[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 147 (Monday, October 1, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12354-S12372]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



  (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)

                  COST OF PRIVATE SECURITY CONTRACTORS

 Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, the recent incident in which 
Blackwater USA reportedly killed at least 11 Iraqis and wounded several 
others has prompted a long overdue examination of the role that private 
security contractors are playing in Iraq. An article in today's 
Washington Post titled ``U.S. Pays Steep Price for Private Security in 
Iraq'' helps to highlight the exorbitant mark-up that private security 
contractors are reportedly charging the U.S. Government.
  Last week, the Senate accepted an amendment to the Defense Department 
authorization bill that I offered that will require Federal departments 
to report information to Congress on the total number of contractors in 
Iraq and Afghanistan, the companies awarded these contracts, and the 
cost of the contracts. The provisions of the amendment are drawn from 
the Transparency and Accountability in Military and Security 
Contracting Act, S. 674, that I introduced in February.
  The American people have a right to know how their tax dollars are 
being spent in Iraq and the role that security contractors are playing 
in that conflict. We need to make sure that security contractors in 
Iraq are subject to adequate and transparent oversight and that their 
actions do not have a negative impact on our efforts to bring the war 
in Iraq to a responsible end.
  I ask to have printed in the Record the text of the article from the 
Washington Post.
  The article follows.

                [From the Washington Post, Oct. 1, 2007]

           U.S. Pays Steep Price for Private Security in Iraq

                           (By Walter Pincus)

       It costs the U.S. government a lot more to hire contract 
     employees as security guards in Iraq than to use American 
     troops.
       It comes down to the simple business equation of every 
     transaction requiring a profit.
       The contract that Blackwater Security Consulting signed in 
     March 2004 with Regency Hotel and Hospital of Kuwait for a 
     34-person security team offers a view into the private-
     security business world. The contract was made public last 
     week by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee 
     majority staff as part of its report on Blackwater's actions 
     related to an incident in Fallujah on March 31, 2004, when 
     four members of the company's security team were killed in an 
     ambush.
       Understanding the contract's details requires some 
     background: Regency was a subcontractor to another company, 
     ESS Support Services Worldwide, of Cyprus, that was providing 
     food and catering supplies to U.S. armed forces in Fallujah 
     and other cities in Iraq. And ESS was a subcontractor to KBR, 
     a subsidiary of Halliburton, which had the prime contract 
     with the Defense Department.
       So, Blackwater was a subcontractor to Regency, which was a 
     subcontractor to ESS, which was a subcontractor to 
     Halliburton's KBR subsidiary, the prime contractor for the 
     Pentagon--and each company along the way was in business to 
     make a profit.
       Under the contract, Regency was to pay Blackwater 
     $11,082,326 for one year, with a second year option, to put 
     together a 34-person team that would provide security 
     services for the ``movement of ESS's staff, management and 
     workforce throughout Kuwait and Iraq and across country 
     borders including the borders of Iraq, Kuwait, Turkey and 
     Jordan.''
       Blackwater's personnel were to do more than just convoy 
     security. They were also to run command centers in Kuwait and 
     Iraq 24 hours a day, seven days a week, that were to control 
     all ESS security operations; prepare risk assessments; 
     develop security procedures; train ESS personnel in security; 
     and even vet other Iraqi security forces hired by Regency.
       But their main role was to provide ``tactically sound and 
     fully mission capable protective security details, the 
     minimum team size [being] six operators with a minimum of two 
     vehicles to support ESS movements.''
       Blackwater's pricing was to be on ``a per person support 
     basis, not including costs for housing, subsistence, vehicles 
     and large equipment items,'' according to the contract. The 
     team would be made up of two senior managers, 12 middle 
     managers and 20 operators.
       Regency was to provide Blackwater personnel with housing 
     and necessities, including meals, as well as office space and 
     administrative support. In addition, Regency would provide 
     basic equipment, including vehicles and heavy weapons, while 
     Blackwater was responsible for purchasing individual weapons 
     and ammunition.
       According to data provided to the House panel, the average 
     per-day pay to personnel Blackwater hired was $600. According 
     to the schedule of rates, supplies and services attached to 
     the contract, Blackwater charged Regency $1,075 a day for 
     senior managers, $945 a day for middle managers and $815 a 
     day for operators.
       Acording to data provided to the House panel, Regency 
     charged ESS an average of $1,100 a day for the same people. 
     How the Blackwater and Regency security charges were passed 
     on by ESS to Halliburton's KBR cannot easily be determined 
     since the catering company was paid on a per-meal basis, with 
     security being a percentage of that charge.
       Halliburton's KBR blended its security costs into the 
     blanket costs passed on to the Defense Department.
       How much more these costs are compared with the pay of U.S. 
     troops is easier to determine.

[[Page S12355]]

       An unmarried sergeant given Iraq pay and relief from U.S. 
     taxes makes about $83 to $85 a day, given time in service. A 
     married sergeant with children makes about double that, $170 
     a day.
       Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in 
     Baghdad overseeing more than 160,000 U.S. troops, makes 
     roughly $180,000 a year, or about $493 a day. That comes out 
     to less than half the fee charged by Blackwater for its 
     senior manager of a 34-man security team.

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, when it comes to running the Federal 
Government and its workforce, the Bush administration is driven too 
much by ideology and not enough by common sense. In its quest to 
scuttle a civil service system that has served us well during peace 
time and war, the administration has embarked on an unprecedented 
campaign to privatize what most would agree are ``inherently 
governmental'' functions.
  The Office of Management and Budget, OMB, has spearheaded 
privatization, claiming it can save taxpayers money. One example: 
relinquishing tax collection to private contractors. In May 2007, OMB 
claimed that contracting out Internal Revenue Service, IRS, debt 
collection to private contractors resulted in saving $35 million in 
fiscal year 2006. OMB failed to mention that the contractor had missed 
several deadlines imposed under the contract, leaving IRS employees to 
perform the bulk of the work. Another concern about that particular 
contract: our Government is turning over sensitive and private 
financial information entrusted to it by its citizens and placing that 
information in the hands of private debt collectors with grave 
potential for abuse.
  An article from the February 3, 2007, New York Times neatly 
summarizes the situation: ``Without a public debate or formal policy 
decision, contractors have become a virtual fourth branch of 
government. On the rise for decades, spending on federal contracts has 
soared during the Bush Administration, to about $400 billion last year 
from $207 billion in 2000, fueled by the war in Iraq, domestic security 
and Hurricane Katrina, but also by a philosophy that encourages 
outsourcing almost everything government does.'' This unofficial branch 
of Government is not subject to the same checks and balances of 
accountability found in the civil service system.
  The true cost of the executive branch's decision to privatize is the 
countless number of dedicated and highly trained Federal workers who 
will seek employment elsewhere rather than face the uncertainty of 
working in an environment that is subject to the political whims of an 
administration that pursues ideology over common sense and sound 
business policies. Even worse, such a hostile atmosphere will deter 
highly skilled candidates from ever considering public service, thereby 
depriving the public sector of the best and brightest who would 
otherwise seek careers in public service.
  Left unchecked, this notion that the Federal Government is divisible 
and its functions can be auctioned off to the lowest bidder will 
ultimately deprive us of an experienced Federal workforce and the 
institutional memory that are essential for the Government to function 
effectively, especially in a crisis. We don't need each new contractor 
to start from scratch reinventing the wheel when old problems arise.
  At a minimum, Federal employees should be allowed to compete with 
private contractors on an equal footing, which is where the Kennedy-
Mikulski amendment comes in.
  Currently, the contracting rules as spelled out in OMB Circular A-76 
are overwhelmingly weighed in favor of contractors and against Federal 
employees. This amendment will correct inequities in the public-private 
competitive process at the Department of Defense, DOD, to ensure that 
hardworking civilian defense employees are not unfairly deprived of 
their jobs. It will also provide basic protection from unfair 
competition for other Federal employees at other agencies.
  The amendment excludes the costs of health and retirement benefits 
from bids in public-private competitions, so contractors are not 
rewarded for providing bad benefits or even no benefits at all. 
Contractors currently have an incentive to shortchange their employees' 
benefits to gain an unfair advantage in bidding for Government work. 
The amendment would eliminate this incentive.
  The amendment prohibits the use of ``privatization quotas.'' It is 
unlawful for OMB to set quotas for the amount of work that agencies 
should outsource away from the Federal workforce, but there is 
substantial evidence that the administration has a de facto quota 
system. The amendment would protect agencies' independent 
decisionmaking by requiring that any decision to conduct a public-
private competition be wholly independent of OMB.
  The amendment allows Federal employees the same appeal rights as 
contractors. When Federal employees win a privatization review, 
contractors can have the agency's decision reviewed by independent 
third parties, by appealing to the Government Accountability Office, 
GAO, or the Court of Federal Claims. Federal employees currently have 
no such appeal rights.
  The amendment requires DOD to issue long overdue guidance on 
outsourcing Federal jobs. These guidelines were due in January, but DOD 
has failed to act. The amendment requires DOD to issue this guidance.
  Finally, the amendment provides a fair opportunity to renew contracts 
won by Federal employees. Currently, DOD requires managers to ``re-
compete'' contracts that are won by Federal employees at the end of 
each contract term, rather than extending the contract. But the same 
managers have discretion to extend contracts for jobs that are awarded 
to private contractors without reopening them to competition. The 
amendment gives managers discretion to extend contracts awarded to 
public employees.
  We can and should have a discussion about the proper role of 
Government, and we should try to make the Government as efficient as 
possible. What we shouldn't do is carve it up and outsource its 
essential functions willy-nilly to politically favored contractors. 
There is money at stake but much more too. The Kennedy-Mikulski 
amendment is a proper way to proceed with regard to public-private 
competitions, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


Amendments Nos. 2937, as Modified; 3028; 3099, as Modified; 3102; 2264, 
 as Modified; 2953, as Modified; 3005, as Modified; 2957, as Modified; 
3103, as Modified; 3107; 3082, as Modified; 2325, as Modified; 2897, as 
    Modified; 2068, as Modified; 3112; 3032, as Modified; 2905, as 
    Modified; and 3027, as Modified, to Amendment No. 2011, en-bloc

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send a series of 18 amendments to the 
desk which have been cleared by myself and the now acting ranking 
member, Senator Warner, and ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
consider those amendments en bloc, the amendments be agreed to, the 
motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements 
relating to any specific amendment be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WARNER. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                    Amendment No. 2937, As Modified

       At the end of title II, add the following:

     SEC. 256. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED FUNDING REDUCTION 
                   FOR HIGH ENERGY LASER SYSTEMS TEST FACILITY.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     submit to the congressional defense committees a report 
     containing a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed reduction 
     in Army research, development, test, and evaluation funding 
     for the High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility.
       (b) Evaluation of Impact on Other Military Departments.--
     The report required under subsection (a) shall include an 
     evaluation of the impact of the proposed reduction in funding 
     on each Department of Defense organization or activity that 
     utilizes the High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility.


                           Amendment No. 3028

  (Purpose: To allow additional types of vehicles to be used to meet 
                  minimum Federal fleet requirements)

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

     SEC. 1070. DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVE FUELED VEHICLE.

       Section 301(3) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 
     13211(3)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(3) the term'' and inserting the 
     following:

[[Page S12356]]

       ``(3) Alternative fueled vehicle.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Inclusions.--The term `alternative fueled vehicle' 
     includes--
       ``(i) a new qualified fuel cell motor vehicle (as defined 
     in section 30B(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986);
       ``(ii) a new advanced lean burn technology motor vehicle 
     (as defined in section 30B(c)(3) of that Code);
       ``(iii) a new qualified hybrid motor vehicle (as defined in 
     section 30B(d)(3) of that Code); and
       ``(iv) any other type of vehicle that the agency 
     demonstrates to the Secretary would achieve a significant 
     reduction in petroleum consumption.''.


                    Amendment No. 3099, As Modified

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

     SEC. 132. ADVANCED PROCUREMENT FOR VIRGINIA CLASS SUBMARINE 
                   PROGRAM.

       Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by section 
     102(a)(3) for shipbuilding and conversion for the Navy, 
     $1,172,710,000 may be available for advanced procurement for 
     the Virginia class submarine program, of which--
       (1) $400,000,000 may be available for the procurement of a 
     second ship set of reactor components; and
       (2) $70,000,000 may be available for advanced procurement 
     of non-nuclear long lead time material in order to support a 
     reduced construction span for the boats in the next multiyear 
     procurement program.


                           amendment no. 3102

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Energy to develop and implement a 
strategy to complete the remediation at the Moab site, and the removal 
of the tailings to the Crescent Junction site, in the State of Utah by 
                    not later than January 1, 2019)

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:
       Sec. 81__. (a) The Secretary of Energy shall develop a 
     strategy to complete the remediation at the Moab site, and 
     the removal of the tailings to the Crescent Junction site, in 
     the State of Utah by not later than January 1, 2019.
       (b) Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on 
     Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives, and the 
     Committee on Appropriations of each of the Senate and the 
     House of Representatives a report describing the strategy 
     developed under subsection (a) and changes to the existing 
     cost, scope and schedule of the remediation and removal 
     activities that will be necessary to implement the strategy.


                    AMENDMENT NO. 2264, As Modified

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

     SEC. 1422. ADMINISTRATION AND OVERSIGHT OF THE ARMED FORCES 
                   RETIREMENT HOME.

       (a) Independence and Purpose of Retirement Home.--Section 
     1511 of the Armed Forces Retirement Home Act of 1991 (24 
     U.S.C. 411) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following: 
     ``However, for the purpose of entering into contracts, 
     agreements, or transactions regarding real property and 
     facilities under the control of the Board, the Retirement 
     Home shall be treated as a military facility of the 
     Department of Defense. The administration of the Retirement 
     Home (including administration for the provision of health 
     care and medical care for residents) shall remain under the 
     direct authority, control, and administration of the 
     Secretary of Defense.''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (g) and inserting the following 
     new subsection (g):
       ``(g) Accreditation.--The Chief Operating Officer shall 
     secure and maintain accreditation by a nationally recognized 
     civilian accrediting organization for each aspect of each 
     facility of the Retirement Home, including medical and dental 
     care, pharmacy, independent living, and assisted living and 
     nursing care.''.
       (b) Spectrum of Care.--Section 1513(b) of the Armed Forces 
     Retirement Home Act of 1991 (24 U.S.C. 413(b)) is amended by 
     inserting after the first sentence the following new 
     sentence: ``The services provided residents of the Retirement 
     Home shall include appropriate nonacute medical and dental 
     services, pharmaceutical services, and transportation of 
     residents, at no cost to residents, to acute medical and 
     dental services and after-hours routine medical care''.
       (e) Chief Medical Officer.--The Armed Forces Retirement 
     Home Act of 1991 is further amended by inserting after 
     section 1515 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 1515A. CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER.

