Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 148 (Tuesday, October 2, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 148 (Tuesday, October 2, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12408-S12417]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008--Continued

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3126

(Purpose: To prohibit waivers for enlistment in the Armed Forces of
individuals with certain felony offenses)

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

The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an
amendment numbered 3126.

The amendment is as follows:

At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8107. No amounts appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used to provide a waiver for
enlistment in the Armed Forces of an individual convicted
under Federal or State law of any felony offense, during the
five-year period ending on the date of the proposed
enlistment of such individual in the Armed Forces, as
follows:
(1) Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
(2) Arson.
(3) Hate Crime.
(4) Sexual misconduct.
(5) Terrorist threatening.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the clerk for reading my
amendment. I had it read because it is such common sense. I think if
you went out on the street and you asked any American: Do you think
there are people serving in the military who, within the last 5 years,
were convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon or a sex
crime or a hate crime or making a terrorist threat that was a phony
terrorist threat? They would say: Oh, no; no one like that would be let
in, not if they did something like that within the last 5 years.
That is what leads me to this commonsense amendment. It is hard for
me to believe I have to fight for this. This amendment may not pass,
which is stunning to me when I think of how clear the issue is.
I guess I would ask a mom or a dad who has a son or a daughter over
there, would they want their child in a foxhole with someone who was
convicted twice of assault with a deadly weapon. Do you want someone in
a foxhole with your son or daughter who was convicted of a sex crime? I
think they would say no.
So here is where we are. In recent years, the U.S. Army in particular
has dramatically increased the number of waivers it grants for
admission into its ranks of those convicted of a felony. Now, let me be
clear. It is against the rules to allow anyone to come into the
military who has a felony conviction. However, there is a loophole
which says waivers can be granted in certain circumstances.
Now, I totally understand. For example, let's say as a young man or
woman some potential recruit tried drugs because it was the thing in
his school. He did it, but he regrets it and is over it. He was
convicted, but he has promised never to use drugs again. OK, give
someone a chance. That is the American way. Give someone a chance. But
for these particular felonies, which I will outline again and explain
what they are, I think if someone has been found guilty within the last
5 years, it is an open-and-shut case.
Now, I understand the Army is under incredible strain right now and
is facing a difficult recruitment environment. I realize there may be
times that they are going to ask for these waivers. I know they do it
for health reasons and other things, but there is a point at which it
goes too far; that is, the point at which it is dangerous. When you
hear about the increase in felony recruitment, you will agree it is
alarming. Rather than strengthening our military, it weakens our
military.
Listen to these numbers: In 2004, the Army granted 360 waivers to
recruits with felonies on their records. In 2005, the number grew to
571. And in 2006, the number grew to 901. The 901 figure is a 59-
percent increase over the 2005 number, and a 150-percent increase over
the 2004 figure. So I believe the spirit of the law that allows these
waivers is being violated. Nobody thought that it would reach these
proportions.
Again, I think people deserve a second chance in this country if they
have served their time and they are rehabilitated. That is why I have
in this amendment a 5-year cooling off period so we know that they have
been clean for 5 years of these types of crimes. But the Army should
not drastically lower its standards because it cannot find enough
recruits, and it should not seek out individuals who have had
disturbing personal histories involving violence.

I just read in the newspaper the other day that the military is going
to these criminals if they are undergoing rehab. They go right there.
Army recruiters actually attended a job fair for ex-convicts in Houston
in August of 2006. Many experts believe this is leading to a spike in
gang activity in the military. Listen to this FBI report: ``Gang
related activity in the U.S. military is increasing.'' This is a direct
quote. ``Members of nearly every major street gang have been identified
on both domestic and international military installations.'' According
to this report, these members can ``disrupt good order and discipline''
while in the military.
Here is the alarming part, and this is the FBI--the Federal Bureau of
Investigation--speaking, not Senator Barbara Boxer or any other
Senator. Upon discharge, ``they may employ their military training
against law enforcement officials and rival gang members and such
military training could ultimately result in a more organized,
sophisticated and deadly gang as well as an increase in deadly assaults
on law enforcement officials.'' The FBI is saying that an abuse of
these waivers is leading to a more dangerous America, more dangerous
for law enforcement--more gangs.
This is not what our country needs. It is not what our wonderful
brave men and women in uniform need right now. They have enough
problems to deal with in Iraq. They are in the middle of a civil war.
This President has no plan to get them out. While the military says
there is no military solution, this President is doing nothing about a
long-term solution. We find our young men and women in harm's way in
the middle of a civil war in a mission that has changed about five or
six times, and now they have to worry that they are serving next to
someone who has been convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly
weapon, arson, terrorist threatening, or sexual misconduct--imagine,
with all they have to worry about.

[[Page S12409]]

I am going to share with my colleagues a chart that I do not believe
has ever been made public before. This is the list of all the different
felony waivers that have been granted--adult, juvenile, and the total.
Look at this list of waivers that has been granted. I am going to go
through, for my colleagues and for the American people to see, what
crimes have been committed by recruits.
I mentioned the top two and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon,
then arson, attempt to commit a felony, breaking and entering, burglary
with burglary tools, a bad check worth less than $500, embezzlement,
forgery, hate crime, larceny, narcotics, negligent vehicular homicide,
riot, robbery, sexual misconduct, stolen property knowingly received,
terrorist threatening, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, criminal
libel, illegal or fraudulent use of a credit card--$500 or more--
perjury or subornation of perjury, car theft, mail--abstracting,
destroying--indecent acts with a minor, manslaughter, kidnaping or
abducting a child. Kidnaping or abducting a child? We took in three
recruits.
What I have attempted to do is pick out the ones I believe would be
an open-and-shut case here of where we would not want someone recruited
into the military who has been convicted of these particular crimes:
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, arson, hate crime, sexual
misconduct, or terrorist threatening. There were 13 of those.
I want to protect our men and women in uniform. I have deep respect
for them. In my State, we have lost more than any other State--23
percent those killed in Iraq have been from or based in my State. I
want the men and women from my State and every other State to feel
comfortable that their buddies will truly be their buddies and that
they share the same values of right and wrong. I want to keep it that
way.
Larry Korb, who served as Assistant Secretary of Defense under Ronald
Reagan, said, ``The more of those people you take the more problems you
are going to have and the less effective they are going to be.'' This
is Larry Korb, who served as Assistant Secretary of Defense under
President Reagan: ``The more of those people you take the more problems
you are going to have.''
GEN Barry McCaffrey, who commanded U.S. forces during the gulf war,
said, ``By and large these are flawed recruits. Those getting waivers
won't be sergeants.'' General McCaffrey pointed to the lessons of
postwar Vietnam. ``It took us a decade to take a fractured Army and
turn it around. We don't have 3 years this time.'' That is Barry
McCaffrey.
Retired LTG William Odom, who was the Army's chief intelligence
officer from 1981 to 1985, has called the increase in waivers
``disturbing.'' The Army's chief of intelligence for 4 years called the
increase in waivers ``disturbing.''
The last thing our servicemembers need to worry about is whether
there are violent felons in their ranks. It sets back the quality of
our forces. It can severely set back our mission.
I would like to share one particular story about lowering standards.
I think we are all very familiar with the story of PVT Steven Green. As
you will remember, Private Green is the soldier charged with the deaths
of an Iraqi family of four. According to the reports, Private Green
went to the home of an Iraqi family with three other soldiers. He ended
up raping the 14-year-old daughter before killing her and setting her
body on fire. He is also alleged to have killed the other family
members. This turned into an international news story that once again
brought negative attention to our country, infuriating Iraqis and
making the lives of our troops that much more difficult.
Private Green was admitted to the Army after being given a waiver. In
the case of Private Green, it was a waiver for a misdemeanor offense,
and I am not even stopping that with my amendment. I am not even
stopping that with my amendment. I am going to the most egregious
crimes. That story illustrates the potential consequences of going down
a path where standards are dramatically lowered.

