Congressional Record, Volume 155 Issue 112 (Thursday, July 23, 2009)

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 112 (Thursday, July 23, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7947-S8024]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of S. 1390, which the clerk will
report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1390) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2010 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other
purposes.

Pending:

Kyl amendment No. 1760, to pursue United States objectives
in bilateral arms control with the Russian Federation.

[[Page S7948]]

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, we are now back on the bill, as the clerk
has indicated, and as the Acting President pro tempore has indicated.
It was agreed to last night in our unanimous consent request that I
offered and was accepted that the next order of business would be to
take up the Kyl amendment, and there would be protected either a
second-degree or a side-by-side amendment to that amendment; and then
we would move, after that, to an amendment by the Senator from
Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, and a side-by-side or second-degree
amendment could then be offered by the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Bayh.
Madam President, I see my friend from Arizona is here. In a moment, I
am going to suggest we reverse the order of that because of Senator
Kerry's requirements this morning. I have no objection at some point to
entering into a time agreement on Kyl, by the way, at all. That is not
the purpose, to delay that to a cloture moment. But I think the
minority would want to see the language of any side-by-side before
there was an agreement to a time agreement. If not, I am happy to enter
into a time agreement on Senator Kyl's and any second degree or side-
by-side at any time my good friend from Arizona wants to do that.
But in order for the convenience of the parties, if Senator Lieberman
and Senator Bayh could come down now--if they can do that--I would like
to inquire about that and dispose of their amendments first and then
take up the Kyl amendment with a time agreement--just to reverse the
order of those two because of the Finance Committee's meetings this
morning, which Senator Kerry needs to attend.
I have not had a chance to talk to my friend from Arizona about this
just because of the way the morning goes. That is what I would like to
suggest. If that can be done, it would simplify things.
There are also a number of other things we need to do. We have--and I
think the Senator from Arizona is familiar with this--an amendment on
voting rights for the troops which I think has been cleared. It is a
bipartisan amendment which is going to need about 15 minutes of debate,
I understand. That could be done as well, hopefully.
But my goal, if it is agreeable to the Republican manager, would be
to basically flip the two, with time agreements for both, going first
to the Lieberman and Bayh amendments, if they are able to do it.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, let me just say to my friend, the
distinguished chairman, all of our Members have very busy schedules.
The Senator from Arizona, whose amendment it is, happens to be the
second ranking Republican and has heavy responsibilities. I would point
out that we waited for a couple hours yesterday for the same Senator
yesterday afternoon to be able to come to the floor to address another
amendment. At the same time, the clock is running because the majority
leader has filed cloture on the bill.
So are we going to run the proceedings here, consideration of the
authorization bill, based on the priorities of one Senator or are we
going to carry out what we all agreed to last night in the unanimous
consent agreement? There was no objection last night from the Senator
from Massachusetts. He could have objected. So now we want to turn
everybody else's schedules on their heads because one Senator has some
other priorities.
Obviously, we are going to finish the bill because the majority
leader filed cloture, and we have to close out the bill, after spending
nearly a week on two issues, hate crimes and guns, neither of which had
a single thing to do with the Defense authorization bill--because,
unprecedented in the 20-some years I have been a member of the Armed
Services Committee, the majority leader of the Senate came to the floor
and proposed a hate crimes bill that had not been through the committee
of jurisdiction and was, obviously, very controversial on this side.
So after getting bollixed up for a week and a half--or at least a
week--on those two issues, we enter into a unanimous consent agreement
when the majority leader files cloture to close off debate on this
side. That is the reason it is done. So now we are supposed to
overturn, some 10 hours later, a unanimous consent agreement because
one Senator cannot fit it into his schedule, when the sponsor of the
amendment is the No. 2 ranking member on this side? There is something
wrong with that process.

I will be glad to discuss it with the distinguished chairman and we
will try and see if we can adjust to it. In the meantime, the clock
continues to run and we have fewer and fewer amendments that will be
germane and be allowed to be discussed, because we find out this
morning, after a unanimous consent agreement which could have been
objected to last night, one Senator has a schedule that dictates we
turn the unanimous consent agreement on its head.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, if the Senator would withhold that
request for a moment so I may comment.
Mr. McCAIN. I withhold my request.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I was not suggesting that we not proceed
this morning; I was suggesting that we reverse the order to accommodate
a Senator who is going to be offering a second-degree amendment. If
that is not acceptable, we do not need to do that. I was simply trying
to accommodate the Senator so that the second-degree or side-by-side
amendment that was in the unanimous consent proposal last night could
be offered by him. If that is not agreeable to the Republican side,
then I obviously am not going to make the suggestion. But it would not
delay anything; all it would do would be to change the order of events
to accommodate us. If that is not acceptable to the minority, then I
will obviously not make that unanimous consent proposal.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I would ask the distinguished chairman,
then, in the spirit of compromise, can we arrange a time agreement on
the Lieberman amendment that is reasonable so that perhaps we could
take up the Kyl amendment later in the morning so that at least that
might not upset his schedule, since we are making accommodation for the
sponsor of a second-degree amendment, which seems to be our priority.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, of course, that is exactly what I was
proposing. I appreciate the willingness of the Senator from Arizona to
try to work that out.
There is no problem with the time agreement on the Lieberman-Bayh
matters because the reason we couldn't do that is that the Bayh
language was not available in time for the minority side to consider a
time agreement. We would be happy to have a time agreement of 1 hour on
the Lieberman amendment, 1 hour on the Bayh amendment; 2 hours
together, in other words. We are happy to have a time agreement on
Senator Kyl's amendment, but we were only suggesting that we reverse
the order to accommodate things here. It would not result in any
additional use of time; it would not delay anything; it would simply
reverse the order for the accommodation of the Senator who needs to be
here to offer a second-degree amendment, if we are going to do it, or a
side-by-side to Senator Kyl's first-degree amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, obviously, whatever is most convenient to
the chairman and ranking member is fine, subject to I had planned,
because of our conversations last night, to be able to do this this
morning. By this afternoon, I am going to have a lot of conflicts. In
fact, I too am on the Finance Committee where Senator Kerry is right
now and I am supposed to be there but made this arrangement.
I don't believe the business before the Finance Committee is going to
last very long at all. In fact, it was a very quick matter to be
resolved. So as long as we can try to get the amendments relating to
the START treaty resolved before afternoon, I am perfectly willing to
agree to anything that is acceptable to everybody else here, and it
seems to me we should be able to accomplish that.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.