       ``(a) Appointment.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall 
     appoint the Chief Medical Officer of the Retirement Home. The 
     Secretary of Defense shall make the appointment in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security.
       ``(2) The Chief Medical Officer shall serve a term of two 
     years, but is removable from office during such term at the 
     pleasure of the Secretary.
       ``(3) The Secretary (or the designee of the Secretary) 
     shall evaluate the performance of the Chief Medical Officer 
     not less frequently than once each year. The Secretary shall 
     carry out such evaluation in consultation with the Chief 
     Operating Officer and the Local Board for each facility of 
     the Retirement Home.
       ``(4) An officer appointed as Chief Medical Officer of the 
     Retirement Home shall serve as Chief Medical Officer without 
     vacating any other military duties and responsibilities 
     assigned to that officer whether at the time of appointment 
     or afterward.
       ``(b) Qualifications.--(1) To qualify for appointment as 
     the Chief Medical Officer, a person shall be a member of the 
     Medical, Dental, Nurse, or Medical Services Corps of the 
     Armed Forces, including the Health and Safety Directorate of 
     the Coast Guard, serving on active duty in the grade of 
     brigadier general, or in the case of the Navy or the Coast 
     Guard rear admiral (lower half), or higher.
       ``(2) In making appointments of the Chief Medical Officer, 
     the Secretary of Defense shall, to the extent practicable, 
     provide for the rotation of the appointments among the 
     various Armed Forces and the Health and Safety Directorate of 
     the Coast Guard.
       ``(c) Responsibilities.--(1) The Chief Medical Officer 
     shall be responsible to the Secretary, the Under Secretary of 
     Defense for Personnel and Readiness, and the Chief Operating 
     Officer for the direction and oversight of the provision of 
     medical, mental health, and dental care at each facility of 
     the Retirement Home.
       ``(2) The Chief Medical Officer shall advise the Secretary, 
     the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, 
     the Chief Operating Officer, and the Local Board for each 
     facility of the Retirement Home on all medical and medical 
     administrative matters of the Retirement Home.
       ``(d) Duties.--In carrying out the responsibilities set 
     forth in subsection (c), the Chief Medical Officer shall 
     perform the following duties:
       ``(1) Ensure the timely availability to residents of the 
     Retirement Home, at locations other than the Retirement Home, 
     of such acute medical, mental health, and dental care as such 
     resident may require that is not available at the applicable 
     facility of the Retirement Home.
       ``(2) Ensure compliance by the facilities of the Retirement 
     Home with accreditation standards, applicable health care 
     standards of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and any 
     other applicable health care standards and requirements 
     (including requirements identified in applicable reports of 
     the Inspector General of the Department of Defense).
       ``(3) Periodically visit and inspect the medical facilities 
     and medical operations of each facility of the Retirement 
     Home.
       ``(4) Periodically examine and audit the medical records 
     and administration of the Retirement Home.
       ``(5) Consult with the Local Board for each facility of the 
     Retirement Home not less frequently than once each year.
       ``(e) Advisory Bodies.--In carrying out the 
     responsibilities set forth in subsection (c) and the duties 
     set forth in subsection (d), the Chief Medical Officer may 
     establish and seek the advice of such advisory bodies as the 
     Chief Medical Officer considers appropriate.''.
       (f) Local Boards of Trustees.--
       (1) Duties.--Subsection (b) of section 1516 of the Armed 
     Forces Retirement Home Act of 1991 (24 U.S.C. 416) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(b) Duties.--(1) The Local Board for a facility shall 
     serve in an advisory capacity to the Director of the facility 
     and to the Chief Operating Officer.
       ``(2) The Local Board for a facility shall provide to the 
     Chief Operating Officer and the Director of the facility such 
     guidance and recommendations on the administration of the 
     facility as the Local Board considers appropriate.
       ``(3) The Local Board for a facility shall provide to the 
     Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness not 
     less often than annually an assessment of all aspects of the 
     facility, including the quality of care at the facility.
       ``(4) Not less frequently than once each year, the Local 
     Board for a facility shall submit to Congress a report that 
     includes an assessment of all aspects of the facility, 
     including the quality of care at the facility.''.
       (2) Composition.--Subparagraph (K) of subsection (c) of 
     such section is amended to read as follows:
       ``(K) One senior representative of one of the chief 
     personnel officers of the Armed Forces, who shall be a member 
     of the Armed Forces serving on active duty in the grade of 
     brigadier general, or in the case of the Navy or Coast Guard, 
     rear admiral (lower half).''.
       (h) Inspection of Retirement Home.--Section 1518 of such 
     Act (24 U.S.C. 418) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 1518. INSPECTION OF RETIREMENT HOME.

       ``(a) Inspector General of the Department of Defense.--(1) 
     The Inspector General of the Department of Defense shall have 
     the duty to inspect the Retirement Home.
       ``(2) The Inspector General shall advise the Secretary of 
     Defense and the Director of each facility of the Retirement 
     Home on matters relating to waste, fraud, abuse, and 
     mismanagement of the Retirement Home.
       ``(b) Inspections by Inspector General.--(1) Every two 
     years, the Inspector General of the Department of Defense 
     shall perform a comprehensive inspection of all aspects of 
     each facility of the Retirement Home, including independent 
     living, assisted living, medical and dental care, pharmacy, 
     financial and contracting records, and any aspect of either 
     facility on which the Local Board for the facility or the 
     resident advisory committee or council of the facility 
     recommends inspection.

[[Page S12357]]

       ``(2) The Inspector General may be assisted in inspections 
     under this subsection by a medical inspector general of a 
     military department designated for purposes of this 
     subsection by the Secretary of Defense.
       ``(3) In conducting the inspection of a facility of the 
     Retirement Home under this subsection, the Inspector General 
     shall solicit concerns, observations, and recommendations 
     from the Local Board for the facility, the resident advisory 
     committee or council of the facility, and the residents of 
     the facility. Any concerns, observations, and recommendations 
     solicited from residents shall be solicited on a not-for-
     attribution basis.
       ``(4) The Chief Operating Officer and the Director of each 
     facility of the Retirement Home shall make all staff, other 
     personnel, and records of each facility available to the 
     Inspector General in a timely manner for purposes of 
     inspections under this subsection.
       ``(c) Reports on Inspections by Inspector General.--(1) Not 
     later than 45 days after completing an inspection of a 
     facility of the Retirement Home under subsection (b), the 
     Inspector General shall submit to the Secretary of Defense, 
     the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, 
     the Chief Operating Officer, the Director of the facility, 
     and the Local Board for the facility, and to Congress, a 
     report describing the results of the inspection and 
     containing such recommendations as the Inspector General 
     considers appropriate in light of the inspection.
       ``(2) Not later than 45 days after receiving a report of 
     the Inspector General under paragraph (1), the Director of 
     the facility concerned shall submit the Secretary of Defense, 
     the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, 
     the Chief Operating Officer, and the Local Board for the 
     facility, and to Congress, a plan to address the 
     recommendations and other matters set forth in the report.
       ``(d) Additional Inspections.--(1) Every two years, in a 
     year in which the Inspector General does not perform an 
     inspection under subsection (b), the Chief Operating Officer 
     shall request the inspection of each facility of the 
     Retirement Home by a nationally recognized civilian 
     accrediting organization in accordance with section 
     1422(a)(2)(g) of this amendment.
       ``(2) The Chief Operating Officer and the Director of a 
     facility being inspected under this subsection shall make all 
     staff, other personnel, and records of the facility available 
     to the civilian accrediting organization in a timely manner 
     for purposes of inspections under this subsection.
       ``(e) Reports on Additional Inspections.--(1) Not later 
     than 45 days after receiving a report of an inspection from 
     the civilian accrediting organization under subsection (d), 
     the Director of the facility concerned shall submit to the 
     Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the 
     Chief Operating Officer, and the Local Board for the facility 
     a report containing--
       ``(A) the results of the inspection; and
       ``(B) a plan to address any recommendations and other 
     matters set forth in the report.
       ``(2) Not later than 45 days after receiving a report and 
     plan under paragraph (1), the Secretary of Defense shall 
     submit the report and plan to Congress.''.
       (i) Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund.--Section 1519 
     of the Armed Forces Retirement Home Act of 1991 (24 U.S.C. 
     419) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d) Reporting Requirements.--The Chief Financial Officer 
     of the Armed Forces Retirement Home shall comply with the 
     reporting requirements of subchapter II of chapter 35 of 
     title 31, United States Code.''.


                    AMENDMENT NO. 2953, As Modified

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

     SEC. 565. EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE FOR LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES 
                   ENROLLING MILITARY DEPENDENT CHILDREN.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Help 
     for Military Children Affected by War Act of 2007''.
       (b) Assistance Authorized.--The Secretary of Defense may 
     provide assistance to eligible local educational agencies for 
     the additional education, counseling, and other needs of 
     military dependent children who are affected by war-related 
     action.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Eligible local educational agency.--The term ``eligible 
     local educational agency'' means a local educational agency 
     that--
       (A) has a number of military dependent children in average 
     daily attendance in the schools served by the local 
     educational agency during the current school year, determined 
     in consultation with the Secretary of Education, that--
       (i) equaled or exceeded 20 percent of the number of all 
     children in average daily attendance in the schools served by 
     such agency during the current school year; or
       (ii) is 1,000 or more,

     whichever is less; and
       (B) is designated by the Secretary of Defense as impacted 
     by--
       (i) Operation Iraqi Freedom;
       (ii) Operation Enduring Freedom; or
       (iii) the global rebasing plan of the Department of 
     Defense.
       (2) Local educational agency.--The term ``local educational 
     agency'' has the meaning given the term in section 9101 of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7801).
       (3) Military dependent child.--The term ``military 
     dependent child''--
       (A) means a child described in subparagraph (B) or (D)(i) 
     of section 8003(a)(1) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(a)(1)); and
       (B) includes a child--
       (i) who resided on Federal property with a parent on active 
     duty in the National Guard or Reserve; or
       (ii) who had a parent on active duty in the National Guard 
     or Reserve but did not reside on Federal property.
       (d) Assistance.--Assistance provided under this section may 
     be used for--
       (1) tutoring, after-school, and dropout prevention 
     activities for military dependent children with a parent who 
     is or has been impacted by war-related action described in 
     clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subsection (c)(1)(B);
       (2) professional development of teachers, principals, and 
     counselors on the needs of military dependent children with a 
     parent who is or has been impacted by war-related action 
     described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subsection 
     (c)(1)(B); and
       (3) counseling and other comprehensive support services for 
     military dependent children with a parent who is or has been 
     impacted by war-related action described in clause (i), (ii), 
     or (iii) of subsection (c)(1)(B), including the subsidization 
     of a percentage of hiring of a military-school liaison.


                    AMENDMENT NO. 3005, As Modified

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. PROGRAMS FOR USE OF LEAVE BY CAREGIVERS FOR FAMILY 
                   MEMBERS OF INDIVIDUALS PERFORMING CERTAIN 
                   MILITARY SERVICE.

       (a) Federal Employees Program.--
       (1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       (A) Caregiver.--The term ``caregiver'' means an individual 
     who--
       (i) is an employee;
       (ii) is at least 21 years of age; and
       (iii) is capable of self care and care of children or other 
     dependent family members of a qualified member of the Armed 
     Forces.
       (B) Covered period of service.--The term ``covered period 
     of service'' means any period of service performed by an 
     employee as a caregiver while the individual who designated 
     the caregiver under paragraph (3) remains a qualified member 
     of the Armed Forces.
       (C) Employee.--The term ``employee'' has the meaning given 
     under section 6331 of title 5, United States Code.
       (D) Family member.--The term ``family member'' includes--
       (i) individuals for whom the qualified member of the Armed 
     Forces provides medical, financial, and logistical support 
     (such as housing, food, clothing, or transportation); and
       (ii) children under the age of 18 years, elderly adults, 
     persons with disabilities, and other persons with a mental or 
     physical disability, who are unable to care for themselves in 
     the absence of the qualified member of the Armed Forces.
       (E) Qualified member of the armed forces.--The term 
     ``qualified member of the Armed Forces'' means--
       (i) a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces as 
     described under section 10101 of title 10, United States 
     Code, who has received notice to report to, or is serving on, 
     active duty in the Armed Forces in support of a contingency 
     operation as defined under section 101(a)(13) of title 10, 
     United States Code; or
       (ii) a member of the Armed Forces on active duty who is 
     eligible for hostile fire or imminent danger special pay 
     under section 310 of title 37, United States Code.
       (2) Establishment of program.--The Office of Personnel 
     Management may establish a program to authorize a caregiver 
     to use under paragraph (4)--
       (A) any sick leave of that caregiver during a covered 
     period of service; and
       (B) any leave available to that caregiver under subchapter 
     III or IV of chapter 63 of title 5, United States Code, 
     during a covered period of service.
       (3) Designation of caregiver.--
       (A) In general.--A qualified member of the Armed Forces 
     shall submit a written designation of the individual who is 
     the caregiver for any family member of that member of the 
     Armed Forces during a covered period of service to--
       (i) the employing agency; and
       (ii) the uniformed service of which the individual is a 
     member.
       (B) Designation of spouse.--Notwithstanding paragraph 
     (1)(A)(ii), an individual less than 21 years of age may be 
     designated as a caregiver if that individual is the spouse of 
     the qualified member of the Armed Forces making the 
     designation.
       (4) Use of caregiver leave.--Leave may only be used under 
     this subsection for purposes directly relating to, or 
     resulting from, the giving of care by the employee to a 
     family member under the designation of the employee as the 
     caregiver for the family member.
       (5) Regulations.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Office of Personnel Management 
     shall prescribe regulations to carry out this subsection, 
     including a definition of activities that qualify as the 
     giving of care.
       (6) Termination.--The program under this subsection shall 
     terminate on December 31, 2010.
       (b) Voluntary Private Sector Leave Program.--
       (1) Definitions.--In this subsection:

[[Page S12358]]

       (A) Caregiver.--The term ``caregiver'' means an individual 
     who--
       (i) is an employee;
       (ii) is at least 21 years of age; and
       (iii) is capable of self care and care of children or other 
     dependent family members of a qualified member of the Armed 
     Forces.
       (B) Covered period of service.--The term ``covered period 
     of service'' means any period of service performed by an 
     employee as a caregiver while the individual who designated 
     the caregiver under paragraph (4) remains a qualified member 
     of the Armed Forces.
       (C) Employee.--The term ``employee'' means an employee of a 
     business entity participating in the program under this 
     subsection.
       (D) Family member.--The term ``family member'' includes--
       (i) individuals for whom the qualified member of the Armed 
     Forces provides medical, financial, and logistical support 
     (such as housing, food, clothing, or transportation); and
       (ii) children under the age of 18 years, elderly adults, 
     persons with disabilities, and other persons with a mental or 
     physical disability, who are unable to care for themselves in 
     the absence of the qualified member of the Armed Forces.
       (E) Qualified member of the armed forces.--The term 
     ``qualified member of the Armed Forces'' means--
       (i) a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces as 
     described under section 10101 of title 10, United States 
     Code, who has received notice to report to, or is serving on, 
     active duty in the Armed Forces in support of a contingency 
     operation as defined under section 101(a)(13) of title 10, 
     United States Code; or
       (ii) a member of the Armed Forces on active duty who is 
     eligible for hostile fire or imminent danger special pay 
     under section 310 of title 37, United States Code.
       (2) Establishment of program.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary of Labor may establish a 
     program to authorize employees of business entities described 
     under paragraph (3) to use sick leave, or any other leave 
     available to an employee, during a covered period of service 
     for purposes relating to, or resulting from, the giving of 
     care by the employee to a family member under the designation 
     of the employee as the caregiver for the family member.
       (B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to leave 
     made available under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 
     (29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.).
       (3) Voluntary business participation.--The Secretary of 
     Labor shall solicit business entities to voluntarily 
     participate in the program under this subsection.
       (4) Designation of caregiver.--
       (A) In general.--A qualified member of the Armed Forces 
     shall submit a written designation of the individual who is 
     the caregiver for any family member of that member of the 
     Armed Forces during a covered period of service to--
       (i) the employing business entity; and
       (ii) the uniformed service of which the individual is a 
     member.
       (B) Designation of spouse.--Notwithstanding paragraph 
     (1)(A)(ii), an individual less than 21 years of age may be 
     designated as a caregiver if that individual is the spouse of 
     the qualified member of the Armed Forces making the 
     designation.
       (5) Use of caregiver leave.--Leave may only be used under 
     this subsection for purposes directly relating to, or 
     resulting from, the giving of care by the employee to a 
     family member under the designation of the employee as the 
     caregiver for the family member.
       (6) Regulations.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall prescribe 
     regulations to carry out this subsection.
       (7) Termination.--The program under this subsection shall 
     terminate on December 31, 2010.
       (c) GAO Report.--Not later than March 31, 2010, the 
     Government Accountability Office shall submit a report to 
     Congress on the programs under subsections (a) and (b) that 
     includes--
       (1) an evaluation of the success of each program; and
       (2) recommendations for the continuance or termination of 
     each program.


                     amendment no. 2957 as modified

                 DIVISION     --MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

     SEC. --001. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This division may be cited as the 
     ``Maritime Administration Authorities Act of 2007''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this 
     division is as follows:
       Sec. --001. Short title; table of contents.

                            TITLE I--GENERAL

       Sec. --102. Commercial vessel chartering authority.
       Sec. --103. Maritime Administration vessel chartering 
           authority.
       Sec. --104. Chartering to state and local governmental 
           instrumentalities.
       Sec. --105. Disposal of obsolete government vessels.
       Sec. --106. Vessel transfer authority.
       Sec. --107. Sea trials for ready reserve force.
       Sec. --108. Review of applications for loans and 
           guarantees.

                    TITLE II--TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS

       Sec. --201. Statutory construction.
       Sec. --202. Personal injury to or death of seamen.
       Sec. --203. Amendments to chapter 537 based on Public Law 
           109-163.
       Sec. --204. Additional amendments based on Public Law 109-
           163.
       Sec. --205. Amendments based on Public Law 109-171.
       Sec. --206. Amendments based on Public Law 109-241.
       Sec. --207. Amendments based on Public Law 109-364.
       Sec. --208. Miscellaneous amendments.
       Sec. --209. Application of sunset provision to codified 
           provision.
       Sec. --210. Additional Technical corrections.

