[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 149 (Wednesday, October 3, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12510-S12523]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, Admiral Mike G. Mullen, has made a statement to our American
soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and their families. I was privileged
to get a copy of this, and I think it is the type of letter every
Member of the Senate should be allowed to read. So I ask unanimous
consent it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
To America's Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and your
families, I am honored today to begin my term as Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As I do, allow me to thank you for
your service at this critical time in our Nation's history.
Whether you serve in Baghdad or Bagram, Kabul or Kuwait--
whether you find yourself at sea in the Pacific, flying
support missions over Europe, on the ground in Africa, or
working every day at stateside bases--you are making a
difference and so is every person in your family. Your
service matters. And I do not take it for granted.
The world is a dangerous place. The hundreds of thousands
of you who have deployed since September 11th--many of you
more than once--already know that. You've stood up to those
dangers. You have lost friends to them. You may even have
lost some of yourself to them. The dangers of this new and
uncertain era have hit you and the people you love squarely
in the gut. I will not lose sight of that.
Nor should any of us lose sight of the need to continue
serving. The enemies we face, from radical jihadists to
regional powers with nuclear ambitions, directly and
irrefutably threaten our vital national interests. They
threaten our very way of life.
You stand between these dangers and the American people.
You are the sentinels of freedom. You signed up, took an
oath, made a promise to defend something larger than
yourselves. And then you went out and did it. I am grateful
and honored, to be able to serve alongside you.
The law says my main job is to advise the President, the
Secretary of Defense and the National Security Council on
issues of military readiness and capabilities. I will do
that. But, I also see myself as your representative to those
same leaders, an advocate for what matters to you and your
families--your voice in the policies, programs, and processes
that affect our National security. I will not forget the
impact my decisions have on you.
I will remember that you, too, comprise a great generation
of patriots, and that among you are combat veterans with
battlefield experience that many at my level have never and
will never endure. I will tap that experience. I want to make
sure we learn from it.
I am not interested in planning to fight the last war, but
neither am I interested in ignoring the valuable lessons we
continue to learn from this one. It would be foolish to
dismiss the knowledge you have gained. I will not do that.
I know the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are taking a toll
on you and your families. They are taking a toll on our
equipment, our systems, and our ability to train as well. I
worry, quite frankly, that they are taking a toll on our
readiness for other threats in other places.
But that does not mean our struggles there are not
important. They most certainly are important. They are vital.
To the degree the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan contribute
to or detract from a stable,
[[Page S12511]]
secure Middle East, they bear a direct effect on the security
of the United States. That is why my number one priority will
be developing a comprehensive strategy to defend our National
interests in the region.
Next on my list is resetting, reconstituting, and
revitalizing our Armed Forces, especially the Army and Marine
Corps. I believe our ground forces are the center of gravity
for the all-volunteer force and that we need to make sure
that force is correctly shaped and sized, trained, and
equipped to defend the Nation.
Finally, I intend to properly balance global strategic
risk. We must stay mindful of our many global security
commitments and of the core warfighting capabilities,
resources, and partnerships required to conduct operations
across the full spectrum of peace and conflict. The demands
of current operations, however great, should not dominate our
training exercises, education curricula, and readiness
programs.
The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan will one day end. We
must be ready for who and what comes after.
There is much to do. The speed of war, the pace of change,
is too great for any of us to manage it alone. I need your
help, your ideas, and your input. Whenever I travel to the
field and to the fleet, I expect you to tell me what's on
your mind. Tell me what you think. I need your constant
feedback. I can't succeed--we can't succeed--without it.
You made a promise to defend this country. Let me make one
to you: I will listen to you. I will learn from you. And I
will endeavor to lead always with your best interest at
heart. The way I see it, that is my job now.
M. G. Mullen,
Admiral, U.S. Navy.
Amendment No. 3141
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I want to pick up on the
earlier debate on the Sessions-Nelson amendment, No. 3141, that was
offered by Senator Vitter, and just say I do not think this will be
controversial because it is bringing the appropriations bill in
conformance with exactly the provision that is in the Defense
authorization bill on the Aegis BMD Program with an additional $75
million. This Aegis system has extraordinary effectiveness and promise,
going after weapons, particularly in the boost phase. It is a sea-based
system.
I want to explain what it does and why it is important.
In the Senate Armed Services Committee fiscal year 2008 Defense
authorization bill that was recently adopted by the Senate, there is an
authorization for an additional $75 million for the Aegis BMD program,
in addition to authorizing the full budget request for the Aegis BMD
program. That increased funding authorization came from our committee
markup of the budget request, which was initiated in the subcommittee
that handles missile defense.
I have the honor to serve as the chairman of the Armed Services
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, and I am pleased to have Senator
Sessions as the ranking member of that subcommittee. For the Armed
Services Committee markup of the Defense authorization bill, our
Strategic Forces Subcommittee prepared a proposal for the portion of
the defense budget within our jurisdiction, which includes ballistic
missile defense.
The subcommittee proposal included an additional $75 million for the
Aegis BMD program, which was allocated as follows: $20 million for an
increase in the production rate of the interceptor missile for the
Aegis BMD system, known as the Standard Missile-3, or SM-3); $45
million for long lead of an additional 15 SM-3 interceptors; and $10
million to accelerate development of computer software for the Aegis
system.
This amendment mirrors exactly the additional funding authorized by
the Armed Services Committee, and approved by the Senate this last
Monday. It recognizes that the Aegis BMD system provides an important
capability against the existing threats by short- and medium-range
ballistic missiles to our forward deployed forces overseas. It also
recognizes that the President's budget request did not provide enough
funds for this capability. So we are proposing to add more funding to
build additional near-term and effective capability against existing
threats.
Last year, when Senator Sessions was the chairman of the Subcommittee
on Strategic Forces, the subcommittee initiated legislation to make it
U.S. policy that our priority in missile defense should be on effective
near-term capabilities. That legislation was later enacted into law and
is now our national policy. This amendment would take an important step
to implement that policy.
The Aegis BMD system has had an impressive development and testing
program, with a commendable track record of successful and
operationally realistic testing. I would note that the Navy is a
critical component of the success of this system, since it has operated
the Aegis weapon system and its standard missile variants for many
years on its ships. The Navy has ensured that this missile defense
capability works well with its existing systems and procedures, as is
necessary to ensure the system would work in real-world combat
operations.
I would note that the Aegis BMD system is planned to improve its
capability significantly over the coming years, especially with a
larger and faster interceptor we are developing cooperatively with
Japan. The improved version of the Aegis BMD system is expected to be
able to defend against intermediate-range missiles and some long-range
missiles, as well.
This amendment does what I believe the administration should have
done. It would place greater emphasis and greater resources into an
effective, near-term capability to defend our forward deployed forces,
as well as our allies and friends overseas, against existing and near-
term threats.
I urge support for this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
Amendments Nos. 3153, As Modified; 3162, 3152, 3127, 3155, As Modified;
3173, En Bloc
Mr. INOUYE. I ask unanimous consent that the following list of
amendments be adopted. It has been cleared by both sides: Senate
amendment No. 3153, as modified, by Senators Gregg and Sununu,
regarding the Advanced Decision Kill Weapon System; amendment No. 3162,
for Senators Levin and Stabenow, regarding advanced automotive
technology; amendment No. 3152, for Senators Smith and Harkin,
regarding the Minuteman Digitalization Demonstration Program; amendment
No. 3127, for Senator Brown, regarding the high altitude airship;
amendment No. 3155, as modified, for Senators Domenici and Bingaman,
regarding mid-infrared advanced chemical lasers; amendment No. 3173,
for Senators Bingaman and Domenici, regarding sunlight beam directors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments were considered and agreed to, as follows:
amendment no. 3153, as modified
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, Navy'', up to $6,000,000
may be available for the continuation of the Advanced
Precision Kill Weapons System by the Marine Corps.
amendment no. 3162
(Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation, Army, $6,000,000 for Advanced Automotive Technology)
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 $6,000,000
may be available for Advanced Automotive Technology (PE
#0602610A).
amendment no. 3152
(Purpose: To make available from Operation and Maintenance, Army
National Guard, $2,000,000 for the Minuteman Digitization Demonstration
Program)
At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8107. Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by title II under the heading ``Operation and
Maintenance, Army National Guard'', up to $2,000,000 may be
available for the Minuteman Digitization Demonstration
Program.
amendment no. 3127
(Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation, Army, up to $1,000,000 for the High Altitude Airship
Program)
At the end of title VIII, add following:
Sec. 8107. Of the amount appropriated by title IV under
the heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation,
Army'', up to $1,000,000 may be available for Army Missile
Defense Systems Integration (PE #0603308A) for the High
Altitude Airship Program.
amendment no. 3155, as modified
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, Army'', up to $3,750,000
may be available for a Mid-Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser
at the High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility.
[[Page S12512]]
amendment no. 3173
(Purpose: To make available from Research Development Test and
Evaluation, Army, $3,750,000 for a High Energy Laser Systems Test
Facility Sea Light Beam Director)
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, Army'', up to $3,750,000
may be available for a Sea Light Beam Director at the High
Energy Laser Systems Test Facility.
Amendment No. 3162
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, earlier this afternoon, the Senate
unanimously adopted an amendment offered by myself and Senator Stabenow
to increase the budget of the Army's National Automotive Center by $6
million.
The National Automotive Center, NAC, part of the U.S. Army Tank-
Automotive Research, Development, and Engineering Center, works to
support and leverage advancements by the automotive industry to improve
military ground vehicles. The funds provided by our amendment will
allow the NAC to help meet current and future automotive technology
needs.