Let me spell out specifically how my amendment addresses the issue.
The amendment simply says the military cannot offer a waiver for
enlistment to the Armed Forces to individuals convicted of these
felonies: aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, arson, hate crime,
sexual misconduct, or terrorist threatening. They cannot get a waiver
if they have committed any of these and they were convicted of it in
the last 5 years.
If someone stands up and says: Give people a second chance, then they
have not read my amendment because we are giving people a second
chance. We are saying: If you are clean for 5 years, OK. And we are not
even touching all these other waivers--unauthorized use of a motor
vehicle, car theft, even indecent acts with a minor. I will tell you,
if I had my way, I would put that one on--and kidnaping--but I just
picked five.
So we provide for a cooling-off period, and we believe that cooling-
off period--5 years clean--will give the military some information that
people are, in fact, on the straight and narrow path.
Unfortunately, we do not see the global challenges we face going
away. We need our men and women in uniform not only to be soldiers but
to be ambassadors to the world. They are the best we have. This
amendment helps to ensure we have the right men and women to do that
job. I hope we will get support for this amendment. I say to my
colleagues who vote against this amendment, the only message you are
sending to the people who are serving honorably is: You know what, we
are so desperate, we are willing to put you at risk.
Again, I ask a rhetorical question: How would you feel if your son or
daughter or grandson or granddaughter wound up in an awful situation
with someone who had committed and was convicted of aggravated assault
with a deadly weapon?
There is one more thing I would like to do before I yield the floor,
and that is to describe these felonies, how they are defined.
Arson, generally, is the malicious burning of another's dwelling. It
can be intentional or a fire set with reckless disregard of obvious
risks, in some States. Seven waivers were granted for arson.
Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon is the intentional creation
of reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm by use a deadly weapon. An
example would be pointing a gun at someone, pointing a knife, swinging
a baseball bat, threatening violence or harm with a weapon in a manner
to create a reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm--40 waivers for
that.
Terrorist threatening: intentionally making false statements
regarding a weapon of mass destruction such as placement on a
government or school property--essentially placing a fake WMD on
government property without permission; threatening to cause death or
serious injury for the purpose of terrorizing others, their property,
school, or teachers; a false statement that could cause dangerous
evacuation from buildings or airports. It could be bomb threats,
threats of poison-laced letters, or threats of mass shootings at
school. Waivers granted there.
Hate crimes. Most of the States penalize crimes of violence or
intimidation based on race, color, religion, national origin, and when
we are looking at our military we are looking at the face of diversity,
and someone who has been convicted of a hate crime within the last 5
years--I think they need to think about what this country stands for
and how it is based on equality for all before they are taken into the
military.
Sexual misconduct. Rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy, sodomy of a
minor--those are nonwaiver, but the category that is waiverable is
solicitation of sex, indecent exposure, illegal possession of
pornography.
So these are crimes which I think simply are too much to ask our men
and women in uniform to deal with in new recruits.
I would point out something else. Because the Army has been so
desperate to get new recruits, they are paying tens of thousands of
dollars, and now we have a situation where these convicted felons are
getting this money, to boot. It may not be that many people--maybe we
are talking about 100. Overall, it has been 90+. We are making a point
here that our men and women in uniform deserve better protection than
this. We fight so hard, and we must fight to get them the bulletproof
vests, to get them the up-armored HMMWVs

[[Page S12410]]

to protect them from IEDs, from all the horrors they face. Yet we allow
into the military--indeed, we pay bonuses to get into the military--
people who have been convicted of very serious crimes. It is not fair,
it is not right, it is not just, and I hope there will be strong
support for this amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is not a sufficient second.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not a sufficient second. There are no
Republicans on the floor.
Mrs. BOXER. OK. We will ask for that later.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INOUYE. 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. INOUYE. Mr. President, I find it, firstly, very difficult to
speak in opposition to this amendment. But I do so after consulting
with the senior members, the chairman and the vice chairman, of the
Armed Services Committee, the Senator from Michigan, and the Senator
from Arizona.
I have been assured that after due consideration and investigation,
they have been convinced that the process of waivers does work. In
fact, the investigation has suggested that those who have served after
receiving such waivers have done much better in serving our Nation than
those who came without any crime.
We should keep in mind that when we speak of certain crimes, there is
no standard rule throughout the United States. In different States,
certain activities are considered criminal, in other States it is not
even mentioned.
I was an assistant prosecutor a long time ago. I find that in certain
States certain activities are considered conservatively and other areas
very liberally. For example, in recent days, we have been hearing much
about the demonstration in Louisiana on the Jenna 6. Would that be a
crime in other States? In other communities? I do not think we have the
answer because we know that, depending on jurisdictions, certain
activities may be criminal and in others of no concern.
Whatever it is, on behalf of the Defense Appropriations Committee, I
am calling on the leadership of the Armed Services Committee to conduct
a thorough further investigation on this matter. If it does work, and
if it is necessary to provide waivers to get certain skills into our
military, then we should be told why.
But as of this moment, I cannot ignore the advice that I have
received from my colleagues who are leaders of the authorizing
committee. So, accordingly, at the appropriate time, I will make a
motion to table this amendment.
Before I do, if I may be very personal about this, I have been a
victim of hate and hate crimes, so I do know something about hate
crimes. If you can imagine my returning from World War II in my full
regalia, uniform with four rows of ribbons, with a hook in my right
hand, and going to a barber shop, and they looked at me and said: Are
you a Jap?
When I told them, no, I am an American: But your parents, are they
Japs?
And I have to say: Yes, they are Japanese.
Well, we do not cut Jap hair.
Well, in some jurisdictions, that was appropriate and proper. Today
we do have jurisdictions where we do have segregation, maybe not
legally but understandably we do.
So as I have indicated, at the appropriate time, I will make a motion
to table the Boxer amendment. It is not a happy deed. But I believe at
this moment, under the circumstances, I am compelled to do so.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill.) The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I note the Senator is waiting to be
heard. I will be brief, but I do want to respond.
I so appreciate the fact that Senator Inouye spoke to our colleagues
on the Armed Services Committee. But I do think we need to use our own
brains and our own common sense. I do think when I look in the eyes of
parents who are sending their kids into the military, they need to
know, they need to know that in addition to the dangers of this war, in
addition to the danger of being thrust into the middle of a civil war,
they should not have to deal with the danger of a convicted felon who
has used a gun and put that gun against somebody's head within the past
5 years.
We all know that the committees are very close to the military. I
understand that. But is not there a time for us to stand up and show a
little spunk and spine here and state the obvious, that although we all
support waivers, because there are certain cases where a waiver may
make sense, there is such a thing as an abuse of a waiver. If you look
at the numbers and see we are up to almost 1,000 of these waivers,
things are getting out of control.
Now, I know that both the Armed Services Committee, the authorizers
and the Appropriations Committee, which are very powerful committees,
do not like this amendment. They want me to go away. They have offered
now twice, the authorizing and appropriations: Will you not take a
study and go away?
Yes, I want to have a study. But, no, I do not think we should walk
away from this. This is a commonsense amendment. This takes five of the
whole list of crimes--and I will repeat what they are: arson,
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, sexual crimes, hate crimes,
and making a terrorist threat.
I think for this year, do not pay bonuses to these people who have
been convicted of these crimes for the last 5 years and do not take
them into the military. That would send a signal to the military that
they need to do their own study. It is stunning to me that we would
have to have a study about this--the DoD does not even want to study
this thing. They just want to meet the recruitment goal.
We all want them to meet their recruitment goals, but if it means
putting someone, a dangerous criminal, next to one of my men and women
in uniform, no thank you. It is tough enough to survive Iraq. We have
worked with veterans on this amendment so we have gotten it to the
point where, yes, we give people a chance to turn over a new leaf.
I am disappointed that Senators Inouye and Stevens do not support
this amendment, but I am not surprised. I am going to keep talking
about this issue because this status quo is not good for our troops.
I yield the floor
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I come to the floor to talk about the
underlying appropriations bill. First, let me thank the chairman and
the ranking member of the subcommittee. I think the work they have done
on this bill is very important.
I wish to talk especially about the issue of the bomber fleet in this
country: B-2s, B-1s, B-52s. I do that for a very specific reason.
Right now a lot of our soldiers are in the field, in harm's way. They
strap on body armor in the morning, get shot at that day. We are at
war. All of us want to make certain our soldiers who have answered the
call have everything they need to do what they need to do.
I do think, however, there are times in the Pentagon when a
substantial amount of money is spent, far more than is necessary, and
there is some waste. I wish to describe one of the things I find
interesting and also somewhat troubling.
Our bomber force is a part of the force that gives us air
superiority. When you provide air superiority and have control of the
air it has a tremendous impact on our ability to fight a war. We have
seen some recent examples about what impact that has.
Part of that force is made up of B-52 bombers. They were produced
decades ago. They are kind of the ``gray beards'' of the bomber fleet.
They are essentially bomb trucks that will haul