                            TITLE I--GENERAL

     SEC. --102. COMMERCIAL VESSEL CHARTERING AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter III of chapter 575 of title 46, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 57533. Vessel chartering authority

       ``The Secretary of Transportation may enter into contracts 
     or other agreements on behalf of the United States to 
     purchase, charter, operate, or otherwise acquire the use of 
     any vessels documented under chapter 121 of this title and 
     any other related real or personal property. The Secretary is 
     authorized to use this authority as the Secretary deems 
     appropriate.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     575 of such title is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``57533. Vessel chartering authority.''.

     SEC. --103. MARITIME ADMINISTRATION VESSEL CHARTERING 
                   AUTHORITY.

       Section 50303 of title 46, United States Code, is amended 
     by--
       (1) inserting ``vessels,'' after ``piers,''; and
       (2) by striking ``control;'' in subsection (a)(1) and 
     inserting ``control, except that the prior consent of the 
     Secretary of Defense for such use shall be required with 
     respect to any vessel in the Ready Reserve Force or in the 
     National Defense Reserve Fleet which is maintained in a 
     retention status for the Department of Defense;''.

     SEC. --104. CHARTERING TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
                   INSTRUMENTALITIES.

       Section 11(b) of the Merchant Ship Sales Act of 1946 (50 
     U.S.C. App. 1744(b)), is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' after the semicolon in paragraph 
     (3);
       (2) by striking ``Defense.'' in paragraph (4) and inserting 
     ``Defense; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(5) on a reimbursable basis, for charter to the 
     government of any State, locality, or Territory of the United 
     States, except that the prior consent of the Secretary of 
     Defense for such use shall be required with respect to any 
     vessel in the Ready Reserve Force or in the National Defense 
     Reserve Fleet which is maintained in a retention status for 
     the Department of Defense.''.

     SEC. --105. DISPOSAL OF OBSOLETE GOVERNMENT VESSELS.

       Section 6(c)(1) of the National Maritime Heritage Act of 
     1994 (16 U.S.C. 5405(c)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(either by sale or purchase of disposal 
     services)'' after ``shall dispose''; and
       (2) by striking subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(A) in accordance with a priority system for disposing of 
     vessels, as determined by the Secretary, which shall include 
     provisions requiring the Maritime Administration to--
       ``(i) dispose of all deteriorated high priority ships that 
     are available for disposal, within 12 months of their 
     designation as such; and
       ``(ii) give priority to the disposition of those vessels 
     that pose the most significant danger to the environment or 
     cost the most to maintain;''.

     SEC. --106. VESSEL TRANSFER AUTHORITY.

       Section 50304 of title 46, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(d) Vessel Charters to Other Departments.--On a 
     reimbursable or nonreimbursable basis, as determined by the 
     Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary may charter or 
     otherwise make available a vessel under the jurisdiction of 
     the Secretary to any other department, upon the request by 
     the Secretary of the department that receives the vessel. The 
     prior consent of the Secretary of Defense for such use shall 
     be required with respect to any vessel in the Ready Reserve 
     Force or in the National Defense Reserve Fleet which is 
     maintained in a retention status for the Department of 
     Defense.''.

     SEC. --107. SEA TRIALS FOR READY RESERVE FORCE.

       Section 11(c)(1)(B) of the Merchant Ship Sales Act of 1946 
     (50 U.S.C. App. 1744(c)(1)(B)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) activate and conduct sea trials on each vessel at 
     least once every 30 months;''.

     SEC. --108. REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS FOR LOANS AND GUARANTEES.

       (a) Plan.--Within 180 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Administrator of the Maritime Administration 
     shall develop a comprehensive plan for the review of 
     traditional applications and non-traditional applications.
       (b) Inclusions.--The comprehensive plan shall include a 
     description of the application review process that shall not 
     exceed 90 days for review of traditional applications.

[[Page S12359]]

       (c) Report to Congress.--The Administrator shall submit a 
     report describing the comprehensive plan to the Senate 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the 
     House of Representatives Committee on Armed Forces.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Nontraditional application.--The term ``nontraditional 
     application'' means an application for a loan, guarantee, or 
     a commitment to guarantee submitted pursuant to chapter 537 
     of title 46, United States Code, that is not a traditional 
     application, as determined by the Administrator.
       (2) Traditional application.--The term ``traditional 
     application'' means an application for a loan, guarantee, or 
     a commitment to guarantee submitted pursuant to chapter 537 
     of title 46, United States Code, that involves a market, 
     technology, and financial structure of a type that has been 
     approved in such an application multiple times before the 
     date of enactment of this Act without default or unreasonable 
     risk to the United States, as determined by the 
     Administrator.

                    TITLE II--TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS

     SEC. --201. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.

       The amendments made by this title make no substantive 
     change in existing law and may not be construed as making a 
     substantive change in existing law.

     SEC. --202. PERSONAL INJURY TO OR DEATH OF SEAMEN.

       (a) Amendment.--Section 30104 of title 46, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking subsections (a) and (b) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(a) Cause of Action.--A seaman injured in the course of 
     employment or, if the seaman dies from the injury, the 
     personal representative of the seaman may bring an action 
     against the employer. In such an action, the laws of the 
     United States regulating recovery for personal injury to, or 
     death of, a railway employee shall apply. Such an action may 
     be maintained in admiralty or, at the plaintiff's election, 
     as an action at law, with the right of trial by jury.
       ``(b) Venue.--When the plaintiff elects to maintain an 
     action at law, venue shall be in the judicial district in 
     which the employer resides or the employer's principal office 
     is located.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall be effective as if included in the enactment of Public 
     Law 109-304.

     SEC. --203. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 537 BASED ON PUBLIC LAW 
                   109-163.

       (a) Amendments.--Title 46, United States Code, is amended 
     as follows:
       (1) Section 53701 is amended by--
       (A) redesignating paragraphs (2) through (13) as paragraphs 
     (3) through (14), respectively;
       (B) inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) Administrator.--The term `Administrator' means the 
     Administrator of the Maritime Administration.''; and
       (C) striking paragraph (13) (as redesignated) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(13) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of Commerce with respect to fishing vessels and fishery 
     facilities.''.
       (2) Section 53706(c) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Priorities for Certain Vessels.--
       ``(1) Vessels.--In guaranteeing or making a commitment to 
     guarantee an obligation under this chapter, the Administrator 
     shall give priority to--
       ``(A) a vessel that is otherwise eligible for a guarantee 
     and is constructed with assistance under subtitle D of the 
     Maritime Security Act of 2003 (46 U.S.C. 53101 note); and
       ``(B) after applying subparagraph (A), a vessel that is 
     otherwise eligible for a guarantee and that the Secretary of 
     Defense determines--
       ``(i) is suitable for service as a naval auxiliary in time 
     of war or national emergency; and
       ``(ii) meets a shortfall in sealift capacity or capability.
       ``(2) Time for determination.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall determine whether a vessel satisfies paragraph (1)(B) 
     not later than 30 days after receipt of a request from the 
     Administrator for such a determination.''.
       (3) Section 53707 is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``or Administrator'' in subsections (a) 
     and (d) after ``Secretary'' each place it appears;
       (B) by striking ``Secretary of Transportation'' in 
     subsection (b) and inserting ``Administrator'';
       (C) by striking ``of Commerce'' in subsection (c); and
       (D) in subsection (d)(2), by--
       (i) inserting ``if the Secretary or Administrator considers 
     necessary,'' before ``the waiver''; and
       (ii) striking ``the increased'' and inserting ``any 
     significant increase in''.
       (4) Section 53708 is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Secretary of Transportation'' in the 
     heading of subsection (a) and inserting ``Administrator'';
       (B) by striking ``Secretary'' and ``Secretary of 
     Transportation'' each place they appear in subsection (a) and 
     inserting ``Administrator'';
       (C) by striking ``of Commerce'' in the heading of 
     subsection (b);
       (D) by striking ``of Commerce'' in subsections (b) and (c);
       (E) in subsection (d), by--
       (i) inserting ``or Administrator'' after ``Secretary'' the 
     first place it appears; and
       (ii) striking ``financial structures, or other risk factors 
     identified by the Secretary. Any independent analysis 
     conducted under this subsection shall be performed by a party 
     chosen by the Secretary.'' and inserting ``or financial 
     structures. A third party independent analysis conducted 
     under this subsection shall be performed by a private sector 
     expert in assessing such risk factors who is selected by the 
     Secretary or Administrator.''; and
       (F) in subsection (e), by--
       (i) inserting ``or Administrator'' after ``Secretary'' the 
     first place it appears; and
       (ii) striking ``financial structures, or other risk factors 
     identified by the Secretary'' and inserting ``or financial 
     structures''.
       (5) Section 53710(b)(1) is amended by striking 
     ``Secretary's'' and inserting ``Administrator's''.
       (6) Section 53712(b) is amended by striking the last 
     sentence and inserting ``If the Secretary or Administrator 
     has waived a requirement under section 53707(d) of this 
     title, the loan agreement shall include requirements for 
     additional payments, collateral, or equity contributions to 
     meet the waived requirement upon the occurrence of verifiable 
     conditions indicating that the obligor's financial condition 
     enables the obligor to meet the waived requirement.''.
       (7) Subsections (c) and (d) of section 53717 are each 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``of Commerce'' in the subsection heading; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``of Commerce'' each place it appears.
       (8) Section 53732(e)(2) is amended by inserting ``of 
     Defense'' after ``Secretary'' the second place it appears.
       (9) The following provisions are amended by striking 
     ``Secretary'' and ``Secretary of Transportation'' and 
     inserting ``Administrator'':
       (A) Section 53710(b)(2)(A)(i).
       (B) Section 53717(b) each place it appears in a heading and 
     in text.
       (C) Section 53718.
       (D) Section 53731 each place it appears, except where 
     ``Secretary'' is followed by ``of Energy''.
       (E) Section 53732 (as amended by paragraph (8)) each place 
     it appears, except where ``Secretary'' is followed by ``of 
     the Treasury'', ``of State'', or ``of Defense''.
       (F) Section 53733 each place it appears.
       (10) The following provisions are amended by inserting ``or 
     Administrator'' after ``Secretary'' each place it appears in 
     headings and text, except where ``Secretary'' is followed by 
     ``of Transportation'' or ``of the Treasury'':
       (A) The items relating to sections 53722 and 53723 in the 
     chapter analysis for chapter 537.
       (B) Sections 53701(1), (4), and (9) (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (1)(A)), 53702(a), 53703, 53704, 
     53706(a)(3)(B)(iii), 53709(a)(1), (b)(1) and (2)(A), and (d), 
     53710(a) and (c), 53711, 53712 (except in the last sentence 
     of subsection (b) as amended by paragraph (6)), 53713 to 
     53716, 53721 to 53725, and 53734.
       (11) Sections 53715(d)(1), 53716(d)(3), 53721(c), 
     53722(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), and 53724(b) are amended by 
     inserting ``or Administrator's'' after ``Secretary's''.
       (b) Repeal of Superseded Amendments.--Section 3507 (except 
     subsection (c)(4)) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) is repealed.

     SEC. --204. ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS BASED ON PUBLIC LAW 109-
                   163.

       (a) Amendments.--Title 46, United States Code, is amended 
     as follows:
       (1) Chapters 513 and 515 are amended by striking ``Naval 
     Reserve'' each place it appears in analyses, headings, and 
     text and inserting ``Navy Reserve''.
       (2) Section 51504(f) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(f) Fuel Costs.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, the Secretary shall pay to each State 
     maritime academy the costs of fuel used by a vessel provided 
     under this section while used for training.
       ``(2) Maximum amounts.--The amount of the payment to a 
     State maritime academy under paragraph (1) may not exceed--
       ``(A) $100,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       ``(B) $200,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       ``(C) $300,000 for fiscal year 2008 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter.''.
       (3) Section 51505(b)(2)(B) is amended by striking 
     ``$200,000'' and inserting ``$300,000 for fiscal year 2006, 
     $400,000 for fiscal year 2007, and $500,000 for fiscal year 
     2008 and each fiscal year thereafter''.
       (4) Section 51701(a) is amended by striking ``of the United 
     States.'' and inserting ``of the United States and to perform 
     functions to assist the United States merchant marine, as 
     determined necessary by the Secretary.''.
       (5)(A) Section 51907 is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 51907. Provision of decorations, medals, and 
       replacements

       ``The Secretary of Transportation may provide--
       ``(1) the decorations and medals authorized by this chapter 
     and replacements for those decorations and medals; and
       ``(2) replacements for decorations and medals issued under 
     a prior law.''.
       (B) The item relating to section 51907 in the chapter 
     analysis for chapter 519 is amended to read as follows:
       ``51907. Provision of decorations, medals, and 
           replacements.''.
       (6)(A) The following new chapter is inserted after chapter 
     539:

[[Page S12360]]

                      ``CHAPTER 541--MISCELLANEOUS

``Sec.
``54101. Assistance for small shipyards and maritime communities.''.
       (B) Section 3506 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 2006 (46 U.S.C. 53101 note) is transferred to 
     and redesignated as section 54101 of title 46, United States 
     Code, to appear at the end of chapter 541 of title 46, as 
     inserted by subparagraph (A).
       (C) The heading of such section, as transferred by 
     subparagraph (B), is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 54101. Assistance for small shipyards and maritime 
       communities''.

       (D) Paragraph (1) of subsection (h) of such section, as 
     transferred by subparagraph (B), is amended by striking ``(15 
     U.S.C. 632);'' and inserting ``(15 U.S.C. 632));''.
       (E) The table of chapters at the beginning of subtitle V is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 539 
     the following new item:

``541. Miscellaneous...........................................54101''.
       (b) Repeal of Superseded Amendments.--Sections 515(g)(2), 
     3502, 3509, and 3510 of the National Defense Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) are repealed.

     SEC. --205. AMENDMENTS BASED ON PUBLIC LAW 109-171.

       (a) Amendments.--Section 60301 of title 46, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``2 cents per ton (but not more than a 
     total of 10 cents per ton per year)'' in subsection (a) and 
     inserting ``4.5 cents per ton, not to exceed a total of 22.5 
     cents per ton per year, for fiscal years 2006 through 2010, 
     and 2 cents per ton, not to exceed a total of 10 cents per 
     ton per year, for each fiscal year thereafter,''; and
       (2) by striking ``6 cents per ton (but not more than a 
     total of 30 cents per ton per year)'' in subsection (b) and 
     inserting ``13.5 cents per ton, not to exceed a total of 67.5 
     cents per ton per year, for fiscal years 2006 through 2010, 
     and 6 cents per ton, not to exceed a total of 30 cents per 
     ton per year, for each fiscal year thereafter,''.
       (b) Repeal of Superseded Amendments.--Section 4001 of the 
     Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-171) is 
     repealed.

     SEC. --206. AMENDMENTS BASED ON PUBLIC LAW 109-241.

       (a) Amendments.--Title 46, United States Code, is amended 
     as follows:
       (1) Section 12111 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(d) Activities Involving Mobile Offshore Drilling 
     Units.--
       ``(1) In general.--Only a vessel for which a certificate of 
     documentation with a registry endorsement is issued may 
     engage in--
       ``(A) the setting, relocation, or recovery of the anchors 
     or other mooring equipment of a mobile offshore drilling unit 
     that is located over the outer Continental Shelf (as defined 
     in section 2(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1331(a))); or
       ``(B) the transportation of merchandise or personnel to or 
     from a point in the United States from or to a mobile 
     offshore drilling unit located over the outer Continental 
     Shelf that is not attached to the seabed.
       ``(2) Coastwise trade not authorized.--Nothing in paragraph 
     (1) authorizes the employment in the coastwise trade of a 
     vessel that does not meet the requirements of section 12112 
     of this title.''.
       (2) Section 12139(a) is amended by striking ``and 
     charterers'' and inserting ``charterers, and mortgagees''.
       (3) Section 51307 is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2);
       (B) by striking ``organizations.'' in paragraph (3) and 
     inserting ``organizations; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) on any other vessel considered by the Secretary to be 
     necessary or appropriate or in the national interest.''.
       (4) Section 55105(b)(3) is amended by striking ``Secretary 
     of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating'' and 
     inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security''.
       (5) Section 70306(a) is amended by striking ``Not later 
     than February 28 of each year, the Secretary shall submit a 
     report'' and inserting ``The Secretary shall submit an annual 
     report''.
       (6) Section 70502(d)(2) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Response to claim of registry.--The response of a 
     foreign nation to a claim of registry under paragraph (1)(A) 
     or (C) may be made by radio, telephone, or similar oral or 
     electronic means, and is proved conclusively by certification 
     of the Secretary of State or the Secretary's designee.''.
       (b) Repeal of Superseded Amendments.--Sections 303, 307, 
     308, 310, 901(q), and 902(o) of the Coast Guard and Maritime 
     Transportation Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-241) are repealed.