These funds will support the development of new technologies that are
critical to the success of the Future Combat Systems program and will
help our military to meet the fuel efficiency goals that have been set
by the Department of Defense, while improving the safety of military
ground vehicles.
I am pleased that the Senate adopted our 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. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3206
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on behalf of the leadership of the Senate,
Senators Reid and McConnell, I say to the desk the following amendment
and ask for its immediate consideration and that it be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for Mr. Reid and Mr.
McConnell, proposes an amendment numbered 3206.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is considered
and agreed to.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To make technical corrections to Public Law 110-81)
On page 207, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
Sec. 8107. Paragraph 1(b) of rule XXXV of the Standing
Rules of the Senate is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(3) It is not a gift for a commercial airline to allow a
Member, officer, or employee to make multiple reservations on
scheduled flights consistent with Senate travel
regulations.''.
The amendment, (No. 3206) was agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 3204, 3116, 3182, 3135, as Modified; 3177, 3163, 3176,
3136, 3175, 3137 En Bloc
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that managers'
package No. 3 be considered and agreed to. It consists of the
following: amendment No. 3204, for Senator Sununu, regarding harbor
surveilling applications; amendment No. 3116, for Senator McCaskill,
regarding a Web site link for the DOD Inspector General; amendment No.
3182, for Senator Coleman, regarding the Laser Perimeter Awareness
System; amendment No. 3135, as modified, for Senator Kennedy, regarding
high temperature superconductor motors; amendment No. 3177, for Senator
Inhofe, regarding Ground Warfare Acoustical Combat Systems; amendment
No. 3163, for Senator Harkin, regarding MSOGs for F-15 aircraft;
amendment No. 3176, for Senators Hutchison and Cornyn, regarding the
improvement of barriers at the border; amendment No. 3136, for Senator
Landrieu, regarding the Cyberspace Innovation Center; amendment No.
3175, for Senator Bennett, regarding Internet observer threat
mitigation tools; amendment No. 3137, for Senators Obama, Coburn, and
Reid of Nevada, regarding the Federal tax liability certifications.
I ask for their immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are
considered and agreed to.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 3204
(Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation, Navy, $1,000,000 for the development of Low-Cost, High
Resolution, remote controlled Side Scan Sonar for USV and Harbor
Surveillance Applications)
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, Navy'', up to $1,000,000
may be available for the development of Low-Cost, High
Resolution, remote controlled Side Scan Sonar for USV and
Harbor Surveillance Applications.
amendment no. 3116
(Purpose: To require the establishment on the Internet website of the
Department of Defense of a link to the Office of Inspector General of
the Department of Defense)
At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8107. Not later than 30 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
establish and maintain on the homepage of the Internet
website of the Department of Defense a direct link to the
Internet website of the Office of Inspector General of the
Department of Defense.
amendment no. 3182
(Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation, Navy, $5,000,000 for the Laser Perimeter Awareness System
for integration into the Electronic Harbor Security System)
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, Navy'', up to $5,000,000
may be available for the Laser Perimeter Awareness System for
integration into the Electronic Harbor Security System.
amendment no. 3135, as modified
On page 207, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
Sec. 8107. Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by title IV under the heading ``Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy'', up to $5,000,000
may be made available for the High Temperature Superconductor
AC Synchronous Propulsion Motor.
amendment no. 3177
(Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation, Navy, $1,200,000 for Ground Warfare Acoustical Combat
System of netted sensors)
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, Navy'' and available for
Program Element #0603640M, up to $1,200,000 may be available
for Ground Warfare Acoustical Combat System of netted
sensors.
amendment no. 3163
(Purpose: To make available from Aircraft Procurement, Air Force,
$5,000,000 for the retrofit of upgraded Molecular Sieve Oxygen
Generation Systems into F-15C/D fighter aircraft)
At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8107. Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by title III under the heading ``Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force'', up to $5,000,000 may be available
for the integration, procurement, and retrofit of upgraded
Molecular Sieve Oxygen Generation Systems (MSOGS) into F-15C/
D fighter aircraft.
amendment no. 3176
(Purpose: To provide local officials and the Secretary of Homeland
Security greater involvement in decisions regarding the location of
border fencing)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. IMPROVEMENT OF BARRIERS AT BORDER.
Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``Attorney General, in
consultation with the Commissioner of Immigration and
Naturalization,'' and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland
Security''; and
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``in the Border
Area'' and inserting ``Along the Border'';
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) as
paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (5), respectively;
(C) in paragraph (2), as redesignated--
(i) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``Security
features'' and inserting ``Additional fencing along southwest
border''; and
(ii) by striking subparagraphs (A) through (C) and
inserting the following:
``(A) Reinforced fencing.--In carrying out subsection (a),
the Secretary of Homeland Security shall construct reinforced
fencing along not less than 700 miles of the southwest border
where fencing would be most practical and effective and
provide for the installation of additional physical barriers,
roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors to gain operational
control of the southwest border.
[[Page S12513]]
``(B) Priority areas.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall--
``(i) identify the 370 miles along the southwest border
where fencing would be most practical and effective in
deterring smugglers and aliens attempting to gain illegal
entry into the United States; and
``(ii) not later than December 31, 2008, complete
construction of reinforced fencing along the 370 miles
identified under clause (i).
``(C) Consultation.--
``(i) In general.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall consult with the
Secretary of Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, States,
local governments, Indian tribes, and property owners in the
United States to minimize the impact on the environment,
culture, commerce, and quality of life for the communities
and residents located near the sites at which such fencing is
to be constructed.
``(ii) Savings provision.--Nothing in this subparagraph may
be construed to--
``(I) create any right of action for a State, local
government, or other person or entity affected by this
subsection; or
``(II) affect the eminent domain laws of the United States
or of any State.
``(D) Limitation on requirements.--Notwithstanding
subparagraph (A), nothing in this paragraph shall require the
Secretary of Homeland Security to install fencing, physical
barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors in a
particular location along an international border of the
United States, if the Secretary determines that the use or
placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means
to achieve and maintain operational control over the
international border at such location.''; and
(D) in paragraph (5), as redesignated, by striking ``to
carry out this subsection not to exceed $12,000,000'' and
inserting ``such sums as may be necessary to carry out this
subsection''.
amendment no. 3136
(Purpose: to make available from Operation and Maintenance, Air Force,
$4,000,000 for the 8th Air Force Cyberspace Innovation Center at
Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana)
At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8107. Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by title II under the heading ``Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force'', up to $4,000,000 may be available
for the 8th Air Force Cyberspace Innovation Center for Cyber
Combat Development at Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana.
amendment no. 3175
(Purpose: To make available from Intelligence Community Management
Account, $5,000,000 for Internet Observer and Inner View insider threat
mitigation tools)
At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8107. Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by title VII under the heading ``Intelligence
Community Management Account'', up to $5,000,000 may be
available for the Office of Counter Intelligence of the
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency for Internet Observer
and Inner View insider threat mitigation tools.
amendment no. 3137
(Purpose: To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an
amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such
amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain
certifications regarding Federal tax liability)
On page 207, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
Sec. 8107. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act may be used to enter into a
contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a
grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective
contractor or grantee certifies in writing to the agency
awarding the contract or grant that, to the best of its
knowledge and belief, the contractor or grantee has filed all
Federal tax returns required during the three years preceding
the certification, has not been convicted of a criminal
offense under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and has not,
more than 90 days prior to certification, been notified of
any unpaid Federal tax assessment for which the liability
remains unsatisfied, unless the assessment is the subject of
an installment agreement or offer in compromise that has been
approved by the Internal Revenue Service and is not in
default, or the assessment is the subject of a non-frivolous
administrative or judicial proceeding.
Mr. INOUYE. What is the pending business, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment in question is the Vitter
amendment.
The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I request the clerk make us a list of
pending amendments, amendments that have been qualified as pending on
this bill.
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.
Amendments Nos. 3130, 3167, 3145, and 3141
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce that the
following amendments have been cleared by the leadership of both sides
and we are ready to consider them en bloc: First, 3130, 3167, 3145, and
3141. I ask unanimous consent they be considered en bloc and passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 3130, 3167, 3145, and 3141) were agreed to.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
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. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3144
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have a couple of minutes of comment. I
know Senator Kyl withdrew his amendment. But I do want to have the
Record corrected, because I was listening to part of the debate when I
was back in my office. I think it is important to have an accurate
Record.
My colleague from Arizona indicated that the space-based test bed
program which I oppose is not a program that would primarily be a
space-based missile defense program. He said it is about protecting
satellites. That the space test bed is about protecting satellites.
That is what my colleague was saying.
Let me read the unclassified portion of the Pentagon budget
justification for the program.
The space test bed is being explored as a potential
solution to enhance ballistic missile defense.
I guess you can come to the floor and say: Well, that is not what it
is. But you probably would have to ask the Pentagon to cut out this
page from its budget justification book.
I want the Record to reflect something that is half way accurate. All
of us understand what that program was intended to be. This is what the
Defense Department says it was intended to be. So when I come to the
floor and talk about why this program ought not proceed, it is not
authorized, it has not been funded in either the House or Senate
appropriations bills and, besides, it is a program that will eventually
weaponize space by putting ballistic missile defense interceptors in
space, I have the facts on my side.
Then to have someone say: Well, that is not what it was. Gosh, you
must not understand it, Mr. Dorgan. Well, I am sorry; I do understand
it. So does the Pentagon. They say again:
The Space Test Bed is being explored as a potential
solution to enhance ballistic missile defense capability in
the future.
