
     organization exempt from taxation under the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986, the charter granted under this chapter shall 
     terminate.

     ``Sec. 120108. Records and inspection

       ``(a) Records.--The corporation shall keep--
       ``(1) correct and complete records of account;
       ``(2) minutes of the proceedings of the members, board of 
     directors, and committees of the corporation having any of 
     the authority of the board of directors of the corporation; 
     and
       ``(3) at the principal office of the corporation, a record 
     of the names and addresses of the members of the corporation 
     entitled to vote on matters relating to the corporation.
       ``(b) Inspection.--A member entitled to vote on any matter 
     relating to the corporation, or an agent or attorney of the 
     member, may inspect the records of the corporation for any 
     proper purpose, at any reasonable time.

     ``Sec. 120109. Service of process

       ``The corporation shall have a designated agent in the 
     District of Columbia to receive service of process for the 
     corporation. Notice to or service on the agent is notice to 
     or service on the corporation.

     ``Sec. 120110. Liability for acts of officers and agents

       ``The corporation is liable for any act of any officer or 
     agent of the corporation acting within the scope of the 
     authority of the corporation.

     ``Sec. 120111. Annual report

       ``The corporation shall submit to Congress an annual report 
     on the activities of the corporation during the preceding 
     fiscal year. The report shall be submitted at the same time 
     as the report of the audit required by section 10101(b) of 
     this title. The report may not be printed as a public 
     document.

     ``Sec. 120112. Definition

       ``For purposes of this chapter, the term `State' includes 
     the District of Columbia and the territories and possessions 
     of the United States.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The item relating to chapter 1201 
     in the table of chapters at the beginning of subtitle II of 
     title 36, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``1201. Korean War Veterans Association, Incorporated..................
120101''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2263

 (Purpose: To inhance the availability of rest and recuperation leave)

       At the end of subtitle H of title V, add the following:

     SEC. 594. ENHANCEMENT OF REST AND RECUPERATION LEAVE.

       Section 705(b)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``for members whose qualifying tour of 
     duty is 12 months or less, or for not more than 20 days for 
     members whose qualifying tour of duty is longer than 12 
     months,'' after ``for not more than 15 days''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2294

   (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to submit a plan to 
 ensure the appropriate size of the Department of Defense acquisition 
                               workforce)

       At the end of section 844, insert the following:
       (h) Acquisition Workforce Assessment and Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     develop an assessment and plan for addressing gaps in the 
     acquisition workforce of the Department of Defense.
       (2) Content of assessment.--The assessment developed under 
     paragraph (1) shall identify--
       (A) the skills and competencies needed in the military and 
     civilian workforce of the Department of Defense to 
     effectively manage the acquisition programs and activities of 
     the Department over the next decade;
       (B) the skills and competencies of the existing military 
     and civilian acquisition workforce of the Department and 
     projected trends in that workforce based on expected losses 
     due to retirement and other attrition; and
       (C) gaps in the existing or projected military and civilian 
     acquisition workforce that should be addressed to ensure that 
     the Department has access to the skills and competencies 
     identified pursuant to subparagraph (A).

[[Page S11557]]

       (3) Content of plan.--The plan developed under paragraph 
     (1) shall establish specific objectives for developing and 
     reshaping the military and civilian acquisition workforce of 
     the Department of Defense to address the gaps in skills and 
     competencies identified under paragraph (2). The plan shall 
     include--
       (A) specific recruiting and retention goals; and
       (B) specific strategies for developing, training, 
     deploying, compensating, and motivating the military and 
     civilian acquisition workforce of the Department to achieve 
     such goals.
       (4) Annual updates.--Not later than March 1 of each year 
     from 2009 through 2012, the Secretary of Defense shall update 
     the assessment and plan required by paragraph (1). Each 
     update shall include the assessment of the Secretary of the 
     progress the Department has made to date in implementing the 
     plan.
       (5) Spending of amounts in fund in accordance with plan.--
     Beginning on October 1, 2008, amounts in the Fund shall be 
     expended in accordance with the plan required under paragraph 
     (1) and the annual updates required under paragraph (4).
       (6) Reports.--Not later than 30 days after developing the 
     assessment and plan required under paragraph (1) or preparing 
     an annual update required under paragraph (4), the Secretary 
     of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense 
     committees a report on the assessment and plan or annual 
     update, as the case may be.


                    AMENDMENT NO. 2277, AS MODIFIED

       At the end of title XXVIII, add the following:

     SEC. 2864. REPORT ON WATER CONSERVATION PROJECTS.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than April 1, 2008, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional 
     defense committees a report on the funding and effectiveness 
     of water conservation projects at Department of Defense 
     facilities.
       (b) Content.--The report required under subsection (a) 
     shall include--
       (1) a description, by type, of the amounts invested or 
     budgeted for water conservation projects by the Department of 
     Defense in fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2008;
       (2) an assessment of the investment levels required to meet 
     the water conservation requirements of the Department of 
     Defense under Executive Order No. 13423 (January 24, 2007);
       (3) an assessment of whether water conservation projects 
     should continue to be funded within the Energy Conservation 
     Investment Program or whether the water conservation efforts 
     of the Department would be more effective if a separate water 
     conservation investment program were established;
       (4) an assessment of the demonstrated or potential 
     reductions in water usage and return on investment of various 
     types of water conservation projects, including the use of 
     metering or control systems, xeriscaping, waterless urinals, 
     utility system upgrades, and water efficiency standards for 
     appliances used in Department of Defense facilities; and
       (5) recommendations for any legislation, including any 
     changes to the authority provided under section 2866 of title 
     10, United States Code, that would facilitate the water 
     conservation goals of the Department, including the water 
     conservation requirements of Executive Order No. 13423 and 
     DoD Instruction 4170.11.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2862

(Purpose: To authorize to be increased by up to $49,300,000 the amount 
    authorized to be appropriated for the construction of munitions 
  demilitarization facilities at Blue Grass Army Depot, Kentucky, and 
 Pueblo Chemical Depot, Colorado, and to ensure the timely destruction 
                of lethal chemical agents and munitions)

       On page 470, after the table following line 22, add the 
     following:

     SEC. 2406. MUNITIONS DEMILITARIZATION FACILITIES, BLUE GRASS 
                   ARMY DEPOT, KENTUCKY, AND PUEBLO CHEMICAL 
                   ACTIVITY, COLORADO.

       (a) Authority to Increase Amount for Construction of 
     Munitions Demilitarization Facility, Blue Grass Army Depot, 
     Kentucky.--Pursuant to the authority granted for this project 
     by section 2401(a) of the Military Construction Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (division B of Public Law 106-65; 
     113 Stat. 836), as amended by section 2405 of the Military 
     Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division 
     B of Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 1298) and section 2405 of 
     the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2003 (division B of Public Law 107-314; 116 Stat. 2698), the 
     amount authorized to be appropriated by section 2403(14) of 
     this Act for the construction of increment 8 of a munitions 
     demilitarization facility at Blue Grass Army Depot, Kentucky, 
     may, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Defense, be 
     increased by up to $17,300,000 using funds from the amounts 
     authorized to be appropriated by section 2403(1) of this Act.
       (b) Authority to Increase Amount for Construction of 
     Munitions Demilitarization Facility, Pueblo Chemical 
     Activity, Colorado.--Pursuant to the authority granted for 
     this project by section 2401(a) of the Military Construction 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201; 
     110 Stat. 2775), as amended by section 2406 of the Military 
     Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (division 
     B of Public Law 106-65; 113 Stat. 839) and section 2407 of 
     the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2003 (division B of Public Law 107-314; 116 Stat. 2698), the 
     amount authorized to be appropriated by section 2403(14) of 
     this Act for the construction of increment 9 of a munitions 
     demilitarization facility at Pueblo Chemical Activity, 
     Colorado may, subject to the approval of the Secretary of 
     Defense, be increased by up to $32,000,000 using funds from 
     the amounts authorized to be appropriated by section 2403(1) 
     of this Act.
       (c) Certification Requirement.--Prior to exercising the 
     authority provided in subsection (a) or (b), the Secretary of 
     Defense shall provide to the congressional defense committees 
     the following:
       (1) Certification that the increase in the amount 
     authorized to be appropriated--
       (A) is in the best interest of national security; and
       (B) will facilitate compliance with the deadline set forth 
     in subsection (d)(1).
       (2) A statement that the increased amount authorized to be 
     appropriated will be used to carry out authorized military 
     construction activities.
       (3) A notification of the action in accordance with section 
     2811.
       (d) Deadline for Destruction of Chemical Agents and 
     Munitions Stockpile.--
       (1) Deadline.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the Department of Defense shall complete work on the 
     destruction of the entire United States stockpile of lethal 
     chemical agents and munitions, including those stored at Blue 
     Grass Army Depot, Kentucky, and Pueblo Chemical Depot, 
     Colorado, by the deadline established by the Chemical Weapons 
     Convention, and in no circumstances later than December 31, 
     2017.
       (2) Report.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than December 31, 2007, and 
     every 180 days thereafter, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     submit to the parties described in paragraph (2) a report on 
     the progress of the Department of Defense toward compliance 
     with this subsection.
       (B) Parties receiving report.--The parties referred to in 
     paragraph (1) are the Speaker of the House of the 
     Representatives, the Majority and Minority Leaders of the 
     House of Representatives, the Majority and Minority Leaders 
     of the Senate, and the congressional defense committees.
       (C) Content.--Each report submitted under subparagraph (A) 
     shall include the updated and projected annual funding levels 
     necessary to achieve full compliance with this subsection. 
     The projected funding levels for each report shall include a 
     detailed accounting of the complete life-cycle costs for each 
     of the chemical disposal projects.
       (3) Chemical weapons convention defined.--In this 
     subsection, the term ``Chemical Weapons Convention'' means 
     the Convention on the Prohibition of Development, Production, 
     Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their 
     Destruction, with annexes, done at Paris, January 13, 1993, 
     and entered into force April 29, 1997 (T. Doc. 103-21).
       (4) Applicability; rule of construction.--This subsection 
     shall apply to fiscal year 2008 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter, and shall not be modified or repealed by 
     implication.