     SEC. --207. AMENDMENTS BASED ON PUBLIC LAW 109-364.

       (a) Updating of Cross References.--Section 1017(b)(2) of 
     the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364, 10 U.S.C. 2631 note) is 
     amended by striking ``section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 
     1920 (46 U.S.C. 883), section 12106 of title 46, United 
     States Code, and section 2 of the Shipping Act, 1916 (46 
     U.S.C. App. 802)'' and inserting ``sections 12112, 50501, and 
     55102 of title 46, United States Code''.
       (b) Section 51306(e).--
       (1) In general.--Section 51306 of title 46, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Alternative Service.--
       ``(1) Service as commissioned officer.--An individual who, 
     for the 5-year period following graduation from the Academy, 
     serves as a commissioned officer on active duty in an armed 
     force of the United States or as a commissioned officer of 
     the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the 
     Public Health Service shall be excused from the requirements 
     of paragraphs (3) through (5) of subsection (a).
       ``(2) Modification or waiver.--The Secretary may modify or 
     waive any of the terms and conditions set forth in subsection 
     (a) through the imposition of alternative service 
     requirements.''.
       (2) Application.--Section 51306(e) of title 46, United 
     States Code, as added by paragraph (1), applies only to an 
     individual who enrolls as a cadet at the United States 
     Merchant Marine Academy, and signs an agreement under section 
     51306(a) of title 46, after October 17, 2006.
       (c) Section 51306(f).--
       (1) In general.--Section 51306 of title 46, United States 
     Code, is further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Service Obligation Performance Reporting 
     Requirement.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to any otherwise applicable 
     restrictions on disclosure in section 552a of title 5, the 
     Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the department in 
     which the Coast Guard is operating, the Administrator of the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the 
     Surgeon General of the Public Health Service--
       ``(A) shall report the status of obligated service of an 
     individual graduate of the Academy upon request of the 
     Secretary; and
       ``(B) may, in their discretion, notify the Secretary of any 
     failure of the graduate to perform the graduate's duties, 
     either on active duty or in the Ready Reserve component of 
     their respective service, or as a commissioned officer of the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the Public 
     Health Service, respectively.
       ``(2) Information to be provided.--A report or notice under 
     paragraph (1) shall identify any graduate determined to have 
     failed to comply with service obligation requirements and 
     provide all required information as to why such graduate 
     failed to comply.
       ``(3) Considered as in default.--Upon receipt of such a 
     report or notice, such graduate may be considered to be in 
     default of the graduate's service obligations by the 
     Secretary, and subject to all remedies the Secretary may have 
     with respect to such a default.''.
       (2) Application.--Section 51306(f) of title 46, United 
     States Code, as added by paragraph (1), does not apply with 
     respect to an agreement entered into under section 51306(a) 
     of title 46, United States Code, before October 17, 2006.
       (d) Section 51509(c).--Section 51509(c) of title 46, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Midshipman and'' in the subsection 
     heading and ``midshipman and'' in the text; and
       (2) inserting ``or the Coast Guard Reserve'' after 
     ``Reserve)''.
       (e) Section 51908(a).--Section 51908(a) of title 46, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``under this chapter'' 
     and inserting ``by this chapter or the Secretary of 
     Transportation''.
       (f) Section 53105(e)(2).--Section 53105(e)(2) of title 46, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``section 2 of the 
     Shipping Act, 1916 (46 U.S.C. App. 802),'' and inserting 
     ``section 50501 of this title''.
       (g) Repeal of Superseded Amendments.--Sections 3505, 3506, 
     3508, and 3510(a) and (b) of the John Warner National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) 
     are repealed.

     SEC. --208. MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Deletion of Obsolete Reference to Canton Island.--
     Section 55101(b) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``or'' after the semicolon at the end of 
     paragraph (2);
       (2) by striking paragraph (3); and
       (3) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3).
       (b) Improvement of Heading.--Title 46, United States Code, 
     is amended as follows:
       (1) The heading of section 55110 is amended by inserting 
     ``valueless material or'' before ``dredged material''.
       (2) The item for section 55110 in the analysis for chapter 
     551 is amended by inserting ``valueless material or'' before 
     ``dredged material''.
       (c) Oceanographic Research Vessels and Sailing School 
     Vessels.--
       (1) Section 10101(3) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``on an oceanographic research vessel'' 
     after ``scientific personnel''.
       (2) Section 50503 of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``An oceanographic research vessel'' and 
     all that follows and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the terms 
     `oceanographic research vessel' and `scientific personnel' 
     have the meaning given those terms in section 2101 of this 
     title.
       ``(b) Not Seamen.--Scientific personnel on an oceanographic 
     research vessel are deemed not to be seamen under part G of 
     subtitle II, section 30104, or chapter 303 of this title.
       ``(c) Not Engaged in Trade or Commerce.--An oceanographic 
     research vessel is deemed not to be engaged in trade or 
     commerce.''.

[[Page S12361]]

       (3) Section 50504(b)(1) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``parts B, F, and G of subtitle II'' and 
     inserting ``part B, F, or G of subtitle II, section 30104, or 
     chapter 303''.

     SEC. --209. APPLICATION OF SUNSET PROVISION TO CODIFIED 
                   PROVISION.

       For purposes of section 303 of the Jobs and Growth Tax 
     Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-27, 26 
     U.S.C. 1 note), the amendment made by section 301(a)(2)(E) of 
     that Act shall be deemed to have been made to section 
     53511(f)(2) of title 46, United States Code.

     SEC. --210. ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

       (a) Amendments to Title 46.--Title 46, United States Code, 
     is amended as follows:
       (1) The analysis for chapter 21 is amended by striking the 
     item relating to section 2108.
       (2) Section 12113(g) is amended by inserting ``and'' after 
     ``Conservation''.
       (3) Section 12131 is amended by striking ``commmand'' and 
     inserting ``command''.
       (b) Amendments to Public Law 109-304.--
       (1) Amendments.--Public Law 109-304 is amended as follows:
       (A) Section 15(10) is amended by striking ``46 App. 
     U.S.C.'' and inserting ``46 U.S.C. App.''.
       (B) Section 15(30) is amended by striking ``Shipping Act, 
     1936'' and inserting ``Shipping Act, 1916''.
       (C) The schedule of Statutes at Large repealed in section 
     19, as it relates to the Act of June 29, 1936, is amended 
     by--
       (i) striking the second section ``1111'' (relating to 46 
     U.S.C. App. 1279f) and inserting section ``1113''; and
       (ii) striking the second section ``1112'' (relating to 46 
     U.S.C. App. 1279g) and inserting section ``1114''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1) 
     shall be effective as if included in the enactment of Public 
     Law 109-304.
       (c) Repeal of Duplicative or Unexecutable Amendments.--
       (1) Repeal.--Sections 9(a), 15(21) and (33)(A) through 
     (D)(i), and 16(c)(2) of Public Law 109-304 are repealed.
       (2) Intended effect.--The provisions repealed by paragraph 
     (1) shall be treated as if never enacted.
       (d) Large Passenger Vessel Crew Requirements.--Section 
     8103(k)(3)(C)(iv) of title 46, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting ``and section 252 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1282)'' after ``of such section''.



                    AMENDMENT NO. 3103, as modified

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

     SEC. 1070. PILOT PROGRAM ON COMMERCIAL FEE-FOR-SERVICE AIR 
                   REFUELING SUPPORT FOR THE AIR FORCE.

       (a) Pilot Program Required.--The Secretary of Air Force 
     shall, commencing as soon as practicable after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, conduct a pilot program to assess 
     the feasability and advisability of utilizing commercial fee-
     for-service air refueling tanker aircraft for Air Force 
     operations.
       (b) Purpose.--
       (1) In general.--The purpose of the pilot program required 
     by subsection (a) is to support, augment, or enhance the air 
     refueling mission of the Air Force by utilizing commercial 
     air refueling providers on a fee-for-service basis.
       (2) Elements.--In order to achieve the purpose of the pilot 
     program, the pilot program shall--
       (A) demonstrate and validate a comprehensive strategy for 
     air refueling on a fee-for-service basis by utilizing all 
     appropriate aircraft in mission areas including testing 
     support, training support to receivers, homeland defense 
     support, deployment support, air bridge support, aeromedical 
     evacuation, and emergency air refueling; and
       (B) integrate fee-for-service air refueling described in 
     paragraph (1) into Air Mobility Command operations.
       (c) Competitive Providers.--The pilot program shall include 
     the services of not more than three commercial air refueling 
     providers selected by the Secretary for the pilot program 
     utilizing competitive procedures.
       (d) Minimum Number of Aircraft.--Each provider selected for 
     the pilot program shall utilize no fewer than two air 
     refueling aircraft in participating in the pilot program.
       (e) Aircraft Utilization.--The pilot program shall provide 
     for a minimum of 1,200 flying hours per year per air 
     refueling aircraft participating in the pilot program.
       (f) Duration.--The period of the pilot program shall be not 
     less than five years after the commencement of the pilot 
     program.
       (g) Report.--The Secretary of the Air Force shall provide 
     to the congressional defense committees an annual report on 
     the fee-for-service air refueling program to include:
       (1) missions flown;
       (2) missions areas supported;
       (3) aircraft number, type, model series supported;
       (4) fuel dispersed;
       (5) departure reliability rates; and
       (6) any other data as appropriate for evaluating 
     performance of the commercial air refueling providers.


                           Amendment No. 3107

 (Purpose: To modify the purposes for which the Naval Aviation Museum 
   Foundation at the National Museum of Naval Aviation at Naval Air 
 Station, Pensacola, Florida, may operate the National Flight Academy)

       On page 508, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

     SEC. 2854. MODIFICATION OF LEASE OF PROPERTY, NATIONAL FLIGHT 
                   ACADEMY AT THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NAVAL 
                   AVIATION, NAVAL AIR STATION, PENSACOLA, 
                   FLORIDA.

       Section 2850(a) of the Military Construction Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (division B of the Floyd D. Spence 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (as 
     enacted into law by Public Law 106-398; 114 Stat. 1654A-428)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``naval aviation and'' and inserting 
     ``naval aviation,''; and
       (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, and, as of January 1, 2008, to teach the 
     science, technology, engineering, and mathematics disciplines 
     that have an impact on and relate to aviation''.


                    amendment no. 3082, as modified

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

     SEC. 214. GULF WAR ILLNESSES RESEARCH.

       (a) Funding.--
       (1) Additional amount.--Of the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 201(1) for research, development, 
     test, and evaluation, Army $15,000,000, may be allocated to 
     Medical Advanced Technology (PE #0603002A) for the Army to 
     carry out, as part of its Congressionally Directed Medical 
     Research Programs, a program for Gulf War Illnesses Research.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of the program may be to develop 
     diagnostic markers and treatments for the complex of symptoms 
     commonly known as ``Gulf War Illnesses (GWI)'', including 
     widespread pain, cognitive impairment, and persistent fatigue 
     in conjunction with diverse other symptoms and abnormalities, 
     that are associated with service in the Southwest Asia 
     theater of operations in the early 1990s during the Persian 
     Gulf War.
       (c) Program Activities.--
       (1) Highest priority under the program shall be afforded to 
     pilot and observational studies of treatments for the complex 
     of symptoms described in subsection (b) and comprehensive 
     clinical trials of such treatments that have demonstrated 
     effectiveness in previous past pilot and observational 
     studies.
       (2) Secondary priority under the program may be afforded to 
     studies that identify objective markers for such complex of 
     symptoms and biological mechanisms underlying such complex of 
     symptoms that can lead to the identification and development 
     of such markers and treatments.
       (3) No study shall be funded under the program that is 
     based on psychiatric illness and psychological stress as the 
     central cause of such complex of symptoms (as is consistent 
     with current research findings).
       (d) Competitive Selection and Peer Review.--The program 
     shall be conducted using competitive selection and peer 
     review for the identification of activities having the most 
     substantial scientific merit, utilizing individuals with 
     recognized expertise in Gulf War illnesses in the design of 
     the solicitation and in the scientific and programmatic 
     review processes.


                    Amendment No. 2325, as modified

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

     SEC. __. PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE REMOVAL OF MISSILES FROM 
                   THE 564TH MISSILE SQUADRON.

       (a) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the 
     Congressional Defense Committees a report on the feasibility 
     of establishing an association between the 120th Fighter Wing 
     of the Montana Air National Guard and active duty personnel 
     stationed at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana. In making 
     such assessment, the Secretary shall consider:
       (1) An evaluation of the Air Force's requirement for 
     additional F-15 aircraft active or reserve component force 
     structure.
       (2) An evaluation of the airspace training opportunities in 
     the immediate airspace around Great Falls International 
     Airport Air Guard Station.
       (3) An evaluation of the impact of civilian operations on 
     military operations at the Great Falls International Airport.
       (4) An evaluation of the level of civilian encroachment on 
     the facilities and airspace of the 120th Fighter Wing.
       (5) An evaluation of the support structure available, 
     including active military bases nearby.
       (6) Opportunities for additional association between the 
     Montana National Guard and the 341st Space Wing.
       (b) Not more than 40 missiles may be removed from the 564th 
     Missile Squadron until 15 days after the report required in 
     subsection (a) has been submitted.


                    amendment no. 2897, as modified

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

     SEC. 1070. ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT PATHOLOGY CENTER.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Defense may, to the 
     extent consistent with the final recommendations of the 2005 
     Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission as approved 
     by the President, establish a Joint Pathology Center located 
     at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, 
     that shall function as the reference center in pathology for 
     the Department of Defense.

[[Page S12362]]

       (b) Services.--The Joint Pathology Center, if established, 
     shall provide, at a minimum, the following services:
       (1) Diagnostic pathology consultation.
       (2) Pathology education, to include graduate medical 
     education, including residency and fellowship programs, and 
     continuing medical education.
       (3) Diagnostic pathology research.
       (4) Maintenance and continued modernization of the Tissue 
     Repository and, as appropriate, utilization of such 
     Repository in conducting the activities described in 
     paragraphs (1) through (3).


                    amendment no. 2068, as modified

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

     SEC. 1517. REPORTS ON MITIGATION OF EFFECTS OF EXPLOSIVELY 
                   FORMED PROJECTILES AND MINES.