I went to a small school, but I can understand this. And I read
fairly fast. There is not a lot of reading on this page. So I wanted
the Record to reflect what is accurate about the issue of the space
test bed.
I think this country has an enormous responsibility with the question
of nuclear weapons, stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, attempting
to find ways to reduce the number of nuclear weapons and delivery
vehicles to protect this country in dozens of different ways against
threats that exist against our country.
I think it would be a profound mistake for this Congress to decide,
without authorization, with very little debate, to begin funding a
program that eventually will provide weapons in space. We would be
apoplectic if we believed a program existed or was begun today in the
Duma or in China, because we would believe it would be a threatening
approach for them to weaponize space. I think they would view the same
with activities we would undertake.
My hope is we can work with others in the world with respect to
nonproliferation and with respect to protecting all of us from those
who would be aggressive in our future.
[[Page S12514]]
By the way, my colleague suggested, because I said you can almost
always find a general to support a program at the Pentagon--that I
denigrated generals. My point was not to denigrate generals. But every
program that exists, and every idea, has sponsors and support. You show
me a program, I will show you a number of people who are involved in
that program, believe in that program, and want that program to move.
It is the generals and colonels and captains and lieutenants, and that
is the way the system works.
Now, I promised I was going to compliment the manager and the ranking
member. I did it before, but let me do it again. This is a big piece of
legislation, hard to put together, and not easy to manage. But they
have been on the floor now for some while trying to move this
legislation through. Much of it is very important for this country. I
hope we can move to final passage in an expedited way.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3198
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3198.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
Mr. LEAHY. I make a point of order that it is legislation on an
appropriations bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment
falls.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair.
While I have the floor, I understand my good friend, the Senator from
New Jersey, is concerned. There appears not to be parity between the
northern border and the southern border. I share his concern about some
of the issues of racism that have been floated into the debate
regarding our southern border. I think he would admit that there are
differences between the northern border and the southern border. We are
blessed to have friends on both our northern and southern borders. The
failure of the administration to take a truly bipartisan approach to
comprehensive immigration reform and the failure of this body to go
forward and work its way all the way through to a final immigration
bill reflects some of the problems we have.
The way to solve them is not to close the border to a historic
neighbor on the longest unguarded frontier in the world, one of our
largest trading partners. We already have policies of this
administration that are about to cost us hundreds of billions of
dollars in jobs in the United States, which do nothing to enhance our
security, with the cockamamie idea from the State Department and the
Department of Homeland Security requiring passports to cross between
Canada and the United States. This will do very little to improve our
security. Instead of working with Senators on both sides of the aisle
to find a way where we could have safe, easy transfer between the two
countries, keep commerce going, especially after this administration
has so badly handled our economy that our dollar has slipped
dramatically, the administration wants to hastily implement ill-
conceived barriers to cross-border travel. We seem to want to poke our
thumb in the eye of a good neighbor.
I do not fault the Senator from New Jersey for his amendment. I
understand the reason he does it. As he can well understand, I disagree
with the idea of a fence along the Canadian border, just as I voted
against erecting a fence along the southern border last year. I wish we
could show some sense in real immigration policy with our southern
border. It is a fault in this country to pretend we don't have illegal
immigrants looking for a better life and to think that we are going to
solve the problem by denying them access to social programs, deny their
children access to our schools, deny them access to assistance with
food, deny them access to health care, and to threaten prosecution of
our churches if they show their respect for the commandments and
actually want to help the least among us.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I appreciate the views of my
distinguished colleague from Vermont. I particularly appreciate his
support for comprehensive immigration reform for which he has been a
champion. However, I must take the opportunity to note that the
underlying amendment Senator Salazar and I were addressing, for which
no point of order was raised against and which, in essence, was adopted
by the Senate, goes to the very heart of this issue.
As a matter of fact, there was a colloquy between Senator Tester and
Senator Graham that basically said to some degree that, in fact, the
resources Senator Graham had in his amendment, adopted by the Senate,
could go to the northern border. What Senator Salazar and I want to
make clear is that, in fact, either we protect all of the country or we
protect none of it.
Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. MENENDEZ. I am happy to.
Mr. LEAHY. I want to make sure: The Senator would have been within
his rights to have made a point of order against the Graham amendment
had he wanted to; is that correct?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Unfortunately, I didn't have notice of it before it was
called up for a vote; otherwise, I would have had the opportunity.
Mr. LEAHY. I had heard about an hour before the vote that we were
having it.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I would note for the Senator, however, that his concern
was in the underlying Graham amendment as well. So here we are, where
we as a body consistently pursue one course of action on one part of
the U.S. border, and on the other border we actually say it is quite
different. The reality is, some of us on this issue believe there has
to be some consistency because, if not, some of us believe either it is
about securing the country or it is not. If it is about securing the
country, you can't secure one border and say the other border is free
for people to cross undetected, as has been well documented by the
Government Accountability Office, by the 9/11 Commission, and by the
fact that the millennium bomber came through, and a host of other
things. Either we are going to have security, which means north and
south, or we are not going to have security. If it is only about the
southern border, then it is about a lot more than security. It is about
who happens to be crossing we don't like. What is the color of their
skin? What is their ethnicity? Why is that such a threat when the only
real terrorist threat we have ever had came through the northern
border?
This Senator, for one, intends to ensure moving forward that as we
have other appropriations bills, I will make it my business to be on
the Senate floor to raise points of order because either it is about
securing all of the country or it is about securing none of it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the will of the Senate?
Mr. INOUYE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. 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.
Amendment No. 3146 Withdrawn
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, with the approval of Senator Allard, I ask
unanimous consent that amendment No. 3146 be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. That is the Allard amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Allard amendment.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President: I want to speak at this point with
Senators Inouye and Stevens on the amendment offered by Senator Salazar
and myself designating $5 million--the amount requested by the Pentagon
and previously approved by the House--for the Missile Defense Space
Experimentation Center, a facility within the Missile
[[Page S12515]]
Defense Integration and Operations Center on Schriever Air Force Base
in Colorado Springs, CO. May I ask, are the chairman and ranking member
of the Defense Subcommittee aware of the potentially valuable work
proposed for this center?
Mr. INOUYE. I am.
Mr. STEVENS. I am as well, and I note that this amendment was
submitted yesterday--coincidentally on the day when it became obvious
that our Nation's missile defense system is, according to today's New
York Times, ``up and running.''
Mr. ALLARD. Exactly. We hear frequent mention on this floor about the
other, non-Iraq dangers facing this country, and our national missile
defense system is designed to deal with some of the most worrisome of
those threats--an accidental or rogue nation launch of ballistic
nuclear weapons against our country. I am sure the chairman and ranking
member agree on the value of this system, and that a system as
technologically complex as this one requires constant analysis,
demonstration, and integration?
Mr. INOUYE. Certainly.
Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
Mr. ALLARD. I further, then, suggest that the Missile Defense Space
Experimentation Center fulfills this role, and also supports advanced
technology and algorithm development, and other mission areas such as
space situation awareness, technical intelligence, and battle space
characterization.
The MDSEC facility buildout began in fiscal year 2006 and continued
through fiscal year 2007 under the STSS program. As the MDSEC supports
multiple satellite operations and experiments, the fiscal year 2008
request of $5 million is contained within the MDA Space Program
Element. The MDSEC provides the Missile Defense Agency a common support
infrastructure and connectivity to the BMDS for the two satellites to
be launched in 2008. It will also integrate space data in support of
the missile defense mission such as ongoing experiments using Defense
Support Program data for missile defense, planned experiments with data
from MDA and other defense and national security systems. MDSEC further
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 to include space situation
awareness, technical intelligence, and battle space characterization.
I believe the mission and task for the MDSEC require our support and
I urge the distinguished chairman and ranking member of this committee
to give their full support to this program.
Mr. INOUYE. I pledge to my friend from Colorado that when we sit down
to discuss this matter with the House I will continue to support the
ballistic missile defense system. Let me assure you, as well, that we
will carefully examine the merits of the programs at the MDSEC and the
unique capabilities of the MDIOC when we have our conference
negotiations with the House.
Mr. STEVENS. I concur.
Mr. ALLARD. I thank you both.
Mr. INOUYE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I call up Senate amendment No. 3166.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
Amendment No. 3207 to Amendment No. 3166
Mr. STEVENS. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its
consideration. It is an amendment to this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes an amendment
numbered 3207 to amendment No. 3166.
Mr. STEVENS. 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:
Amendment No. 3207 to Amendment No. 3166
On page 1 of Amendment 3166, after line 7 insert the
following:
``Not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
congressional defense committees a report on mechanisms for
expanding public-private partnerships with military and
family organizations for the purpose of increasing access to
family support, in particular, for the minor dependent
children of deployed servicemembers.
``Such report shall identify: the adjustment needs of minor
children of deployed service personnel, including children
who have experienced multiple deployments of one or more
parents or guardians; alternative support and recreational
activities which have been shown to be effective in improving
coping skills in young children of deployed servicemembers;
support networks beyond educational settings that have been
effective in addressing the needs of children of deployed
servicemembers, to include summer and after-school
recreational, sports and cultural activities; programs which
can be accessed without charge to military families; gaps in
services for minor dependent children of deployed personnel,
and; opportunities for expanding public and private
partnerships in support of such programs.
``Prior to submission of the report required by this
section, the Secretary shall consult with military family
advocacy organizations, and include the comments of such
organizations within the required report to congressional
defense committees.