[[Page S7949]]

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, let me say we can have 1 hour for each
side on the Lieberman amendment and then move directly to the Kyl
amendment, if that is agreeable.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, what we need to do along that line is to
see if we can get an agreement from Senator Lieberman and from Senator
Bayh on a time agreement on those two amendments. I would suggest, as
the Senator from Arizona did, that there be an hour equally divided on
each, which will be a total of 2 hours, and then if the majority leader
is agreeable to this----
Mr. McCAIN. Maybe we need a quorum call for a moment.
Mr. LEVIN. I suggest the absence----
Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I wanted to say that as the overnight
proceeded, there are a number of people who want to come down and speak
on our side, so I wish to ask that on our amendment we have at least an
hour and a half, perhaps two. I hope not to use it, but I think this is
going to be a significant debate.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I suggest that we seek an agreement that
there be 2 hours on the two amendments together, one equally divided
between the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Indiana.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for consideration of amendments this morning be switched and that the
Senate now consider the Lieberman amendment No. 1627 and the Bayh
amendment No. 1767; that the amendments be debated concurrently for a
total of 150 minutes, with 90 minutes under the control of Senator
Lieberman and 60 minutes under the control of Senator Bayh; that no
amendments be in order to either amendment; that upon the use or
yielding back of time, the vote in relation to the amendments occur at
a time to be determined, with the first vote in relation to the Bayh
amendment, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Lieberman
amendment, with 2 minutes of debate prior to the second vote.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Presiding Officer and I thank my colleagues
for working this out to try to accommodate all of us the best we can.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 1627

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I have consulted with the chairman of
the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, and the ranking member,
Senator McCain, and they have urged me to go forward and call up my
amendment on the alternate engine and begin debating it to expedite
matters while we are awaiting Senator Bayh to come over. I call it up
at this time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.

The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman], for himself,
Mr. McCain, Mr. Reed, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Inhofe, Mr.
Dodd, Mrs. Hutchison, Ms. Collins, Mr. Kyl, and Mr. Cornyn,
proposes an amendment numbered 1627.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to make certain
certifications with respect to the development of an alternative
propulsion system for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program before
funds may be obligated or expended for such system and to provide, with
offsets, an additional $282,900,000 for the procurement of UH-1Y/AH-1Z
rotary wing aircraft and an additional $156,000,000 for management
reserves for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program)

On page 39, strike lines 4 through 17, and insert the
following:

SEC. 211. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR AN ALTERNATIVE
PROPULSION SYSTEM FOR THE F-35 JOINT STRIKE
FIGHTER PROGRAM; INCREASE IN FUNDING FOR
PROCUREMENT OF UH-1Y/AH-1Z ROTARY WING AIRCRAFT
AND FOR MANAGEMENT RESERVES FOR THE F-35 JOINT
STRIKE FIGHTER PROGRAM.

(a) Limitation on Use of Funds for an Alternative
Propulsion System for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
Program.--None of the funds authorized to be appropriated or
otherwise made available by this Act may be obligated or
expended for the development or procurement of an alternate
propulsion system for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program
until the Secretary of Defense submits to the congressional
defense committees a certification in writing that the
development and procurement of the alternate propulsion
system--
(1) will--
(A) reduce the total life-cycle costs of the F-35 Joint
Strike Fighter program; and
(B) improve the operational readiness of the fleet of F-35
Joint Strike Fighter aircraft; and
(2) will not--
(A) disrupt the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program during
the research, development, and procurement phases of the
program; or
(B) result in the procurement of fewer F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter aircraft during the life cycle of the program.
(b) Additional Amount for UH-1Y/AH-1Z Rotary Wing
Aircraft.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by
section 102(a)(1) for aircraft procurement for the Navy is
increased by $282,900,000, with the amount of the increase to
be allocated to amounts available for the procurement of UH-
1Y/AH-1Z rotary wing aircraft.
(c) Restoration of Management Reserves for F-35 Joint
Strike Fighter Program.--
(1) Navy joint strike fighter.--The amount authorized to be
appropriated by section 201(a)(2) for research, development,
test, and evaluation for the Navy is hereby increased by
$78,000,000, with the amount of the increase to be allocated
to amounts available for the Joint Strike Fighter program (PE
# 0604800N) for management reserves.
(2) Air force joint strike fighter.--The amount authorized
to be appropriated by section 201(a)(3) for research,
development, test, and evaluation for the Air Force is hereby
increased by $78,000,000, with the amount of the increase to
be allocated to amounts available for the Joint Strike
Fighter program (PE # 0604800F) for management reserves.
(d) Offsets.--
(1) Navy joint strike fighter f136 development.--The amount
authorized to be appropriated by section 201(a)(2) for
research, development, test, and evaluation for the Navy is
hereby decreased by $219,450,000, with the amount of the
decrease to be derived from amounts available for the Joint
Strike Fighter (PE # 0604800N) for F136 development.
(2) Air force joint strike fighter f136 development.--The
amount authorized to be appropriated by section 201(a)(3) for
research, development, test, and evaluation for the Air Force
is hereby decreased by $219,450,000, with the amount of the
decrease to be derived from amounts available for the Joint
Strike Fighter (PE # 0604800F) for F136 development.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. This amendment I am introducing with Senator McCain as
my lead cosponsor, and with a strong bipartisan group of cosponsors,
including Senator Reed of Rhode Island, and Senators Snowe, Schumer,
Inhofe, Dodd, Hutchison, Collins, Kyl, and Cornyn. I am very grateful
for that support.
To state it briefly, and then to go into some detail, this amendment
would remove funding from this bill that was added by way of amendment
in the Armed Services Committee for $439 million to build a second
engine for the Joint Strike Fighter plane.
I will argue, on behalf of the amendment I have introduced with
Senator McCain and others, that it is a waste of $439 million to build
for a plane a second engine, which we don't need. In fact, estimates
are that continuing acquisition of this second engine will cost over $6
billion of taxpayer money that we don't need to spend because there has
been a competition for the engine to be used in the Joint Strike
Fighter, which is now the heart and soul of America's hopes for the
future when it