       (a) Report on Explosively Formed Projectiles.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, and every 60 days thereafter, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional 
     defense committees a report, in both classified and 
     unclassified forms, on explosively formed projectiles.
       (2) Content.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1) 
     shall include the following:
       (A) A comprehensive plan of action for improving 
     capabilities to mitigate the effects of explosively formed 
     projectiles (EFPs), including the development of 
     technologies, training programs, tactics, techniques, and 
     procedures, and an estimate of the funding required to 
     execute the plan.
       (B) Detailed descriptions of the effectiveness of any 
     fielded EFP mitigation technologies, training programs, 
     tactics, techniques, and procedures, and ways in which they 
     could be improved.
       (C) A description of the individual projects that comprise 
     the plan of action.
       (D) A schedule for completing and fielding each project.
       (E) The contract delivery dates, progress towards 
     completion, and forecast completion date for each project.
       (F) A comprehensive description of any deviation from 
     contract terms and an explanation of any cost and schedule 
     variance and how such variance affects fielding deliverables, 
     and a plan for addressing such deviations and variances.
       (G) Recommendations for additional authorities, which if 
     provided to the Secretary, would improve the ability of the 
     Department of Defense to rapidly field counter EFP 
     capabilities and protection against the effects of EFPs.
       (H) An analysis of any industrial base issues affecting the 
     plan outlined under subparagraph (A).
       (I) Mechanisms for sharing counter EFP capabilities with 
     appropriate coalition partners.
       (J) The most current available data on the effects of EFPs 
     on United States, coalition, and allied forces in Iraq and 
     Afghanistan.
       (b) Report on Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, and every 30 days thereafter, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional 
     defense committees a report on Mine Resistant Ambush 
     Protected (MRAP) vehicles.
       (2) Content.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1) 
     shall include the following:
       (A) The total requirement of all military services for MRAP 
     vehicles, including MRAP I, spiral upgrades, and MRAP II 
     variants.
       (B) A comprehensive plan for transporting and fielding all 
     variants to the United States Central Command (CENTCOM) area 
     of operations.
       (C) An assessment of completed production, transportation, 
     and fielding of MRAP vehicles and a forecast of future 
     production, transportation, and fielding functions.
       (D) An explanation of any deviation between the planned and 
     actual numbers of vehicles fielded for the reporting period.
       (E) Funding required to execute production, transportation, 
     and fielding, and an analysis of any industrial base issues 
     affecting such functions.
       (F) The required delivery schedule for each contract to 
     procure MRAP vehicles.
       (G) A comprehensive description and explanation of cost and 
     schedule variance, and any deviation from contract terms, how 
     that variance or deviation affects overall program 
     performance, and corrective actions planned to address such 
     variance and deviation.
       (H) Recommendations for additional authorities, which if 
     provided to the Secretary, would improve the ability of the 
     Department of Defense to rapidly field MRAP vehicles.
       (I) Plans for armor upgrades, and their impact on 
     automotive performance and sustainment.
       (J) An explanation of any safety issues or limitations on 
     the vehicles.
       (K) Anticipated short and long term sustainment issues, 
     including an explanation of the maintenance concept for 
     sustainment after the initial contractor logistic support 
     period and the projected annual funding required.
       (L) A detailed description of MRAP program costs, including 
     research and development, procurement, maintenance, 
     logistics, and end to end transportation costs.
       (c) Report on Tactical Wheeled Vehicles Strategy.--
       (1) In general.--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 near and long term tactical wheeled vehicle fleet 
     modernization strategies of the Army and Marine Corps.
       (2) Content.--The report required under paragraph (1) shall 
     include the following:
       (A) A description of the impact of the Mine Resistant 
     Ambush Protected vehicle program on the current acquisition 
     strategies and procurement plans of the Army and Marine Corps 
     for the tactical wheeled vehicle fleet, including inventory 
     mix, overall sustainment cost, and logistical and industrial 
     base issues.
       (B) Plans for the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program, 
     including an assessment of the continued validity of 
     previously adopted Key Performance Parameters.
       (C) A science and technology investment strategy, including 
     a description of current technical barriers, near and long 
     term technology objectives, coordination of activities of the 
     various military departments, Defense Agencies, and 
     commercial industry entities, and technology demonstration 
     and transition plans to support the Long Term Armoring 
     Strategy (LTAS).
       (D) A strategy to fund and execute sufficient developmental 
     and operational test and evaluation to ensure that deployed 
     systems are operationally effective, including a description 
     of the role of the Director of Operational Test and 
     Evaluation in the development and execution of the Long Term 
     Armoring Strategy.
       (E) Plans to utilize the Army reset and recapitalization 
     process to maintain the legacy tactical wheeled vehicle 
     fleet.
       (d) Report on Long Term Armoring Strategy.--
       (1) In general.--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, in 
     classified and unclassified forms, on the Long Term Armoring 
     Strategy of the Army and Marine Corps.
       (2) Content.--The report required under paragraph (1) shall 
     include the following:
       (A) An estimate of the funding required to execute the 
     strategy.
       (B) Specific plans for balancing force protection, payload, 
     performance, and deployability requirements across the range 
     of wheeled vehicle variants.
       (C) A science and technology investment strategy, including 
     a description of current technical barriers, near and long 
     term technology objectives, coordination of activities of the 
     various military departments, Defense Agencies, and 
     commercial industry entities, and technology demonstration 
     and transition plans.
       (D) A test and evaluation master plan, including a 
     description of the role of the Director of Operational Test 
     and Evaluation in the development and execution of LTAS.
       (E) An analysis of industrial base or manufacturing issues 
     related to achieving sufficient and sustainable production 
     rates.


                           amendment no. 3112

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on the Air Force Logistics 
                                Center)

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

     SEC. 342. SENSE OF SENATE ON THE AIR FORCE LOGISTICS CENTERS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) Air Force Air Logistics Centers have served as a model 
     of efficiency and effectiveness in providing integrated 
     sustainment (depot maintenance, supply management, and 
     product support) for fielded weapon systems within the 
     Department of Defense. This success has been founded in the 
     integration of these dependent processes.
       (2) Air Force Air Logistics Centers have embraced best 
     practices, technology changes, and process improvements, and 
     have successfully managed increased workload while at the 
     same time reducing personnel.
       (3) Air Force Air Logistics Centers continue to 
     successfully sustain an aging aircraft fleet that is 
     performing more flying hours, with less aircraft, than at any 
     point in the last thirty years.
       (4) The purpose of the Global Logistics Support Center is 
     to apply an enterprise approach to supply chain management to 
     eliminate redundancies and improve efficiencies across the 
     Air Force in order to best provide capable aircraft to the 
     warfighter.
       (5) The Air Force is working diligently to identify means 
     to create further efficiencies in the Air Force logistics 
     network.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that 
     the Air Force should work closely with Congress as the Air 
     Force continues to develop and implement the Global Logistics 
     Support Center concept.


                    amendment no. 3032, as modified

       On page 91, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
       (c) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     take effect on a date elected by the Secretary of Defense, 
     which date may not be earlier than the date that is one year 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act. The Secretary 
     shall publish in the Federal Register notice of the effective 
     date of the amendments made by this section, as so elected.
       (2) Report.--Not later than the effective date elected 
     under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives a report setting forth the recommendations of 
     the Secretary regarding the following:

[[Page S12363]]

       (A) The appropriate role and mission of the Reserve Forces 
     Policy Board.
       (B) The appropriate membership of the Reserve Forces Policy 
     Board.
       (C) The appropriate procedures to be utilized by the 
     Reserve Forces Policy Board in its interaction with the 
     Department of Defense.


                    amendment no. 2905, as modified

       On page 114, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:

     SEC. 583. PILOT PROGRAM ON MILITARY FAMILY READINESS AND 
                   SERVICEMEMBER REINTEGRATION.

       (a) Pilot Program.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense shall carry out a 
     pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of 
     providing assistance and support to the Adjutant General of a 
     State or territory of the U.S. to create comprehensive 
     soldier and family preparedness and reintegration outreach 
     programs for members of the Armed Forces and their families 
     to further the purposes described in section 1781b(b) of 
     title 10, United States Code, as added by section 582(a) of 
     this Act.
       (2) Coordination.--In carrying out the pilot program, the 
     Secretary shall--
       (A) coordinate with the Department of Defense Military 
     Family Readiness Council (established under section 1781a of 
     title, United States Code, as added by section 581 of this 
     Act); and
       (B) consult with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
       (3) Designation.--The pilot program established pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) shall be known as the ``National Military 
     Family Readiness and Servicemember Reintegration Outreach 
     Program'' (in this section referred to as ``the pilot 
     program'').
       (b) Assistance Provided.--The Secretary shall carry out the 
     pilot program through assistance and support.
       The Adjutant General of a State or territory of the United 
     States.
       (d) Purpose of Assistance and Support.--
       (1) The pilot program may develop programs of outreach to 
     members of the Armed Forces and their family members to 
     educate such members and their family members about the 
     assistance and services available to them that meet the 
     purposes of section 1781b(b) of title 10, United States Code, 
     as added by section 582(a) of this Act, and to assist such 
     members and their family members in obtaining such assistance 
     and services. Such assistance and services may include the 
     following:
       (A) Marriage counseling.
       (B) Services for children.
       (C) Suicide prevention.
       (D) Substance abuse awareness and treatment.
       (E) Mental health awareness and treatment.
       (F) Financial counseling.
       (G) Anger management counseling.
       (H) Domestic violence awareness and prevention.
       (I) Employment assistance.
       (J) Development of strategies for living with a member of 
     the Armed Forces with post traumatic stress disorder or 
     traumatic brain injury.
       (K) Other services that may be appropriate to address the 
     unique needs of members of the Armed Forces and their 
     families who live in rural or remote areas with respect to 
     family readiness and servicemember reintegration.
       (L) Assisting members of the Armed Forces and their 
     families find and receive assistance with military family 
     readiness and servicemember reintegration, including referral 
     services.
       (M) Development of strategies and programs that recognize 
     the need for long-term follow-up services for reintegrating 
     members of the Armed Forces and their families for extended 
     periods following deployments, including between deployments.
       (N) Assisting members of the Armed Forces and their 
     families in receiving services and assistance from the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs, including referral services.
       (2) Provision of outreach services.--A recipient of a grant 
     under this section shall carry out programs of outreach in 
     accordance with paragraph (1) to members of the Armed Forces 
     and their families before, during, between, and after 
     deployment of such members of the Armed Forces.
       (e) Selection of Grant Recipients.--
       (1) Application.--An eligible entity seeking a grant under 
     the pilot program shall submit to the Secretary an 
     application therefor in such form and in such manner as the 
     Secretary considers appropriate.
       (2) Elements.--An application submitted under subparagraph 
     (A) shall include such elements as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.
       (3) Priority.--In selecting eligible entities to receive 
     grants under the pilot program, the Secretary shall give 
     priority to eligible entities that propose programs with a 
     focus on personal outreach to members of the Armed Forces and 
     their families by trained staff (with preference given to 
     veterans and, in particular, veterans of combat) conducted in 
     person.


                    Amendment No. 3027, as modified

         At the end of title X, add the following:

     SEC. 1070. REPORT ON FEASIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DOMESTIC 
                   MILITARY AVIATION NATIONAL TRAINING CENTER.

       (a) In General.--Not later than March 31, 2008, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional 
     defense committees a report to determine the feasibility of 
     establishing a Border State Aviation Training Center (BSATC) 
     to support the current and future requirements of the 
     existing RC-26 training site for counterdrug activities, 
     located at the Fixed Wing Army National Guard Aviation 
     Training Site (FWAATS), including the domestic reconnaissance 
     and surveillance missions of the National Guard in support of 
     local State, and Federal law enforcement agencies, provided 
     that the activities to be conducted at the BSATC shall not 
     duplicate or displace any activity or program at the C-26 
     training site or the FWAATS.
       (b) Content.--The report required under subsection (a) 
     shall--
       (1) examine the current and past requirements of RC-26 
     aircraft in support of local, State, and Federal law 
     enforcement and determine the number of additional aircraft 
     required to provide such support for each State that borders 
     Canada, Mexico, or the Gulf of Mexico;
       (2) determine the number of military and civilian personnel 
     required to run a RC-26 domestic training center meeting the 
     requirements identified under paragraph (1); and
       (3) determine the requirements and cost of locating such a 
     training center at a military installation for the purpose of 
     preempting and responding to security threats and responding 
     to crises; and
       (4) include a comprehensive review of the number of 
     intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance platforms 
     needed for the National Guard to effectively provide domestic 
     operations and civil support (including homeland defense and 
     counterdrug) to local, State, and Federal law enforcement and 
     first responder entities.
         (c) Consultation.--In preparing the report required under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense shall consult with 
     the Adjutant General of each State that borders Canada, 
     Mexico, or the Gulf of Mexico, the Adjutant General of the 
     State of West Virginia, and the National Guard Bureau.


                           Amendment No. 2905

  Mr. SUNUNU. Madam President, I rise today in favor of the Sanders 
amendment, No. 2905, to the Department of Defense authorization bill, 
which would establish a pilot program aimed at providing essential care 
and services to National Guard soldiers returning home from duty.
  Back in the fall of 2004, the New Hampshire National Guard was one of 
the first Guard units to recognize the unique difficulties encountered 
by guardsmen and women returning from combat operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. In response, the Guard led the way in addressing these 
concerns by establishing its own reunion and reentry program, which 
employs innovative solutions to cope with the difficult transition to 
life at home.
  Under the reentry program, soldiers and their families receive 
multiple counseling sessions and an introduction to the array of 
services available to them within the first 36 hours of returning home. 
The program works to ensure that servicemembers and their families 
recognize that they are not alone and that the Guard is committed to 
providing the care and assistance they need after returning from 
deployment.
  This program has proven to be enormously successful, and has become a 
model for other States, due in part because it removes the burden of 
seeking and requesting care from the individual soldier. I am proud of 
the leadership role New Hampshire's National Guard has taken in 
combating this very serious problem.
  I am pleased the Senate adopted the Sanders amendment to provide 
support that will allow other States to establish programs similar to 
New Hampshire's.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at this juncture, I think the Senator from 
Michigan and I might commend our staffs for doing a lot of diligent 
work through a good part of the weekend to achieve this package of 
amendments. I think this adds up to about 180 amendments we have done 
now. So much of that work is done by our magnificent professional 
staff, many of whom have been on the Armed Services Committee for 
numbers of years.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank my good friend, Senator Warner, for 
that suggestion. This is a good moment to do that before we have a vote 
later on the bill. Our staffs, as always, put in an amazing amount of 
time--in the evenings, mornings, over weekends--in order for us to get 
through hundreds of amendments.
  Actually, the Senator is right. I think there were 180 cleared 
amendments and about 35 amendments that

[[Page S12364]]

have been disposed of separately one way or another.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, over 180 amendments.
  Mr. LEVIN. So I do not know if we set a record because my good friend 
from Virginia probably is the record-holder--and probably more than 
once. But, I say to the Senator, we are going to try to get to where 
you have been. We are going to try harder.
  Mr. WARNER. Well, where have you been?
  Mr. LEVIN. With you every time. But when you were chairman and you--
  Mr. WARNER. We have both been chairman of this committee, Mr. 
President, three times.
  Mr. LEVIN. One time each, I think, for 18 days.
  But, in any event, I thank our staffs.
  I thank my friend for raising this issue.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the indulgence of our 
distinguished Presiding Officer and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  I withhold the request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I, too, join in thanking our chairman and 
ranking member, Senator Levin and Senator Warner, for all of their 
cooperation during the consideration of a number of amendments we have 
offered these past days. It is typical of their service and their 
thoughtfulness. They are serious legislators. We are fortunate to have 
them dealing with these issues of such importance and consequence for 
our national security. I am grateful to them both.
  I wish to take a few moments.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Massachusetts yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts has been on 
this committee for more than two decades, and there is no one who works 
harder and more diligently. I wish there were more programs on which we 
had a concurrence of philosophy and policy, but nevertheless I say to 
the Senator, you are a very prodigious worker.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if I could add one word on that subject, 
the Senator from Massachusetts is not only about as diligent a Senator 
as one can imagine, but he has had great success on this particular 
bill. I do not know how he manages to keep all the balls in the air 
that he does, including the CHIP program, immigration, and so many 
other issues. But he has had an extraordinary success on this 
particular bill, and it is a real tribute to him--this bill--for many 
reasons.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, as was described earlier on the floor with the 
chairman of the committee, on last Friday, there are important 
provisions dealing with refugees, particularly the select refugees who 
have been the ones who have been so associated with the American effort 
in Iraq.
  We have differences in this body on the overall policy in Iraq, but I 
think all of us admire those extraordinary individuals who worked, in 
many instances, as translators for the American servicemen and risked 
their lives. Many of them lost their lives in this effort. A number of 
others who had worked with American forces now have their lives 
threatened, for which there is a sense of urgency. The amendment was 
accepted by both Senator Levin and Senator Warner. We are hopeful it 
will result in saving lives. Also, there are individuals who, by their 
religious beliefs, were being persecuted as well.
  So this was a small amendment, but it will make a big difference. I 
thank them for their help and assistance on that amendment and a number 
of other items on our hate crimes legislation, and others.