``Plan Required:
``Not later than 60 days after submission of the report
required by this section. the Secretary shall submit a plan
to the congressional defense committees to address the needs
and gaps in services identified in the report. Such a plan
shall also address the comments and recommendations of
military family advocacy organizations. as required by this
section.''
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I would say to the Senate that this is
an addition to the Boxer amendment that does not affect the Boxer
amendment per se.
I ask unanimous consent that the amendment to the amendment be agreed
to.
Mr. INOUYE. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3207) was agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3166), as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be listed as
a cosponsor of the Boxer amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, to my knowledge, the Senator from
Alabama is here now for his amendment. The Sessions amendment is the
last amendment that I know of on this side. Does the Senator from
Hawaii have additional amendments on his side?
Mr. INOUYE. No.
Mr. STEVENS. We would be prepared to enter into an agreement that
there be no further amendments.
Mr. INOUYE. I ask unanimous consent that the Sessions amendment be
the last one considered.
Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I would ask for a moment before making
that final decision to talk to the chairman about an amendment. It is
the amendment you have in front of you, but I came down to speak to the
chairman about that. So I wonder if we might take a moment to consider
the Sessions amendment and allow me to have just a moment before that
decision is made.
Mr. STEVENS. So we will proceed at this time with the Sessions
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3192
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 3192.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions] proposes an
amendment numbered 3192.
Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
[[Page S12516]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3192
(Purpose: To fund Operation Jump Start, the deployment of National
Guard personnel, to the southern border, through September 30, 2008)
On page 114, lines 6 and 7, strike ``$22,445,227,000:
Provided,'' and insert ``$23,239,227,000: Provided, That not
less than $794,000,000 of such amount shall be made available
for Operation Jump Start in order to maintain a significant
durational force of the National Guard on the southern land
border of the United States to assist the United States
Border Patrol in gaining operational control of that border,
in addition to any other amounts made available under this
Act for such purpose: Provided further,''.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators
Domenici, Dole, and Ensign be added as cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, it is unfortunate and sad, I think,
that the Senate--and I would say the administration--has made a
decision to prematurely draw down the National Guard presence at the
southern border. That is an unwise event, and it signals uncertainty
about our commitment to completing the lawful strategy we have for
immigration at our border.
It is not impossible for us to create a lawful system of immigration,
but we have to do some things. We have allowed unlawfulness to continue
for an extraordinary amount of time, to the extent that it is going to
take us some effort now to reestablish a rule of law. But the whole
world will be better off and everyone who wants to come to our country
will be better off if they know what the rules are, how to apply, and
have an understanding that their competitors who would like to come
here are not going to be allowed to come illegally and then be rewarded
by amnesty while they wait in line to come lawfully.
So the amendment I have offered will fully fund Operation Jump Start
at its original level--the 6,000 National Guard troops--through the end
of fiscal year 2008. Currently, the Department of Defense has plans
only to keep 3,000 at the border instead of the full 6,000 who were to
be deployed through 2008. Furthermore, Operation Jump Start is actually
now scheduled to end completely on July 1, 2008. So the increased
funding provided for here--and I do believe it is an emergency and it
is a legitimate emergency expenditure to create lawfulness at our
border, which will protect the national security of the United States--
this increased funding will be needed to do these things: keep
Operation Jump Start at the deployment level that has been so
successful and keep Operation Jump Start running until this time next
year.
On May 15, 2006, President Bush announced Operation Jump Start, which
was the employment of up to 6,000 National Guard members to the
southern land border. According to Operation Jump Start Year 1 Review,
its intent was to provide:
An immediate means to enhance border enforcement operations
while Border Patrol increased its own internal enforcement
resources through hiring additional Border Patrol agents,
mission support personnel, and procuring and applying new
technology and infrastructure.
It goes on to say:
OJS is providing interim support as Border Patrol recruits,
hires, and trains 6,000 additional Border Patrol agents by
the end of calendar year 2008--
End of calendar year 2008; that is December of 2008.
My amendment would simply carry the strength of the National Guard
through September 30, 2008, the fiscal year. That is important because
we are facing a rather substantial drawdown without this amendment.
So deployments began on June 15, 2006, to give us a bit of a
background. By August 2006, an average of 5,677 National Guard
personnel were deployed. By June 2007--that is June of this year--an
average of 5,759 were deployed.
Since the beginning, on the border, the National Guard has supported
the Department of Homeland Security by providing, among other things,
the following skills: construction of tactical infrastructure; that is,
fencing, roads, and lighting and those kinds of things that are really
critical if we are serious about making sure people just don't walk
across our border. You have to have those things. We made some progress
in that regard, although, in truth, we should have made more. They are
involved in fence repair, welding, and facility maintenance. Many of
these are engineer Guard units with a lot of capabilities in this area.
They provide vehicle and fleet maintenance. Many of these are
transportation units that are skilled at fleet maintenance. Entry
identification teams, surveillance and reconnaissance teams, law
enforcement communication assistance, intelligence analysis--we have a
lot of those capabilities in the National Guard.
So I would say they are not being utilized on a daily basis to patrol
the border and make arrests. We decided that would not be what they are
deployed for. But they are really providing a lot of capability that
frees up a limited number of Border Patrol agents to be the front-line
troops, to go out and make the arrests and do the day-to-day work that
has to be done.
The success of the operation is undeniable. By early December of
2006, just 6 months after the deployment began, Robert Gilbert, the
chief Border Patrol agent for the Border Patrol's El Paso sector,
stated:
Jointly, we are making a definite impact on the border. The
professionalism and dedication and training the Guard units
have brought to our mission and our fight, the way they have
made it their mission and their fight, is more than we
expected.
That same month, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, LTG Steve
Blum, stated:
I was here 2\1/2\ months ago and things that I didn't think
would be possible in a year have already been accomplished.
Infrastructure is up, fencing is up, roads are built,
lighting is up, and apprehensions are down.
Those aren't just words. The success of Operation Jump Start is
tangible.
According to the Year 1 Review:
Force multiplication has allowed more Border Patrol agents
to remain in the enforcement mode, not the support mode. The
additional manpower has allowed DHS to return 563 agents to
frontline positions. The result is referred to as ``badges
back to the border.''
The Guard presence has added 337 miles of expanded border
surveillance capabilities along the southwest border. Guard personnel
provide 6,500 hours of camera monitoring. Somebody has to monitor the
cameras. There is no doubt that an electronic fence, as some have said,
is not a worthless idea. You can use cameras and electronic technology
to enhance our capabilities at the border, but in the high-traffic
areas, it is not a question of seeing people, it is a question of how
you can detain them if they are coming illegally. So I think we made
progress there with the help of the National Guard.
Guard personnel have assisted in apprehending more than 10 percent of
the aliens apprehended during the past year--a total of 84,878
apprehensions. Overall, apprehensions of illegal immigrants trying to
cross the border are down by 25 percent. What most experts conclude
that means is that an estimated 25 percent fewer illegal immigrants are
attempting to cross. The Guard's presence is, in fact, having a
deterrent effect.
With the help of the National Guard, marijuana seizures are up 22
percent. The Guard was responsible for seizing 201,000 pounds of
marijuana at the border.
As a matter of fact, when we talk about security and the need to do
something about openness and illegality at our border, we have to
consider drugs to be a big part of that. Guard personnel have assisted
in the seizure of 4,783 pounds of cocaine, 703 vehicles, and $60,000 in
currency. So this is an important matter in the success we are having.
The Guard presence has produced sizable gains in critically needed
tactical infrastructure along the border. They have already repaired
428 miles of roads. You have to have roads if you are going to be
effective in maintaining a border. And 16 miles of all-weather roads
have been repaired and maintained. They have installed 58 miles of
vehicle barriers. At least it prohibits people from driving into our
country loaded with drugs or illegal items.
They have constructed 18.2 miles of fencing, which is a disappointing
number. After all that we funded in this Congress, which was 700 miles
of fencing, we have only 18 miles completed.
[[Page S12517]]
We voted for it. We talked about it. We go back home and tell our
constituents we have done it. The President says we are doing it. The
Secretary of Homeland Security says we are doing it. We have not
accomplished much, but the Guard has played a role by using their
engineering capability. Frankly, if they had been focused more on
actual barriers, they probably would have accomplished more.
The real reason is the way we planned this out has been very slow in
development, in terms of building our fencing. In fact, we are informed
that the fencing numbers are improving right now; that miles of fencing
are appearing and coming much more rapidly on line than before. If you
examine the situation closely, you will see there appears to be a move
afoot to draw this out and end up with far less fencing than the
Congress contemplated both with our authorization and appropriations
bills.
The Department of Homeland Security indicates that the Guard's
presence will have an even greater impact on tactical infrastructure
over the next year:
The deployments will be focused on providing a greater
residual value by raising the percentage of troops that are
working on tactical infrastructure projects. This
infrastructure will greatly enhance the ability of the men
and women of the border patrol to access the border and be
more effective in the enforcement efforts for many years to
come.
OK. What they are saying is they have projected in the coming months
that the Guard is going to be even more effective because they will be
providing a greater residual value by raising the percentage of troops
working on infrastructure projects. Now, there are people who don't
want infrastructure at the border, and they would like to bring the
troops home, I suppose, before that happens. That would be a big
mistake.
The National Guard is helping the border to save lives. In the last
year, they have rescued 91 people--illegal aliens--in the area who were
in desperate trouble for lack of water or being lost. They rescued
them. Now, this is what has happened. Despite the proven success of the
program, the operation is scheduled to stop by next July. Troops are
already being reduced. By the end of July, troops were down to 4,500;
that is July of 2007. By the end of August of this year, troops were
down to 3,500. So it dropped even more. Today, only 3,000 personnel are
on Operation Jump Start orders, and, of those, only 2,300 are actually
at the border.