  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote on the 
package of amendments.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                          Admendment No. 2268

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we are engaged in one of the longest 
conflicts in American history, and the need for qualified nurses in 
military medical facilities is increasing. Tragic stories of injured 
veterans returning from war and heart-wrenching images on television 
remind us that the military needs qualified nurses. Unfortunately, the 
military faces the same difficulty recruiting and retaining nurses that 
civilian medical facilities are facing.
  Neither the Army nor the Air Force has met nurse recruitment goals 
since the 1990s. In 2004, the Navy Nurse Corps fell 32 percent below 
its recruitment target, while the Air Force missed its nurse 
recruitment target by 30 percent. At a Senate appropriations hearing 
earlier this year, Nurse Corps leaders pointed to a serious shortage of 
military nurses. The Army, Navy, and Air Force each have a 10-percent 
shortage of nurses, with shortages reaching nearly 40 percent in some 
critical specialties.
  Civilian hospitals face similar challenges. According to the American 
College of Healthcare Executives, 72 percent of hospitals experienced a 
nursing shortage in 2004. The shortage is growing. The U.S. Department 
of Health and Human Services, HHS, found that in 2000 this country was 
110,000 nurses short of the number, both civilian and

[[Page S11558]]

military, necessary to adequately provide quality health care. By 2005, 
the shortage had doubled to 219,000. By 2020, we will be more than 1 
million nurses short of what we need for quality health care. This will 
create a problem for military health care as well as the Nation at 
large.
  To avoid the vast shortage HHS is projecting, we have to improve the 
number of nurses graduating and entering the workforce each year. If we 
only were to replace the nurses who are retiring, we would need to 
increase student enrollment at nursing schools by 40 percent. But the 
baseline demand for nurses, however, continues to rise, while the 
supply falls. If we increased the number of graduates from nursing 
school by 90 percent by 2020, we would still fall short of the number 
needed for quality care.
  One of the major factors contributing to the nursing shortage is the 
shortage of teachers at schools of nursing. Last year, nursing colleges 
across the Nation denied admission to over 40,000 qualified applicants 
because there were not enough faculty members to teach the students. 
Last year, approximately 2,000 qualified student applicants were 
rejected from Illinois nursing schools because there were not enough 
teachers.
  And the shortage does not discriminate between rural or urban areas, 
city or countryside, large or small schools. For example, in 2006, the 
University of Illinois at Chicago, consistently recognized as one of 
the top ten nursing programs in the United States, was sixth in total 
NIH research and research training dollars, and in 2004, it was ranked 
eighth out of 142 schools of nursing by U.S. News & World Report. 
However, despite the nationwide prestige, the school turned away more 
than 500 qualified applicants last year. Northern Illinois University, 
a smaller school in DeKalb, IL, was forced to reject 233 qualified 
applicants as a result of a shortage of teachers and financial 
resources.
  The American Association of Colleges of Nursing surveyed more than 
400 schools of nursing last year. Seventy-one percent of the schools 
reported vacancies on their faculty. An additional 15 percent said they 
were fully staffed but still needed more faculty to handle the number 
of students who want to be trained.
  Statistics paint a bleak picture for the availability of nursing 
faculty now and into the future. The median age of a doctorally 
prepared nursing faculty member is 52 years old. The average age of 
retirement for faculty at schools of nursing is 62.5 years. It is 
expected that 200 to 300 doctorally prepared faculty will be eligible 
for retirement each year from 2005 through 2012 , drastically reducing 
the number of available faculty--even though more than 1 million 
replacement nurses will be needed. The military recruits nurses from 
the same source as doctors and hospitals: civilian nursing schools. 
Unless we address the lack of faculty, the shortage of nurses will only 
worsen.
  In 1994, the Department of Defense established a program called 
Troops to Teachers, which serves the dual purpose of helping relieve 
the shortages of math, science, and special education teachers in high-
poverty schools while assisting military personnel in making successful 
transitions to second careers in teaching. As of January 2004, more 
than 6,000 former soldiers have been hired as teachers through the 
Troops to Teachers Program, and an additional 6,700 are now qualified 
teachers and looking for placements.
  My amendment will set up a pilot program called Troops to Nurse 
Teachers to make it easier for military nurses, retiring nurses, or 
those leaving the military to pursue a career teaching the future nurse 
workforce. I am proud to have the support of my colleagues: Senators 
Inouye, Inhofe, Obama, Menendez, Biden, Mikulski, Dole, Reed, 
Lieberman, and Collins. I thank the leadership of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, Chairman Levin, Senator Warner, for their support 
and willingness to accept the amendment.
  The Troops to Nurse Teachers Program seeks to address the nursing 
shortage in the different branches of the military while tapping into 
the existing wealth of knowledge and expertise of military nurses to 
help address the nationwide shortage of nurses.
  The goals of the Troops to Nurse Teachers program are two fold. 
First, the program intends to increase the number of nurse faculty 
members so nursing schools can expand enrollment and alleviate the 
ongoing shortage both in the civilian and military sectors. Second, the 
Troops to Nurse Teachers Program is meant to help military personnel 
make successful transitions to second careers in teaching, similar to 
Troops to Teachers. The program would achieve these goals by offering 
incentives to nurses transi-
tioning from the military to become full-time nurse faculty members, 
while providing the military a new recruitment tool and advertising 
agent.
  The Troops to Nurse Teachers Program will provide transitional 
assistance for servicemembers who already hold a master's or Ph.D. in 
nursing or a related field and are qualified to teach. Eligible 
servicemembers can receive career placement assistance, transitional 
stipends, and educational training from accredited schools of nursing 
to expedite their transition. Troops to Nurse Teachers will also 
establish a pilot scholarship program for officers of the Armed Forces 
who have been involved in nursing during their military service to help 
them obtain the education needed to become nurse educators. Tuition, 
stipends, and financing for other educational expenses would be 
provided. Recipients of scholarships must commit to teaching at an 
accredited school of nursing for 3 years in exchange for the 
educational support they receive.
  In addition, the Troops to Nurse Teachers Program will provide active 
military nurses the opportunity to complete a 2-year tour of duty at a 
civilian nursing school to train the next generation of nurses. In 
exchange, the nurse officer will commit to additional time in the 
military or the College of Nursing will provide scholarships for 
nursing students that commit to enlisting in the military.
  We have the support of over 20 nursing organizations, including the 
following: American Association of Colleges of Nursing, American 
Organization of Nurse Executives, American Nurses Association, Academy 
of Medical-Surgical Nurses, American Academy of Ambulatory Care 
Nursing, American College of Nurse Practitioners, American Association 
of Nurse Anesthetists, American Health Care Association, American 
Society of PeriAnesthesia Nurses, Association of Women's Health, 
Obstetric, and Neonatal Nurses, American Association of Occupational 
Health Nurses, Inc., American Radiological Nurses Association, 
Association of Perioperative Registered Nurses, Emergency Nurses 
Association, National Black Nurses Association, National Council of 
State Boards of Nursing, National Gerontological Nursing Association, 
National League for Nursing, National Nursing Centers Consortium, 
National Organization of Nurse Practitioner Faculties, Oncology Nursing 
Society, Society of Urologic Nurses & Associates.
  In addition, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, both Personnel 
and Recruitment and Health Affairs, are in support of the amendment. We 
have also worked hard to secure the support and incorporate important 
feedback from the Nurse Corps of the Departments of the Army, Navy, and 
Air Force.
  We must increase the number of teachers preparing tomorrow's nursing 
workforce. With the aging of the baby boom generation and the long-term 
needs of our growing number of wounded veterans, the military and 
civilian health care systems will need qualified nurses more than ever. 
The Troops to Nurse Teachers Program will help to alleviate the 
shortage of nurse faculty and ultimately help make more nurses 
available for both civilian and military medical facilities.


          Amendments Nos. 2087, 2088, 2274, and 2275 Withdrawn

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that all 
pending amendments be withdrawn, with the exception of the Levin 
substitute amendment; that Senator Leahy or his designee be recognized 
to offer a first-degree amendment on the subject of habeas corpus; that 
after the Leahy amendment is offered, Senator Graham or his designee be 
recognized to offer a first-degree amendment to strike section 1023; 
that the offering of these amendments does not preclude further 
amendments on the subject matter of these amendments.

[[Page S11559]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WARNER. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2022 to Amendment No. 2011

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Leahy, I call up 
amendment No. 2022.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Specter and 
     Mr. Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 2022.

  Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with. No. 2022 is the amendment, and it is indeed the 
Specter-Leahy amendment. That is the amendment which was referred to in 
the unanimous consent agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2022) is as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2022

  (Purpose: To restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United 
                                States)

       At the end of subtitle E of title X, add the following:

     SEC. 1070. RESTORATION OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR THOSE DETAINED BY 
                   THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) In General.--Section 2241 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking subsection (e).
       (b) Title 10.--Section 950j of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Limited Review of Military Commission Procedures and 
     Actions.--Except as otherwise provided in this chapter or in 
     section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus 
     provision, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or 
     consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including 
     any action pending on or filed after the date of the 
     enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, relating 
     to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military 
     commission under this chapter, including challenges to the 
     lawfulness of procedures of military commissions under this 
     chapter.''.
       (c) Effective Date and Applicability.--The amendments made 
     by this section shall--
       (1) take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act; 
     and
       (2) apply to any case that is pending on or after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.


                Amendment No. 2064 to Amendment No. 2011

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2064 on behalf of 
Senator Graham.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Graham, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2064.

  Mr. WARNER. 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 (No. 2064) is as follows:


                           Amendment No. 2064

  (Purpose: To strike section 1023, relating to the granting of civil 
                       rights to terror suspects)

       Strike section 1023.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we do have 
these two first-degree amendments side by side for purposes of the 
debate, and at this time there are no time agreements.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Senator Leahy has already debated this 
amendment. I assume he would want to debate this further, but that 
would, of course, be up to him. But this was the amendment Senator 
Leahy was debating earlier this afternoon. Now that it is pending, it 
is open to debate.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have discussed this with the Senator 
from Arizona, who is here on the floor for purposes of that debate. I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from 
Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and Senator Warner. Let 
me read a portion of a letter from the Department of Justice first, and 
I will include it for the Record at the conclusion of its reading. This 
letter is addressed to Chairman Pat Leahy of the Judiciary Committee. 
It begins by saying--it is dated June 6 of this year.

       This letter presents the views of the Department of Justice 
     on S. 185, the ``Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007,'' as 
     introduced in the U.S. Senate. If enacted, S. 185 would 
     remove the habeas corpus restrictions included in the 
     ``Military Commissions Act of 2006.''

  After a full and open debate, a bipartisan majority of Congress 
passed the MCA just last fall. The MCA's restrictions on habeas corpus 
codified important and constitutional limits on captured enemies' 
access to our courts. The DC Circuit upheld MCA's habeas restrictions 
in--the name of the case is Boumediene v. Bush--I will omit the 
citation--decided in 2007.

       The provision of S. 185 that seeks to remove these 
     important limits ignores their history and their role in 
     protecting our Nation's security. As the Supreme Court 
     recognized in Johnson v. Eisentrager, a 1950 case, the 
     extension of habeas corpus to alien combatants captured 
     abroad ``would hamper the war effort and bring aid and 
     comfort to the enemy,'' and the Constitution requires no such 
     thing. The United States already provides alien enemy 
     combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, with an 
     unprecedented degree of process, which includes judicial 
     review of decisions regarding their detention before the 
     Federal appeals court in Washington, DC. Repealing the MCA's 
     limitations on habeas would simply burden our courts with 
     duplicative and unnecessary litigation. For this reason, and 
     because repeal of the MCA's habeas provisions would delay and 
     disrupt the vital work of bringing enemy combatants to 
     justice, the President's senior advisors would recommend that 
     he veto S. 185 if the bill is presented to him for signature.