[[Page S12411]]

weapons to various parts of the world. The newest ones were built in
the 1960s. But, of course, most of the plane has been rehabilitated and
changed, the electronics and so on.
Former Air Force Chief of Staff GEN John Jumper said the B-52 and
other aircraft will have greater access to targets in the future
because of the F-22. With its stealth and supercruise characteristics,
the F-22 will be able to precede other aircraft into combat zones to
clear out any threats.
So we have been told we should fund the F-22. I have supported that.
The F-22 is an unbelievably effective next-generation fighter. We are
told we should support that because the F-22 goes in and essentially
clears out the airspace; knocks out the radar and knocks out all things
that could be a threat to our bombers and other aircraft, at which
point the airspace is owned and you can bring in a bomb truck, for
example.
Well, here are the costs of flying our bombers. The cost is: $78,000
an hour to fly a B-2, $48,000 an hour to fly a B-1, and $34,000 an hour
to fly a B-52.
We are told the B-52 will be usable for another 30 years. Yet we are
told by the Air Force planners that what they would like to do is
retire the least costly bomb truck. That way, after we have cleared the
air threat and have air superiority, they want to fly the most
expensive bomb trucks in and have the least costly bomb truck retired.
It makes little sense to me, from a taxpayer standpoint, but that is
what we would try to do.
It also doesn't make sense when we look at the new bomber the Air
Force is planning on. The earliest date it might be available is the
year 2018. Of course, that will slip. They all slip.
The new bomber, we are told, that when completed, would have an
unrefueled range of 2,000 miles. The B-52 has double that and more. The
new bomber will have a weapons payload of 14,000 to 28,000 pounds; the
B-52, 70,000 pounds.
Not only does the B-52 have more endurance and more payload than the
new bomber. The B-52 is also fully paid for. It is usable for three
more decades, and it flies at much less cost than the other two bombers
we now have. But the Air Force wants to take a good number of B-52s and
retire them at Davis-Monthan.
I make the point that the authorizing committee has indicated the Air
Force should keep 76 of the B-52s. As we work through this and look at
what our bomber fleet should look like, I think it will become clear
that keeping the B-52s makes sense both for our defense capabilities
and for the effect on the American taxpayer.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.

Amendment No. 3126, As Modified

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I have sent a modification of my
amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, how much time have I consumed?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. About 7 minutes.
Mr. DORGAN. I want to make a couple other points that are not related
to this specific bill but to the emergency supplemental appropriations
bill for the continuing Iraq War and fight against global terrorism. We
have a $152 billion request in front of us with another $45 billion
expected on top of that. All of this is emergency spending and none of
will be paid for. This will take us to the neighborhood of three
quarters of a trillion dollars or more, when spent, with respect to the
war in Iraq and Afghanistan and other related matters. All of these
costs will be added directly to the federal debt.
During wartime, in most cases, this country has decided it should pay
for things that we consume and pay for the cost of wars. We did it in
the Civil War. We did it in the Spanish-American War. We did it in
World War I and World War II and other wars. We began a process by
which we tried to pay for some of that which the war was costing.
The question about whether we should commit ourselves as a country to
pay for war is an interesting question. In the Iraq war, our soldiers
were sent to fight, and President Bush indicated we could best serve
our country by going shopping. We should go to the mall to keep our
economy moving.
We could also best serve our country, in my judgment, by deciding not
to send our soldiers to fight and then come back later and pay the bill
because we decided to charge all of it--every penny of it borrowed.
Let me read something Franklin Roosevelt said during one of his
fireside chats:

Not all of us can have the privilege of fighting our
enemies in distant parts of the world. Not all of us can have
the privilege of working in a munitions factory or a ship
yard, or on the farms or in the fields or mines, producing
the weapons or raw materials that are needed by our armed
forces. But there is one front and one battle where everyone
in the United States--every man, woman, and child--is in
action. . . .That front is right here at home, in our daily
lives, and in our daily tasks. Here at home everyone will
have the privilege of making whatever self-denial is
necessary, not only to supply our fighting men [and women],
but to keep the economic structure of our country fortified
and secure . . .

President Johnson said:

The test before us as a people is not whether our
commitments match our will and courage; but whether we have
will and courage to match our commitments.