So already there has been a drawdown of more than half of the
National Guard personnel, and not communicating that to the American
people is leaving us in a difficult situation, I suggest. The National
Guard was supposed to fill the gap until 6,000 new Border Patrol agents
could be recruited, hired, trained, and stationed at the border. That
goal has only been accomplished halfway. Only 3,000 new agents have
joined the 1,000 who were on the border when President Bush announced
Operation Jump Start. The National Guard is assisting in fence and
other critical infrastructure construction.
The Secure Fence Act that we passed mandated that the Department of
Homeland Security construct more than 700 miles of new fencing. The
administration's goal apparently is not to do that. Apparently it is to
just complete 300 miles by the end of the whole next year, 2008. So
with 2 years of authorization and funding, they will have only
completed less than half of the fencing. To date, only 70 new miles
have been constructed, for a total of 145 miles of fencing on the
border. That is not the kind of signal we need to be sending.
The reason that is important is because it has a psychological
impact, as well as an actual apprehension impact. What about alien
apprehensions? To date, alien apprehensions on the border are down 25
percent. While this is positive, because it indicates the attempts at
crossings are likely down by 25 percent as well, the job is certainly
not finished. The year before that, we arrested 1 million people at the
border. Can you imagine that? One million people were arrested at the
border. It is not an exaggeration to say that it is a wide-open,
lawless area that needs attention from our Government. If we don't give
it, we are breaking faith with the American people because we have said
we are going to fix that, we are going to do something about it. We
just haven't.
I have to tell you there are some people who really don't care about
it. They talk about it, but they don't care. We have some progress; 25
percent is a lot. It is not insignificant. But if we really got that
fencing up and built, if we kept the National Guard down at the border,
if we broaden the Border Patrol and motivate them to be as effective as
they possibly could be, I absolutely believe--absolutely believe--we
can reach a tipping point where the whole world begins to say the
border of the United States is no longer wide open; that you can get in
trouble going across there. Most people are getting caught. It is an
entirely different place, so maybe we better not try it this time.
Maybe somebody suggested we can do that, but that is not a good idea.
But for the last 20 years-plus, it has been a well-known fact worldwide
that you can just walk across our border, if you have very much
initiative, and be successful at it. If they catch you, nothing ever
happens.
Now, I will conclude by noting that, according to the year review of
Operation Jump Start:
OJS is one of the many enforcement initiatives employed to
expand enforcement capabilities to gain better operational
control along the Southwest border. OJS, combined with other
initiatives, such as Operation Streamline, Zero Tolerance,
Arizona Border Control Initiative, and the Expedited Removal
Program, has resulted in a cumulative, positive impact on
current levels of border control.
Good news. A positive impact. What it should do is give us
encouragement. If we will just follow through, expand what we are
doing, adjust to the changing tactics of those who want to enter
illegally, and do it with will and determination and a positive
attitude, we can make a difference. We can end this open border, end
the illegality that has made the immigration system a mockery of law
and an embarrassment to our people.
Operation Jump Start is a proven success. It is a critical component
of our strategy. Guardsmen are filling critical law enforcement roles.
They are building fencing and infrastructure and interdicting narcotics
and conducting surveillance and reconnaissance; and, by the way, a
substantial majority of our cocaine and methamphetamines, for that
matter, are coming into our country through Mexico. I talk to law
enforcement officers in Alabama all the time. They say we used to get a
lot out of Miami and south Florida. Now it is all coming across the
Mexican border. So we have a law enforcement interest in this also.
There is no reason Operation Jump Start should end this June. At a
minimum, it should be extended until all 6,000 Border Patrol agents are
on duty. The way we have been going, we authorize it and say we are
going to add 6,000 Border Patrol agents, and they don't get added, if
you want to know the truth. We have seen that happen time and time
again. They said we were going to continue this Operation Jump Start
and the National Guard, but we have already reduced our Guard personnel
by more than half. That adds credibility problems with the American
people. No wonder they are suspicious about what we are doing here.
This amendment will provide the needed funding to keep Operation Jump
Start at its original capacity, 6,000 Guard personnel, instead of what
they have planned now. It makes no sense to the American people to say
we found something that is effective, that is beginning to work to
reduce the illegality we are facing, but we are stopping the program
before the job is done. The border is not yet secure. It is too early
to end this program. We need to step it up, and I think we will be in a
position to have greater progress than anyone can imagine.
Madam President, to sum up, the good news is we have made some
progress, but we have not really begun to get to finishing up. If we
get the fencing up and keep our Guard there full-time and get our new
Border Patrol agents up and we move to ending the catch-and-release and
adopt the Texas plan, where individuals are prosecuted for violating
the laws by entering illegally--that has reduced border crossings in
that area by 45 percent or more--and if we can do other things
[[Page S12518]]
like that, this will work and we can make good progress.
The problem is, I think some are not desirous of us being successful.
Everything that tends to work seems to be delayed and slowed down and
undermined. If we move forward, we can send a message to the world that
our National Guard is there, our troops are there, the Border Patrol
has been increased, we are building barriers, and you are not going to
get in easily anymore, so you better wait in line and come here
lawfully, and the whole country will be better off. This amendment will
be a big part of doing that.
I yield the floor.
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.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. What is the pending amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sessions amendment is the pending
amendment.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask that amendment be accepted by
voice vote.
Mr. STEVENS. We agree.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3192) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3131
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I send to the desk an amendment in
behalf of Senator Stabenow and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for Ms. Stabenow,
proposes an amendment numbered 3131.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation, Army, $4,000,000 for the Virtual Systems Integrated
Laboratory-Armored Vehicle Components and Systems Simulated In Cost-
Effective Virtual Design and Test Environment)
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 $4,000,000
may be available for the Virtual Systems Integrated
Laboratory-Armored Vehicle Components and Systems Simulated
In Cost-Effective Virtual Design and Test Environment.
Mr. INOUYE. I ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, without
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3131) was agreed to.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Stryker Brigade Combat Teams
Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with my
good friend, the Senior Senator from Hawaii, chairman of the Senate
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Inouye, ranking member of the
Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Stevens, and my
colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, regarding the need for additional
Stryker Brigade Combat Teams in our Army National Guard.
Mr. INOUYE. I would be happy to discuss this important issue with the
Senators from Oregon.
Mr. SMITH. Sir, we have all watched with pride the bravery of our men
and women in uniform as they defend freedom around the world. We are
particularly proud of the members of the National Guard, who fight
side-by-side with active duty forces. These guards men and women
deserve the same protection and equipment as the active force with
which they stand shoulder to shoulder. In combat operations, the
Stryker vehicle has performed exceptionally and proven itself to be a
superior fighting vehicle that protects the precious lives of our
servicemembers. I would like to express my strong support for our
guards men and women and ask that the Army ensure that funding for
additional Stryker vehicles with the intent of forming a second Stryker
Bridge Combat Team for the National Guard figures prominently in
immediate planning.
Mr. WYDEN. I would like to join my colleague from Oregon in
recognizing the Guard soldiers who leave their community to fight for
their country. And I agree that they deserve the best equipment
available, including the Stryker vehicles. I think it is also important
to point out that in the hands of the Guard the Stryker vehicles would
also be used during domestic disaster situations as well as combat
overseas. Our citizen soldiers deserve the same equipment as the active
duty Army, and I too hope that the Army will see the wisdom of
establishing a Stryker Brigade Combat Team for the National Guard.
Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senators from Oregon for unwavering support
of our men and women in the Army National Guard. We all recognize and
are deeply grateful for the service that the National Guard has
provided in domestic disasters and international conflict. It is well-
documented that the Stryker brigades have indeed performed
exceptionally in Iraq. The House has added over $1 billion for
Strykers. Your and your colleagues' views on Strykers for the Guard are
noted and will be taken into consideration as we enter into conference.
Mr. STEVENS. I wish to echo my colleague's support for the men and
women in the National Guard. I am extremely grateful for their service
and dedication to our country. I reiterate my colleague's sentiment
that we will take into consideration our colleague's views on a Stryker
Brigade for the National Guard.
improved engineering design process
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise to express my support for a
program sponsored by the U.S. Navy, which will significantly streamline
the process for planning and executing repair and modernization of our
submarine fleet at our naval shipyards. The Improved Engineering Design
Process uses advanced 3-D digital scanning techniques to accurately
capture the ``as is'' layout of specific ship spaces that will be
impacted in the repair process. These digital 3-D images can then be
easily shared to allow collaboration among our public shipyards to
facilitate greater efficiency in planning and executing repairs and
modernization. Because of the high operating tempo of our fleet, it is
essential that we find ways to accomplish these repairs faster and
return our submarines to operational readiness more quickly. I
understand that implementation of this process in our public shipyards
has the potential to produce annual savings of $30 million. I ask the
distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee if he
would agree such a program should be further developed and implemented
as quickly as possible?
Mr. STEVENS. The project described by the Senator from Maine appears
to have great merit. Savings of this magnitude are especially important
at a time when our resources are stretched very thinly.
Ms. COLLINS. The distinguished ranking member makes a very important
point regarding the need for pursuing initiatives of this kind so that
our scarce dollars can go further. I understand that the Navy believes
strongly in the merits of this program and has considered this program
for inclusion in future budget requests. I encourage the Navy to not
only include it in its budget request, but to also identify existing
funds that may be applied to keeping this program moving forward. In
addition, I ask the committee ranking member to join me in encouraging
the Navy to continue supporting this critical program and, if possible,
to identify potential fiscal year 2008 funds that could be made
available as we finalize those budget deliberations. I thank the
Senator for his interest in and support for this important initiative.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator from Maine for bringing this
important program to my attention.