  There is more of the letter, but I will submit it for the Record at 
this point.
  I note that the amendment offered by Senator Leahy is virtually the 
same, if not the same, as the bill introduced. I am presuming that the 
President's senior advisers would, as a result, also recommend a veto 
of the bill if it included this provision.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                   June 6, 2007.  
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter presents the views of the 
     Department of Justice on S. 185, the ``Habeas Corpus 
     Restoration Act of 2007,'' as introduced in the United States 
     Senate. If enacted, S. 185 would remove the habeas corpus 
     restrictions included in the ``Military Commissions Act of 
     2006'' (``MCA'').
       After a full and open debate, a bipartisan majority of 
     Congress passed the MCA just last fall. The MCA's 
     restrictions on habeas corpus codified important and 
     constitutional limits on captured enemies' access to our 
     courts. The D.C. Circuit upheld the MCA's habeas restrictions 
     in Boumediene v. Bush, 476 F.3d 981 (D.C. Cir. 2007), cert. 
     denied, 127 S. Ct. 1478 (2007). The provision of S. 185 that 
     seeks to remove these important limits ignores their history 
     and their role in protecting our Nation's security. As the 
     Supreme Court recognized in Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 
     763 (1950), the extension of habeas corpus to alien 
     combatants captured abroad ``would hamper the war effort and 
     bring aid and comfort to the enemy,'' id. at 779, and the 
     Constitution requires no such thing, see id. at 780-81. The 
     United States already provides alien enemy combatants 
     detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, with an unprecedented 
     degree of process, which includes judicial review of 
     decisions regarding their detention before the Federal 
     appeals court in Washington, D.C. Repealing the MCA's 
     limitations on habeas would simply burden our courts with 
     duplicative and unnecessary litigation. For this reason, and 
     because repeal of the MCA's habeas provisions would delay and 
     disrupt the vital work of bringing enemy combatants to 
     justice, the President's senior advisors would recommend that 
     he veto S. 185 if the bill is presented to him for signature.
       Thank you for your consideration of our views. If we may be 
     of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. 
     The Office of Management and Budget has advised us that there 
     is no objection to this letter from the perspective of the 
     Administration's program and that enactment of S. 185 would 
     not be in accord with the President's program.
           Sincerely,
                                              Alberto R. Gonzales,
                                                 Attorney General.
  Mr. KYL. Now, the Defense authorization bill is extraordinarily 
important to our troops. To add a totally extraneous provision amending 
a different bill to the Defense authorization bill, especially one 
which carries the suggestion of a Presidential veto, would be the 
height of irresponsibility on the part of the Senate. The substantive 
arguments of the Department of Justice with respect to habeas are 
correct, and the Senate should not, therefore, seek to amend another 
statute in the Defense authorization bill, thus inviting a veto of the 
bill.
  Related to the habeas corpus provision is the amendment that is now 
pending offered by Senator Graham of

[[Page S11560]]

South Carolina. That amendment would strike a provision of the Defense 
authorization bill--section 1023--that also relates to the subject of 
treatment of detainees. Unfortunately, the way the committee bill was 
written, the bill that is before us right now, if we retain that 
language and we don't strike it, as the Graham amendment would do, we 
would essentially be returning to a law enforcement approach to 
terrorists that, frankly, failed us before 9/11 and obviously does not 
work in the post-9/11 context. We can't deal with all of the enemy 
combatants as criminal defendants. These people who are picked up on 
the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be dealt with in the 
same way as criminal defendants in our court system. Senator Graham's 
amendment would strike these harmful provisions of the bill.
  I wish to begin by reminding my colleagues of the evil nature of 
these terrorists and then go through the three particular parts of this 
provision that require removal.
  First, a requirement that al-Qaida terrorists held in Iraq and 
Afghanistan be given lawyers--I mean, just imagine that; second, the 
authorization to demand discovery and compel testimony from 
servicemembers; and third, the requirement that al-Qaida and Taliban 
detainees be provided access to classified evidence. To state these 
three provisions of the bill is to recognize immediately why it is so 
harmful that they be included in this bill and why they need to be 
stricken, but focus for just a moment on the people we are talking 
about held at Guantanamo Bay and picked up in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  At least 30 of the detainees released already from Guantanamo Bay 
have since returned to waging war against the United States and our 
allies. Of course, the provisions of section 21 are all designed to 
effectuate the release of some of these prisoners--some of these 
detainees. So 30 have already been released because we no longer deemed 
them to be a threat to the United States or our forces, but after their 
release, 12 of the released detainees have been killed in battle by 
U.S. forces or--well, by U.S. forces; others have been captured. In 
other words, we released them, they went right back to the battlefield, 
12 of them have been killed in battle, others have been recaptured, 2 
released detainees became regional commanders for Taliban forces, and 1 
attacked U.S. and allies' soldiers in Afghanistan, killing 3 Afghan 
soldiers.
  One released detainee killed an Afghan judge. One released detainee 
led a terrorist attack on a hotel in Pakistan and a kidnapping raid 
that resulted in the death of a Chinese civilian, and this former 
detainee recently told Pakistani journalists that he planned to ``fight 
America and its allies until the very end.''
  Even under the procedures today, which give due process to these 
detainees and allow them to be released if we can no longer demonstrate 
they are a threat to U.S. forces--even under these provisions, at least 
30 of the detainees have gone right back to the battlefield and are 
attacking us and our forces.
  The provisions of section 1023 would make it very difficult, if not 
impossible, for the United States to detain committed terrorists such 
as this, people who have been captured while waging war against us. No 
nation in the history of armed conflict has imposed the kinds of limits 
this bill would impose on its ability to detain enemy war prisoners. 
War prisoners released in the middle of an ongoing conflict, such as 
members of al-Qaida, will return to waging war. That is the whole point 
of prisoners of war. In the war you capture people and hold them so 
they cannot return to the battlefield to kill your troops. We have 
already seen this happen 30 times with the detainees released from 
Guantanamo, as I said.
  If section 1023 were to be enacted, we could expect more civilians 
and Afghans and Iraqis will be killed, and it may be inevitable that 
even our own soldiers will be killed by such released terrorists. This 
is a price our Nation should not be forced to bear.
  I mentioned three specific general problems with section 1023. The 
first has to do with a requirement of the bill that al-Qaida terrorists 
who are held in Iraq and Afghanistan must be provided with lawyers. I 
cannot imagine that the details of this were known to the members of 
the committee when they put it into the bill. This could never be 
executed. It would require the release of the detainees; either they 
get lawyers or they have to be released. And here is why. The Defense 
bill requires that counsel be provided and trials be conducted for all 
unlawful enemy combatants held by the United States, including, for 
example, al-Qaida members captured and detained in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, if they are held for 2 years. We hold approximately 800 
prisoners in Afghanistan and tens of thousands in Iraq. None are lawful 
combatants; all would arguably be entitled to a lawyer and a trial 
under this bill. This procedure would at least require a military 
judge, a prosecutor, and a defense attorney, as well as other legal 
professionals.
  This scheme is totally unrealistic. The entire Army JAG Corps only 
consists of about 1,500 officers, and each is busy with their current 
duties. Moreover, under the bill, each detainee would be permitted to 
retain private or volunteer counsel. Our agreements with the Iraqi 
Government bar the United States from transferring Iraqi detainees out 
of Iraq. As a result, the bill would require the United States to 
train, transport, house, and protect potentially thousands, or tens of 
thousands, of private lawyers in the middle of a war zone during 
ongoing hostilities. That is impossible.
  Think about this in the context of other conflicts, not just in Iraq 
or Afghanistan. In the context of World War II, anybody hearing this 
would think it is nuts. But the bill before us literally requires us to 
provide attorneys to these captured detainees in Iraq--tens of 
thousands of them. This proposal would likely force the United States 
to release thousands of these enemy combatants in Iraq, as I said, 
because there is no way you could provide all of the lawyers to them. 
Obviously, that would further jeopardize our military. By requiring a 
trial for each detainee, this provision would also require U.S. 
soldiers to offer statements to criminal investigators, needing later 
to prove their case after they captured someone. In other words, unlike 
today, when you are on the battlefield and you capture somebody and you 
hold them because they are a threat, but you are not putting them on 
trial, now you are going to put them on trial and you have to have the 
kind of evidence that would stand up in court. You have watched the TV 
shows with the clever defense lawyers. You know about, ``I object, Your 
Honor; that is not relevant,'' or ``that is hearsay.'' On the 
battlefield, who walks around with lawyers making sure Miranda rights 
are read and evidence is collected and statements are taken that will 
hold up in court when they are later tried? And they would need to 
carry evidence kits and cameras, means of identifying the person later 
on. Two years after you capture someone, the defense lawyer could say: 
Is that the person you captured? And if he says, ``Well, those guys all 
kind of looked alike to me when they were shooting at me, so I cannot 
be sure,'' well, the case will get thrown out of court. Or was there a 
chain of custody of the evidence? You would have to do that with the 
evidence taken on the battlefield or it would be thrown out in court. 
They would need to spend hours after each trial writing after-action 
reports, which would need to be reviewed by commanders. Valuable time, 
in other words, would be taken from combat operations and soldiers' 
rest whenever they capture somebody on the battlefield.
  A horrible precedent would be set for the future. Aside from the war 
in Iraq, this provision would make fighting a major war in the future 
simply impossible. In World War II, we detained over 2 million enemy 
prisoners of war. It would have been impossible for the United States 
to have conducted a trial and provided counsel to 2 million captured 
enemy combatants. The bottom line, with respect to this provision, 
section 1023, the requirement of counsel for these detainees held in 
Iraq and Afghanistan, is that it would be impossible to implement. It 
is patently absurd and, as a result, it should be stricken.
  The second point is authorizing al-Qaida detainees to demand 
discovery and compel testimony from American soldiers. I alluded to 
that a second ago. The underlying bill would actually authorize 
unlawful enemy combatants, including al-Qaida detainees in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, to demand discovery

[[Page S11561]]

and compel testimony from witnesses, just as we do in our criminal 
courts in the United States. These witnesses would all be the U.S. 
soldiers who captured the prisoner. Under the bill, an American soldier 
could literally be recalled from his unit at the whim of an al-Qaida 
terrorist in order to be cross-examined by him, or his lawyer, or a 
judge.

  Newspaper columnist Stuart Taylor describes the questions such a 
right would raise:

       Should a Marine sergeant be pulled out of combat in 
     Afghanistan to testify at a detention hearing about when, 
     where, how, and why he had captured the detainee? What if the 
     northern alliance or some other ally made the capture? Should 
     the military be ordered to deliver high-level al-Qaida 
     prisoners to be cross-examined by other detainees and their 
     lawyers?

  It goes on and on. The questions abound. As the Supreme Court itself 
observed in Johnson v. Eisenstrager, which is the law on this subject:

       It would be difficult to devise a more effective fettering 
     of a field commander than to allow the very enemies he is 
     ordered to reduce to submission to call him to account in his 
     own civil court and divert his efforts and attention from the 
     military offensive abroad to the legal defensive at home.