                           Amendment No. 3058

  Mr. President, one of the pending amendments is the amendment offered 
by Senator Mikulski and myself, and that is an amendment that affects 
workers. In this case, we are talking about Defense Department workers. 
Of those 640,000 Defense Department workers, we are talking about a 
third of those workers who have proudly served in the Armed Forces of 
our country. They have worn the uniform of our country, acquired 
various skills, and then have come back and now are serving in the 
Defense Department in a wide variety of areas--in information and 
information technologies, in supplies, in technology and safety 
equipment--a wide variety of areas. They are using their skills--which 
they had--their patriotism, their dedication to service to this country 
and are doing so with great skill and determination.
  It means a lot to those who are in the Armed Forces to know they have 
a backup, first of all by their families, but secondly by skilled men 
and women who are going to make sure they have the best in technology, 
the best in terms of equipment, and that they are going to be able to 
do their job in the way they were trained. Those are the Defense 
Department employees.
  Now, we have found in recent times as to those employees that their 
futures have been put at risk. They have been put at risk because of a 
change in the rules and regulations for what they call outsourcing, the 
bidding for various contracts. These workers are highly skilled, highly 
professional, and they are prepared to compete on a level playing field 
with any group of workers--public or private sector--and do so, and do 
so well, do it skillfully, and also do it in a way that is going to 
save the American taxpayer resources. But what is added to the bid in 
various contracts is the fact that these Federal employees have health 
insurance and also have some retirement benefits.
  In this country now we are facing a health care crisis. We hear 
Democratic candidates for President talk about it, Republican 
candidates talk about it, business leaders, leaders of the trade union 
movement talk about it. We were spending $1.3 trillion 6 years ago; we 
are now spending $2.3 trillion. We have increased the spending by $1 
trillion, and 8 million Americans have lost their health insurance--8 
million. It would be more than that if we didn't have the SCHIP 
program. That is another issue for another time, when it will be more 
than that.
  So we are in real danger of seeing middle-class families lose both 
their retirement in terms of their pensions, as well as their health 
insurance. Now we have the regulations of the Department of Defense 
that are accelerating that. Effectively, what they are saying is, if we 
have good competition between the government bid and the private bid, 
the fact that we have health insurance and retirement, it is going to 
make the total cost somewhat higher and therefore the award will go to 
the private bid. This is sending a powerful message to these private 
contractors: Don't even think of providing any services, health care, 
for the families of your workers. Don't think about retirement. Don't 
think about anything because you can win contracts against those who 
are working in the Defense Department who are providing those benefits. 
That is basically unfair.
  This competition ought to be for the cost of providing the services. 
Who can do that more efficiently? We don't want to rush to the bottom--
a race to the bottom--and that is what we are having at this time, and 
that is wrong. That is wrong, and it is unfair. If we continue that, we 
are going to find out we are going to have not tens of thousands, but 
we are going to have hundreds of thousands of people who are going to 
see that their insurance is lost.
  This isn't just the employees. If we look at the private contractor, 
one private contractor was going for a bid, another was bidding for it, 
and at the present time, if that were the circumstance today, the 
responsible contractor who is looking out for their employees with 
health insurance for the families and with a retirement program, they 
would be somewhat higher than the cost of providing service by the 
irresponsible contractor, and they would lose out. So it isn't only the 
workers who are working in the Defense Department but also responsible 
contractors who are providing services for their employees and who 
respect their employees.
  If we don't accept this amendment, we are going to see a continuing 
rush to the bottom where it is going to be virtually impossible to get 
these independent contractors to provide any of the kinds of services 
to these families who are working in this country. That isn't what we 
ought to have in terms of the Defense Department rules.

[[Page S12365]]

  Finally, as I pointed out earlier, but it is worth mentioning again, 
some of the other provisions that basically work for the unfairness of 
those who are working in the Defense Department. If there is an unfair 
decision, the private contractors can appeal that, but the workers over 
here cannot. That isn't fair. This amendment is about fairness, 
treating people fairly.
  Renew a contract without recompetition, they can do that. Private 
contractors can do it, but if the Federal workers have that contract, 
they can't do it. We find out for the most competitive bid, there are 
administrative rules and regulations that prohibit Federal employees 
from getting the lowest competitive bid. They know how to do it, they 
want to do it; nonetheless, they are denied the opportunity to do it.
  Then we have these quotas that are set by OMB, which is not right. 
They establish so many contractors and so much is virtually prohibited, 
but it has grown into a practice at the present time.
  So this amendment is very much about fairness. It is about how we are 
going to treat people who are part of the whole Defense establishment. 
And they are these workers, and they are indispensable. A great 
percentage of them have been a part of the military and have served 
with great distinction for many years. They want to continue that sense 
of patriotism, continue that sense of service, continue that sense of 
giving. The men and women who are in the Armed Forces know they can 
rely on the quality of the work that the individuals do because these 
individuals are highly motivated, highly trained, have been in the 
service, many of them have served for many years, come out of the 
service, have skills, and say: What I would like to do for the rest of 
my career is to be able to continue to give support to those who are on 
the front lines, and they do it. They do it with great distinction, and 
they do it with great expertise and with extraordinary patriotism.
  All they are asking for is to have a fair system, to give them a fair 
shake. Give them some respect. Give them the respect they deserve, that 
they should have. Give some respect for their families as well.
  So I hope very much we will have good support for this amendment. As 
I mentioned earlier in those particular provisions that we put up about 
disparities between the private contractors and the employees, we have 
had strong bipartisan support for just about every one of those 
provisions, but they have been put on appropriations in the past, and 
therefore at the time the appropriation expires, these provisions 
expire. Now we are back to try to revisit this once again. So there is 
a strong and compelling reason for this amendment.
  I thank Senator Lieberman and so many of our cosponsors, including 
Senator Mikulski who has spoken so well and who has been such a strong 
advocate, and so many of our colleagues who have supported the 
different provisions on both sides of the aisle. Hopefully, we will 
have a strong vote in an hour from now for those workers.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I rise to support the Kennedy 
amendment because, frankly, it makes fiscal sense. There has been in 
this administration a rush to contract. They never saw any function of 
government that somehow they didn't believe would be better off in the 
private sector. I am not opposed to privatization just for the sake of 
being opposed to privatization. I have no problem with contracting, if 
it is going to save taxpayers' money and we are still going to get 
quality work on behalf of taxpayers from those contractors working in 
government. But if we have learned anything over the last 6 years, we 
have learned that you don't always get a good deal when you contract.
  I know we have spent a lot of time talking over the last few weeks 
about the contracting that went on in Iraq, and I will not dwell on 
that here, but it is exhibit A of how badly government sometimes does 
in the name of saving money when it enters into private contracts.
  So what this amendment says is pretty simple, and it is kind of what 
auditors say over and over again until people want us to be quiet; that 
is, compete, compete, compete. Not only should these contracts be 
competitive among potential contractors, they must be competitive with 
the government workers who are currently doing the work. There have 
been many examples of where, in the name of saving money, someone was 
hired to do the job, and it ended up costing us more than had the 
government employees remained on the job. That is just the basics of 
this amendment.
  This is nothing new. This has been in a number of Defense 
appropriations bills, and it is in effect for the Department of 
Defense. The A-76 rule, which this is called, is now currently the law 
within the Department of Defense. This will extend it, codify it, make 
it uniform across the Federal Government. If you are going to contract 
out, then the employees have a right to participate in that 
competition. And if the employees of government can show they can do 
the job, as they have been doing, and they can do it for less money 
than the private contractor, then they should get the award in that 
particular competition.
  This is a way to not only make sure we are not getting rid of the 
expertise we have in government, it is also a way to reinforce how 
important competition is. We have had competitions that have 
masqueraded as real competitions in this administration a number of 
times. This will make sure we are getting the best value for that very 
precious taxpayer dollar. They are going to have to demonstrate that 
the contract is going to save money in order for the contract to be put 
out to a private entity as opposed to government employees.
  I think it is a very solid amendment in terms of watching out for 
taxpayer money. I know it is characterized that this is to protect 
government employees. It is not. It is called protecting taxpayers' 
money. That is why I think this amendment is so important. That is why 
I hope my colleagues will join together to strike another blow on 
behalf of fiscal accountability and making sure we treat taxpayers' 
money with respect and deference and making sure we are spending it 
very wisely.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wish to rise in support of the pending 
amendment by Senator Kennedy on public-private competition. Sometimes 
this amendment is described as the Kennedy-Mikulski or the Mikulski-
Kennedy amendment. Both Senators deserve a great deal of credit for 
their support.
  The Department of Defense has allowed its workforce of civilian 
employees to atrophy to the point of a human capital crisis. Since 
fiscal year 2000, the number of contractor employees under DOD service 
contracts has roughly doubled, while the number of DOD civilian 
employees has remained virtually unchanged. As a result, the Department 
of Defense has found in area after area--acquisition management, 
financial management, even security and intelligence--it must now rely 
upon contractors to perform functions that were formerly performed by 
Federal employees.
  These adverse trends have been exacerbated by an administration that 
has consistently pushed to have more Federal work performed in the 
private sector. In 2001, the Office of Management and Budget 
established a goal of subjecting half of the work performed by Federal 
employees to private sector competition within 4 years. While the 
administration subsequently backed off of this Government-wide goal, 
OMB continues to establish agency-specific goals, and to grade agencies 
on their performance in converting work to private sector performance.
  The Kennedy-Mikulski amendment would end this artificial effort to 
drive contracts to the private sector by codifying a commonsense set of 
rules that govern competition between Federal employees and private 
contractors.
  Some of these rules have already been enacted through appropriations 
acts in previous Congresses. The Kennedy-Mikulski amendment would make 
these rules permanent law. Others have

[[Page S12366]]

already been enacted for the DOD. The Kennedy-Mikulski amendment would 
make these provisions Government-wide.
  I wish to focus on one provision of the amendment which addresses a 
fundamental element of fairness in competition between the private and 
public sectors. OMB circular A-76, which governs public-private 
competitions, establishes rules for what happens after one side or the 
other wins a competition. If the private sector wins a competition, the 
work stays in the private sector forever. If the public sector wins, 
however, the work must be subject to a new competition within 5 years. 
Attachment B to OMB circular A-76 specifically states that if the 
public sector competitor wins a competition, ``an agency shall complete 
another . . . competition of the activity by the end of the last 
performance period'' in the performance agreement.
  This rule is fundamentally unfair. It also undermines the morale of 
Federal civilian employees by contributing to the view of civil 
servants as second-class citizens. At a time when the Department of 
Defense should be recruiting thousands of new civilian employees to 
address a human capital crisis, the rule is clearly contrary to the 
Department's own interests.
  The Kennedy-Mikulski amendment would address this problem by stating 
that OMB may not require the Department of Defense to conduct a new 
public-private competition within any specified period of time after 
the public sector wins a competition. That is the right answer. DOD's 
human capital policies should be driven by the Department's human 
capital needs--not by arbitrary policies established by the Office of 
Management and Budget. So I hope our colleagues will support the 
Kennedy-Mikulski amendment.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. 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. LEVIN. Mr. President, last week, the Senate adopted a historic 
amendment offered by Senators Webb, McCaskill, and others, to establish 
an independent commission to review the many problems with fraud, 
waste, and abuse that have arisen in Iraq relative to contracting and 
to give us recommendations on how we can avoid similar problems in the 
future. I wish to commend the Senators that were involved in this 
effort for the leadership they showed in drafting this amendment and 
getting it adopted by the Senate.
  The Department of Defense faces huge problems in its acquisition 
system today. Over the last few years, we have seen an alarming lack of 
acquisition planning across the Department; the excessive use of 
contracts that make open-ended commitments of DOD funds; and a 
pervasive failure to perform contract oversight and management 
functions necessary to protect taxpayers' interest. These problems have 
been particularly acute in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they are in no way 
limited to Iraq and Afghanistan.
  The contracting commission established pursuant to the Webb-McCaskill 
amendment should help us identify the sources of these problems and 
provide us with constructive recommendations to avoid similar problems 
in the future.
  In addition to the commission language adopted last week, there are 
significant acquisition reform measures already in this bill, as it 
came to the floor, that will make improvements in the DOD acquisition 
system and to wartime contracting. Taken together, these provisions 
will make the bill that is now before the Senate, by far, the most 
significant acquisition reform measure to be considered by Congress 
since the enactment of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act and the 
Federal Acquisition Reform Act more than 10 years ago.
  For example, section 821 of the bill would require increased 
competition in large ``umbrella contracts'' awarded by the Department 
of Defense. The Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing in April 
on the Department of Defense management of the $20 billion so-called 
LOGCAP contract, under which a company called KBR--until recently, a 
subsidiary of Halliburton--has provided services to U.S. troops in the 
field.
  Here are some of the things we learned in our hearing:
  The company was given work that appears to have far exceeded the 
scope of the contract; all of this added work was provided to the 
contractor without competition; the contractor resisted providing us 
with information that we needed to monitor and control costs; there 
were almost $2 billion of overcharges on the contract; and the 
contractor received highly favorable settlements on these overcharges.
  When asked why the Army had waited 5 years to split the massive 
LOGCAP contract among multiple contractors, allowing for greater 
competition of the work to be performed under the contract, the 
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics gave the following answer: ``I don't have a good answer for 
you.''
  The provision in our bill would avoid the kind of abuses we get in 
sole-source contracts by ensuring that future contracts of this type 
provide for the competition of task and delivery orders unless there is 
a compelling reason not to do so. If our language stays intact, we 
should never again see the kind of abuses which existed with the 
Halliburton-KBR umbrella contracts.
  Similarly, section 871 of the bill would require tighter regulation 
and control over private security contractors operating in areas of 
combat operations. Over the last 4 years, there has been a number of 
reports of abuses by private security contractors operating in Iraq. 
There have been allegations, even films, of contractors shooting 
recklessly at civilians as they drive down the streets of Baghdad and 
other Iraqi cities. Some of these contractors work for the Department 
of Defense, but many others work for other Federal agencies or for 
contractors of other Federal agencies.
  Most recently, the Iraqi Government has complained about an incident 
in which employees of Blackwater allegedly opened fire on innocent 
Iraqis in downtown Baghdad. According to published reports, Blackwater 
employees shot into a crush of cars, killing at least 11 Iraqis and 
wounding 12. Blackwater officials insist their guards were ambushed, 
but witnesses described this shooting as unprovoked, and Iraq's 
Interior Ministry has concluded that Blackwater was at fault.
  Last week, the Washington Post reported that senior military 
officials are deeply concerned about this shootout and other similar 
incidents which could undermine our efforts to combat terrorists and 
insurgents in Iraq. This is what the Washington Post article reported:

       ``The military is very sensitive to its relationship that 
     they've built with the Iraqis being altered or even severely 
     degraded by actions such as this event''. . . .
       ``This is a nightmare,'' said a senior U.S. military 
     official. ``We had guys who saw the aftermath, and it was 
     very bad. This is going to hurt us badly. It may be worse 
     than Abu Ghraib, and it comes at a time when we're trying to 
     have an impact for the long term''. . . .
       In interviews involving a dozen U.S. military and 
     government officials, many expressed . . . concern over the 
     shootings. . . .
       ``This is a big mess that I don't think anyone has their 
     hands around yet,'' said another U.S. military official. 
     ``It's not necessarily a bad thing these guys are being held 
     accountable. Iraqis hate them, the troops don't particularly 
     care for them, and they tend to have a know-it-all attitude, 
     which means they rarely listen to anyone--even the folks that 
     patrol the ground on a daily basis.''
       ``Their tendency is shoot first and ask questions later,'' 
     said an Army lieutenant colonel serving in Iraq. Referring to 
     the September 16 shootings, the officer added, ``None of us 
     believe they were engaged, but we are all carrying their 
     black eyes.''
       ``Many of my peers think Blackwater is oftentimes out of 
     control,'' said a senior U.S. commander serving in Iraq. 
     ``They often act like cowboys over here . . . not seeming to 
     play by the same rules everybody else tries to play by.''

  The provision in our bill would address this problem by ensuring that 
the Department of Defense and its combatant commanders are in a 
position to regulate the conduct of all armed contractors in the battle 
space, regardless of whether they are employed under contracts of the 
Department of Defense or other Federal agencies. Under the provision in 
our bill, private security contractors employed by any Federal agency 
or any contractor or subcontractor for a Federal agency would be

[[Page S12367]]

required for the first time to comply with DOD rules on the use of 
force and with orders, directions, and instructions issued by combatant 
commanders relating to force protection, security, health, safety, or 
relations and interaction with local nationals.
  Other provisions in our bill would provide added protection for 
contractor employees who blow the whistle on fraud, waste, and abuse. 
They would require the DOD to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the 
billions of dollars it spends every year to purchase contract services. 
Our bill will tighten rules for the acquisition of major weapons 
systems; ensure that we get fair prices when we purchase spare parts 
for those weapons systems; enhance competition requirements for 
products purchased from Federal prison industries; and address abuses 
of undefinitized contract actions.
  The root cause of these and all the other problems that we read and 
hear so much about, or at least most of the other problems, in the 
defense acquisition system is our failure to maintain an acquisition 
workforce with the resources and skills that are needed to manage the 
Department's acquisition system.
  Earlier this year, the Acquisition Advisory Panel, chartered pursuant 
to the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004, 
reported that ``curtailed investments in human capital have produced an 
acquisition workforce that often lacks the training and resources to 
function effectively.'' And they went on:

       The Federal Government does not have the capacity in its 
     current acquisition workforce necessary to meet the demands 
     that have been placed on it.