[[Page S12519]]
Hawklink
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, along with my colleagues from
Georgia, Senator Isakson, and Florida, Senator Martinez, I rise to
address the issue of funding for a key common data link system which
will provide sensor connectivity for the Navy's MH-60R light airborne
multipurpose, LAMPS, helicopters with ships in our Navy's carrier
battle groups. I want to express my sincere appreciation to Chairman
Inouye for his willingness to consider our concerns regarding this
vital program. The MH-60R LAMPS helicopter provides the fleet's primary
capability to detect, identify, and destroy surface and subsurface
threats to the carrier battle group. Essential air-to-ship sensor
connectivity will be provided by CDL Hawklink, a high-speed, air-to-
ship, common data link--CDL--compliant, digital data link that
transmits tactical, video, radar, acoustic, IFF, and raw sensor data
from MH-60R helicopters to host surface ships. CDL Hawklink will
provide a significant improvement over current capabilities and will
greatly improve fleet interoperable communications, dramatically
enhance transmission of threat identification and targeting data for
shipboard analysis, and replace current hardware facing critical
obsolescence and parts non-availability.
The Navy requested $31.8 million for this shipboard equipment for
fiscal year 2008. While the House bill would provide full funding, the
Senate bill would cut $9.6 million from the request. I understand the
committee cut the request due to excessive cost growth. While we agree
that this is a reasonable basis for the committee to make such cuts,
Senator Isakson, Senator Martinez, and I have asked Chairman Inouye to
consider some of the reasons for the cost growth and the detrimental
impact such a cut would have on this important program.
Mr. ISAKSON. I thank my colleagues, Senator Chambliss and Senator
Martinez, for their work on this issue, as well as Chairman Inouye for
his consideration and willingness to work with us to restore full
funding for this critical program. This is an important program for the
Navy and the Department of Defense. The proposed reduction of $9.6
million equates to a 30-percent reduction to the Navy's request. A
funding reduction of this magnitude will result in a quantity reduction
of seven of the 10 data link units intended to be procured in fiscal
year 2008. A quantity reduction of this magnitude will significantly
increase the average unit cost for these units and drive up costs to
the total program. The initial operational capability for the program
would also be delayed for at least 1 year, negatively impacting the
integration of the MH-60R helicopter with the Carrier Strike Group. I
appreciate the committee's consideration, and I, along with my
colleagues, appreciate very much the chairman's willingness to work
with us to restore funding for this essential program in conference.
Mr. MARTINEZ. I wish to join my friends and colleagues from Georgia
in supporting funding for the LAMPS MK III procurement line at the full
authorized level of $31.8 million. This vital program, which the Senate
Armed Services Committee on which Senator Chambliss and I serve, fully
authorized the President's request, brings needed capability to the
pilots and crews of the MH-60 aircraft and the carrier battle groups
with which they work. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and your committee for
your hard work on this crucial spending bill and ask that as you go to
conference with the House you consider our support and the support of
the Navy and administration for this important program.
Again, I thank my colleagues from Georgia as well as Chairman Inouye
and Senator Stevens for their time and hard work.
Mr. INOUYE. I appreciate very much the diligent work of these three
Senators in researching this important issue regarding the critical
air-to-ship sensor connectivity within our Navy's carrier battle groups
and bringing it to my attention. I appreciate that they understand the
rationale for the reduction in funding we have proposed for this
program, and I have listened carefully to their description of the
impacts that such a reduction might cause in the program. I assure my
friends, Senator Chambliss, Senator Isakson, and Senator Martinez, that
I will continue to examine this program carefully as we proceed to
conference.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the chairman for his generous consideration of
our concerns, and I also thank my colleagues for their hard work on
this issue. Senator Inouye is one of the great heroes of our country
and continues to earn our highest respect and admiration every day here
in the Senate. It is a privilege and an honor to work with him on these
important issues.
Mr. ISAKSON. I join my colleagues in expressing our sincere
appreciation to Chairman Inouye for his willingness to address our
concerns. We all appreciate his great service to our Nation--as a
courageous soldier and a great Senator as well.
Mr. MARTINEZ. I thank my colleagues for their work on this issue and
Chairman Inouye for listening to our concerns. We all appreciate his
commitment to our Nation.
Battlefield surveillance and Management Radar System
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the need to
continue development of a vital next-generation battlefield
surveillance and management radar system. Battlefield surveillance and
management is more important than ever for the safety and effectiveness
of our military, engaged in a variety of combat operations. With the
advent of increasingly difficult-to-track targets, new technology is
critically important to keep pace with expanding threats to our men and
women in uniform. Indeed, U.S. technology should be honed to detect
threats such as cruise missiles, rockets, as well as slow moving land
based targets common on the battlefield in counterterrorism operations.
Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for raising this
important issue and for his recent letter informing me of the
criticality of this program.
Mr. DODD. As the distinguished chairman of the Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee knows, production of the Joint Surveillance and Target
Attack Radar aircraft, or JSTARS--our Nation's principal platform for
performing these vital missions--was canceled in 2003, with its last
delivery occurring in 2005. The E-10 multisensor command and control
aircraft was intended to replace this platform, but that too was
canceled last year. Fortunately, after constructive discussions with
the Department of Defense, the Pentagon agreed to continue developing
the high-tech sensor and radar technologies that were being designed to
outfit the E-10, the multiplatform radar technology insertion program,
or MP-RTIP. Unfortunately, the Department of Defense would only commit
to developing the system via supplemental appropriations instead of the
standard Defense budgeting process. I remain concerned that such an
uncertain funding strategy could jeopardize our Nation's ability to
develop the critical tools our military needs to maintain modern
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my colleagues for bringing up this critical
matter. The threats that our troops face on the battlefield continue to
grow. We, and they, are fortunate that they have JSTARS and its radar
to give them a critical edge. JSTARS has proven its value on the
battlefield many times, beginning with Desert Storm when it was rushed
to the field to give our commanders an unprecedented view of the
battlefield. Since then, every warfighting commander that has testified
before us has said that JSTARS is absolutely essential to success.
Indeed, as the senior Senator from Connecticut has pointed out, the
cancellation of the E-10 means that JSTARS will remain essential for
years to come. But the radar on JSTARS is aging at the same time that
the battlefield is getting more complex and threats harder to detect.
Fortunately, MP-RTIP can be available to put on JSTARS. I believe we
must move quickly to develop a version of MP-RTIP and install it on our
JSTARS aircraft to give our commanders and soldiers the absolute best
capability that we can. In fact, the Pentagon acknowledged in its most
recent Quadrennial Defense Review the critical importance of the United
States improving its ability to detect incoming cruise missiles and
slow-moving ground
[[Page S12520]]
vehicles. Current technologies such as JSTARS are simply inadequate to
track small airborne targets that may easily be used to attack our
forces with little warning and with horrible effect.
Mr. DODD. I would like to add to my distinguished colleague from
Connecticut's remarks. While our troops deserve nothing less than the
best equipment, it is also essential that we maintain the ability to
domestically produce this type of advanced technology. I am convinced
that failure to support MP-RTIPs continued advancement would result in
a devastating loss to our domestic industrial base, essential for
producing this type of crucial radar technology. Additionally, it would
seem as though we had wasted the $1 billion already invested in this
vital program. Now is not the time to forgo dominance in the realm of
battlefield surveillance and management--and that is precisely what
would happen if we ended domestic production of this vital system.
Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senators from Connecticut for bringing this
issue before us today. I assure you that I will examine this program
carefully as the committee reviews the supplemental appropriations
bill.
Mr. DODD. I thank the chairman for his leadership on this important
issue.
Patriot Missiles
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a brief
colloquy with my good friend from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, on Patriot
missiles. It is my understanding that the Patriot missile is the Army's
only fielded air and missile defense capability. With only 13 total
deployable battalions in the force, the Army operational and personnel
capacity to respond to the needs of the combatant commanders is
severely stressed.
Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator for raising this very important
issue. As the Senator knows, I am a strong supporter of the Patriot.
Mr. KENNEDY. Your support is well known and very much appreciated.
This year is a very active year for Patriot--the Patriot pure fleet
effort will upgrade three tactical battalions from the PAC-2 to the
PAC-3 configuration and the Patriot ``Grow the Army'' effort to upgrade
two nontactical battalions of Patriot equipment from the PAC-2 to the
PAC-3 configuration, and purchase the remaining new equipment for
stand-up of these battalions.
It is my understanding that the funding for this effort is a little
complicated. The Army requested $208 for the Patriot pure fleet effort
and $294 million in the amended fiscal year 2008 President's budget
request to fund the activation and equipping of the first additional
battalion fiscal year 2008 with the second in fiscal year 2010. This
fiscal year 2008 funding is critical to this schedule to procure long
lead materials to prevent slip into fiscal year 2012 and beyond. I
understand that providing these funds in fiscal year 2008 avoids almost
$100 million in costs. And if that funding is provided, the plan for
Patriot pure fleet and the ``Grow the Army'' initiative is executable
and not ahead of the need to establish the two additional battalions. I
believe that fully funding the Army's amended request in fiscal year
2008 is in the best interests of the taxpayer and will avoid almost
$100 million in costs if the Army can award all this work under one
contract.
I strongly support conforming the Senate bill to the House mark,
which included the $294 million for the ``Grow the Army'' effort.
Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator. As the Senator surely knows, we
fully funded the Patriot pure fleet effort, one of the Army's top
priorities in the past 2 years. We will certainly consider the
additional information provided as we conference the bill.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
Mr. BAYH. Madam. President, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the
esteemed Senator from Hawaii in order to speak about the important role
medium to high altitude unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, play in
operations across the world today. We are concerned that the DOD is
simply not fielding enough of these systems. Despite constant increases
in procurement and assurance from the Department that they are working
to address this requirement, medium to high altitude UAVs remain a low
density high demand asset.
Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator from Indiana for raising this
important issue and agree with my good friend that improving our
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities is a
critical issue for our military today.
Mr. BAYH. As my chairman is already fully aware, today's
counterinsurgency and counterterror operations remain intelligence
driven. The ultimate success of so many of our military's missions
depends on the effectiveness of our intelligence capabilities. Truly,
each and every single operation has an intelligence component.
I do not believe that these assets can ever replace people or the
human intelligence they produce, but they remain highly valuable given
their limited footprint and ability to collect data across multiple
spectrums. Simply put, they are force multipliers. Systems like the
Predator, Reaper, and Sky Warrior have long loiter times and an ability
to strike immediately. Further, they do not have to wait on the arrival
of other manned assets before engaging a target, which is something
that we cannot currently duplicate.
I have visited Iraq and Afghanistan, where I was told over and again
the importance of these ISR assets. Further, during a recent Armed
Services hearing, I was able to question our new Special Operations
Commander, Admiral Olson, about medium to high altitude UAV
requirements. He told the committee that there is currently a 30 UAV
orbit requirement in CENTCOM. However, we only have 12 orbits available
today. I find this unacceptable.
In both major theaters of operation, we have been told how difficult
it can be to have constant surveillance of suspected enemy hideouts.
Given that insurgents are nearly always local, these hideouts and safe
havens can often be in the midst of innocent bystanders and be
difficult to observe covertly. Having eyes on a site to provide the
target discrimination our commanders need is invaluable.
No matter how long American forces remain in either theater, I
strongly believe that some of the last assets to leave will be ISR
collection in nature. Medium to high altitude UAVs do just that, and I
ask that my colleague from Hawaii look to address this significant
shortfall in the upcoming fiscal year 2008 supplemental appropriations
bill.
Mr. INOUYE. I can assure the junior Member from Indiana that my
committee will examine this program carefully and give this request all
due consideration as the committee reviews the supplemental
appropriations bill. I thank my colleague for his concern and
leadership on this important issue.
Mr. BAYH. And I thank my colleague from Hawaii for his continued
dedication to the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces.
Army R & D--FED
Mr. LEVIN. I would like to enter into a colloquy with my friend from
Hawaii, the Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee,
Senator Inouye.
The bill before us includes two significant cuts to the President's
budget request in the area of Army research and development on combat
vehicle and automotive technology. The House-passed version of this
bill and both the House and Senate-passed versions of the National
Defense Authorization Act do not include these cuts.
The first cut of $10 million eliminated funding for a fuel efficiency
ground vehicle demonstrator, FED. This program is scheduled to be a 3-
year effort by the ground vehicle experts at the U.S. Army Tank-
Automotive Research, Development, and Engineering Center to develop a
tactical ground vehicle that is significantly lighter and more fuel
efficient than current high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles,
HMMWVs. Specifically, this program will focus on the overall design of
the vehicle as well as components including hybrid electric propulsion
systems, fuel cells, advanced batteries, and new armor solutions.
This project is key to advancing technologies that will allow the
Department of Defense to meet the fuel efficiency goals it has
established. Additionally, this project is complementary to the
development of the new joint light tactical vehicle and will provide an
opportunity to demonstrate a number of new technologies, including on-
board power solutions, that can
[[Page S12521]]
be spun into the vehicle as its development moves forward. Lastly, this
project provides the opportunity to test technologies that will give
our military new capabilities, including silent overwatch and mobile
power sources on the battlefield.
The second cut of $14.215 million eliminated funding for future
combat systems, FCS, science and technology activities in the area of
robotics. FCS is the Army's only major transformation project, and we
must remain committed to this program. These funds would be used to
support the development of electronics and control systems for unmanned
ground vehicles that will eventually be integrated into the FCS
network. Without these funds, the Army will not have the ability to
build a large scale unmanned ground vehicle demonstrator to test new
robotics technologies.
These funds are critical to advancing and testing new robotics
technologies so they can be rapidly deployed to our warfighters around
the world. Cutting these funds will reduce the Army's ability to
develop and test robotics technologies needed by our troops and
increase the risk that they will not be available for rapid transition
into the hands of warfighters.
I am sure my colleague would agree that we should do more, not less,
to achieve increased fuel efficiency in our military ground vehicles
and more rapidly mature the capabilities of unmanned ground vehicle
technologies.
Mr. INOUYE. My colleague from Michigan raises some important points.
Reducing fuel consumption in the field is an urgent need of our
military. It will not only reduce costs but also reduce the risk to our
troops because fewer fuel deliveries will need to be made to dangerous
areas.
I also agree that future combat systems, and especially the new
robotics technologies it will bring, are critically important to our
troops. These technologies will continue to play an important role in
the transition of our military to a more mobile, lethal, and effective
force.
I commit to my colleague from Michigan that the committee will
reevaluate the cuts he has highlighted when the bill goes to conference
with the House.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I rise to offer for the Record, the
Budget Committee's official scoring of H.R. 3222, the Department of
Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2008.
The bill, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations,
provides $459.3 billion in discretionary budget authority for fiscal
year 2008, which will result in new outlays of $312.2 billion. When
outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account,
discretionary outlays for the bill will total $476 billion.
The Senate-reported bill is at its section 302(b) allocation for
budget authority and $3 million below its allocation for outlays. No
points of order lie against the committee-reported bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the table displaying the Budget
Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
H.R. 3222, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008
[Spending comparisons--Senate Reported Bill (in millions of dollars)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General
Defense purpose Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-Reported Bill:
Budget Authority................... 459,332 0 459,332
Outlays............................ 475,977 0 475,977
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget Authority................... ......... ......... 459,332
Outlays............................ ......... ......... 475,980
House-passed bill:
Budget Authority................... 459,319 13 459,332
Outlays............................ 473,026 53 473,079
President's Request:
Budget Authority................... 462,879 0 462,879
Outlays............................ 477,836 8 477,844
Senate-Reported Bill Compared To:
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget Authority................... ......... ......... 0
Outlays............................ ......... ......... -3
House-passed bill:
Budget Authority................... 13 -13 0
Outlays............................ 2,951 -53 2,898
President's Request:
Budget Authority................... -3,547 0 -3,547
Outlays............................ -1,859 -8 -1,867
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the Defense Appropriations Act
for Fiscal Year 2008 is one of the most important of the appropriations
measures that we will consider this year. This legislation will provide
critical funding for the men and women in our Armed Forces who, at this
very moment, are in harm's way. Because we must continue to support
them, I support the passage of this bill, but I have serious concerns
over the earmarks contained in the committee report accompanying this
bill.
The bill reported out of committee appropriates over $448 billion.
This is more than $3.5 billion below the President's request and,
notably, does not include any additional funds for ongoing operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan. As is the case with so many of the
appropriations bills that come to the floor, the report accompanying it
contains numerous earmarks that were neither requested nor authorized,
to the tune of over $5 billion. During a time of war, we should be
making every effort to support the President's budget request instead
of slashing it and then adding earmarks for favored projects.
Every day, we ask the brave men and women who fight for freedom on
behalf of our great Nation, and their families, to make sacrifices.
They sacrifice in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere throughout the
globe. We in the Congress should exercise some degree of self-restraint
and sacrifice, as well.
Let me mention a few of the add-ons that were included in the bill's
accompanying report: $2 million for a project involving brown tree
snakes; a total of $3 million for an electronic futures trading
program; $2 million for research on high-pressure microwave processing
for meals-ready-to-eat; $2 million for the Marines to buy boot socks
cushioned with merino wool; $2 million to buy extended cold-weather
gloves for the Army; $2 million for research on a technology that
extracts pure water from the air; $2 million for research on a
multispectral fingerprint device; $4 million to study the Northern
Lights; $6.5 million for small instrument development for Magdalena
Ridge Observatory; and $10 million for Eielson Utilidors.
Once again, there are also many earmarks that may be for worthy
causes, but there is no compelling national defense reason for these
items to be funded through this legislation. These earmarks include
$150 million for a peer-reviewed breast cancer research program; $80
million for a similar prostate cancer research program; $10 million for
ovarian cancer research; $27.5 million for the Hawaii Federal Health
Care Network; $10 million to a program called Ceros, for river and
oceanic research; $6.1 million for research on a new engine called
homopolar hybrid drive; $2 million for research into putting humans
into a state similar to hibernation so they can be kept alive long
enough for doctors to administer treatments; and $3 million for
research for a 2D-3D face-recognition system.
As we are engaged fully in the global war on terror, it is imperative
that we get the most out of each and every defense dollar. The money
that is being diverted to projects like the ones I have mentioned could
instead be used for body armor or other critical needs to protect our
troops and help win the war on terror. The earmarks I have mentioned
are just a small sampling of the many unrequested earmarks that fill
the accompanying report. These earmarks are draining our precious
resources and are not vital to our long-term national security. I
strongly encourage the Federal agencies affected to use their judgement
to ensure they are not allocating resources to projects that are not
legislatively mandated or authorized but rather, are merely the wish
lists of the committee.