  This is the U.S. Supreme Court talking not long after World War II, 
when a question similar to this arose, and a Justice of the Supreme 
Court says it ``would be difficult to devise a more effective fettering 
of a field commander than to allow the very enemies he is ordered to 
reduce to submission to call him into account in his own civil court 
and divert his efforts and attention from the military offensive abroad 
to the legal defensive at home.''
  It would be difficult to conceive of a process that would be more 
insulting to our soldiers.
  In addition, many al-Qaida members captured in Afghanistan were 
captured by special operators whose identities are kept secret for 
obvious reasons. This would force them to reveal themselves to al-Qaida 
members and expose themselves, or simply forgo the prosecution of the 
individual, which is obviously more likely to happen. You simply could 
not do all of this, so you would have to forgo the prosecution and 
release the prisoner.
  Clearly, Americans should not be subject to subpoena by al-Qaida. 
Think about that. That brings me to the last point--the requirement 
that al-Qaida and Taliban detainees be provided with access to 
classified evidence. You would have to give the enemy your classified 
evidence, the sources and methods of your intelligence operations, in 
order to prosecute them, which is what would be required by the bill.
  Here is the exact language. The bill requires that detainees be 
provided with ``a sufficiently specific substitute of classified 
evidence'' and that detainees' private lawyers be given access to all 
relevant classified evidence.
  When this bill was brought up in the Senate, some Members questioned 
whether this bill requires us to share classified information with al-
Qaida detainees and their lawyers. I will direct this to specific pages 
and lines of the bill to show what it does.
  On page 305, lines 16 through 21, the bill expressly provides that 
``the detainee'' must be provided--I am quoting now--access to a 
``sufficiently specific'' summary of ``the classified evidence that is 
submitted against the detainee.'' This language appears to mirror the 
Classified Information Procedures Act rules that apply to the use of 
classified information in Federal courts. Like CIPA, these procedures 
give a detainee a right to the substance of classified evidence. The 
Government might be able to redact some names or other information, but 
only if it still gives the detainee the substance of the evidence. And 
if the United States is not willing to compromise the evidence in this 
way, it cannot use the evidence.
  Similarly, at page 305, line 5, the bill expressly requires that 
under its provisions, ``counsel for the detainee is provided access to 
the relevant classified evidence.'' I don't know how you can be any 
more specific than that. His lawyer gets to see relevant classified 
evidence.
  Foreign and domestic intelligence agencies are already very hesitant 
to divulge classified evidence to the CSRT hearings we already conduct. 
These are part of the internal and nonadversarial military process 
today. Intelligence agencies will inevitably refuse to provide 
sensitive evidence to detainees and their lawyers. They will not risk 
compromising such information for the sake of detaining one individual 
terrorist.
  In addition, the United States already has tenuous relations with 
some of the foreign governments, particularly in the Middle East, that 
have been our best sources of information about groups such as al-
Qaida. If we give detainees a legal right to access such information, 
these foreign governments would simply, I presume, shut off all further 
supply of information to the United States. Why would they do 
otherwise? They don't want to expose their own sources, compromise 
their evidence, or expose even the fact that they have cooperated with 
the United States. By exposing our cooperation with these governments, 
the bill perversely applies a sort of ``stop snitching'' policy toward 
our Middle Eastern allies, which is likely to be as ruthlessly 
effective as when applied to criminal street gangs to potential 
witnesses to a crime in the United States.
  Some of our best information is gained from foreign intelligence 
services who, like us, are trying to find out everything they can about 
these terrorists. Once they know we have to turn the information they 
gave us over to the terrorists, they are going to stop cooperating with 
us.

  The argument I presented--that sharing classified evidence with al-
Qaida detainees and their lawyers would badly damage America's efforts 
in the war with al-Qaida--was recently reinforced by several 
declarations that were recently introduced in the ongoing Bismullah 
litigation. These declarations were filed by the Director of National 
Intelligence, the Director of the CIA, and by the Director of the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation, our three top intelligence agencies. 
Together, these statements confirm that sharing classified information 
with detainees and their lawyers would not only inevitably lead to 
leaks of sensitive information, but that it would violate American 
intelligence agencies' agreements with foreign governments and with 
confidential human sources--violations that would inevitably undermine 
these organizations and individuals' willingness to cooperate with the 
United States in the future.
  The final point is that we already know, from hard experience, that 
providing classified and other sensitive information to al-Qaida 
members is a bad idea. During the 1995 Federal prosecution in New York 
of the ``blind sheikh,'' Omar Rahman, prosecutors turned over the names 
of 200 unindicted coconspirators to the defense. They were required to 
do so under the civilian criminal justice system of discovery rules, 
which require that large amounts of evidence be turned over to the 
defense. The judge warned the defense that the information could only 
be used to prepare for trial and not for other purposes. Nevertheless, 
within 10 days of being turned over to the defense, the information 
found its way to Sudan and into the hands of Osama bin Laden. As the 
district judge who presided over the case said, ``That list was in 
downtown Khartoum within 10 days, and bin Laden was aware within 10 
days that the Government was on his trail.''
  That is what happens when you provide classified information in this 
context.
  In another case tried in the civilian criminal justice system, 
testimony about the use of cell phones tipped off terrorists as to how 
the Government was monitoring their networks. According to the judge, 
``There was a piece of innocuous testimony about the delivery of a 
battery for a cell phone.'' This testimony alerted terrorists to the 
Government surveillance and, as a result, their communication network 
shut down within days and intelligence was lost to the Government 
forever--intelligence that might have prevented who knows what.

  This particular section of the bill, 1023, repeats the mistakes of 
the past. Treating the war with al-Qaida similar to a criminal justice 
investigation would force the United States to choose between 
compromising information that could be used to prevent further 
terrorist attacks on one hand and on the other letting captured 
terrorists go free. As I said before, this is not a choice our Nation 
should be required to make.
  Let me read a couple of the quotations I alluded to earlier from the

[[Page S11562]]

Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, GEN Michael Hayden, 
relative to the damage that would be caused by requiring this 
classified information to be turned over to the defendant or his 
lawyers:

       . . . [M]uch of the information that is potentially 
     discoverable was provided to the CIA by foreign intelligence 
     services or discloses the specific assistance provided by the 
     CIA's global partners in the global war on terror. If the CIA 
     is compelled to comply with the Court's decision, the CIA 
     will be obligated to inform its foreign liaison partners that 
     a court order requires that the CIA provide this information 
     to the Court and detainee counsel. There is a high 
     probability that certainly liaison services will decrease 
     their cooperation with the CIA because of the extent that 
     their information has become enmeshed in U.S. legal 
     proceedings. . . .

  He goes on:

       [S]ome information discoverable under the Court's decision 
     originated with, or pertains to, clandestine human 
     intelligence sources. These individuals provide information 
     or assistance to the CIA only upon the condition of absolute 
     and lasting secrecy. Revealing this information--even to the 
     Court or to cleared counsel--would expressly violate these 
     agreements, and would irreparably harm the CIA's ability to 
     utilize current sources and to recruit sources in the future. 
     . . .

  Let me read one other comment from General Hayden, the Director of 
the CIA:

        . . . With over 300 detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, it 
     appears that compliance with the Court's decision will 
     require disclosure to several hundred--perhaps more than one 
     thousand--private attorneys who are not employees of the U.S. 
     Government and who are not trained in handling classified 
     information. With so many untrained individuals allowed 
     access to such sensitive information, I believe that 
     unauthorized disclosures, even if inadvertent, are not only 
     probable, but inevitable. The regulations controlling access 
     to classified information recognize that limiting the number 
     of people with access is a necessary step in safeguarding 
     sensitive information. The Court's decision would eviscerate 
     the U.S. Government's carefully conceived plan to keep its 
     most highly sensitive information compartmentalized and would 
     increase the likelihood of public disclosure.

  I quote a comment from Robert Mueller, the Director of the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation, in his affidavit to the court in the case I 
mentioned:

       Disseminating human source information could reasonably 
     lead to the disclosure of their identities because often the 
     information provided by human sources is singular in nature.

  In other words, he is the only person who knows about it, so when the 
information is divulged, then the other side knows exactly where it 
came from.
  Back to Director Mueller:

       The disclosure of singular information could endanger the 
     life of the source or his/her family or friends, or cause the 
     source to suffer physical or economic harm or ostracism 
     within the community. These consequences, and the inability 
     of the FBI to protect the identities of its human sources, 
     would make it exceptionally more difficult for the FBI and 
     other U.S. intelligence agencies to recruit human sources in 
     the future.

  These are the kinds of irreparable harm that would result if the 
language of section 1023 remains in the bill. Not my words, but 
Director Mueller of the FBI, General Hayden, the Director of the CIA, 
and now I quote from the Director of National Intelligence, Michael 
McConnell. Admiral McConnell had this to say:

        . . . [T]he Intelligence Community has many sources of 
     information that must be protected. For example, much of the 
     information at issue was provided by foreign intelligence 
     services or would reveal the specific assistance provided by 
     foreign partners in the global war on terror. Certain liaison 
     services will likely decrease their cooperation with the U.S. 
     Government if their information is caught up in U.S. court 
     proceedings.

  One final comment.

        . . . Human sources also provide the Intelligence 
     Community with critical information, but only upon the 
     condition of absolute secrecy. Revealing this information 
     would violate the sources of confidentiality we provide these 
     sources and would likely result in their minimizing or 
     ceasing altogether their cooperation. Such a disclosure would 
     harm the Intelligence Community's ability to retain current 
     sources and recruit new ones, and if we cannot recruit and 
     retain sources, the Intelligence Community simply cannot 
     conduct its business.

  That is the point of Senator Graham's amendment to strike these 
provisions from the bill. They would irreparably harm our intelligence 
collection capability, which is the first defense against these 
terrorists. That is why the Graham amendment striking section 1023 
should be adopted.
  We have already bent over backward to provide the detainees at 
Guantanamo the ability to contest their detention and to have their 
detention reviewed and eventually even have it reviewed in the U.S. 
Supreme Court, and before that the Circuit Court of Appeals.
  This is a very fair system, more fair than has ever been provided by 
any other nation in any other circumstance and more than our 
Constitution requires. So we are treating the people we capture in a 
very fair way.
  What we cannot do is to take those same kinds of protections and 
apply them anywhere we capture someone in the foreign theater. And as I 
said before, never in the history of warfare have they been subjected 
to the criminal justice system of our country. To take that system and 
try to transport it to the fields of Afghanistan and Iraq would 
obviously not only be breaking precedent but is a horrible idea for all 
the reasons I indicated.
  I ask my colleagues to give careful attention to the dangerous return 
to the pre-9/11 notion that these terrorists are, after all, only 
common criminals and we have to treat them that way. They have made no 
secret that they are actually at war with us, and we ignore this point 
at our peril.
  I remind my colleagues that the Statement of Administration Policy on 
this bill says the President will be advised to veto the bill if 
section 1023 remains in the bill and refer again to a similar statement 
from the Department of Justice with respect to the habeas corpus 
provisions that would be added to the bill in the amendment of Senator 
Leahy.
  I hope my colleagues will take all of this information into account 
when they consider voting on these amendments in this very important 
Defense authorization bill which we need to pass and the President will 
want to sign so we can do what is necessary to support our troops whom 
we have sent into harm's way.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Graham amendment to strike 
section 1023 and not to support the additional habeas corpus rights to 
terrorists who attack our troops.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). The distinguished Senator from 
Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, first, I want to commend Senator Levin and 
Senator Warner for their leadership on this legislation. It is not news 
that they do a good job. They do it consistently year in and year out. 
This may be one of the last Defense authorization bills in which 
Senator Warner is involved, having made his announcement about his 
decision to retire from the Senate. He has another year, next year, on 
the Defense authorization bill. I already sense the notion of missing 
him here. While he is not in the Chamber this evening, I commend 
Senator Warner and Senator Levin for the fine work they do year in and 
year out on this very important issue.
  I rise today to urge my colleagues to join in supporting the Specter-
Leahy-Dodd amendment to restore the writ of habeas corpus for 
individuals held in U.S. custody. I am pleased to be an original 
cosponsor of this amendment and a cosponsor of the underlying bill from 
which it draws its strength, S. 185, the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act, 
also introduced by Senators Specter and Leahy.
  For over 700 years, the legal system has recognized the importance of 
habeas corpus, the right of an individual to question the legality of 
his or her detention.
  The Military Commissions Act is perhaps the most disappointing and 
dangerous piece of legislation passed in the more than quarter-century 
I have been a Member of this body. Among its many troublesome 
provisions, the act eliminated habeas corpus for those individuals held 
by our Government as enemy combatants. By stripping these individuals 
of the right to petition the Government, we have undermined our 
Nation's longstanding commitment to the rule of law and human rights. 
Advocates of this provision argued that stripping away this fundamental 
right was necessary to protect our Nation's security. That is totally 
false, in my view. We can both effectively prosecute terrorists and 
remain true to our values. In fact, if we do otherwise, I strongly 
suggest that we jeopardize our security.