[[Page S7950]]

comes to tactical aviation--particularly after the Senate terminated
the F-22 program the other day.
So there was a competition to build the engine for the Joint Strike
Fighter. General Electric, in its proposal, lost that competition.
Pratt & Whitney won that competition.
Now, by way of legislation, the proponents of the second engine for
this plane are trying to achieve, by legislation, what they could not
achieve by competition. It is not only that it is an unnecessary
expenditure of $439 million in the coming year, and more than $6
billion, for a second engine that we don't need for that plane, but it
has consequences. It is not just that we are spending taxpayer money,
but I will go into this in some detail in a moment.
Regarding putting that money to use on that second engine, a general
from the Air Force overseeing this Joint Strike Fighter program told
our committee it would delay the Joint Strike Fighter, which our
services are desperately waiting for. They need this tactical fighter.
So it would delay the program and, in fact, this Air Force general
testified to our committee that putting money into the bill for the
second engine, and continuing to fund it, would result, over the next 5
years, in a reduced capacity to build Joint Strike Fighters by 53
planes.
So to spend the money to build a second engine for a plane, when we
don't need a second engine--because the first one won the competition
and is performing very well--we are going to reduce the buy of this
tactical fighter that our military needs by 53 planes over the next 5
years.
How do my friends who support the second engine pay for it? Well, in
the Armed Services Committee bill, which is before us, which Senator
McCain, I, and others are trying to remove, they defund the acquisition
of helicopters, which are desperately needed by our marines,
particularly those fighting in Afghanistan.
There will be an alternative proposal made this morning in the
amendment Senator Bayh will introduce, I presume, because there has
been so much protest to defunding this acquisition of helicopters that
the marines need in battle in Afghanistan, in order to pay for a second
engine, which is unnecessary, for the Joint Strike Fighter. Instead,
the amendment will defund the acquisition of C-130s, which are
specially fitted for our special operations forces. Again, they are
carrying out extremely dangerous and critical missions in Afghanistan,
Iraq, and other places, where they are courageously taking on
particularly the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.
That is the essence of the argument. This second engine is a program
President Obama has described as ``an unnecessary defense program that
does nothing to keep us safe, but rather prevents us from spending
money on what does keep us safe.''
That warning from President Obama about the consequences of funding
the second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter is realized already in
the part of the bill Senator McCain and I and others are trying to
withdraw and in the amendment my friend from Indiana will introduce
because it takes money from the Marines and the Air Force special
operations community in areas they and we desperately need.
I wish to add that, this morning, I was grateful and honored to
receive a letter from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, in which the
Secretary of Defense strongly and clearly expresses his opposition to
the alternate engine, the second engine, an unnecessary engine--the $6
billion unnecessary engine for the Joint Strike Fighter--and his
support for the amendment that Senator McCain and I and others have
introduced.
I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Secretary Gates be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Defense Pentagon,

Washington, DC, July 22, 2009.
Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Department of Defense supports
striking from legislation any provision that would require
the development or procurement of an alternative propulsion
system for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
The current engine is performing well with more than 11,000
test hours. In addition, the risks associated with a single
engine provider are manageable as evidenced by the
performance of the F-22 and F/A-18E/F, both Air Force and
Navy programs supplied by a single engine provider. The Air
Force currently has several fleets that operate on a single
engine source. Thus, further expenditures on a second engine
are unnecessary and will likely impede the progress of the
overall F-35 program.
It is my belief that the JSF program presented in the
President's budget request is in the best interests of
national security. If a final bill is presented to the
President containing provisions that would seriously disrupt
the F-35 program, the President's senior advisors will
recommend that the President veto the bill.
Sincerely,
Robert M. Gates,
Secretary of Defense.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I will read from the letter. It is three paragraphs:

The Department of Defense supports striking from
legislation any provision that would require the development
or procurement of an alternate propulsion system for the F-35
Joint Strike Fighter.
The current engine is performing well with more than 11,000
test hours. In addition, the risks associated with a single
engine provider are manageable as evidenced by the
performance of the F-22 and F/A-18/F, both Air Force and Navy
programs supplied by a single engine provider. The Air Force
currently has several fleets that operate on a single engine
source.

I draw back from the letter. What is unusual is to have a second
engine. Logically, if we want to buy a car, it would be nice to have a
second engine in the garage but would we pay the extra money for it if
we had a perfectly good engine in the car? Back to the letter:

Thus, further expenditures on a second engine are
unnecessary and will likely impede the progress of the
overall F-35 program.
It is my belief that the JSF program presented in the
President's budget request is in the best interests of
national security. If a final bill is presented to the
President containing provisions that would seriously disrupt
the F-35 program, the President's senior advisors will
recommend that the President veto the bill.

I intend to show in my argument this morning that, in fact, this
Armed Services Committee bill--if the amendment Senator McCain and I
are proposing is not adopted--will seriously disrupt the F-35 program,
the Joint Strike Fighter program and, therefore, will be occasion for
the President's advisers to recommend he veto this entire and
critically necessary bill.
I thank Secretary Gates for expressing support for the amendment
Senator McCain and I and others--Senator Schumer, Senator Dodd, Senator
Kyl--have offered to strip this unnecessary expenditure of money from
the bill.
Our amendment, as I have said, would restore funding that was taken
from the U.S. Marine Corps helicopter, the Huey, when the committee
voted to fund the alternate engine. The vote to cut 10 Marine Corps
helicopters comes at a time the Marines are conducting a major
offensive in the mountains of Afghanistan where the high altitudes and
hot weather require the best capabilities Congress can provide them,
including these Hueys.
In fact, in recent statements from the Joint Staff and Marine Corps
leadership, it is clear how urgently the Marines need the enhanced
capabilities of the UH-1 Huey on the battlefield. Speaking before the
Armed Services Committee of the Senate on Thursday, July 9, the Vice
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Cartwright, said to the members
of the committee:

Those helicopters are, in fact, critical.

He continued:

The helicopter for the Marines is one of their most lethal
weapons. They are the most effective in the battlefield,
particularly in the counterinsurgency arena.