In the report accompanying the bill, there are several authorizing
provisions, which by their nature have no place in an appropriations
vehicle, including language directing the Air Force to provide funding
to continue the operation of the 36th Rescue Flight assigned to
Fairchild AFB in Washington State and a provision requiring funding for
Naval archeology programs in the Lake Champlain Basin.
Similarly, in the bill, a provision directs the Air Force to complete
upgrades and additions to Alaskan range infrastructure and training
areas, as well as at Hickman AFB in Hawaii. A similar provision calls
for $3 million to be spent on upgrades and maintenance at the Pacific
Missile Range Facility. Another provision prohibits the
disestablishment of the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron in
Mississippi.
Some of these authorizing provisions are outside of the scope of
defense policy, including language providing for the Navy to transfer
up to $20 million
[[Page S12522]]
to the Interior Department for any expenses associated with the
construction of the USS Arizona Memorial Museum and Visitors Center.
I would also like to discuss the ``Buy America'' restrictions that
cost the Department of Defense and the American taxpayers. Like in
previous appropriations bills, this year's bill imposes a number of
``Buy America'' restrictions. For example, the bill would prevent the
Defense Department's purchase of particular welded shipboard anchor and
mooring chain; carbon alloy or armor steel plate; ball and roller
bearings, unless they are manufactured in the United States. It would
put similar restrictions on the Department's buying public vessels,
food, certain textile materials, particular Navy supply ships, as well
as its purchase of coal as a fuel source for certain military
installations in Germany. Another ``Buy America'' provision prohibits
the Department's buying any supercomputer that is not manufactured in
the United States.
I continue to be very concerned about the potential impact on
readiness of our restrictive trade policies with our allies. From a
philosophical point of view, I oppose these types of policies as
protectionist. I believe free trade is an important element in
improving relations among all nations and essential to economic growth.
From a practical standpoint, ``Buy America'' restrictions, such as
those contained in this bill, could seriously impair our ability to
compete freely in international markets and also could result in the
loss of existing business from long-standing trade partners.
I have no doubt that some of these provisions may be important while
others are questionable at best. What is important is that we follow
the authorization process and restrain ourselves from using
appropriations bills to authorize projects on this bill that have not
been requested by the Department of Defense, nor approved by the
authorizing committee.
Mr. President, there can be no doubt that this legislation is very
important to the ultimate success of our ongoing war on terror. Yet I
believe it is important to point out to the American taxpayer where
some of their money is going and some of it is not going to projects
that have anything to do with our defense.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam. President, I rise today to express my support for
H.R. 3222, the fiscal year 2008 Department of Defense Appropriations
bill. We have no greater obligation as elected officials, than to take
care of our troops and their families who have sacrificed on our
behalf. I am proud to support my colleagues on the Appropriations
Committee who have crafted a bill that sets the right priorities for
our military and our country by providing critical equipment and
training, strengthening military health care for our troops and their
families, and giving our military families the pay raise they deserve.
The legislation before us today provides over $1 billion more for
National Guard equipment than the administration requested. This
funding is critical, not only to support National Guard troops who are
fighting for our country overseas but to the Guard's ability to protect
us here at home. National Guard units across the country have been
giving up the great majority of their equipment to units headed to Iraq
and Afghanistan. The resulting shortages were felt just recently in
Greenburg, KS, when that town was flattened by a tornado. Kansas
Governor Kathleen Sebelius said the State's response was hampered
because much of the equipment usually positioned around the State to
respond to emergencies was in Iraq.
While Maryland does not face the same threat of tornadoes, my home
State, like every State, has its own unique challenges. Maryland must
be prepared to respond not only to hurricanes and severe snow storms
but to attacks against Federal assets in the national capital region.
After the mobilization of several Maryland Guard units to Iraq, the
Guard has said it is without the necessary equipment to provide the
robust response that Marylanders and the rest of our Nation expect.
H.R. 3222 takes action to address this critical shortfall in my State
and every State.
This important bill provides military personnel 3.5 percent pay
raise, half a percent more than the administration requested. President
Bush has threatened to veto this bill over the 0.5 percent additional
increase stating that the ``[t]roops don't need bigger pay raises.''
Well, I disagree.
The 3 percent raise would be enough to keep pace with the average
increase in private sector wages last year. The 3.5 percent raise is
enough to not just match the private sector but to slightly close the
estimated 4 percent gap that remains between average military and
private sector raises. This gap hurts recruiting and retention for our
All-Volunteer Force and is not a handicap our military should shoulder
when the war effort has forced the military to increase its overall
size at the same time it has depressed recruiting efforts.
H.R. 3222 makes care for our mentally and physically wounded military
men and women a priority. The legislation adds $948.9 million above the
President's request for military health care, totaling $23.5 billion.
Of the $23.5 billion, $486 million was added to reverse planned cuts to
military hospitals.
In addition, H.R. 3222 provides significant funds to develop
treatments for the signature injuries of the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan including brain injury and loss of limbs. Uncontrolled
internal or external hemorrhage is the foremost preventable cause of
death in the prehospital period for military combat trauma. Some 50
percent of the deaths our troops have suffered in Iraq and Afghanistan
could have been prevented if better products were available to control
bleeding.
The measure provides $73 million to fund programs authorized in the
Senate-passed Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warrior Act. The Wounded
Warriors bill addresses the urgent medical needs of wounded
servicemembers, especially those suffering from post-traumatic stress
disorder and traumatic brain injuries.
I am particularly proud that H.R. 3222 funds promising techniques
being pioneered in Maryland to develop bandages that are capable of
stopping severe bleeding in the field and limb and tissue transplants
that are viable over the many years we hope our young wounded warriors
will live after returning home from war.
H.R. 3222 places a premium not only on providing our troops the
equipment they need to avoid injury in the first place but to develop
better technology going forward. The legislation provides $75.4
billion, $268.9 million above the administration's request for
research, development, test, and evaluation of new technologies. Some
money will go to folks in Maryland developing methods of detecting
explosives at a greater distance as well as hybrid and alternative fuel
source engines. These engines not only reduce our dependence on oil and
decrease emissions; they reduce the need to ship fuel along supply
routes in Iraq and Afghanistan that have been a point of vulnerability
for our forces.
Today, I am proud to be part of a body that is meeting its
obligations to our troops, their families, and our military as an
institution. I applaud Senators Byrd, Cochran, Inouye, and Stevens and
my other colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their excellent
work and look forward to quick passage of this critical legislation.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that no further
amendments be in order and that the bill be read a third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on the engrossment of the amendments and third
reading of the bill
The amendments were ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read
a third time.
The bill was read the third time.
Mr. INOUYE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. 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. SESSIONS. Madam President, I wish to take a moment to say that my
wife and I watched closely Ken Burns' production of ``The War'' or, as
Katharine Phillips Singer from Mobile,
[[Page S12523]]
called it, ``The Wah.'' Some of the people we know there have enjoyed
and been so impressed with the remarks of Senator Inouye as he was
interviewed about his experiences during World War II. His heroism and
commitment to America was demonstrated in so many different ways in
that program. He spoke so eloquently and so insightfully about the
nature of war, the difficulty and brutality of war. I think not only
did he affirm the courageousness of our soldiers, but he gives us cause
to look for ways to avoid such events in the future. It is worth
noting.
Hopefully, that whole production will be seen around the country and
more people will get a better picture of the enormity, the breadth, the
commitment our Nation gave during that decisive period in our history.
Senator Stevens also, of course, was a person who served courageously
in that conflict. It is an honor for me today to be with these two fine
patriots as we apparently move to final passage of this important
legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Alabama for his
generous remarks. I thank him very much.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. 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. REID. Madam President, there will be no more rollcall votes
tonight. We received permission from both sides to voice vote the
matter that is now before the Senate.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Kyl be added as cosponsor to amendment No. 3192.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. 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 ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to vote on passage of the bill, that upon passage, the Senate
insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to
appoint conferees on the part of the Senate with the subcommittee
appointed as conferees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill having been read the third time, the question is on the
passage of the bill, as amended.
The bill (H.R. 3222), as amended, was passed.
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Under the previous order, the
Senate insists on its amendment and requests a conference with the
House, and the Chair appoints Mr. Inouye, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Harkin, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Feinstein, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Kohl,
Mrs. Murray, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Specter, Mr. Domenici, Mr.
Bond, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Gregg, and Mrs. Hutchison as
conferees on the part of the Senate.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today, I was pleased to support the fiscal
year 2008 Defense Appropriations Act. I would like to thank the
Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, my good friend and
colleague from Hawaii, Senator Inouye and Ranking Member Stevens for
their leadership in managing this bill with such impartiality and
expediency. Not only does this bill fully support the facility,
training and equipment requirements of our men and women in uniform,
but it also provides a much needed increase in funds for military
health over the President's budget request to ensure that members of
our Armed Forces receive the care that they deserve. As chairman of the
Veteran's Affairs Committee, I strongly supported the additional
inclusion of $73 million to fund the programs authorized in the
Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warrior Act which addresses shortfalls
in the care provided to our injured or ill soldiers.
I also applaud the inclusion in this bill of a provision which
recognizes the dedication and sacrifices made by both the members of
our Armed Forces and their civilian counterparts by providing a 3.5
percent increase in basic pay for all servicemembers and civilian
personnel, a 0.5 percent increase above the President's request. I was
also pleased to support the addition of $1 billion to properly equip
the National Guard and Reserve forces who risk their lives to defend
our nation.
As this bill moves toward conference I will continue to work with my
colleagues in both the Senate and the House to ensure that our military
members and their families have the resources they need and the support
they have earned.
____________________