[[Page S11563]]

  I stand on the floor of the Senate seeking to undo what Congress did 
last year when it summarily stripped habeas corpus rights with the 
enactment of the Military Commissions Act. Were our Founding Fathers 
alive today, I believe they would be seriously dismayed to realize how 
far our country has strayed from the values enshrined in our 
Constitution with the adoption of this measure.
  Stripping of habeas corpus rights is just one of a number of 
egregious provisions included in the Military Commissions Act. That is 
why earlier this year I introduced S. 576, the Restoring the 
Constitution Act, to address these errors.
  In addition to restoring habeas corpus rights, S. 576 would also 
require the United States to live up to its Geneva Convention 
obligations, provide detainees access to attorneys for trials, make 
inadmissible trial evidence gained through torture or coercion, empower 
military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable, 
and provide for the expedited judicial review of the Military 
Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionality of all of 
its provisions.
  The Restoring the Constitution Act would undo the most damaging and 
unconstitutional aspects of the Military Commissions Act while 
providing the U.S. military a greater ability to bring our enemies to 
justice through military commissions.
  I take a back seat to no one when it comes to defending our Nation's 
security. Let me be clear, I believe military commissions in very 
limited circumstances may be very effective in bringing combatants to 
justice. However, I see no reason why procedures based on the well-
established, Uniform Military Code of Justice should be abandoned.
  But there is a right way and a wrong way to win the fight we are in. 
Procedures that adhere to immediate bedrock legal principles, such as 
habeas corpus, abide by the Geneva Conventions, and exclude hearsay 
evidence or evidence obtained through torture, to name but a few, do 
not make us weaker. Quite the contrary. They demonstrate that no 
terrorist can destroy our way of life and our fundamental values that 
have guided our Nation for over two centuries.
  During the debate on the Military Commissions Act last year, Senator 
Specter, Senator Leahy, and I offered an amendment that would have 
retained the writ of habeas corpus. Unfortunately, our amendment was 
rejected by this body.
  On September 28, 2006, I voted against the Military Commissions Act. 
Sadly, I was in the minority in doing so. I was and remain deeply 
disappointed that the Senate passed this misguided legislation. That 
day was a dark day in the history of this body. On that day, we 
abandoned our commitment not only to human rights, but also to the rule 
of law, commitments that separate us from our enemies, commitments that 
have been fundamental to American leadership since the end of World War 
II.
  This issue has special resonance with me because of my father, Thomas 
Dodd, who sat in this very body at this very desk, as a member of the 
Senate from Connecticut. Years before, in 1945 and 1946, before 
becoming a Member of Congress, my father was a prosecutor working 
alongside Justice Robert Jackson at the Nuremberg war crimes trials in 
Germany. There the United States demonstrated to the world its profound 
commitment to the rule of law, due process, and human rights. Many of 
our allies did not see the need for trials for Nazis held by allied 
forces. Indeed, many of them called for summary executions. The Soviet 
Union wanted a show trial and then to shoot the defendants at 
Nuremberg. Winston Churchill, the former British Prime Minister, also 
advocated summary execution for the defendants at Nuremberg.
  The United States, Judge Robert Jackson, Henry Stimson, the 
Republican Secretary of War under Franklin Roosevelt, Ben Rosen, Robert 
Jackson and my father argued, that, no, we were different. The United 
States was going to demonstrate to the world that civility and the rule 
of law was what was at stake in the war with Germany and Japan and that 
we would not succumb to the same kind of treatment they gave to their 
victims.
  The opening statement made by Robert Jackson at Nuremberg, a 
statement which I put to memory a long time ago, indicates the 
difference we brought to this issue. Robert Jackson, speaking of the 
Soviet Union, the British, the French, and the United States, said on 
that occasion:

       That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung 
     with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit 
     their captive enemies to the judgment of the rule of law is 
     one of the most significant tributes that power has ever paid 
     to reason.

  Instead, we gave the Nazis--members of the world's most barbaric 
regime--the protections and the rights of the rule of law.
  The Nuremberg trials not only brought many of the Nazi war criminals 
to justice--most were executed--but helped to demonstrate to the world 
the importance of providing even the most heinous of criminals the 
protections of the rule of law. Doing so makes our Nation incalculably 
stronger, not weaker at all.
  But I fear Congress has allowed the President to diminish our 
Nation's commitment to human rights and the rule of law. We have failed 
to stand up for our most cherished values. We let fear--the fear of 
being seen as weak--override our duty to protect the Constitution and 
the values of our Nation.
  It is not too late to right the wrong of last year. We will have that 
opportunity in the next day or so. While I am hopeful the Federal 
courts will strike down many of the provisions of the Military 
Commissions Act, I believe a decision earlier this year by the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia demonstrates the need for 
the amendment before us today by Senators Leahy, Specter, myself, and 
others.
  On February 20, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia upheld the provisions of the Military Commissions Act 
eliminating the writ of habeas corpus for enemy combatants. Despite two 
recent Supreme Court decisions suggesting that habeas rights cannot 
legislatively be stripped away, the split decision by the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia underlines the need for this body 
to proactively act now to unambiguously restore habeas rights.
  For more than 60 years, the United States has helped to lead the 
world through its commitment to human rights, democracy, and the rule 
of law. Last year, our Nation lost the moral high ground. This year, 
Congress must reassert to the Nation, the President, and the courts 
that we recognize the vital role of habeas corpus in our legal system.
  I believe the Specter-Leahy-Dodd amendment is the first step in 
undoing the terrible damage the Military Commissions Act has done to 
our legal system and our international reputation. I implore my 
colleagues to begin today to undo the harm done to our Nation's 
reputation by voting to restore habeas rights, which have always been a 
core element of our jurisprudence, and once again restore the moral 
authority we captured more than 60 years ago at a place called 
Nuremberg. This generation bears no less a responsibility to protect 
those basic rights that are the foundation of our great Nation.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I was absent from the floor when my 
distinguished colleague was thoughtful enough to make a few comments 
about his old friend, but it is deeply appreciated, and I thank my dear 
colleague very much. We have done many things together, and I have more 
to go.
  Mr. DODD. You bet.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I, too, wanted to echo the comments of the 
distinguished Senator from Connecticut. I am sure Senator Warner will 
be recognized many times between now and the time he finally takes his 
last vote in this Chamber, and as he pointed out, he has a long way to 
go before that time comes over the course of the next several months. 
But so many of us respect what he has done over the years as ranking 
member and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and his work will, 
in fact, be greatly recognized.

[[Page S11564]]

  Madam President, I wish to make one quick point in response to what 
the Senator from Connecticut pointed out, recalling his very famous 
father, somebody who served in this body and served our Nation well in 
other capacities, including at Nuremberg, and his friend, Justice 
Jackson, the same Justice Jackson whom I quoted.
  The Senator wasn't on the floor, but I quoted Justice Jackson in the 
Eisentrager case to point out that nothing could fetter our commanders 
more than to require habeas corpus rights for the German prisoners of 
war or the prisoners who were at issue in the Johnson v. Eisentrager 
case. Justice Jackson himself recognized that the procedures that were 
awarded to the 50-some war criminals at Nuremberg were not the same 
kinds of procedures that were being sought in the Eisentrager case. And 
the habeas corpus rights that would be granted under the Leahy 
amendment are far different from the rights that were granted to the 
Nuremberg war crimes defendants.
  I think one question that would be interesting to ask of the 
proponents of the legislation is, if we simply took the rights that 
were granted to the war criminals tried at Nuremberg and gave those 
rights to the detainees at issue here, would that be a satisfactory 
result? I suspect the answer would be no because they are nowhere near 
the rights that would be included in the amendment that is pending.
  So to cite Justice Jackson is to refer back to what he said in 
Eisentrager and recognize that nothing, according to him--and I agree--
would more fetter our commanders and our troops than granting habeas 
rights to prisoners or enemy detainees.
  Madam President, I might make one further point. I am trying to 
recall how many defendants there were at Nuremberg. My recollection of 
the number tried for war crimes is that there were approximately 50. I 
may be off by a few on that number, but I think my point would still 
remain, which is that it is one thing to try 50 war criminals out of 
over 2 million POWs, and it is quite another to grant all 2 million the 
rights of war criminals. We have tried some of the detainees as the 
equivalent of war criminals in our courts--Padilla is one of them--but 
that is not to say we should hold the same criminal trials for all of 
the tens of thousands of detainees being held in Iraq or Afghanistan.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. KYL. I will yield, yes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I had the distinct pleasure of visiting Carrollton, AL, 
in Pickens County, where they have a museum to maintain the history of 
a large German prisoner of war camp in the United States. The Senator 
mentioned that certain legal rights were accorded 50 or so prisoners. 
But those were prisoners tried in Nuremberg after the war--after the 
war--for war crimes.
  Now, is the Senator aware of any instance in either the German camps 
or other prisoners who may have been held in the United States during 
wartime being provided habeas rights?
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, that is a great question, and the answer is 
that there have never been, in the history of the world, habeas rights 
granted to enemy detainees or prisoners of war in order to challenge 
the fact of their detention by either the United States or by the other 
country from which the great writ came--England. They have never been 
granted. So the answer is there is no precedent whatsoever. That is 
why, when colleagues say we want to restore habeas rights, that is an 
incorrect characterization. Enemy combatants and POWs have never had 
habeas rights to challenge their detention as a matter of being 
provided by our Constitution. Never has our Constitution been 
interpreted as requiring those rights.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I wish to thank Senator Kyl for his 
hard work on these important issues. He is a superb lawyer who is a 
senior member of the Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, and he has 
been a member of the Intelligence Committee. He understands these 
issues and, thanklessly, he devotes hours of his time to try to 
research and study Supreme Court cases to try to make sure we do the 
right thing here.
  The most important thing for us to remember is this, and Senator Kyl 
just said it, that the refrain we are hearing about restoring habeas 
rights to prisoners of war, even unlawful combatant detainees, is not 
so. We have not done that, and it is a matter that is quite clear.
  The origin of the great writ--the writ of habeas corpus--can be 
traced back to the Magna Carta in the 13th century. It is truly a great 
writ. It is truly a powerful tool for any person who is being detained 
to demand that someone, somewhere come forward and tell the world why 
they are being detained. That is what totalitarian and Communist 
governments do all the time. These kinds of dictators and Communists 
and Nazis go out and grab people and put them in jail and never charge 
them, never announce where they are, even. So that is not what we want 
to do here. However, never in the history of the writ's existence has 
an English or American court granted habeas to enemy combatants held 
during a time of war. As early as 1793, the American courts--1793--
recognized that foreign prisoners held by the military during armed 
conflict have no inherent right to judicial review of their detention. 
They have no inherent right to that. You do have an inherent right by 
writ of habeas corpus if you qualify and meet the criteria.
  So that year, in 1793, a district court in Pennsylvania said:

       Courts will not grant a habeas corpus in the case of a 
     prisoner of war because such a decision on this question is 
     in another place being a part of the rights of sovereignty.