  The failure of Department of Defense and other Federal agencies to 
adequately fund the acquisition workforce, the panel concluded, is `` 
`penny-wise and pound-foolish,' as it seriously undermines the pursuit 
of the good value for the expenditure of public resources.''
  Senior DOD officials have recognized the deficiencies in the defense 
acquisition workforce, but they have been unable to obtain significant 
funds that are needed to remedy the problem. Section 844 of our bill 
will address this issue by establishing an acquisition workforce 
development fund to enable the Department of Defense to increase the 
size and quality of its acquisition workforce. In the first year, we 
will provide roughly $500 million for this purpose. It is a large sum 
of money, but it is a small investment to ensure the proper expenditure 
of more than $200 billion of taxpayers' money every year.
  We look forward to working with the House conferees after we pass our 
bill, hopefully this evening, to make these important provisions on 
acquisition reform and the acquisition workforce the law of the land.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I want to speak on final 
passage of the bill. We are going to have that vote shortly. What is 
the parliamentary procedure we are in?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is currently considering the 
Kennedy amendment to the bill.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, if I may be recognized, I 
will use these remarks to tell the Senate that it has been a pleasure 
to work with the chairman of the full committee, Senator Levin, who has 
consistently given this Senator free rein as the chairman of the 
Strategic Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee.
  What it looked like last winter was that all the thorny issues of 
nuclear weapons and the follow-on nuclear weapons and the question of 
national missile defense, the strategic posture of the United States, 
would get us all wound up around the axle. But it didn't turn out that 
way, and I want to give credit to my colleague, Senator Sessions, the 
ranking member of our subcommittee, for working with me and the members 
of the committee in resolving these issues. What we worked out in 
subcommittee, basically, is what is in the bill.
  Although the administration would like to go ahead and start building 
national missile defense sites in Eastern Europe, the fact is, they 
haven't even worked it out with the countries involved in Eastern 
Europe. So what we did was we put a fence around any funding other than 
the acquisition and the preparation of the land for such a site.
  At the end of the day, there is going to have to be continued 
research and development should the need arise for locating those 
missiles in Eastern Europe because they are not the same version that 
is in the silos in Alaska. That is a three-stage version; this is a 
two-stage version. And it is not the same missile or rocket; therefore, 
it has to go through all of its subsequent testing.
  Now, General Obering just had a successful test a couple of days ago, 
and for that we want to congratulate him, but if the threat is the 
Shahab missile from Iran shooting into Europe or into the United States 
with a nuclear weapon on top of the rocket, if that is the reason to 
have national missile defense in Eastern Europe, well, we just simply 
don't know that Iran is going to have that capability. And as we 
continue to look at this on down the road, that is going to be an 
evaluation as to whether at the end of the day we are going to need 
that national missile defense in Eastern Europe. But since we don't 
know all those answers, we have provided in this bill that if they 
concluded the agreement with those Eastern European countries, they can 
go about the process of acquiring the land, the site, and the 
preparation of the site.
  We also noted in our committee that they have not had tremendous 
success with the airborne laser, and of the approximately $.5 billion 
that they wanted to continue that program, we cut that program by $200 
billion and used that money elsewhere, in kinetic energy intercepts on 
the boost phase of an intercontinental ballistic missile.
  So those are just some of the things in here, and I want to thank all 
the parties who worked with us to get a bipartisan resolution, which is 
the way a Defense bill ought to be managed and ought to be passed, and 
we have that this year, and I am very grateful.
  Now, there is another part in here that Senator Levin and the ranking 
member of the full committee approved, and I want to thank him for 
that. That is the question of widows and orphans. Current law is that a 
servicemember pays for survivors benefits. They pay once they retire, 
and they pay for that benefit. It is like an insurance policy. On the 
other hand, there is another body of law in the Veterans' 
Administration where there are survivors benefits for widows and 
orphans. When the servicemember passes away, those two eligibilities, 
under current law, cancel out each other, and that is not the way we 
ought to be treating widows and orphans.
  It was no less than President Lincoln who said, in his second 
inaugural address, that the mark of a country is how it treats the 
victims of war, the widows and orphans. And taking care of the widows 
and orphans, in fact, is a cost of defense. It is a cost of doing 
business in defense. Just like you buy tanks and airplanes and guns and 
materiel, and so forth, taking care of not only the veterans is a cost 
of war, but taking care of their survivors is a cost of war too. This 
Nation has long canceled out those two eligibilities, and it is time 
for us to change this.
  Because we were down at the end of our discussion of this bill last 
week, I did not ask for a rollcall vote, as I had last year. Of course, 
the rollcall was something like 95 to 3 in favor of the widows and 
orphans, and we would have gotten some kind of a vote like that again. 
I was trying to accommodate my chairman and the ranking member in the 
crush of business, and they were kind enough to put it into the 
managers' package. So this will become a conference item, where it is 
always a question about money. A few years ago it was estimated that it 
would cost an additional $9 billion over 10 years. That is now down to 
somewhere in the range of about $7 billion or $8 billion over 10 years. 
So when we get into the conference committee, this Senator is going to 
try to find how

[[Page S12368]]

we can get conferees to accept this provision.
  So I come to the floor of the Senate to congratulate Senator Levin 
and Senator Warner, acting in the stead of Senator McCain as the 
ranking member. What a pleasure it has been to deal with these 
gentlemen for the last 7 years as a member of this committee.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, first, let me commend the Senator from 
Florida. As chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee, with his ranking 
member, the members of that subcommittee have worked through some of 
the most difficult and thorny issues we faced on this bill this year, 
and he identified a few of them. He very modestly gives credit to 
others, but, truly, Senator Nelson deserves most of the credit for 
working out those very difficult issues on a bipartisan basis.
  As a passionate defender of what we should do as a country for the 
survivors of those men and women we lose in war, I can only assure him 
we are going to do everything we can possibly do in conference because 
I assume that had that been brought to a rollcall vote, it would have 
been unanimous or nearly unanimous on the floor of the Senate. We 
appreciated his willingness to have that go as part of the managers' 
package, but for the purpose of that conference, I can assure my dear 
friend from Florida that there is an assumption on our part that would 
have been a unanimous or near unanimous vote by the Senate and so, 
obviously, it is the right thing to do.
  I also have a longer statement later--because 5:30 has arrived--about 
our work as a committee, the subcommittee chairs, the ranking members, 
and the staff. I will save that statement for after our vote on final 
passage, which will come immediately after the vote on the Kennedy-
Mikulski amendment, but I wanted to add that quick comment.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I wish to associate myself with the 
remarks of our colleague and Senator Sessions, the ranking member. I 
can remember the days on the authorization bill when we would spend a 
week or more on the one issue, missile defense. I think both sides have 
pretty well reconciled that the present posture of the program is about 
where it should be.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator for that. The hour of 5:30 has 
arrived. I ask unanimous consent that the Kennedy-Mikulski amendment, 
No. 3109 be withdrawn and that there be 2 minutes of debate at this 
time prior to a vote in relation to the Kennedy-Mikulski amendment, No. 
3058; that no amendment be in order to the amendment; that no further 
amendments be in order; that the debate time be equally divided and 
controlled in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of 
time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to amendment No. 3058; 
that upon disposition of that amendment, the substitute amendment, as 
amended, be agreed to and that the Senate then vote on the passage of 
H.R. 1585; that all other provisions of the previous order relating to 
H.R. 1585 remain in effect and that on Tuesday, October 2, following a 
period of morning business, the Senate proceed to the consideration of 
Calendar No. 353, H.R. 3222, the Defense Department Appropriations Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WARNER. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Amendment No. 3109 is withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 3058

  There are now 2 minutes of debate on the Kennedy amendment.
  The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I seek recognition in these 2 minutes 
seeking support on this amendment, joined by my colleagues, Kennedy and 
Akaka, who spoke Friday about why this amendment is important. It is 
important that this amendment be on this bill because we all remember 
the Walter Reed scandal. Remember the Walter Reed scandal, mold in the 
hotel and all that? I spoke on this floor more than a year and a half 
ago, with Paul Sarbanes, for an amendment that tried to deal with the 
contracting out at Walter Reed. I lost that amendment on the floor by 
two votes.
  We went from 300 employees to 50 employees, and we only saved money 
after they had 6 different attempts to make sure they had contracting 
out. Let me tell you, if you want no more Walter Reeds, you want the 
Kennedy-Mikulski-Akaka amendment. This amendment saves taxpayers money. 
It says that any attempt at contracting out must save $10 million or 10 
percent, so we meet the taxpayer mandate. It eliminates privatization 
quotas. If you are against quotas and OMB bounty hunters, this 
amendment is for you. If you want to make sure our contractors have 
healthy retirement benefits as part of the contract, this amendment is 
for you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Who 
yields time?
  The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, the Kennedy-Mikulski amendment is 
intended to cause the A-76 process to become so cumbersome and 
expensive it would effectively eliminate the ability of the Federal 
Government to conduct any future A-76 competitions. What it 
specifically does is it mandates private contractors match Government 
health and retirement benefits.
  DOD alone has saved taxpayers over $5 billion as a result of 
competitions completed between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2006. 
DOD expects these savings to grow to over $9 billion after the 
completion of all planned competitions initiated in fiscal year 2007 
are completed.
  Right now the Government bidders win over 80 percent of the 
competitions. This can hardly be characterized as an unfair process, as 
supporters of this amendment portray it. It is designed to save 
taxpayer dollars. It has--$5 billion over the past 5 years.
  This amendment makes it so cumbersome, by mandating the private 
contractors match Government health and retirement benefits, that the 
A-76 process will be completely undermined.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, is a request for a quorum call in order 
at this time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is in order. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 358 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--44

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole

[[Page S12369]]


     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Biden
     Clinton
     Dodd
     McCain
     Obama
  The amendment (No. 3058) was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I move to lay that motion on the 
table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I rise today to thank my colleagues for 
their robust debate about this important piece of legislation.
  I would also like to highlight a provision included in this bill 
based on the Stop Arming Iran Act, which I introduced in January of 
this year. The provision seeks to end the Iranian Government's 
acquisition of sensitive military equipment by blocking the Pentagon's 
sale of F-14 fighter jet parts.
  It is the sensitive job of the Department of Defense to demilitarize 
and auction off surplus military equipment. However, recent 
investigations and reports have uncovered a frightening trend regarding 
the sale of F-14 Tomcat aircraft parts. U.S. customs agents have 
discovered F-14 parts being illegally shipped to Iran by brokers who 
bought F-14 surplus equipment from Department of Defense auctions.
  Other than the United States, Iran is the only nation to fly the F-
14. The United States allowed Iran to buy 79 F-14s before its 
revolution in 1979. Fortunately, most of Iran's F-14s are currently 
grounded for lack of parts. As the F-14 is retired from active service 
in the United States, a slew of parts are about to be processed by the 
Pentagon.
  We know that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. We know 
that the Department of State has identified Iran as the most active 
state sponsor of terrorism. We know that the sale of spare parts for F-
14s could make it more difficult to confront the nuclear weapons 
capability of Iran. And yet F-14 parts are still being sold by the DOD.
  Iran's F-14s, especially with the parts to get more of them airborne, 
greatly strengthen its ground war potential, harming our national and 
global security. Our country should be doing everything possible to 
deny the brutal regime in Tehran access to spare parts for their F-14 
fleet.
  The Department of Defense will tell you that it is already taking 
action to control the sale of F-14 parts. They now say that every F-14 
part is frozen and cannot be sold. However, they will not commit to 
keeping this freeze in place and admit that the Pentagon can choose to 
rescind or make exceptions to this policy at any time. I have 
identified three large-scale changes to the Pentagon's policy on F-14 
parts in just the last year. And history has shown us that these rules 
are not enough.
  The Department has been caught still selling F-14 parts, even when 
its rules forbid it. It has sold F-14 parts to companies that have 
turned out to be fronts for the Iranians. More recently, the DOD sold 
sensitive technology, including classified F-14 parts, to undercover 
GAO investigators.
  This provision will make it crystal clear to the Department of 
Defense that it may not sell any F-14 parts to anyone for any reason. 
There should be no chance for the parts to make their way to the 
Iranians.
  I am very encouraged that both the Senate and House Armed Services 
Committees have included the Stop Arming Iran provision in both 
versions of the Defense authorization bill. I commend my colleagues for 
allowing this important legislation into today's bill.
  The provision fixes a very specific but very important problem: the 
sale of F-14 components to a state sponsor of terrorism. We cannot--and 
with the passage of this bill, we will not--allow that to happen.
  (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. DODD. Madam President, I wish to explain my vote against 
ending debate on the Defense authorization bill. I voted this way for 
two simple reasons--first, this bill does not do anything to end the 
war, and second, it does not provide adequate support for the families 
of our returning wounded warriors.
  A few weeks ago, I filed an amendment based on a key recommendation 
of the Dole-Shalala Wounded Warriors Commission--to expand the Family 
and Medical Leave Act to allow the families of wounded military 
personnel to take up to 6 months of unpaid leave to care for their 
loved ones. Now, because the Senate voted to shut off debate, this 
critically important amendment will not be considered. Such an 
expansion of the FMLA is of the utmost importance to our wounded 
warriors, and I will ask at the end of my statement to have a letter 
from Senator Bob Dole to Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain, 
detailing the tremendous importance of this provision, be printed in 
the Record.
  On September 11, 2007, I announced that I would not support 
legislation dealing with Iraq unless it included a firm and enforceable 
deadline for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq--one linked to an 
explicit cut off of funds after a date certain. Sadly, Republican 
stalling tactics made it impossible for such a provision to receive an 
up-or-down vote under regular Senate procedures. Therefore, I could 
not, in good conscience, call for an end to debate on a bill that has 
not addressed that issue or the hardships our soldiers and their 
families face both at home and abroad, and the very security of our 
Nation.
  That said, I commend Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain for 
their hard work in making sure this legislation does include many 
beneficial and important provisions, such as a 3.5-percent pay raise 
for our men and women in uniform and additional funding to purchase 
Mine Resistant Armor Protected vehicles. These are important steps in 
making sure our Armed Forces are appropriately compensated and equipped 
to defend our Nation. But as long as another year passes without an 
effective plan to end the war and support our military families, I am 
afraid that this Congress's work will be incomplete.
  Madam President, I ask to have the letter to which I referred printed 
in the Record.
  The letter follows.

     Hon. Carl Levin,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. John McCain,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain, I would like 
     to thank you, once again, for your continued efforts to 
     improve the treatment of our returning combat troops, 
     exemplified by your shepherding of the Wounded Warrior 
     Assistance Act of 2007 through the Senate in July. This 
     important measure provided a good first step; but as you 
     know, much more remains to be done and I appreciate your 
     willingness to consider the recommendations made by the 
     President's Commission on Care for America's Returning 
     Wounded Warriors.
       As you know, I, along with former Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services Donna Shalala, recently released the findings 
     of the Commission. One specific finding of this report is 
     currently pending as an amendment to the National Defense 
     Authorization Act currently being debated on the Senate 
     floor. Notably, the Dodd-Clinton-Dole-Graham amendment (S. 
     Amdt #2647) increases Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) job 
     protection benefits to the families of our injured soldiers 
     from the current 12 weeks to 6 months. These families are 
     facing significant challenges to help their loved ones heal, 
     and the last thing they need to worry about is losing their 
     jobs in the process.
       There are two very critical points to be made with respect 
     to this recommendation by the Commission. First, the use of 
     already existing FMLA authority is vital to minimizing the 
     delay in implementation of this needed benefit. The FMLA has 
     existed for 14 years and has a proven track record of 
     success. It is understood by those using the benefits, those 
     charged with its oversight, and the employers working within 
     its framework. Second, the length of the benefit has been 
     carefully crafted to best balance the impact on employers on 
     one side and the average time it takes for most injured 
     personnel to regain self-sufficiency. While other pending 
     amendments have either sought to depart from the existing 
     FMLA structure by using other legislative vehicles not 
     intended to extend to families of service members such as the 
     Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act 
     (USERRA), or extended job protection benefits beyond six 
     months, neither are supported by the Commission's findings 
     and may actually hinder the efforts to implement the 
     Commission's work.

[[Page S12370]]

       The Administration will have a different approach, but it 
     will be some time before the Administration's comprehensive 
     proposal will be acted on.
       Thank you for your consideration of this important 
     legislation. I know that you share my belief that it is 
     essential that we supply all necessary and prudent tools to 
     our military families to deal with the hardships of helping 
     their wounded warriors regain self-sufficiency following a 
     severe injury. The Dodd-Clinton-Dole-Graham amendment passes 
     this test. If I may be of any further assistance, please feel 
     free to contact me.
           God Bless America,
                                                 Bob Dole.