When the emergency supplemental bill comes to the floor of the Senate
this time, I am going to ask if we should begin to pay for some of this
and to begin to ask for some sacrifice. At least in the easiest of
areas for all of us to make a decision, let me show you $23 billion of
revenue right now that we might use to offset some of that which
otherwise will be described as emergency. I have a piece of legislation
that will shut down offshore tax haven abuses. This is one I described
2 years ago on the floor of the Senate. It is the Ugland House, a five-
story white house in the Cayman Islands, that is home to 12,748
corporations. They are not there. That is a legal fiction created by
lawyers to allow those companies to avoid paying the taxes they owe in
the United States. I have a piece of legislation, S. 396, that says if
U.S. corporations are going to set up a paper company in an offshore
tax haven simply to avoid paying taxes, it is not going to work. We
close that loophole. Here is an obvious one we could change
immediately: end abusive foreign sale and lease transactions. We can
use some of these to pay for some of that which we are spending on the
war. This is a case of the lease of 65 streetcars in Germany by a
United States corporation, First Union Bank. Here is one in which
Wachovia Bank bought a sewage system in a German city. Do they want to
own a German sewer system? No, they want to save $175 billion in taxes
through a tax loophole. We could close this right now.
I am going to suggest, when we bring another emergency bill to the
floor--in this case nearly $200 billion--that maybe it is long past
time for us to meet the obligation we have; that is, to ask all of us
to sacrifice a bit. In this case, ask those who have exercised huge
loopholes to avoid paying taxes in the United States. This is a picture
relating to another bill I have. This is called the Radio Flyer. I
expect every Member of the Senate when they were little toddlers rode
in a little red wagon called a Radio Flyer. This was made in Illinois.
It was made by an immigrant who over a century ago built the company
that created the Radio Flyer. The reason he named it Radio Flyer is, he
liked Marconi. He enjoyed airplanes so he decided to call his little
red wagon the Radio Flyer. Guess what. After a century this is gone.
There are no more red Radio Flyer wagons built in America. They have
all gone to China. And by the way, the company that shut down the plant
in the United States and moved the red

[[Page S12412]]

wagons to China in search of cheap labor got a tax incentive from this
Congress to do it. We can shut that down immediately.
So these three ideas and a temporary 1 percent emergency tariff on
imported foreign goods would raise some $23 billion in the first year
alone. Do we need to wait? Do we need a month, a year, 10 years? I
don't think so. All we need is the will and the commitment to do what
is right. With respect to these issues, I believe we could do plenty of
things that would begin to reduce the cost that will inure to our
soldiers, who valiantly fight when asked to, when they come back and
discover we have spent a lot of money but we charged it all. So they
get to fight today and pay the bill tomorrow. I think we can and should
do much better than that.
I have described in shorthand four proposals that I hope we will
consider when we do the second piece of this issue of Defense
appropriations.
Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens worked very hard on this
legislation. This is one of the largest bills we consider in the
Senate. There are a lot of issues, some very controversial. I
appreciate the work they and their staff have done to put this
together. It is not an easy appropriations bill to do. My hope is that
as we work through this in the next day or so, we will be able to have
final passage in a couple of days and get this into conference so we
can resolve all of these issues.
I thank the chairman and ranking member for their work.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I want to start where the Senator from
North Dakota concluded his remarks, to express the gratitude of
Delaware for the fine work the appropriations subcommittee has done,
the leadership of Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens, their staffs, the
other members of the committee. One of the letters I sent to Senator
Inouye and Senator Stevens several weeks ago was a letter calling on
them to not rescind, through legislative language in the appropriations
bill, the 2004 Defense authorization language which said we were not
going to allow the Air Force to retire any additional C-5 aircraft
until the first three had been fully modernized, flight tested, and
then evaluated. A number of us signed that letter and a number of us in
the same letter also called for the Appropriations Subcommittee on
Defense to endorse the President's budget proposal for fiscal 2008 with
respect to C-5 modernization. The subcommittee has done that. I thank
them in a very public way for their attention to our request.
Today we are considering an important bill, one that provides funding
for our troops, many in harm's way around the world, others in
different phases of training or in some cases retraining or rest after
they have been deployed abroad. As we vote to appropriate these funds
for our Nation's defense, we are reminded of one of the fundamental
duties of our military. Our Armed Forces are charged with providing our
Commander in Chief and military leaders with flexible options for
responding to a wide variety of threats. In Iraq, our Armed Forces are
keeping the lid on civil war and protecting civilians from terrorists
and literally from one another. In Korea, our Armed Forces are charged
with guarding the ally's border and deterring aggression on the part of
a large conventional military on the other side of the South Korean
border. In the Pacific and the Persian Gulf, they protect America's
interests through the projection of naval power and carrier-based air
power.
At home our National Guard provides the Nation's Governors with
critical response capability to cope with natural disasters such as
Katrina. At times it can seem as though the demands on our military are
almost limitless. Unfortunately, the resources available for equipping
our military to meet these demands are not limitless. At a time when
our Federal budget remains mired in red ink, we need to be looking for
ways to effectively meet our military requirements but to do so in a
fiscally responsible manner.
Last Thursday in the Federal Financial Management Subcommittee of the
Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, we spent 3 hours
doing just that. In this hearing, which I chaired along with Senator
Coburn of Oklahoma, we explored how we can best meet our Nation's
strategic airlift needs and how we can do this in a way that is
fiscally responsible. What I wish to do is take a few minutes this
afternoon to remind us why airlift is important and to offer a little
history of how we got into the position we are in today. Then I wish to
share with my colleagues some of what we learned at our hearing last
week.
The bottom line is that regardless of whether strategic airlift is
performed by C-5s, by C-17s, or by some other capability, airlift is
essential to our Nation's ability to project power and meet threats
abroad. I would remind us that roughly 90 percent of the materiel we
move around the world goes by sea. Maybe 10 percent goes by air. When
it comes to moving military personnel, almost all of them are moved
around the world by airlift. When you think of the 10 percent or so of
cargo that is moved by aircraft, roughly half of that is moved by C-5s,
C-17s, and by C-130s. The other half is moved by commercial aircraft
the Air Force leases from time to time.
The bottom line is that regardless of whether we are moving goods or
personnel by C-5, C-17, or some other capability, we have to have that
capability when we need it and it has to be reliable.
Though the men and women of our strategic airlift fleet rarely get
the attention they deserve, the reality is our military could not
perform its missions if it were not for the hard work and dedication of
the airlift. Strategic airlift involves the use of cargo aircraft to
move personnel, weaponry, materiel over long distance, often to combat
theaters on the other side of the globe. During the current war in
Iraq, airlift sorties have made up the majority of the nearly 35,000
total sorties flown by U.S. aircraft. Strategic airlift enables our
military to respond to threats wherever they occur in the world real
time. Not only must our fighting men and women be transported to the
fight, they must be continually supplied. Airlift helps to make that
happen. Both the C-17 and the C-5 have fulfilled their lift duties
admirably, and the United States owes much of its rapid deployment
capability to these fine machines.
We are blessed in Delaware at the Dover Air Force Base to have both
C-5Bs and a new squadron of C-17s. However, the problem is that over
the past 10 years, the United States has reduced its Cold War
infrastructure and closed two-thirds of our forward bases. I remember
many of the bases my squad and I used to fly out of in Vietnam. A lot
of the bases in Thailand from which we flew missions in Southeast Asia,
Okinawa, and the Philippines have now been closed. We no longer fly
from those particular places. As a result, our ability to project our
troops by air power as well as by sea power is more important than
ever.

One of the ways we have sought to keep the strategic airlift fleet
healthy and ready to meet this challenge is by modernizing the C-5
through two unique programs. One is called the Avionics Modernization
Program, where we take a 1960s, 1970s cockpit and turn it into a
cockpit for the 21st century. The second is a program called the
Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program, where we literally
take old C-5 engines, take them out--they break down about every 5,000
flight hours anyway--and replace them with an engine that will give us
10,000 hours between engine changes; change out the hydraulic system,
overhaul the landing gear system, fix some 70 systems in all, and,
again, replace the cockpit.
Those are the kinds of things that are done with the modernization
process that is underway. So far, three aircraft have been fully
modernized; three C-5s have been fully modernized and are being flight
tested as we speak here today. In fact, collectively they have been
flown over 500 hours, and the full evaluation is to be completed--I
think the flight evaluation will be done for the most part within the
next 12 months, and some flight evaluations will be completed by June
of 2010.
Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor in the program. They are
obligated to produce C-5Ms with a mission-capable rate that meets or
exceeds 75 percent. That is well above where the C-5 is today. It is,
frankly, slightly below where the C-17 is today.