  In other words, national power.
  The Supreme Court of the United States reaffirmed that position in 
1950 in a case called Johnson v. Eisentrager. In that case, the Supreme 
Court made expressly clear that U.S. constitutional protections do not 
apply to aliens who are detained outside the borders. It was the first 
case to deal with a habeas petition of enemy combatants detained 
outside the borders of the United States since the statute was 
originally enacted as part or the Judiciary Act of 1789. It is now 
codified as 28 U.S.C. Section 2241.
  In that case, German nationals living in China during World War II, 
having never lived in the United States, were accused of violating the 
laws of war. They were tried by a U.S. military tribunal in China, 
convicted, and sent to Landsberg Prison in Germany, then an occupied 
sector of Germany, to serve their sentences. Some of the convicts, 
including Eisentrager, questioned the legality of their trials and 
filed for a writ of habeas corpus to the United States District Court 
for the District of Columbia, right here in DC, stating that the 
military's actions violated their rights as guaranteed by several 
portions of the U.S. Constitution, including article III of the fifth 
amendment. In denying habeas to these German nationals, the court 
expressly rejected the argument that enemy combatants detained overseas 
have a constitutional right to petition U.S. courts for habeas relief, 
noting that:

       Nothing in the text of our constitution extends such a 
     right.

  It rejected the view that the U.S. Constitution applies to enemy war 
prisoners held abroad. The court claimed:

       No decision of this court supports such a view. None of the 
     learned commentators on our Constitution has ever hinted at 
     it. The practice of every modern government is opposed to it.
  Where do we keep coming up with this idea that habeas is applicable 
to prisoners of war? I am baffled. The Court explained emphatically 
that such a constitutional entitlement would hamper the war effort and 
bring aid and comfort to the enemy.

       Habeas proceedings would diminish the prestige of our 
     commanders, not only with enemies but with wavering neutrals. 
     It would be difficult to devise a more effective fettering of 
     a field commander than to allow the very enemies he is 
     ordered to reduce to submission to call him to account in his 
     own civil courts and divert his efforts and attention from 
     the military offensive abroad to the legal defensive at home.

  That is a pretty clear statement. How could it be otherwise? Congress 
authorizes a state of hostilities. We fund it. The President, as the 
Commander in Chief, the military commanders execute it, and now we have 
it in our heads somehow that the persons

[[Page S11565]]

our commanders are charged with reducing to submission have a right to 
sue us.
  The Court further held--this is in 1950--that the fifth amendment is 
inapplicable to aliens abroad and, in reasoning fully applicable to the 
suspension clause, explained ``extraterritorial application of organic 
law'' to aliens would be inconceivable.
  Writing for the majority, Justice Jackson, who was referred to by 
Senator Dodd and Senator Kyl--a great Justice on the Court--stated:

       The Constitution does not confer a right of personal 
     security or an immunity from military trial and punishment 
     upon an alien enemy engaged in the hostile service of a 
     government at war with the United States.

  That is pretty plain language, wouldn't you say? I think that is the 
plain language of the Constitution. It does not give them immunity from 
military trial.
  Even if, as opponents mistakenly argue, this amendment restores a 
statutory right to habeas, the Supreme Court has also held that 
Congress may freely repeal habeas jurisdiction if it affords an 
adequate and effective substitute or remedy. Essentially, if 
legislation strips habeas, according to the Supreme Court, the 
substitution of a collateral remedy which is neither inadequate nor 
ineffective to test the legality of a person's detention, does not 
constitute a suspension of the right of habeas corpus. In other words, 
if they provide some fair procedure for even prisoners of war that we 
decide is consistent with our military efforts and consistent with our 
sense of fairness, that does not confer and give a guaranteed right to 
a habeas corpus review.
  The Military Commission Act of 2006 was drafted with these important 
Supreme Court precedents in mind. After careful negotiation among our 
Members and careful analysis of the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan 
v. Rumsfeld, Congress went above and beyond what was required by the 
Constitution and the Geneva Conventions to ensure detainees, even 
terrorists, at Guantanamo Bay, had an adequate and effective substitute 
method to test the legality of their detention.
  So we did that. We did not fail to respond. We did that. The MCA 
provides alien enemy combatants far more legal process than has ever 
been afforded by any country in the history of armed conflict.
  I am not aware of a single country in the history of armed conflict 
that has provided more rights than our procedures that we have 
established under the Military Act that we passed and the President 
signed into law last October.
  The Combatant Status Review Tribunal for detainees is more robust 
than those to which lawful combatants, honorable soldiers in organized 
militaries of a foreign nation, are entitled to under the Geneva 
Conventions.
  Let me repeat that and drive home the importance of that concept. The 
Geneva Conventions were decided upon by a group of nations that came 
together and thought that during the course of military conflicts, too 
many things happened that are not justified and are not necessary and 
are damaging to people in ways that could not be justified. We wrote 
the conventions, the nations did, to try to ameliorate some of the 
problems in warfare. We said that if you have a lawful combatant, as 
part of the Geneva Conventions, a person who has signed up for his or 
her country, fighting for the country, who wears a uniform, who carries 
his weapons openly and does not act in a surreptitious manner, does not 
act in a terroristic manner but fight battles according to the laws of 
war--if captured, must be treated and afforded the protections of the 
Geneva Conventions.
  That is a good standard of review and protection. Congress passed a 
law to provide for the people at Guantanamo, who are not lawful 
combatants but are unlawful enemy combatants and who have not 
historically been considered to have been covered by the Geneva 
Convention. We afforded them privileges that are not required even 
under the Geneva Conventions on how you handle detainees.
  Let's talk about our present conflict, the war on terrorism. Former 
Attorney General John Ashcroft has made this point. If you think about 
it, it is worthy of our consideration. John Ashcroft is a great 
believer in American liberty, the rights of liberty, a key 
characteristic of the American people. But he points out we ought not 
to think about restraints that occur as some sort of a balancing test 
between liberty and control and domination. He says, when you engage in 
an action that is designed to protect us, the test should be not a 
balancing test, but the test should be: Does it improve liberty? In 
other words, if you go to the airport and have to go through one of 
those checking stations as I did today, the question is: Do you feel 
more free to fly, having had that inspection occur? Is your liberty to 
travel, is your liberty to fly safely and securely in an aircraft in 
America, enhanced because you take a couple of minutes to go through 
that line? Or not?
  If it is, then that is a protection of liberty. We are indeed in a 
different world than we used to be, when threats fundamentally came 
from foreign nations. Now, even a few people with dedicated, malicious 
intent, with modern weapons of mass destruction and death can have 
tremendous impact on us. So what we are trying to do is execute lawful 
actions that improve our liberty, not deny liberty but to enhance 
liberty for all peace-loving and law-abiding American citizens.

  I want to talk about Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. As part of the Judiciary Act 
of 1789, Congress conferred on the Federal courts jurisdiction to hear 
petitions for habeas corpus. Though the language has gone through minor 
changes since 1789, current law, now codified at 28 U.S.C. section 
2241, is essentially the same grant of habeas corpus as originally 
enacted. The statutory language has never referred specifically to 
enemy combatants because such a grant was understood not to apply to 
those individuals detained during a time of war. Congress understood 
that detention of enemy combatants during time of war is strictly a 
military decision, since we do not allow enemy combatants to continue 
their war against us through the judiciary, through litigation.
  Though the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that habeas corpus does 
not extend to alien enemy combatants detained outside the United 
States, some argue that Justice O'Connor's plurality decision in Hamdi 
v. Rumsfeld changed this precedent. In that decision, Justice O'Connor 
said:

       All agree that, absent suspension, habeas corpus remains 
     available to every individual within the United States.

  Proponents of this amendment that we are debating cite this statement 
by Justice O'Connor as proof that habeas relief is available to all 
those detained within the United States, regardless of whether they are 
an alien enemy combatant. Let me note that during World War II, there 
were 425,000 enemy combatants held within the United States, none of 
who were allowed relief through habeas petitions. Furthermore, reliance 
on that statement by Justice O'Connor is wrong, since the question in 
Hamdi was whether the executive had the authority to detain a U.S. 
citizen as an enemy combatant and whether that citizen detainee had 
habeas rights. Focusing on that narrow issue, the plurality referred 
specifically to the rights, in their opinion, the plurality opinion, of 
citizens, eight times in the opinion; and in the holding of the case--
and the holding of the case is limited to the circumstances of the 
cases itself--Hamdi was, after all, a U.S. citizen.
  Regardless, some advocates maintain that Justice O'Connor's otherwise 
inconsequential statement, too tenuous to constitute dicta, reversed 
years of settled precedent and for the first time granted habeas rights 
to illegal enemy combatants detained overseas. That proposition flies 
in the face of the commonsense interpretive rule that one does not hide 
elephants in mouseholes. Had the Hamdi Court intended to extend habeas 
rights to all individuals in the United States, not just citizens, 
including suspected foreign terrorists detained outside U.S. territory, 
it most assuredly would have articulated such a consequential ruling 
with more clarity. But Hamdi did not present that question and the 
Court did not resolve it. Moreover, as the Court aptly noted, quoting 
Eisentrager:

       Such extraterritorial application of organic law would have 
     been so significant an innovation in the practice of 
     government that, if intended or apprehended, it could 
     scarcely have failed to excite contemporary comment.


[[Page S11566]]


  Accordingly, had such a consequential holding been made in 
Eisentrager, it would have been met with prolific commentary from the 
legal community, from other Justices. It would have been an event, but 
that event did not occur--because it had no such meaning, of course, as 
evidenced by the lack of contemporary discussion. No decision 
subsequent to Eisentrager has reversed its holding that alien enemy 
combatants have no right to habeas protections guaranteed to American 
citizens by the U.S. Constitution.
  Therefore, its holding remains governing law. Moreover, the issue 
now, if it ever could have been considered ambiguous, has been 
definitively resolved by the same judge who earlier granted Salim Ahmed 
Hamdan's habeas petition. Judge James Robertson, of the U.S. District 
Court for the District of Columbia, issued an opinion on December 13 in 
which he relied, in large part, on Eisentrager to justify his ruling 
that enemy alien combatants have no constitutional right to habeas 
corpus.
  Judge Robertson, appointed to the bench by President Clinton, 
dismissed Hamdan's petition for habeas relief on the grounds that the 
MCA effectively denied his court's jurisdiction to hear the case; 
recognizing that Congress had removed Hamdan's statutory right to 
petition the D.C. Circuit Court for habeas relief.
  Judge Robertson also held:

       Hamdan's connection to the United States lacked the 
     geographical and volitional predicates necessary to claim a 
     Constitutional right to habeas corpus.