  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I will vote against H.R. 1585, the 
National Defense Authorization Act. I support many of the provisions in 
this bill, which authorizes the activities of the Department of 
Defense, including important research, development and procurement 
funding to improve our Armed Forces and the operations and maintenance 
funding necessary to ensure the smooth running of the military services 
over the coming year. I support these activities, which not only 
benefit those servicemembers currently serving overseas in Afghanistan 
and Iraq, but also help build a strong and effective military for the 
future. I applaud the fine work of Senator Levin and the Committee on 
Armed Services for their efforts in putting together a bill that is, in 
most ways, a good piece of legislation.
  However, H.R. 1585 also includes title XV, which provides 
authorization for the funding of continued operations in Iraq for the 
coming year. In my view, this provision constitutes a ``poison pill.''
  I have stated before that the Congress should not continue to write 
blank checks for the prosecution of this apparently endless war in 
Iraq. That is what title XV does. In effect, it provides a 
congressional authorization to fund the continuation of President 
Bush's policy in Iraq for another year, without any strings attached. I 
offered an amendment to clarify that nothing in the bill constitutes a 
specific authorization for U.S. troops to remain in Iraq, but the 
committee was unable to clear the amendment. Other amendments offered 
to the bill that would have placed limits on the number of troops or 
otherwise limited the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq were defeated 
during the floor debate on H.R. 1585. This is regrettable.
  Continuing to prosecute this war at the current rate is straining our 
military to the breaking point. Many units and individuals are enduring 
their third and fourth rotation to Iraq, and because no limits have 
been placed on the mission or force levels, there is no end in sight. 
More and more military analysts are warning that the U.S. Armed Forces 
are at risk for becoming a `hollow force,' as happened after the 
Vietnam conflict. That is irresponsible, and it puts our Nation at 
risk.
  There are no provisions in this bill to require the U.S. President or 
the Iraqi government to meet any benchmarks or withdraw any troops, or 
even to put limits on sending still more troops to Iraq, if any could 
be found. It is time for Congress to start reining in this runaway 
horse, before our military is completely exhausted and our nation made 
vulnerable.
  I support our troops. I do not want them to lack for anything needed 
to do their job or to keep them safe. But I cannot and will not agree 
to leave them in Iraq forever, with no limits placed on their mission, 
no provision to ensure that they at least get as much time at home as 
they do on the battlefield, with no benchmarks or goals set for the 
Iraqi Government that might trigger a return of our troops, and no 
assurances by our commander in Iraq that this war is making the United 
States any safer. That is a bitter poison pill I cannot swallow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the substitute 
amendment, as amended, is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2011), as amended, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on engrossment of the 
amendment and third reading of the bill.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill, as amended, pass?
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 92, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 359 Leg.]

                                YEAS--92

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--3

     Byrd
     Coburn
     Feingold

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Biden
     Clinton
     Dodd
     McCain
     Obama
  The bill (H.R. 1585), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I voted against the fiscal year 2008 
defense authorization bill because it does nothing to bring to a close 
the open-ended military mission in Iraq, which has overburdened our 
military, weakened our national security, and cost the lives of 
thousands of American soldiers.
  There were provisions in the bill which I strongly supported, 
including language I proposed that will make it easier for family 
members and other trusted adults to take leave to care for children and 
dependents when their loved ones are deployed. I am also pleased that 
the Senate approved two amendments I cosponsored. One was an amendment 
by Senator Webb creating a Commission on Wartime Contracting to examine 
waste, fraud and abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the misuse of 
force by private security contractors. The other was an amendment by 
Senator Sanders to ensure that money allocated for research on gulf war 
illnesses is spent wisely.
  But on balance, I could not vote for a bill that defies the will of 
so many Wisconsinites and so many Americans by allowing the President 
to continue one of the greatest and most tragic foreign policy blunders 
in the history of our Nation.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I was pleased today to vote, along with my 
Senate colleagues, for the passage of H.R.1585, the Defense 
Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2008. I thank the managers of this 
bill, Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain, for working so 
diligently and in such a collegial manner toward passage of a bill that 
addressed so many complicated and potentially divisive issues. It is to 
their credit that we have been able to move this bill along which is so 
vital to the support of our brave men and women in our armed services.
  This bill was passed out of committee with a number of provisions to 
improve

[[Page S12371]]

the lives of our military members and the effectiveness and readiness 
of our armed services which I, as a senior member of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee and chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness, 
worked to ensure were a part of the bill language. They include 
important acquisition reforms such as a series of provisions that would 
help the DOD manage its oversight of contract services and the creation 
of a Chief Management Officer for the Department of Defense. I also was 
able to work with my colleagues to incorporate language that 
establishes a Director of Corrosion and Control Policy and Oversight in 
addition to other provisions that further my efforts to establish 
effective corrosion control in all branches of our services. H.R. 1585 
also contained my legislation to establish a National Language Council 
to develop and implement a long-term and comprehensive language 
strategy.
  In addition to the provisions that I initiated and supported in the 
underlying language, I was able to successfully introduce and cosponsor 
a number of amendments during the Senate's consideration of the Defense 
Authorization Act. As chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I 
was particularly pleased to see that language from the Dignified 
Treatment of Wounded Warrior Act which addresses shortfalls in the 
quality of health care provided to our servicemembers was included as 
an amendment to this bill. Similarly, I was pleased that my amendment 
related to the Wounded Warrior Act was passed by the Senate. This 
legislation will enhance the quality of care that members of our Armed 
Forces receive once they transition to veteran status, improve the 
capability of the Department of Veterans Affairs to care for veterans 
with traumatic brain injuries, and improve access to VA mental health 
and dental care. In addition, my amendment addresses the issue of 
homelessness among newly discharged servicemembers and recognizes the 
importance of the National Guard and Reserve in the VA's outreach 
programs.
  This bill also includes an amendment I offered to end the disparate 
treatment of employees who accepted discontinuation of service 
retirement following a reduction in force. My amendment ensures that 
these Federal employees would be able to return to work at DOD and 
continue to earn toward retirement. It is vital that this Nation have a 
viable plan to produce individuals who are capable of effective 
communication in today's global environment. I also applaud the 
inclusion of the fair competition amendment, introduced by Senator 
Kennedy which I cosponsored, which will minimize the harmful effects of 
the current A-76 process for outsourcing Federal jobs to private 
contractors by removing several unfair advantages that contractors 
currently have in the contract competition process.
  I was disappointed, however, that the Webb amendment which I was 
proud to cosponsor was not agreed to by the Senate. The Webb amendment 
would have lessened the burden placed on our soldiers and their 
families by setting a minimum time between deployments in order to 
ensure that members of our Armed Forces have as much time at home with 
their loved ones as they fight overseas for this Nation.
  I was also disappointed that the Levin-Reed amendment which would 
have set a clear and definitive deadline for the withdrawal of forces 
from Iraq was not passed. One of the key elements of stabilizing the 
ongoing chaos in Iraq is for the Iraqi Government to begin to take more 
responsibility for ensuring their own nation's security and assume 
primary combat role in protecting and defending their nation. This will 
not occur without the development and implementation of a coherent exit 
strategy. The Levin-Reed amendment offered just such a plan.
  As a senior member of the Senate Armed Services and chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Readiness and Management, I will continue to work with 
my Senate colleagues to change the course of this war by insisting that 
the administration provide to this Congress and the people of our 
nation with a comprehensive exit strategy.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1327

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 172, S. 1327, a 
bill to create temporary district court judgeships, that the bill be 
read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon 
the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 535

  Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 211, S. 535, the Emmett Till 
Unsolved Civil Rights Act; that the substitute amendment be agreed to; 
the bill, as amended, be read a third time, passed; the title amendment 
be agreed to; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COBURN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the bill we have just adopted is the 46th 
consecutive annual Defense authorization bill that has come out of our 
committee and been brought to the Senate for debate and passage. It has 
been no secret that this is one of the largest and most complex and 
important pieces of legislation that comes before the Senate every 
year. Every year since 1961, it has been a challenge to get it passed. 
Thankfully, because of its vital importance to our Nation, we have 
always found a way to do so. This year was particularly difficult, as 
we continue to debate the war in Iraq. Today is the 19th and final day 
of debate on this bill. Only two other annual Defense authorization 
bills have required longer to pass. In 1969, the Senate debated the 
bill for 37 days. In 1970, it was debated for 28 days. History shows 
that in time of war, the Senate acts as it should and takes the 
necessary time to carefully consider this bill and its impact on our 
Nation.

  We had over 400 amendments that were filed to this bill. We were able 
to work with all Senators and pass several large packages of managers' 
amendments while we were wrestling with Iraq-related amendments. All 
told, we acted on a total of 214 amendments during the bill's 
consideration.
  Whenever we reach the point of final passage of legislation, we take 
a moment to thank Members and staff. To some this may seem to be a 
routine matter. It is not. All of us who make up the Senate should 
honor its customs and traditions. They are really the foundation of 
this Senate.
  With that as my motivation, I want to take a moment to express my 
thanks to those who worked so hard and cooperated so well to bring us 
to final passage of this bill.
  First, my thanks go to Senator McCain who is serving as our ranking 
member for the first time this year. Senator McCain's leadership and 
determination helped forge this bill through the committee and on to 
final passage.
  Next, I thank and acknowledge our former chairman, Senator Warner. 
Senator Warner has made innumerable contributions to this bill. This 
bill would not be here but for the work of Senator Warner. Working 
within arm's reach of Senator Warner each year for the past 28 years 
has been truly one of the highlights of my Senate career.
  He is a good friend of mine. More importantly, he is a good friend to 
national defense and to the people who depend upon it and who work for 
it in this country.
  To our majority leader, Senator Reid, and his floor staff, a special 
word of thanks for giving us the time and the tools to get this bill 
through the Senate.
  To all of our committee members who, again, worked on a bipartisan 
basis, we appreciate their work. We do not often take the time to 
express it. I am afraid this will kind of have to be that moment. 
People do not realize our committee has one quarter of the Senate as 
its members. We work together in the committee. Our differences on the 
bill did not divide us. We reported the bill by a unanimous vote.
  To Charlie Armstrong in the Office of Senate Legislative Counsel, he 
did his work skillfully. He proved over 400 times, with those 400 
amendments, that he knows how to draft amendments.
  To our committee staff members, they truly earned the thanks and 
recognition of the entire Senate for their

[[Page S12372]]

time and their efforts on this legislation.
  I want to mention two of the members of our staff who lead our staff 
and one woman who has served on our committee staff for the past 19 
years.
  To Rick DeBobes, our committee staff director, he serves us so 
brilliantly and well and so unselfishly 24/7. He is within earshot, so 
I will not embarrass him and have him blush other than to say he is so 
totally indispensable not just to me but to the Senate and all of the 
staff that work so well with him. Our gratitude.
  To Senator McCain's new Republican staff director, Mike Kostiw, his 
leadership is so effective that it is quite difficult to believe this 
is Mike's first year.
  To Cindy Pearson, our assistant chief clerk and security manager, a 
special word of thanks and encouragement. Cindy has been serving the 
committee for the last 19 years. She is the consummate professional in 
every aspect of her work. She is away from us right now as she 
undergoes treatment for breast cancer. We want her to know she is ever 
present in our thoughts and in our prayers. We all look forward to 
welcoming Cindy Pearson back to the committee family soon.
  So Rick's and Mike's and all the other committee staff members' long 
and hard work and personal sacrifices, day in and day out, to get this 
bill enacted again this year paid off. They are the backbone of the 
Senate. They and other people who work for us in this Senate make it 
possible to turn our ideas into policies and into legislation.
  I thank them all. I know I thank them for their expertise and their 
dedication on behalf of all the members of the committee. They brought 
us again through to the point of conference with the House. We are 
hopeful to bring back promptly a conference report. But in the 
meantime, thanks to them, their professionalism, and their hard work. 
We are where we are at.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of the entire 
Armed Services Committee staff be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     Armed Services Committee Staff

       Richard D. DeBobes, Staff Director; Michael V. Kostiw, 
     Republican Staff Director; June M. Borawski, Printing and 
     Documents Clerk; Leah C. Brewer, Nominations and Hearings 
     Clerk; Joseph M. Bryan, Professional Staff Member; William M. 
     Caniano, Professional Staff Member; Pablo E. Carrillo, 
     Minority Investigative Counsel; Jonathan D. Clark, Counsel; 
     Ilona R. Cohen, Counsel; David G. Collins, Research 
     Assistant; Fletcher L. Cork, Staff Assistant; Christine E. 
     Cowart, Chief Clerk; Daniel J. Cox, Jr., Professional Staff 
     Member; Madelyn R. Creedon, Counsel; Kevin A. Cronin, Staff 
     Assistant; Marie F. Dickinson, Administrative Assistant for 
     the Minority; Gabriella Eisen, Counsel; Evelyn N. Farkas, 
     Professional Staff Member; Richard W. Fieldhouse, 
     Professional Staff Member; Creighton Greene, Professional 
     Staff Member.
       Gary J. Howard, Systems Administrator; Paul C. Hutton, IV, 
     Research Assistant; Mark R. Jacobson, Professional Staff 
     Member; Gregory T. Kiley, Professional Staff Member; Jessica 
     L. Kingston, Staff Assistant; Michael J. Kuiken, Professional 
     Staff Member; Gerald J. Leeling, Counsel; Peter K. Levine, 
     General Counsel; Derek J. Maurer, Minority Counsel; Thomas K. 
     McConnell, Professional Staff Member; Michael J. McCord, 
     Professional Staff Member; William G.P. Monahan, Counsel; 
     David M. Morriss, Minority Counsel; Lucian L. Niemeyer, 
     Professional Staff Member; Michael J. Noblet, Research 
     Assistant; Bryan D. Parker, Minority Investigative Counsel; 
     Christopher J. Paul, Professional Staff Member; Cindy 
     Pearson, Assistant Chief Clerk and Security Manager; John H. 
     Quirk V, Security Clerk; Benjamin L. Rubin, Staff Assistant.
       Lynn F. Rusten, Professional Staff Member; Brian F. Sebold, 
     Staff Assistant; Arun A. Seraphin, Professional Staff Member; 
     Travis E. Smith, Special Assistant; Robert M. Soofer, 
     Professional Staff Member; Sean G. Stackley, Professional 
     Staff Member; William K. Sutey, Professional Staff Member; 
     Kristine L. Svinicki, Professional Staff Member; Diana G. 
     Tabler, Professional Staff Member; Mary Louise Wagner, 
     Professional Staff Member; Richard F. Walsh, Minority 
     Counsel; Breon N. Wells, Receptionist; Dana W. White, 
     Professional Staff Member.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I see my dear friend 
Senator Warner is here. Again, I cannot say too often what it means to 
have as a partner John Warner of Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I very much value the friendship and the 
working relationship we have had together. It would be interesting if 
somebody wanted to try to look at records. I suppose since this is our 
29th bill we have worked on, that might be a bit of a record. But I 
think also both of us have been chairman three times. That might be a 
bit of a record too.
  But I say to the Senator from Michigan, I give you a most sincere and 
warm congratulations for your achieving this bill. This is the 19th day 
the bill was on the floor, and our good friend, the ranking member, was 
on the floor many of those days. He has called in each day to our 
distinguished chief of staff, Mike Kostiw, and has talked with me and 
other members of the staff. So he is very much hands on.
  But I think we probably got through with a little less contention 
this time than in years past. I think that reflects a lot of credit on 
the distinguished chairman and the distinguished ranking member and the 
wonderful staff and very active membership by each and every one of 
the, as you say, 25 members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
  We work well together as a team. People are very proud to be on this 
committee. They believe they are serving a most noble cause; that is, 
the men and women of the Armed Forces, and their families, who tonight 
are on two battlefronts and, indeed, in many other places of personal 
danger throughout the world, for the sole purpose of guarding freedom 
and, most importantly, the freedom we have here at home.
  So I thank the chairman. I thank all who made it possible, and say, 
also, how well our two staffs worked together in a bipartisan way to 
achieve, as you say, a consensus on almost 200 of those amendments. So 
I think we have done our job, I say to the Senator. It is at a critical 
time in the course of our country. Again, I wish the men and women of 
the Armed Forces and their families only the best.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists 
on its amendment and requests a conference with the House on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my chairman has overlooked a minor item.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

                          ____________________