They are effective in built-up urban areas and in compounds because
they can be discreet, so the value of those helicopters is significant.
The day after General Cartwright appeared, I received a letter from
the Commandant of the Marine Corps, GEN James Conway.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record the letter from General Conway.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

July 10, 2009.
Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Sir: The Marine Corps greatly appreciates your
interest in the UH-1Y/AH-1Z program. Procurement of less than
the optimum

[[Page S7951]]

ramp of 28 H-1s during Fiscal Year 2010 will lead to
continued reliance on aging helicopters that should have been
retired from the inventory years ago. This happens at a time
when the Secretary of Defense appears poised to issue
guidance to the Military Departments to increase rotary-wing
assets to conduct current and future Irregular Warfare
conflicts.
As we focus on operations in Afghanistan, sustaining the
introduction of the H-1 is vital to our future success. We
have prioritized UH-1Y deliveries early in the program in an
effort to quickly replace our aging fleet of UH-1N
helicopters. While the UH-1N has served us well for many
decades, it has now reached the point where its available
power and key aircrew systems are simply not adequate for
robust combat operations. As typically configured, UH-IN
loads are often reduced to just two or three combat
configured Marines when operating at high density altitudes.
Because of these severe operational limitations, we have been
very aggressive in transitioning to the significantly
improved capabilities of the UH-1Y. Our frist Marine
Expenditionary Unit detachment of three new aircraft deployed
to the Central Command AOR this year when only ten UH-1Ys had
been delivered to the fleet. In November 2009, we plan to
deploy our first full squadron to Afghanistan where the UH-
1Y's improved payload and airspeed in that challenging
environment will serve our Marines well.
Once we deploy the UH-1Y to theater, we want to keep it
there. However, in order to sustain our anticipated combat
deployment schedule, production must remain on track. With
recent deliveries occurring well ahead of schedule and
substantial contractor investments in tooling and long-lead
materials, there is tangible evidence that the production
rate of 28 helicopters contained in the President's budget
request can be met.
I greatly appreciate the opportunity to correspond with you
and expand on this important subject. The supporting
documentation you requested is attached. If you have any
additional questions, please do not hesitate to call on me. I
also thank you for your leadership and longstanding efforts
on behalf of our men and women in uniform.
Sincerely,

James T. Conway,

General, U.S. Marine Corps,
Commandant of the Marine Corps.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, in his letter, General Conway writes:

Procurement of less than the optimum ramp up of 28 H-1s in
fiscal year 2010 will lead to continued reliance on aging
helicopters that should have been retired from the inventory
years ago. As we focus on operations in Afghanistan,
sustaining the introduction of the H-1 is vital for our
future success.

He continues:

Because of the severe operational limitations of the Corps'
legacy helicopters, the Marines are transitioning toward the
significantly improved capabilities of the UH-1Y.

General Conway points out that the Corps has already sent three UH-1Y
to Afghanistan and will deploy its full squadron of them this November.
This is a plane the Marines desperately need in combat today.
I also want to read from a letter I received from Major General
Bockel, retired, Army Reserve, now acting director of the Reserve
Officers Association. General Bockel says in his letter to me:

The Reserve Officers Association, representing 65,000
Reserve Component members, supports the Lieberman-McCain
Alternate Engine Amendment. This amendment restores critical
funding to procure helicopters that the United States Marine
Corps urgently needs in Afghanistan.

I suspect the Reserve Officers Association will no more support an
effort to ask our special operations forces, as the second-degree or
side-by-side amendment Senator Bayh will offer, to pay the bill for an
unnecessary second engine than he was to see our Marines foot the bill.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Major General
Bockel's letter.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Reserve Officers Association,

Washington, DC, July 21, 2009.
Hon. Joseph Lieberman,
Hart Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Lieberman: The Reserve Officers Association,
representing 65,000 Reserve Component members, supports
Lieberman-McCain Alternate Engine Amendment. This amendment
restores critical funding to procure helicopters that the
United States Marine Corps (USMC) urgently needs in
Afghanistan.
In the Senate Armed Services Committee's mark of the
National Defense Authorization Act, the bill would cut funds
for the procurement of Marine Corps UH-1Y helicopters and the
AHI-Z Super Cobra in order to fund an unnecessary ``alternate
engine'' for F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
The Bell UH-1Y Venom is a twin-engine medium size utility
helicopter, part of the USMC's H-1 upgrade program, replacing
the Marines aging fleet of UH-IN Twin Huey light utility
helicopters first introduced in the early 1970s. The Corps'
current fleet of utility helicopters face noticeable
operational limitations at high altitudes, which is not a
problem for the new UH-1Y. Because of the severe limitations,
which can have an impact on operational agility, the USMC is
aggressively transitioning to the new aircraft.
The Pentagon had requested 28 AH-1Z and UH-1Y helicopters,
but NDAA markups have reduced these numbers to offset
funding. This amendment would restore $482.9 in funding that
was stripped from the U.S. Marine Corps UH-1Y program, which
is an action that ROA supports.
Thank you for your efforts on this key issue, and other
support to the military that you have shown in the past.
Please feel free to have your staff call ROA's legislative
director, Marshall Hanson, with any question or issue you
would like to discuss.
Sincerely,

David R. Bockel,

Major General, USAR (Retired),
Acting Executive Director.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, let me talk now about what this
amendment would do. It would essentially remove the funding for the
second engine, but it does it in a way that I think is thoughtful. It
requires that there be no obligation of any funds on the development of
a second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter unless and until the
Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that the development and
procurement of such an engine will reduce the total life-cycle costs of
the program, improve the operational readiness of the F-35 fleet, and
avoid either disrupting the Joint Strike Fighter Program or resulting
in procurement of fewer Joint Strike Fighter aircraft during the life
cycle of the program.
Why do we propose these conditions? Because they are the benefits the
proponents of the second engine claim it will deliver. So we ask that
the second engine be judged on its alleged merits. And I hope my
colleagues will agree that this is a fair way to go at this.
I have spoken already at the outset about the fact that there was a
competition for the engine for the Joint Strike Fighter that took place
in 1996. Ultimately, one engine won the competition while the other
lost. Understandably, but not acceptably, the makers of the engine that
lost have come back to achieve by legislation--or attempt to--what they
could not achieve by competition.
The proponents of the second engine have also claimed that it would
lower costs on the Joint Strike Fighter Program overall. I have cited
numbers that come from the Pentagon and elsewhere arguing on the other
hand that this program will cost over $6 billion of taxpayer money
without any showing, really, that it will save money. Developing a
second engine, quite logically and following common sense, would
require the Department of Defense to maintain two logistics operations
to support it--tails, as it is called in the military, two tails, two
sets of training manuals, two sets of tooling component improvement
parts. These additional and unnecessary expenses would raise operations
and sustainment costs for the Joint Strike Fighter throughout the life
cycle of the program.
I want to get to the impact funding a second engine--an unnecessary
engine, a costly engine--would have on the Joint Strike Fighter
Program.
On June 9, the Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Air and Land,
which I have the honor of chairing, heard testimony from LTG Mark
Shackelford, Military Deputy Officer to the Secretary of the Air Force
for Acquisition. He is in charge of acquisition. I asked General
Shackelford whether development of a second engine would disrupt the
Joint Strike Fighter Program. His explanation is detailed but important
to hear. It has a very strong message:

The fiscal year 2010 production quantity for the joint
strike fighter is 30 aircraft, split between three variants.

That means with three different services.

If forced to pay for the alternate engine, we would have to
reduce that to two to four, depending on which of the
variants. That has a negative effect on the unit cost of the
remaining aircraft if you are buying fewer. It also ripples
into next year's quantities, and then as we take that 2010
increment of dollars and extend that out through the future
year defense program--

Which is the 5-year so-called fit up that the Pentagon does planning
on--

there are equal decrements in terms of the numbers of
aircraft that we can buy with the remaining dollars.

[[Page S7952]]

After hearing that--decrements, decreases, reduction in the number of
aircraft we can buy--I asked General Shackelford how many fewer Joint
Strike Fighters would be purchased over that 5-year period if we went
ahead with the second engine. He responded:

Over the 5-year period, it would be 53.

I cannot emphasize that enough--53 fewer aircraft that we otherwise
would have purchased for the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps that are
desperately in need of them over the next 5 years; 53 fewer planes
because we are going to spend that money buying a second engine we do
not need. That really would be a major disruption to the Joint Strike
Fighter Program. But it is avoidable, and it is avoidable by adopting
the amendment Senator McCain and I, Senator Schumer, Senator Dodd,
Senator Kyl, Senator Hutchison, Senator Collins, and Senator Snowe--a
very broad bipartisan group--have offered.
I close this opening statement in support of our amendment and in
opposition to the amendment my friend from Indiana will offer with this
quote from President Obama when he sent the defense budget to us on May
15. Here is the quote from the President:

We're going to save money by eliminating unnecessary
defense programs that do nothing to keep us safe but rather
prevent us from spending money on what does keep us safe. One
example is a $465 million program to build an alternate
engine for the joint strike fighter. The Defense Department
is already pleased with the engine it has. The engine it has
works. The Pentagon does not want and does not plan to use
the alternate version.

President Obama concludes:

That is why the Pentagon stopped requesting this funding 2
years ago.

That is why I respectfully ask my colleagues, in the interest of the
taxpayers, in the interest of the Joint Strike Fighter Program, to
protect funding for the Marines, for the Hueys, the special operations
forces of the Air Force, for the C-130s, to protect the Navy, Air
Force, and Marines, who are waiting for the Joint Strike Fighter. I ask
you to vote against the amendment offered by my friend from Indiana and
for the amendment I have the honor to offer.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Indiana.

Amendment No. 1767

Mr. BAYH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up my
amendment No. 1767.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Bayh] proposes an amendment
numbered 1767.

Mr. BAYH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for the continued development of a competitive
propulsion system for the Joint Strike Fighter program and additional
amounts, with an offset, for UH-1Y/AH-1Z rotary wing aircraft and Joint
Strike Fighter program management reserves)

On page 39, strike lines 4 through 17, and insert the
following:

SEC. 211. CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT OF COMPETITIVE PROPULSION
SYSTEM FOR THE JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2010
for research, development, test, and evaluation for the F-35
Lightning II aircraft program, not more than 90 percent may
be obligated until the Secretary of Defense submits to the
congressional defense committees a written certification that
sufficient funds have been obligated for fiscal year 2010 for
the continued development of a competitive propulsion system
for the F-35 Lightning II aircraft to ensure that system
development and demonstration continues under the program
during fiscal year 2010.
(b) Additional Amount for UH-1Y/AH-1Z Rotary Wing
Aircraft.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by
section 102(a)(1) for aircraft procurement for the Navy is
hereby increased by $282,900,000, with the amount of the
increase to be allocated to amounts available for the
procurement of UH-1Y/AH-1Z rotary wing aircraft.
(c) Restoration of Management Reserves for F-35 Joint
Strike Fighter Program.--
(1) Navy joint strike fighter.--The amount authorized to be
appropriated by section 201(a)(2) for research, development,
test, and evaluation for the Navy is hereby increased by
$78,000,000, with the amount of the increase to be allocated
to amounts available for the Joint Strike Fighter program (PE
# 0604800N) for management reserves.
(2) Air force joint strike fighter.--The amount authorized
to be appropriated by section 201(a)(3) for research,
development, test, and evaluation for the Air Force is hereby
increased by $78,000,000, with the amount of the increase to
be allocated to amounts available for the Joint Strike
Fighter program (PE # 0604800F) for management reserves.
(d) Offset.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by
section 103(1) for aircraft procurement for the Air Force is
hereby decreased by $438,900,000, with the amount of the
decrease to be derived from amounts available for airlift
aircraft for the HC/MC-130 recapitalization program.