[[Page S12413]]

Lockheed reports that nothing in the flight data to date, after over
500 hours of flight testing, suggests the 75 percent mission-capable
rate cannot be met or exceeded. The Assistant Secretary for Acquisition
of the U.S. Air Force last week in our hearing concurred in that
opinion. Consequently, I was compelled, along with Senator Coburn, to
hold a hearing to find out an answer to a very contentious question,
and here is the question: At what price per aircraft could Lockheed or
would Lockheed modernize all or part of the remaining C-5 fleet of 108
aircraft?
This past summer, Lockheed offered to modernize the C-5 fleet at what
they call a flyaway cost of--a little less than $90 million per
aircraft, whether the Congress and the administration decide to
modernize half of the C-5 fleet, two-thirds of the C-5 fleet or all 108
C-5s. If Lockheed can deliver C-5s at a mission-capable rate of 75
percent or higher, at a flyaway cost of $85 million, $95 million or
even $105 million, aircraft capable of flying another quarter of a
century or more, we would be foolish not to modernize the remaining 108
C-5s. If Lockheed cannot deliver--cannot deliver aircraft that are 75
percent mission-capable rate or higher--if they can't deliver them at a
cost we are willing to pay--then we need to find another alternative.
Now, the Air Force has questioned whether Lockheed will actually be
able to deliver what the company has promised. The Air Force has
suggested the cost of fully modernizing the C-5s may significantly
exceed original expectations. This has led the Air Force to conclude
that C-5 modernization may not be as cost effective as we all had
originally thought and hoped.
I wish to take a moment and share with my colleagues three areas in
which the Air Force and Lockheed appear to be in disagreement. As you
can see from the chart beside me, the Air Force and Lockheed disagree
on the modernizing of C-5s in three areas. No. 1, propulsion system,
that is aircraft engine; No. 2, installation costs and what they call
touch labor costs, or the amount of man-hours to be invested in these
changes; and finally, overhead costs which include, among other things,
the kinds of problems that might be uncovered as Lockheed goes through
and conducts the modernization of the C-5s--problems that aren't even
related to the modernization changes that are being installed.
Now, this disagreement yields a C-5 modernization cost discrepancy of
over $4 billion--not a small amount of money. With this fundamental
cost disagreement coming to light, our hearing tried to get into the
true cost of C-5 modernization. What we found was a temporary
stalemate. We also found what appears to be a way forward. In their
cost calculations of the C-5 modernization, the Air Force determined
the cost of the C-5 modernization has grown over its baseline, causing
the view of at least some in the Air Force to trigger what we call a
Nunn-McCurdy breach. The Nunn-McCurdy breach, as some will recall, is
part of a law passed in 1983 that allows Congress to track the rising
costs of Defense programs. A breach of Nunn-McCurdy occurs when a
Defense program procurement cost goes beyond 50 percent of its
baseline. When this happens, the Department of Defense has to notify
the Congress and the program is more heavily scrutinized, in this case
by the office of the Secretary of Defense. Interestingly enough,
though, we found that part of the Air Force calculation includes costs
of inflation due to the risks the Air Force may incur if Lockheed
cannot meet its goals. Lockheed also stated they have a different
calculation to show some growth but not enough to trigger a Nunn-
McCurdy breach.

Lockheed's witness at our hearing last Thursday stated that the
contractor--that is Lockheed--is ready to alleviate the Air Force's
concerns and, therefore, to decrease the amount of cost growth that the
C-5 modernization would realize by providing the Air Force with a firm,
fixed price contract to modernize all 108 aircraft at a set cost. If
Lockheed exceeds this price, then the cost is on them--on Lockheed. The
only obstacle--major obstacle at least--that stands in Lockheed's way
is the Air Force's decision on how fast they want to fully modernize
the C-5s. The President's budget for 2008 calls for modernizing C-5s,
one starting in fiscal 2008, ramping up from 1 to as many as 12 several
years down the line. But the contractors need to know how many aircraft
are going to be modernized, and in order for them to be able to be held
or bound to a fixed cost, they have to have some reasonable assurance
that what is being projected will actually be followed, in this case by
the Air Force and by us in the Congress.
Let me mention a couple of things in closing. One, it says propulsion
system. This is one of the three areas of disagreement between Lockheed
and the Air Force. This involves engines--actually the same engine that
goes on Air Force One and a whole lot of other aircraft around the
world. The engine, made by General Electric, provides generally between
engine changes about 10,000 flight hours. It would replace an engine
that gets about 1,000 hours between engine changes. That is a
miserable-performing engine that is on the C-5, and it has led to all
kinds of problems. There is a question about what is GE going to charge
Lockheed to sell them four new engines for 108 planes, plus 25 spares.
I think that ends up being about 457 engines.
In our conversation offline with GE, they gave us a price well below
what the Air Force is expecting or is calculating. If GE is good to
their word and Lockheed is good to its word, then this $1.2 billion
deficit--or in the case of the Air Force, ostensibly an overrun--that
shouldn't be there. That shouldn't be there. The question is, Can GE
and Lockheed be compelled--contractually bound--to provide these
engines at the lower cost that was quoted to us by GE.
The second piece deals with labor, touch labor costs, the amount of
man-hours that will be used to build these or rebuild these aircraft.
The first of the C-5s that were modernized took 143,000 man-hours, the
second took 125,000, the third took about 110,000 man-hours. Lockheed
says they think they can bring it in at about 100,000 man-hours. The
Air Force says, no, 116,000 man-hours. Lockheed has a learning curve in
terms of better, faster work on the modernization that they believe
they can adhere to. The Air Force says, no, that is too optimistic.
Interestingly enough, though, Lockheed has said to the Air Force and
to us at our hearing, if we are wrong on the number of man-hours that
we say it is going to take to modernize the fourth, fifth or sixth
aircraft, if we are wrong on the learning curve and not as successful
as we think we are going to be, we will eat the cost. They say they
will eat the cost. That is great that they offer that, but what we need
is a contract that can bind them to eat the cost if there is a failure
to perform as otherwise would be suggested.
Those are the kinds of things that are in dispute. Ultimately, I
would hope--and I can't speak for Senator Coburn, but I believe I would
share his view that we need large cargo aircraft. We have C-5s. They
can carry more than most cargo aircraft. Right now, we are using
Russian aircraft, Russian-made aircraft, a big aircraft called the AN-
124, to supplement the work that the C-5 can do. We spend today almost
$200 million leasing Soviet aircraft or Russian aircraft to do the work
for us of the strategic airlift. Nothing against the Russians, God
bless them, but I don't know how comfortable you feel--I don't feel all
that comfortable--relying on Russian cargo aircraft to supplement our
needs around the world.
My hope is that what we will do is have our friends from Lockheed and
our friends from the Air Force step back, for a moment, and then
reengage in a way that seeks to narrow this, what you call a $4 billion
delta or difference, in the assumption of costs for completing this
project.
If Lockheed can produce fully modernized C-5Ms that will perform at a
75-percent mission-capable rate or more and do that at a cost of $85
million, $95 million or even $105 million on a flyaway basis, we would
be foolish to turn down that deal. If they can't do it, if they can't
deliver aircraft at that kind of mission-capable rate, if they can't do
it along the line that I quoted as a price that we can be assured of,
then we need to look for another alternative.
My hope, coming out of our hearing last week, is that there is a way
forward, and we need the best efforts of

[[Page S12414]]

the Air Force and the best efforts of Lockheed to find it. If we get
those best efforts, we may end up with what in the end will not be just
a good deal for our country and for our taxpayers at a time when we are
running huge budget deficits but a good deal for the men and women of
the Armed Forces who are depending on strategic airlift every day of
their lives.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.