  Well, then, the Rasul case came along. Proponents of this amendment 
argue that they seek only to restore the right to habeas corpus as 
found by the Supreme Court in the 2004 case of Rasul v. Bush. Rasul 
took great pains to emphasize that its extension of habeas to 
Guantanamo Bay was based not on the Constitution, which clearly is a 
historic right we talked about on habeas, but it was based on some 
statute passed by Congress.
  Some Justices may have wanted to make Rasul a constitutional holding, 
but there clearly was no majority for such a position. Supreme Court 
cases such as Eisentrager are still the governing law on the 
constitutional reach of habeas and the Congress's ability to limit its 
statutory application.
  These precedents hold that aliens who are either held abroad or held 
here but who have no substantial connection to this country are not 
entitled to invoke the U.S. Constitution.
  Rasul was an unprecedented decision which effectively and truthfully 
seemed to fly in the face of all previous Supreme Court and English 
case law. Several Justices in this case engaged in what I would submit 
to my colleagues is activism.
  The Court extended the reach of the Federal habeas statute to 
Guantanamo Bay detainees. To my knowledge, this decision was the first 
time in recorded history that any court of any nation at war held that 
those whom its military had determined to be enemies had a right of 
access to its domestic courts and could sue the Commander in Chief to 
challenge their detention.
  The Court based its analysis on the phrase, ``within their respective 
jurisdictions,'' as used in the Federal habeas statute and various 
decisions construing that particular provision.
  Moreover, the Court expressly distinguished between the statutory and 
suspension clause holdings of Eisentrager and limited its analysis to 
only the statutory grant of habeas. The Court determined that the 
measure of the Guantanamo lease agreement between the United States and 
Cuba allows for the jurisdiction of habeas claims since the United 
States exercises plenary and exclusive jurisdiction over the land on 
which the naval base is situated, although it does not have ``ultimate 
authority.''
  Furthermore, the majority, I think and others think, mischaracterized 
the congressional statute as meaning that the writ of habeas corpus 
could be issued if ``the custodian can be reached by service of 
process'' and not the detainee.
  As Justice Scalia accurately pointed out in his dissent, the 
majority:

     springs a trap on the executive, subjecting Guantanamo Bay to 
     the oversight of the Federal courts even though it has never 
     before been thought to be within their jurisdictions and thus 
     making it a foolish place to have housed alien wartime 
     detainees.''

  Furthermore, the decision opens a veritable Pandora's Box since it 
``permits an alien captured in a foreign theater of active combat to 
bring a section 2241 petition against the Secretary of Defense.''
  This case was a clear-cut example of, I believe, Supreme Court 
overreach. They seemed determined to do something about this. They 
wanted to do something about it. Apparently, they did not like it. So 
in straining to grant U.S. courts jurisdiction over terrorists held 
outside the United States, the Supreme Court determined, for the first 
time in history, that a simple lease agreement brought Guantanamo Bay 
within the jurisdiction of the court.
  Read broadly, the majority opinion could be used to bring U.S. 
military bases and detention facilities across the world within the 
jurisdiction of the U.S. courts. Fortunately, in that opinion, Justice 
Kennedy did limit the application of the holding to Guantanamo Bay, 
Cuba.
  Congress, however, addressed the issue because, remember, this was 
based on the Supreme Court's interpretation of a statute Congress 
passed and which Congress changed, not on the Constitution ratified by 
the American people.
  So less than a year ago, Congress addressed the issue when it passed 
the Military Commissions Act, which precluded detainees from 
challenging their detention through habeas petitions.
  Now, if the Court relied on the statute as we wrote it before, we can 
change that statute, and we did. In doing so, Congress adhered to 
Supreme Court precedent and created an effective and adequate 
substitute in the form of a Combatant Status Review Tribunals and 
allowing detainees an opportunity to challenge the determinations made 
by the tribunals, even in the district court in the District of 
Columbia.
  So it set up a Combatant Status Review Tribunal so they can bring and 
make their argument, and if they do not like the military's 
determination on that, they can get to a Federal court. That is not 
habeas, but it is a pretty good procedure, more than ever has been 
given before to prisoners of war. So it seems we finally worked this 
thing out.

  On February 20 of this year, the DC Circuit Court dismissed all 
pending habeas cases from the Guantanamo Bay detainees for lack of 
jurisdiction. Furthermore, on April 2 of this year, the Supreme Court 
denied a certiorari petition from the petitioners in Boumediene v. Bush 
and Al Odah v. United States, refusing to review their claims that the 
Military Commissions Act--that last year we passed--does not deprive 
courts of jurisdiction to hear their habeas corpus claims and that it 
would be unconstitutional to do so, for Congress to pass it. They 
rejected that.
  The Court did not find it was unconstitutional, what Congress passed, 
and, in fact, found that Congress did what Congress intended to do, 
creating a substitute appellate process so prisoners could have a 
review of their detention but not give them the full panoply of habeas 
corpus rights provided to American citizens.
  The Supreme Court, however, reversed itself on June 29 of this year 
and agreed to review both the Boumediene and Al Odah cases. This review 
could very well address the constitutionality of the habeas bars in the 
Military Commissions Act, and, much like this amendment, further 
undermine the executive's constitutional authority to detain enemy 
combatants in a time of war.
  I hope the Supreme Court will not do that, but they have agreed to 
hear that case and give it one more final review. Certainly, as of this 
date, the case authority is clear, that the Constitution does not 
provide habeas protection to noncitizen enemy combatants on foreign 
territory not part of the United States.
  I say that because people have come in on several points along the 
way and accused President Bush or the Attorney General or others of 
taking improper positions.
  In most instances, the courts have ruled in favor of the executive in 
these cases, on a few cases they found those procedures not to be 
statutory or pass muster. But what I will say to you is, in these 
cases, in almost each instance

[[Page S11567]]

they have reversed previous law. So the executive branch and our 
military was operating under what they had every right to consider to 
be the settled law of the land.
  So the Court comes in and changes that law. I do not believe our 
military should be condemned or criticized for taking action they felt, 
and had every right to believe, was legitimate when they took it.
  Now, it is important to remember that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay 
are the most dangerous people who we have captured on the battlefield 
pursuant to executive war-making power. They have been determined to be 
``alien enemy combatants'' and the courts have absolutely no role to 
play, in my view, in trying to second-guess the wartime decisions made 
by the executive branch, especially where Congress has given their 
stamp of approval to the process. It is not the Supreme Court's role to 
micromanage this war by making decisions that fall outside the scope of 
congressional authority.
  The decisions made by the Supreme Court have long-lasting effect and 
are not easily undone. If we are unhappy with present foreign policy, 
Congress can cut off funds for the war or people can vote the President 
out of office. I would note President Bush was reelected on a promise 
to continue to pursue with vigor the war against terrorism and the war 
in Iraq.
  Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life and are supposed to 
adjudicate the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress, not to 
legislate from the bench or to set foreign policy. This setting of 
foreign policy and conducting military operations are powers squarely 
within the purview of the executive branch not nine individuals with 
lifetime appointments sitting on a Court with black robes.
  It is not within the court's jurisdiction to decide on war-making 
decisions but simply the constitutional power. It is important to note 
the Justices lack the knowledge, in many cases, to address the matter, 
or have any experience to make these decisions. Have any of them ever 
served on the frontlines during war, or if they have, have they ever 
served in a war on terrorism or been a JAG officer or been a company 
commander, someone who captured enemy prisoners?
  A Court's opinion or personal views about this are not a matter that 
is impressive to me. We expect them to rule and to find Congress's 
statutes--we expect them to enforce the Constitution. But just to flip-
flop around and try to decide that they do not like the way something 
is done at Guantanamo, and to issue an opinion, would be troubling to 
me. Hopefully, we will not get to that.
  It has to be clear, as I have shown, that if we apprehend enemy 
combatants in the theater of war, it is within the executive branch's 
power to detain them until the hostilities are over. This is a 
separation of powers issue, and the courts should recognize that. 
Congress has already addressed what should be done with those detained 
at Guantanamo Bay. Last October, we granted those detainees 
unprecedented rights that have never before been provided to prisoners 
detained during war.
  Under the current system that we have provided them, detainees have 
essentially five layers of protection when challenging detention or 
determinations made by the Government. All of this is already covered 
by current law. It was never the intent of Congress, however, to endow 
the statutory guarantee of habeas corpus to alien enemy combatants held 
during a time of war.
  So if we proceed with the amendment that is before us, we are not 
restoring the right of habeas corpus; we are effectively overturning 
800 years of legal authority and precedent in this area. To quote the 
distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, I submit that 
800 years of American and English court history certainly constitutes 
``super duper'' precedent.
  Allowing terrorists to challenge their detention through habeas 
petitions filed in the DC Circuit courts would undermine military 
decisions made by the Executive and essentially put wartime decisions 
regarding the detention of those apprehended while engaged in 
hostilities toward this country in the hands of judges who are not 
qualified to make the decisions. They are not empowered to make the 
decisions. This is exactly why the Founders vested the Executive with 
this type of decisionmaking authority--decisiveness and ability to act 
quickly--and to undermine this power would be to trample on the 
Constitution we are sworn to defend.
  Voting in favor of this amendment would be undermining the Executive 
authority in times of war by making it virtually impossible for the 
military to detain dangerous terrorists affiliated with al-Qaida and 
with the Taliban during the war on terror and allowing Federal judges 
to force the release of detainees whom the military have determined to 
be extremely dangerous. It is just that simple.
  I am disappointed the Senate is proceeding forward with this 
amendment. I do not believe it is the right thing. It would result in 
an unprecedented grant of constitutional protection to those suspected 
of being terrorists.
  This further indicates to me that our Congress is not in full 
comprehension of the seriousness of the war we are engaged in and the 
determination of those who are determined to kill us. It shows this 
body is, frankly, often unable to execute a military operation. We 
cannot get 535 people to execute a military operation and decide who 
ought to be detained and who ought not to.
  The military could go out and conduct a raid, and a firefight could 
break out, and eight people be killed and eight people captured. Thirty 
seconds before, they could have killed all 16. Now, if we detain them, 
we have to bring soldiers from the war field, present evidence of some 
kind, gather evidence to try to justify the detention. We all know 
quite a large number of those who have been released from Guantanamo 
have reappeared and been captured again on the battlefield trying to 
kill us. That is a fact. We are not making that up.
  I wish these people in Guantanamo were the kind of people who would 
not go back to the battle. I wish they were all wrongly held so we 
could let them go home. But what if their determination is to continue 
to attack American soldiers, and it is your son out there, your 
daughter out there on the battlefield, and somebody says in the U.S. 
Congress, ``We don't think you have enough evidence to hold them''? 
What do we know about what happened?
  We have given that power to the executive branch to conduct the war. 
That is who is supposed to be making those decisions. That is who is 
required to preserve and protect the security of the American people. I 
do not think that makes sense. It is not a little matter. It will set a 
precedent for future times. We are eroding the ability of the 
leadership of this country to execute and carry out a military 
operation, which by its very nature involves death and destruction of 
an enemy.
  So I have to say to my colleagues, we need to think this issue 
through. This may be a political deal now that we can use to beat up 
President Bush, but let me say to my colleagues, you had your victory 
in the last election, if not in 2004. We will have a new President 
soon. We need to get away from this personal and political perspective. 
We need to be thinking about the long-term history of the United 
States. We need to be thinking about other wars we may be involved in 
in the future. We need to be asking ourselves: Are we creating a 
circumstance in which a devious, skillful, malicious enemy can utilize 
our very laws to destroy us, place at risk our own soldiers, place at 
risk American citizens, place at risk our people serving in military 
bases around the world?
  Let's be careful about that. We have provided them, by statute last 
year, a procedure to contest their detention. Large numbers of those 
who have been detained have already been released, and quite a number 
of those have been recaptured on the battlefield attempting to destroy 
America and what we stand for, attacking our own sons and daughters.
  I urge my colleagues to be careful. To say we need to restore the 
right of habeas corpus is not correct. We have never provided habeas 
corpus to enemies of the United States, for heaven's sake. I share 
again the overall concept that we are in a difficult new world. The 
Constitution provides for reasonable searches and seizures and such 
things as that.