Mr. BAYH. Madam President, I wish to begin by thanking my colleague
from Connecticut and my friend, Joe Lieberman. We have worked together
on so many issues and so well that I find this to be an odd set of
circumstances today where we have a difference of opinion on this
issue. But even here, we have worked collegially to call up our
respective amendments in a timely manner.
I regret the order of offering the amendments was changed because I
know the Senator had speakers on his approach to this issue, as I had.
I wish their voices could be heard. I am grateful Senator Levin will be
speaking shortly in support of my approach. I think the fact he is
chairman of the Armed Services Committee lends some credence to our
approach. I thank the Senator for his cooperation and courtesy. I so
much enjoy, as with Senator McCain as well, our working together on so
many different issues. I thank Senator McCain for his courtesy in
trying to respect the time of the various Members who planned their
schedules and planned to speak here. I thank Senator Lieberman for all
that. We do, however, have a difference of opinion on this important
issue.
This amendment will restore funding for Marine Corps helicopters and
the Joint Strike Fighter management service reserves. Let me repeat for
my colleagues who are concerned about funding for the Marine Corps
helicopters or the number of Joint Strike Fighters which will be
purchased, my amendment deals with those concerns. So many of the very
appropriate comments Senator Lieberman was making about the Marine
Corps, about the helicopters, about the testimony of the services in
favor of those helicopters, those are no longer relevant. Under my
amendment, the helicopters are provided for, so many of his comments
about the need for Joint Strike Fighters and the number of tails, the
number of planes, those comments are no longer relevant. We have full
funding for the number of Joint Strike Fighters.
I know this debate has proceeded rapidly, it has changed rapidly, but
all of that commentary about helicopters and the number of Joint Strike
Fighters has been taken care of by my amendment and is no longer
relevant to the consideration of the underlying issue, which is the
importance of competition and how best to go about saving money and
procuring engines for this vitally important program.
I should also say that a number of statements were read about the
President and his points of view. I think it is important for my
colleagues who care about the comments from the President's staff about
a recommendation of a veto to point out that in those comments, they
were speaking directly to the number of planes, which has now been
taken care of. That has now been addressed. They were not referring to
the underlying opinion of the GAO and the whole fiscal aspect of this,
which is a legitimate debate, but those comments and concerns were not
raised as legitimate grounds for a veto threat by the President of the
United States. So that has been taken care of as well.
What is on the table is preserving competition in the Joint Strike
Fighter Engine Program. My friend and colleague's amendment No. 1627
strikes funding for this commonsense program. I wish to set the record
straight by preserving this competition.
The Joint strike Fighter is a massive acquisition program. By 2030,
this fighter will make up the vast majority of our tactical air fleet.
Investing now to ensure competition over the life of the JSF is good
government and sound management practice. Understanding

[[Page S7953]]

this, my colleagues in the Armed Services Committee prudently included
$439 million to continue development of the competitive engine.
As most of our colleagues know, I am very concerned with our Nation's
growing deficit. I have consistently opposed bills that spend too much,
including the omnibus spending bill and the recent budget. I have
supported amendments to strike wasteful spending.

I understand the importance of restraint, and I would not be here
today if I did not truly believe this competitive engine strategy will
save the taxpayers money.
I am not alone in this view. In 1996, Congress initiated the F-136
competitive engine program because we knew then, as we still know now,
competition results in lower cost, improved performance, increased
reliability, and greater contractor responsiveness. Since then,
Congress has maintained unwavering support for this program for 13
consecutive years.
I want to be clear that there was never a competition for the GSF
engine development. I heard the word ``competition'' used repeatedly by
my friend and colleague. I hold in my hand copies of the contracts, the
contracts for the engine that has just been alleged to have been let
competitively. The first contract was on January 23, 1997, to Pratt &
Whitney, in the sum of $804 million. It sets in bold print ``this
contract was not competitively procured.''
Let me repeat that in plain English. This contract for the engine
program about which it was just stated repeatedly that there was a
competition, was, in fact, not competitively let. It is in plain
English. A Federal Government document refutes that contention.
The second contract, dated October 26, 2001, once again to Pratt &
Whitney, in the sum of $4,830,000--this contract was not competitively
procured. There was no competition for the engine program. It is a
matter of public record in plain black and white. If you care about
competition, you will support my approach to dealing with this issue.
This is an engine program whose total cost will top $100 billion.
There is simply no justification for awarding a sole-source
noncompetitive contract in this area. The General Accounting Office has
consistently supported funding a second engine as a fiscally
responsible approach that would yield long-term cost savings for
taxpayers.
On May 20 of this year, the GAO reaffirmed this view when discussing
the cost to complete the second engine and stated:

A competitive strategy has the potential for savings equal
to or exceeding the amount across the life cycle of the
engine. Prior experience indicates it is reasonable to assume
that competition on the GSF engine program could yield
savings of at least as much. As a result, we remain confident
the competitive pressures could yield enough savings to
offset the costs for competition over the GFS program's life.

GAO went on to elaborate on the nonfinancial benefits of procuring a
second amendment:

Our prior work, along with studies by the Department of
Defense and others, indicate there are a number of
nonfinancial benefits that may result from competition,
including better performance, increased reliability, and
improved contractor responsiveness.

The long history in the Department of Defense is that when you award
sole-sourced, noncompetitive contracts to a single provider, costs go
up, responsiveness goes down, the taxpayers suffer. That is what my
amendment will avoid.
Further, in light of the increased investment Secretary Gates and the
administration have chosen to make in the GSF program, limiting the
Department of Defense to a single source has implications for our
readiness and strategic posture. If we have problems with the primary
engine, we will have no alternative. There will be no second supplier
with any ability to produce a comparable engine. Production delays or
engine failures could prove catastrophic for an already thin tactical
air fleet.
Anybody who thinks that a large contract to a single vendor without
competition--again I reiterate, as the contracts specifically indicate,
they were not competitively bid--anyone who thinks that is a good way
for the government to do business should support the Lieberman
amendment.
Some may very well argue that my amendment constitutes business as
usual or is, in fact, wasteful, but many of these individuals have, in
fact, supported this approach as good public policy in the past. They
were right then. I am right today.
We need to keep the primary contractors honest and the only way to do
that is through competition. There was no competition in the award of
these contracts. We now maintain that competition through the adoption
of this amendment.
There were several other Senators who were intending to speak on
behalf of this amendment. Because of the change in schedule, they may
not be able to be with us. We will have to wait and see about that, but
again I thank Senator McCain for his courtesy in attempting to ensure
that they could speak. I know there were some in opposition to my
approach who wanted to speak as well. Senator Kennedy cosponsors my
amendment and is fully supportive. Because of health care concerns he
could not be here today. I do wish to share with our colleagues and for
the record a statement he issued on June 24, as a part of the Armed
Services Committee markup on this issue, in support of my approach.
Senator Kennedy, a longstanding member of the Armed Services
Committee:

For the fourth year in a row, the Department of Defense
continues to ignore the will of the Congress on the
production of an alternate Joint Strike Fighter engine in
order to reduce risk to our forces, protect against any cost
overruns, preserve the U.S. industrial base and support our
international partners.