Amendment No. 3130

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside
the pending amendment and to call up the Sanders amendment, which has
been filed at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] proposes an
amendment numbered 3130.

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

(Purpose: To increase, with an offset, the amount appropriated for
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard, by $10,000,000)

At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8107. (a) Additional Amount for Operation and
Maintenance, Army National Guard.--The amount appropriated by
title II under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Army
National Guard'' is hereby increased by $10,000,000.
(b) Offset.--The aggregate amount appropriated by title II,
other than under the headings ``Operation and Maintenance,
Army National Guard'' and ``Operation and Maintenance, Air
National Guard'', is hereby reduced by $10,000,000.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, yesterday, as part of the managers'
package, the Senate approved an amendment that I offered to the Defense
authorization bill. That amendment would establish a pilot program at
the Department of Defense to deal with a very important problem. That
problem is that all across our country, men and women are returning
home from the war in Iraq, from the war in Afghanistan, they are coming
home to big cities, small towns, and rural communities, and they and
their families, in many cases, are hurting. These are soldiers and
military family members who are suffering from post-traumatic stress
disorder, who are suffering from traumatic brain injury, who are
suffering from depression, and who are watching their marriages and
their families coming apart. They are suffering nightmares, they are
suffering panic attacks and sometimes uncontrollable anger and various
physical symptoms. Because of the stigma, many of these brave soldiers
do not come forward for help, and others, where the military
infrastructure is not strong, simply don't know where to turn. They are
hurting, but they don't know how to get help. In my view, we have a
moral responsibility to reach out to these soldiers and their families
and to help them.
The program, approved by unanimous consent yesterday, would create a
pilot program at the Department of Defense. Under this pilot, funds
would be provided to adjutant generals to conduct person-to-person
outreach to soldiers who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan. In
other words, the heart of this program is outreach quality. We can't be
successful in dealing with PTSD if soldiers do not get involved in the
program, if they are not involved in counseling. I fear very much that
unless we are aggressive in our outreach efforts, especially in rural
areas, especially with the National Guard's people, we are going to see
folks who don't know where to turn.
These trained outreach personnel will be meeting with the soldiers
and their families. They will be able to make sure the soldiers and
their families know about the help that is available to them. In other
words, it doesn't matter how much help we have if our soldiers don't
know where to turn and what is available. These outreach workers would
make sure that America's heroes and our military families don't fall
through the cracks.
As I mentioned, this body unanimously approved this new pilot as part
of yesterday's Defense authorization bill. I thank the Members for
their support. That pilot program amendment was cosponsored by Senators
Sununu, Kerry, Harkin, and Brown. I also point out that this amendment
is supported by the National Guard Association of the United States.
My amendment today, cosponsored by Senator Leahy, is to make sure the
commitment we made yesterday to returning servicemembers and their
families is a real commitment backed by the necessary resources. This
amendment would provide $10 million to carry out the pilot program for
State-based outreach programs to assist servicemembers and their
families created by the Sanders-Sununu-Kerry-Harkin-Brown amendment No.
2905 to the Defense authorization bill. This amendment is fully offset.
Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
At the moment, there is not a sufficient second.
Mr. SANDERS. I thank the chairman and the ranking member, and I look
forward to working with them.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the present
amendment be set aside to reconsider the Boxer amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4 p.m.
the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Boxer amendment, as
modified; that the time from 3:55 until 4 p.m. be equally divided and
controlled between Senators Boxer and Inouye or their designees; that
no amendment be in order to the amendment prior to the vote; that at 4
p.m. the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment; that when
the Senate resumes consideration of H.R. 3222 on Wednesday, following
morning business, there will be 30 minutes of debate prior to a vote in
relation to the pending Graham amendment; that the second-degree
amendment be withdrawn and no other amendment be in order to the
amendment prior to the vote; that the time be equally divided and
controlled between Senators Graham and Inouye or their designees; that
upon the use or yielding back of the time, the Senate proceed to vote
in relation to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3126

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I understand I have 2\1/2\ minutes,
followed by Senators Inouye and Stevens, and then there will be a
motion to table my amendment. I hope to convince colleagues who may be
listening to this debate to vote no on the motion to table.
I think this amendment deserves to be heard. It doesn't deserve to be
shut down. The amendment is my modified amendment, which I sent to the
desk. It basically says there can be no more waivers granted for folks
who want to join the military who have been convicted of aggravated
assault with a deadly weapon, arson, a hate crime, sexual misconduct,
threatening a terror attack, kidnapping or abducting a child, or
indecent acts with a minor.
If we can show you this chart, right now, it is against the military
policy to allow any of the people into the military who have been
convicted of a felony. But there is a waiver process. What has happened
is--and we all agree that there are occasions when there ought to be a
waiver now and then--we have seen an alarming increase in these waivers
because the Army, in particular, is having a hard time meeting its
recruitment goals. We see in 2004 that the Army granted 3 of the 60
waivers to recruits who had felonies on their record. In 2005, they
granted 571. In 2006, they granted 901 waivers. That is a 59-percent
increase over the 2005 number. It is a 150-percent increase over the
2004 figure.

[[Page S12415]]

So what we have seen is an alarming increase in the number of
waivers. What my amendment simply says is: Enough of this for seven
felonies. Again, the seven felonies are aggravated assault with a
deadly weapon, which is someone who has been convicted, perhaps, of
putting a gun to someone's head and threatening them with bodily harm;
arson, someone who obviously has started a fire and put other people's
lives in danger; hate crimes, and we discussed that at length. As a
matter of fact, we have a fine amendment that Senator Kennedy offered
and that is now on the Defense authorization bill, which would say that
people have a right to be free of hate crimes because of the fact that
they may be different than the next person. Here you send people like
this into the military, and this is one of the most diverse
institutions we have.
In conclusion, we are saying, please, don't table this amendment. The
others are sexual misconduct, terrorist threatening, indecent acts with
a minor, and kidnapping or indecent acts with a child. You don't want
somebody like that next to your son or daughter who is serving
honorably in the military.
I hope you vote no on the motion to table. I yield the floor.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, as I indicated in the earlier debate, we
have been assured by the chair of the Armed Services Committee, Mr.
Levin, and the vice chair, Mr. McCain, that this waiver process is
working and has worked.
It is not an easy amendment to speak against, but I am reminded of
something that happened during my days of youth. After World War II,
there was a very distinguished German, who was a Nazi. He was the prime
person who helped develop the rockets and bombs that devastated London,
who was then in the process of developing an intercontinental ballistic
missile to devastate the United States. But we provided him with a
waiver. He came to the United States and worked to develop rockets for
the United States. If it weren't for this scientist, there is grave
doubt that we could have sent a man to the Moon at the time we did or
whether we could have developed the ICBM that we have today. His name
was Dr. Wernher von Braun.
I am against those crimes that my colleague from California cited.
They are objectionable, they are horrible, and as the father of a son,
I can imagine what I would go through if my son had been a victim of
one of these crimes. But this process does work, and I think at this
moment to flat-out determine that this process cannot be used in
certain crimes may be shortsighted.
So on behalf of the ranking member of the committee and myself, I
move to table the Boxer amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I join in that motion.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
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 Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 41, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 360 Leg.]