[[Page S11568]]

  Our country is threatened, and our people's liberties are threatened. 
Liberty is important. Freedom is important. We in Congress do not need 
to be curtailing significantly liberty in America. We certainly do not 
need to be eroding constitutional protections that are provided to 
American citizens. We are not doing that. The Supreme Court has never 
held the Constitution provides protection in this fashion to enemy 
combatants. So we are not eroding the Constitution.
  What we have come up with is a realistic process that will, in the 
end, provide more liberty, more freedom to American citizens than if we 
were subjected to a system by which we are releasing terrorists again 
and again who are out to kill and destroy us. That is all I would say 
on the fundamental question of liberty and freedom and law.
  Let's get our thinking straight. Let's look at this issue carefully. 
Let's be sure we know that no country has ever provided such 
protections to enemy combatants. The fact that 50 out of 400,000 German 
prisoners who were tried after the war in Nuremberg had certain legal 
provisions and rights provided them in no way whatsoever should be 
construed to say we provided habeas rights to other prisoners during 
the course of a war. They were not provided to the 400,000 German 
prisoners held in the United States, that is for sure.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I understand some effort is being made 
to pursue the amendment offered by Senator Specter, which is very 
troubling to me because if it were to pass, it would reverse the 
Military Commissions Act of 2006 that we passed last September on final 
passage, 65 to 34. Passage of this amendment would result in a veto of 
the Defense authorization bill by the President of the United States.
  The first amendment we have up that is being pushed to a vote against 
the pleas of people on this side would result in a veto of the Defense 
authorization bill. The second amendment may well raise the same issue, 
I understand. Not only that, we have very controversial amendments that 
are being made filed to this bill and that have been offered for a vote 
on this bill which are very controversial and are not related to the 
defense of America--for example, the hate crimes amendment. People have 
differing views on that. They have offered an amendment on hate crimes 
on this bill. There is also the amendment on the DREAM Act, which is an 
immigration amendment that would provide citizenship to people who come 
here in our education system at a certain age, and even though they are 
illegally in the country, they would be provided in-state tuition and 
student loans subsidized by the Federal Government. That is a very 
controversial matter too. So that is all going to be put on this piece 
of legislation, apparently.
  It raises questions in my mind whether there is any serious desire on 
the part of the Democratic leadership to see the Defense authorization 
bill passed. The bill came out of the Armed Services Committee, of 
which I am a member, and it didn't have the reversal of the Military 
Commissions Act of 2006 and the grant of habeas corpus to illegal enemy 
combatants, noncitizens on foreign soil. It didn't have that or hate 
crimes or the DREAM Act.
  I just say to my colleagues that we need to do the right thing for 
our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and guardsmen who are serving 
our Nation now. They are in the field this very moment. They are out 
walking the streets somewhere in Iraq--160,000 of them--executing this 
very complex and very important and, so far, effective 
counterinsurgency strategy that was devised by General Petraeus. They 
are living with Iraqi soldiers and Iraqi police and doing the things 
they were asked to do. This bill has a pay raise for them and wounded 
warrior language that provides additional care for those who are 
wounded while serving our country. We owe them every single benefit we 
have to give them. We have military construction to make sure we are 
able to carry through on the BRAC process. It has acquisition reform. 
We need to do a better job with the money we spend in acquiring new 
weapons systems and aircraft and ships and all the things that go with 
it.
  I just say to my colleagues, let's remember now that everything is 
not required to be placed on this bill. If we pass this amendment to 
provide habeas corpus protection to illegal enemy combatants, not 
citizens, not on American soil, not required by the Constitution of the 
United States, according to decided case authority of Federal courts, 
that is going to result in a Presidential veto even if it passes. 
Hopefully, we won't pass that. Why do we want to do that? We need to be 
spending our time thinking about how we can help those whom we have 
sent into harm's way to execute a policy that has been decided upon by 
the Congress of the United States. That is what we need to be doing--
not creating more and more lawsuits, not engaging in more and more 
political flapdoodle and emotional arguments about restoring habeas 
corpus, when we have never provided habeas to prisoners of war in the 
history of the Republic, nor has any other advanced nation provided 
those kinds of rights.
  I urge my colleagues to push back from this brink. Let's don't take 
action that could result in the failure of a defense authorization 
bill. It would be the first time we have failed to pass a defense 
authorization bill since 1961, 46 years ago. Let's don't break that 
record while we have soldiers in harm's way serving our national 
interests, attempting to execute the policies and assignments we have 
given to them. Let's don't do that. Let's don't pass a bill that is 
going to come back like a ball off of the wall because it will be 
vetoed by the President. What good is that? Why are we obsessed with 
this? It wasn't passed in the Armed Services Committee, and it doesn't 
need to be pushed now.
  I urge my colleagues to become fully aware of the dangerous territory 
which we are entering. We are entering a circumstance in which, if we 
continue to pursue issues unrelated to the core responsibilities of the 
Congress to deal with the war we are confronting, we will have failed 
in our responsibilities and actually fail to pass this important 
legislation.
  In addition, we need to finish up with the Defense bill and go on to 
the Defense appropriations bill. The fiscal year ends September 30. We 
need to pass the Defense authorization bill so that we can get to the 
Defense appropriations bill by next week. That needs to move. We do not 
need to still be arguing over the DREAM Act, arguing over hate crimes, 
arguing over providing habeas corpus rights to illegal enemy combatants 
held somewhere around the world by the American military, a privilege 
that has never been provided by any nation to people it captures on the 
battlefield. That is not the right way for us to go. This Congress, if 
it is a responsible Congress, should move forward this week on the 
authorization bill and do the appropriations bill next week.

  What are the core issues? We have some core issues we ought to debate 
about the defense of America and our military. Let's stay on those 
issues, not on extraneous issues.
  There is no doubt that we have heard the report of GEN Jimmy Jones's 
commission, the Government Accountability Office report the week before 
last, and then last week we heard from General Petraeus and Ambassador 
Crocker. We need to have time to discuss seriously--and this side has 
certainly agreed to that and it is contemplated that we will have a 
generous time to discuss our commitment in Iraq, what it is, what our 
goals are, how we can achieve those goals, what the troop levels should 
be, how they are going to be drawn down, are they being drawn down fast 
enough, and what other issues are relevant. Those are legitimate issues 
on which we should spend time.
  I am very concerned these other issues will be distracting us from 
those issues, that we will be utilizing time that ought to be on the 
core issues of

[[Page S11569]]

defense of this country, and I hope those leaders, particularly our 
Democratic leadership, are not going to put us in a position where we 
will not meet our responsibilities.
  For the past 46 years, we have passed a Defense authorization bill. 
At the rate we are headed, even if we pass it, it is going to be vetoed 
because of amendments wholly unrelated to the Defense of this country. 
We need to pass a Defense appropriations bill, and we need to get on 
that quickly because the fiscal year is ending. For my colleagues' 
information, we are going to have to do something to continue to fund 
defense because if we do not pass a Defense authorization bill, the 
fact is that no money can be spent in the whole Department of Defense 
unless we are being attacked. It is very troubling, and it could have 
tremendous disruptive impacts throughout the entirety of our defense 
establishment.
  Under the Antideficiency Act, if Congress does not appropriate money, 
the executive branch cannot spend it. It cannot spend what has not been 
appropriated. That is the Constitution, and that is what the 
Antideficiency Act says. The budget and last year's appropriations end 
September 30. We need to pass a new bill so we can go forward into next 
year.
  We have a pretty good bill that came out of committee. There will be 
some disagreement here, there, and on a few other matters. We will 
bring those up, and good people will disagree. I certainly understand 
that point. We need to be working on those issues, not being distracted 
on matters unrelated to the core of defending America in this time of 
terrorism.
  I share those thoughts and hopefully our colleagues in the leadership 
can continue to work and some way we can avoid the end toward which it 
appears we are heading.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, I heard one of my friends on the other side 
of the aisle come here this afternoon and talk about why we aren't 
getting more things done here; why are we doing the Defense 
authorization bill now; when are we going to do the Defense 
appropriations bill. Maybe they should have thought of that before they 
did 45 different filibusters here in the Senate. The Republican 
minority has stopped the work of this country. We have fought back with 
the very slim majority we have.
  I will remind everyone within the sound of my voice that Senator 
Johnson has been ill. He is back now, thank goodness. He is back. He 
overcame a tremendous illness, and he is back with us. My majority was 
50 to 49--that is, the Democratic majority--and we have had to fight, 
that little majority has had to fight everything that we have done. 
Everything. We had to file cloture on things they agreed with us on, 
just eating up valuable time here in the Senate. I am going to have to 
file cloture again tonight on another matter. This will be the third 
time we have worked on the Defense authorization bill. I am not going 
to belabor the point except to say this is the wrong thing to be 
talking about here: Why aren't we moving more quickly?
  In spite of all the obstacles--procedural in nature--they have thrown 
up against us, we have done some remarkable things.
  We passed an increase in the minimum wage for the first time in 10 
years.
  The President was forced to sign, even though he didn't like it--and 
he said so--the most sweeping ethics and lobbying reform in the history 
of this country.
  We passed the 9/11 Commission recommendations that the President held 
up for years. And those he tried to implement, he got D's and F's on, 
but they are now law. We have done that.
  Disaster relief for farmers and ranchers--we have done that for them. 
They waited years to get that done. Our slim majority was able to get 
that done.
  We forced upon the President money to fight the wildfires which swept 
the West, fires caused by global warming.
  A budget. We passed a balanced budget. Our majority was 50 to 49, and 
we passed a budget. The Republicans, with the huge majority they had, 
couldn't get a budget done. We got one done.
  So, Mr. President, we have done some really good things here in spite 
of all these obstacles. I haven't mentioned all of them but just given 
an idea of what we have done working really hard. So I repeat: Don't 
come to the floor and lecture us on not getting things done here.
  Mr. President, I call for regular order with respect to the Specter-
Leahy amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.


                             cloture motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on amendment No. 2022, 
     regarding restoration of habeas corpus, top H.R. 1585, the 
     Department of Defense Authorization bill.
         Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Carl Levin, Christopher Dodd, 
           Jeff Bingaman, Barack Obama, Robert C. Byrd, Ken 
           Salazar, Debbie Stabenow, Dianne Feinstein, Patrick 
           Leahy, Sheldon Whitehouse, Daniel K. Akaka, Russell D. 
           Feingold, Amy Klobuchar, Bill Nelson.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would also add to the remarks I just made.
  In addition to what I outlined earlier, look at what we have done on 
Iraq. We forced the President to debate this issue, to talk to us about 
this issue. The Republicans had to debate us. This war went on for 
years, and there wasn't even a congressional oversight hearing held. We 
have held hearings, and they have been opened up to this country. We 
helped uncover the scandal of Walter Reed, just to mention a few of the 
things we have done on Iraq, plus forcing on the President money to get 
body armor for the troops so the parents no longer had to buy them and 
up-armoring of vehicles we have forced upon the President.

                          ____________________