That is what our amendment is designed to accomplish and that is why
Senator Kennedy supports it. He goes on to say:

I remember well the ``Great Engine Wars'' of the 1980s, and
the development of an acquisition strategy, considered
controversial at the time, that ultimately delivered stronger
and more cost-effective fighter aircraft to the nation. That
issue began a decade earlier, when the decision to sole-
source the F-15's F100 engine resulted in rushed development
to meet program timelines, inadequate responses to program
shortfalls, and mounting frustration over our inability to
address these discrepancies without additional resources.
Ultimately, the Air Force, the Navy and Congress agreed that
the short-term and long-term benefits of industrial
competition would meet these challenges and deliver results.
That experience is as relevant today as it was then,
because we face a similar challenge. The Joint Strike Fighter
is one of the largest military aircraft programs in history,
with $100 billion allocated for engines alone. In light of
recent defense acquisition challenges and the growing
``fighter gap'' in our air forces, these decisions could not
be more important, or their results more far-reaching.
Critics emphasize the short-term cost savings of the sole-
source procurement strategy and cite reports showing
different timelines to re-coup program costs. But dramatic
long-term opportunity costs are missing from this debate, and
are conspicuous in their absence.

That is what the GAO was referring to in the study I cited before.

Competition for the Joint Strike Fighter engine has
compelling advantages and avoids past pitfalls. Dual-sourcing
will build vital operational redundancy into the fleet,
avoiding a single point of failure for the engine
malfunctions and spare parts shortages experienced in the
past with other fleet-wide groundings. Competition delivers
an inherent incentive for manufacturers to absorb and contain
cost growth, even as it encourages responsiveness by
contractors, continuous product improvement, and innovation.
All of these factors are less evident in sole-source
contracts.
The alternate engine program appropriately diversifies
capability and capacity across the U.S. industrial base and
ensures that sustained production, maintenance, and
availability of critical components are not concentrated in a
single provider. In addition, the F136 alternate engine
program considers the sustained participation of key
international partners and stakeholders, especially the
United Kingdom, and Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the
Netherlands, Norway, and Turkey as well. Their commitment is
important to the future of the Joint Strike Fighter program
and our basic security relationships.
For these reasons, I strongly support the addition of $438
million in the FY 2010 National Defense Authorization Act to
sustain the F136 alternate Joint Strike Fighter engine
program.

Those are the words of Senator Kennedy.
In conclusion and by way of summary, the Marine Corps helicopter
issue has been taken care of. That is no longer an issue. We fully
provide for that.
Allegations about the number of procurements for the Joint Strike
Fighters has been taken care of. That is no longer an issue.
Statements by the President's staff with regard to a possible
Presidential

[[Page S7954]]

veto related to the potential reduction in the number of fighters, that
issue has been taken care of.
As I mentioned, the contracts for the engines themselves, in black
and white, given to Pratt & Whitney on the dates in these legal
documents, say very clearly, and I quote once again: ``This contract
was not competitively procured.''
That is a matter of public record. This debate is about competition,
the benefits of competition. I support them. That is why I urge my
colleagues to support our amendment.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time? The Senator from
Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise in support of the amendment which
has been described by the proponent and opponent. Obviously, it would
strip from the Defense authorization bill a provision that authorizes
funding for an alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
Underscoring Senator Lieberman's point and as was the case with the
provision this body addressed in the F-22 program, funding for an
alternate engine for the JSF at this time is something the Department
of Defense has not asked for and does not want. It is not reflected in
either the President's budget request or any of the Services' unfunded
priorities list.
I believe there is good reason why neither the Department nor any of
the services at this time want an alternate engine for the JSF. That
reason is perhaps best expressed in a letter that Senator Lieberman has
already quoted from and had printed in the Record, from Secretary
Gates. He concludes by saying:

It is my belief that the Joint Strike Fighter Program
presented in the President's budget request is in the best
interests of national security. If a final bill is presented
to the President concerning provisions that would seriously
disrupt the F-35 program, the President's senior advisers
will recommend that the President veto the bill.