YEAS--53

Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Bayh
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Kohl
Kyl
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Rockefeller
Sessions
Shelby
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Webb

NAYS--41

Baucus
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Conrad
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reid
Roberts
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Smith
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--6

Biden
Clinton
Dodd
McCain
Obama
Warner
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INOUYE. 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. INOUYE. Madam President, I wish to announce that tomorrow
morning, after morning hour, at approximately 10:45, we will consider
and vote upon the Graham amendment.
If there are no amendments after that, the committee is prepared to
move to pass the bill on third reading, final passage. So those who
have amendments, please come forward.
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INOUYE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments Nos. 3120; 3125; 3128; and 3124, As Modified, En Bloc

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
following managers' package, No. 1, be adopted: amendment No. 3120, for
Senator Baucus and others, regarding the Army Smart Data Project;
amendment No. 3125, for Senator Roberts, regarding Air Force materials
research; amendment No. 3128, for Senator Kohl, regarding the Navy's
permanent magnet motor; amendment No. 3124, as modified, for Senator
Lott, regarding Air Force pallet systems.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. STEVENS. We support these amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed
to en bloc.
The amendments were agreed to, as follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 3120

(Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation, Army, $1,000,000 for the Smart Data Project: Real Time
Geospatial Video Sensor Intelligence program)

At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8107. Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by title IV under the heading ``Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army'', up to $1,000,000
may be available for the Smart Data Project: Real Time
Geospatial Video Sensor Intelligence program.

AMENDMENT NO. 3125

(Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation, Air Force, $1,000,000 for Materials Integrity Management
Research for Air Force Systems)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by title IV under the heading ``Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force'' and available
for Program Element 0603112F, up to $1,000,000 may be
available for Materials Integrity Management Research for Air
Force Systems.

AMENDMENT NO. 3128

(Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation, Navy, $2,000,000 for the DDG-51 Class Modernization-Hybrid
Propulsion Permanent Magnet Drive System)

At end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8107. Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by title IV under the heading ``Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy'' and available for
the Permanent Magnet Motor, up to $2,000,000 may be used for
the DDG-51 Class

[[Page S12416]]

Modernization-Hybrid Propulsion Permanent Magnet Drive
System.

AMENDMENT NO. 3124, AS MODIFIED

At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8107. Availability of Funds.--Of the amount
appropriated or otherwise made available by title III under
the heading ``Other Procurement, Air Force'', up to
$4,000,000 may be available for purposes of accelerating the
deployment of the Associate Intermodal Platform pallet
system.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, as my colleagues are aware, current
force intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, ISR, capabilities
are impeded by three specific technology issues: in-theater network
interference, dissimilar IT infrastructure across forces and
intelligence agencies, and slow storage and retrieval of mission
critical intelligence.
Once intelligence is gathered, whether by unmanned aerial vehicle,
stationary sensors or mobile ground sensors, it is transmitted to ISR
Command. The data is sent as two streams--content, which is the actual
imagery, and context, which is comprised of metadata relating to
location, date, time, target information, destination of message,
sender information, and more. Currently, much of this context stream,
whether location coordinates, date, and/or time information, is dropped
or interrupted during transmission. These drops render as much as 30
percent of all motion video and still-imagery intelligence unusable.
Such data loss negatively affects current ISR operations and creates
undesirable consequences in the field.
In cooperation with Senators Tester, Kerry, Wyden, and Smith, I
submitted an amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations bill
for fiscal year 2008. This amendment would provide funding for the
Smart Data Project through companies in three states. The recipient of
funding for this project would be Digimarc, Inc., of Oregon and
Massachusetts. Additional research for the project will be conducted by
GCS Research of Missoula, Montana, and S&K Technologies of Pablo,
Montana. The purpose of this program is to address the existing
capability gap within the military's intelligence gathering operations
and to provide our military with real-time geospatial video sensor
intelligence.
The basis for the solution to address this capability gap is
currently employed by all the major media networks, which use
components of Smart Data technology to track usage of proprietary
video. ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox embed unique data such as TV station
identification, date, and time into the content. This unique embedded
data is then used to generate reporting information about distribution
and viewership.
Adaptation of Smart Data technology for military applications
involves the embedding of key contextual information such as location
coordinates, date, time, and sender onto reconnaissance imagery. The
embedding technology developed by the Smart Data team will eliminate
data loss that has negative effects on Current Force ISR operations.
Addressing this data loss will improve operative effectiveness and save
lives in the field.

amendment no. 3125

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I rise today in support of an amendment
to the 2008 Defense Appropriations Act. This amendment is in the
interest of Kansas and our national security. I request up to $1
million be made available for Materials Integrity Management Research
for Air Force Systems, MILTEC. This project aims to develop advanced
wireless sensors to be optimally placed for aircraft structure health
monitoring. The processed data will provide diagnostic and prognostic
information that can be further used to assist in critical mission
planning. MILTEC is currently operating through Wichita State
University in Wichita, KS. I have no personal, familiar, or political
connection to these projects.

Amendment No. 3128

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I submitted amendment No. 3128 along with
Senator Kennedy to allow the Navy to provide up to $2 million to DRS in
Milwaukee, WI, for DDG51 Class Modernization, Hybrid Propulsion
Permanent Magnet Drive System. This would give the Navy the flexibility
to develop a hybrid drive system to increase fuel economy. Today the
DDG51 uses gas turbines to power the propulsion system. Installing a
hybrid system would allow an electric motor to drive the ship at low
speed when the main turbine would be very inefficient. The project is
expected to pay for itself in saved fuel costs in 3 years. This upgrade
would be performed as the DDG51s underwent their 15-year midlife
upgrade. While the work envisioned in this amendment would be done in
Milwaukee, part of the work would also be done in Massachusetts and
Connecticut.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I submitted amendment No. 3128 along
with Senator Kohl to allow the Navy to provide up to $2 million to DRS
in Milwaukee, WI for DDG51 Class Modernization--Hybrid Propulsion
Permanent Magnet Drive System. This would give the Navy the flexibility
to develop a hybrid drive system to increase fuel economy. Today the
DDG5l uses gas turbines to power the propulsion system. Installing a
hybrid system would allow an electric motor to drive the ship at low
speed when the main turbine would be very inefficient. The project is
expected to pay for itself in saved fuel costs in 3 years. This upgrade
would be performed as the DDG51s underwent their 15-year midlife
upgrade. While the work envisioned in this amendment would be done in
Milwaukee, part of the work would also be done in Massachusetts and
Connecticut.

amendment no. 3129

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I am submitting Senate amendment No. 3124
to make funds available from the appropriation account Other
Procurement, Air Force, to accelerate the deployment of the Associate
Intermodal Platform pallet system.
The Associate Intermodal Platform pallet system is manufactured by
Shan Industries LLC, headquartered in Miami, FL, with manufacturing
plants currently located in New Jersey and Oklahoma.
The Department of Defense has concluded that use of the Associate
Intermodal Platform, AIP, pallet system, developed 2 years ago by the
U.S. Transportation Command, could save the United States as much as
$1,300,000 for every 1,000 pallets deployed. The Associate Intermodal
Platform pallet system can be used to transport cargo alone within
current International Standard of Organization containers, or in
conjunction with existing 463L pallets. The Associate Intermodal
Platform pallet system has successfully passed rigorous testing by the
U.S. Transportation Command at various military installations in the
United States and in the field in Iraq, Kuwait, and Antarctica. The
Associate Intermodal Platform pallet system has performed well beyond
expectations and is ready for immediate production and deployment.
Mr. INOUYE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Cloture Motion

Mr. REID. Madam President, I appreciate the work of the managers on
this important piece of legislation. I have conferred with the
managers. After we have one vote sometime tomorrow morning, and if
there is nothing more happening, I think we should move to third
reading. Just to protect all of our military, in case something goes
awry in the next 24 hours, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No.
353, H.R. 3222, Department of Defense Appropriations Act,
2008.
Daniel K. Inouye, Jon Tester, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Ted
Kennedy, Tom Carper, Max Baucus, Kent Conrad, Robert
Menendez, Patty Murray, Carl Levin, Ben Nelson, B.A.
Mikulski, Ron Wyden, Blanche L. Lincoln, Charles
Schumer, Byron L. Dorgan.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would hope we can just totally avoid this.
Of

[[Page S12417]]

course, the cloture vote would not occur, at the earliest, until
Thursday anyway. I would hope that it will not be necessary that
cloture be invoked. But we want to make sure that we are able to
complete this legislation, including the managers' package on which
these two veteran legislators have worked. I have spoken to staff, and
the managers' amendment has not been cleared yet. It should be cleared.
I hope we can finish this bill tomorrow afternoon early. This cloture
motion is to protect us in case something goes wrong.
I think perhaps we shouldn't go into morning business right now.
Someone might want to offer an amendment, and I want to make sure
everyone has the ability to do that. It is 5 o'clock now. There will be
no more votes today. Unless we have somebody here by 5:30 to offer an
amendment, we will go into morning business.

amendment no. 3135

Mr. KENNEDY. I introduced amendment No. 3135 to allow the Navy to
provide up to $5 million for the high temperature superconductor AC
synchronous propulsion motor. These funds will be used to test and
transition the high temperature superconductor AC synchronous
propulsion motor to Navy ship class. This will serve in the effort to
increase power while reducing vessel weight.

amendment No. 3134

I introduced amendment No. 3134 to allow the Navy to provide up to $3
million for the MK 50, NULKA, Decoy System. These funds can be used for
the purpose of continuing efforts to defend the Navy from the
continually evolving threat of antiship missiles and associated seeker
systems.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I submitted an amendment with Senator
Kennedy as a cosponsor which may provide up to $1 million, within the
Navy Sealift Account, to the Massachusetts Maritime Academy, MMA, in
Buzzards Bay, MA. The funding will be used to help complete the
conversion of the T.S. Enterprise, a Ready Reserve Force training ship.
In fiscal year 2000-2001, the Department of Defense Appropriations
conference report included $25 million for the conversion of the T.S.
Enterprise. However, that funding only allowed MARAD to produce a ship
which holds only 600 cadets. The Massachusetts Maritime Academy has had
a growing number of students in recent years and requires the
additional room to allow all of their cadets to train on the ship. At a
time when our troops depend heavily on the material shipped to war
zones on American flag ships, I believe it is critical to the
livelihood of the Nation that our maritime academies continue to
produce the professional men and women needed in the maritime trades.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on my amendment,
designating $5 million--the amount requested by the Pentagon--for the
Missile Defense Space Experimentation Center, a facility within the
Missile Defense Integration & Operations Center on Schriever Air Force
Base in Colorado Springs, CO.
The Missile Defense Space Experimentation Center supports research
and development, agency operations, test and evaluations and operations
and training for missile defense capabilities. It provides the Missile
Defense Agency a common support infrastructure and connectivity for
operating MDA experimental satellites, and integrating space data in
support of the missile defense mission. The MDSEC provides a multilevel
security environment for sensor data management and integration across
all space and terrestrial sensor data activities.
MDSEC activities support analysis, demonstration and integration of
space sensor capabilities into developmental and operational MDA
Elements. MDSEC also supports advanced technology and algorithm
development, including fusion of multiple sensor types--radar, overhead
nonimaging infrared, electro-optical and other emerging sensor
technologies. MDSEC supports mission integration of space-based missile
track--boost and midcourse phases--sensor and weapons cueing via C2BMC,
features and discrimination, kill and impact point assessments into
C2BMC, Aegis, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense--THAAD--Global
Missile Defense--GMD--and other--non-MDA--mission areas such as space
situation awareness, technical intelligence, and battle space
characterization. For Fiscal Year 2008, the Missile Defense Space
Experimentation Center will: Demonstrate connectivity and integration
of space layer data into X-lab, BMDS elements, and external users;
demonstrate capability to access, share, and playback data across
stakeholder programs--MDSEC Interchange System; provide synergy for
testing, experiments, integration and algorithm development--
Integration Lab; demonstrate capability to support and integrate across
multiple security environments/domains; demonstrate space-layer data
support to non-BMDS Missions--external users; demonstrate integrated
birth-to-death tracking and fusion across existing, R&D and future BMDS
sensors; support space-based sensors data collections and algorithm
testing experiments; complete MDSEC Interchange System--MIS: Test
prototype MIS operating system and host MIS hardware suite.
I believe the mission and task for the MDSEC require our support and
I urge passage of this amendment.
Mr. President, in regards to my amendment designating $5 million to
support research and development, agency operations, test and
evaluations and operations and training for missile defense
capabilities at the Missile Defense Space Experimentation Center, a
facility within the Missile Defense Integration & Operations Center on
Schriever Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, CO, neither I nor anyone
in my immediate family has a pecuniary interest in the center or its
operations.

Amendment No. 3140

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise today in support of amendment No.
3140 to the 2008 Defense Appropriations Act. This amendment is in the
interest of Louisiana and health care programs within the Department of
Defense. I request up to $1 billion be made available for Maternal-
Fetal Health Informatics and Outreach Program. This project will be the
use of Telehealth and electronic medical record, EMR, technologies
centered on conducting research and developing technology solutions for
high-risk obstetrical patients, in collaboration with the DOD. The
intent of the Maternal Fetal Informatics Outreach Program, MFIOP, is to
leverage technology toward optimizing health care delivery solutions
for women and infants. This effort will increase portability of patient
records and lead to a decrease in associated health care cost related
to obstetrical, OB, and newborn health care services. The Maternal-
Fetal Health Informatics and Outreach Program is currently operating
out of Woman's Hospital in Baton Rouge, LA. I have no personal,
familiar or political connection to this project.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

____________________