Before I go much further, I would like to apologize to all Members
who had planned to speak on this very important amendment and had
arranged their schedules to do so. We have obviously changed the
timing, despite the unanimous consent agreement to the contrary,
apparently to accommodate one Senator's schedule.
I hope, because this is a very important issue, that Senators both in
support of Senator Bayh's position and in support of this amendment
would seize the opportunity to come down and address this issue.
Some have cited the benefits of competition as a reason to pursue a
second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, but a competition for this
engine was already conducted. It was already conducted as a part of the
original flyoff competition for the Joint Strike Fighter itself. The
current airframe manufacturer and engine team won.
In 1996, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and McDonnell Douglas originally
competed for the two Joint Strike Technology Concept Demonstration
Awards. In connection with that, each of those airframe manufacturers
solicited engine proposals from Pratt & Whitney and General Electric.
Pratt & Whitney won the competition as to Lockheed Martin and Boeing,
and General Electric won separately as to McDonnell Douglas. Lockheed
Martin and Boeing were selected to proceed to concept demonstration--
where Lockheed Martin ultimately won in 2001.
That is exactly how most military aircraft engines are selected--as a
team, combining an airframe with a powerplant. That makes sense, I
might say. Obviously, we do not want them being developed separately.
So with regard to a second engine, we are not talking about
competition, we are actually talking about another bite at the apple.
I hope the great engine war is over. I know of no data or analysis
that supports that taxpayers will see any net savings from subjecting
the engine for the JSF to any further competition.
I do not believe there is anybody who believes more in competition
than the Senator from Connecticut and me, including the chairman. We
need to have competition. But there comes a point where you have to
make a decision in the development of both the aircraft and the engine
and move forward. At some point you have to abandon the alternate
engine or, in some cases, there have been advocates of an alternate
aircraft itself, to perform the same mission, as in the case of the
tanker, and to move forward in order to proceed in a fashion which is
in the best interests of the taxpayers and the defense of the country.
That is why the Secretary of Defense feels so strongly on this issue
that he says the President's senior advisers will recommend that the
President veto the bill if the Lieberman amendment is not adopted.
The fact is also funding an alternate engine over the next 6 years
has been estimated to cost the program about $5 billion, the equivalent
of 50 to 80 aircraft, according to the program manager.
Also, given that continuing development of a second engine would
require in excess of $600 million in fiscal year 2010 alone, according
to the Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Acquisitions, GEN Mark Shackelford. Paying for the engines in just that
year would require cutting production of at least two Joint Strike
Fighters this year alone.
There may be some nonfinancial benefits to subjecting the engine
program for the Joint Strike Fighter to additional competition--
improved contractor performance at the margins, for example.
Like Senator Lieberman, I am not persuaded those benefits are worth
an additional cost of $5 billion to the Joint Strike Fighter's bottom
line over the next 6 years. Certainly there are more cost-effective
ways of ensuring contractor performance.
In my view, the possibility of a fleetwide grounding due to a single
engine--that is another argument that is made by proponents of a second
engine--is overstated. In fact, the only other U.S. military aircraft
with an alternative engine is the F-16. All other aircraft have single-
engine sources and have worked well.
There is no doubt the cost growth of the engine has been a huge
problem. From fiscal year 2007 to 2008, the engine costs have grown
specifically to meet the needs of the Marine Corps for a version
capable of short takeoff and vertical landing. But I suggest the
challenge there is to ensure that development costs leading to
production remain stable, not to introduce a new engine to the program
that will most assuredly add more uncertain testing requirements,
complexity, and ultimately cost to the program.
So I believe the provision currently in the bill would be seriously
disruptive because one of the offsets it uses to fund developing and
buying a second engine derives from research, development, and testing
and evaluation efforts supporting the program itself.
Also, it is my understanding the offset is of the C-130, which
obviously is very much required in our operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Remember, Secretary Gates restructured the Joint Strike
Fighter Program this year precisely to provide for more robust
developmental testing over the next 5 years to ensure that the program
stays on its planned budget. Taking money out of the program's
research, development, and testing and evaluation effort will, in my
view, most assuredly disrupt the program.
One of the lessons of history on this program is its stability in
funding is absolutely vital to executing that program soundly, the
instability in funding--the disruption that the provision introduces
into the bill--brings the bill within the scope of a veto threat.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment
under consideration and prohibit any additional funding for an
alternate engine program for the Joint Strike Fighter.
Let me also point out to my colleagues, I think this Secretary of
Defense has decided, in an incredible act of courage, to take on
certain institutions and the way we do business. I think this Secretary
of Defense has decided to take on--and I know he has--the military-
industrial-congressional complex which lards on porkbarrel projects and
unnecessary spending which, in many respects, places parochial
interests over the national interests. Obviously, he feels so strongly
about it that he would recommend a veto by the President of the United
States. That would be regrettable, obviously, because we have so many
important provisions in this bill for the

[[Page S7955]]

men and women who are serving this country, from the wounded warriors,
to a pay raise, for so many things--to the amendment of Senator
Lieberman's that we adopted yesterday that we would provide an
additional 30,000 members of the U.S. Army so we can better pursue the
conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So, obviously, as of yesterday, the Secretary of Defense feels so
strongly on this issue that he would recommend that the President veto
the entire bill. Does that mean it would kill a bill? No. But it does
mean there would be a significant period of delay in passing this
legislation and therefore delay the ability of the Pentagon and the
military to implement some of the very important provisions of this
legislation.
So I would urge my colleagues to examine this issue carefully, as I
am sure they do all of the issues before this body. Also I would hope
they would take into consideration the views of our distinguished
Secretary of Defense.
I do not agree on every issue with the Secretary of Defense, and
neither does my colleague, Senator Lieberman. But I think he is on the
right track. I think he can bring about change, at least on how we
acquire weapons and how we spend money, and end these atrocious,
outrageous cost overruns we have experienced in literally every single
weapon system in recent years, which have cost the taxpayers incredible
amounts of money, and end this earmarking and porkbarrel process that I
will talk more on today.
Every day just about we pick up a paper and hear about, or go on line
and hear about, some organization that got an earmark and their waste,
mismanagement, and in some cases criminal behavior as far as use of the
taxpayers' dollars are concerned. We have to do the big things and the
small things. This is a big thing.
I respect, enormously, the Senator from Indiana. There has been no
more valuable member of the Armed Services Committee than Senator Bayh.
I respect his views. I understand where he is coming from in the name
and sake of competition.
Senator Lieberman's and my argument is that the time for competition
is over, and it is time to move forward with a tested engine that will,
one, accelerate the development and operational entrance by the F-22,
and also save some $5 billion of the taxpayers' money.
So I hope my colleagues will examine this issue very carefully and
support the Lieberman amendment.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut is
recognized.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I wanted to speak very briefly because I note the
presence on the floor of the Senator from Ohio. I want to speak simply
to thank Senator McCain for his very strong and thoughtful statement. I
am honored that he is the cosponsor of the amendment.
Senator McCain has enormous credibility in two areas that have come
together in this amendment. The first is his support of the men and
women of our military. The second is his opposition to wasteful
spending of taxpayer dollars. And the two come together here.
Of course, as he has argued so compellingly, there are a lot of times
when the wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars for military
acquisitions is not only harmful in itself because it is wasteful, but
it takes money away from things we need more.
That is the case here. The money that will be spent, $5, $6, $8
billion over the next 6 years by various estimates, will result in 50
to 80 fewer Joint Strike Fighters produced in that time. The Navy, Air
Force, and Marines are waiting with anxiety for these tactical
fighters.
In addition to that, the folks who want to fund this second engine
have to find the money somewhere. They find it not only by delays in
the Joint Strike Fighter Program, but by either, as the amendments
today give the alternative--the first one was to take it from the
Marine Corps for helicopters that are needed in Afghanistan.
The one that Senator Bayh has before us will take the money from the
Air Force special operations community for C-130s that they need for
Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout the world. It is not worth it.
I thank Senator McCain for his strong statement and for his
cosponsorship.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. VOINOVICH. Who is managing this side of the debate?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Senator Bayh and Senator Lieberman.
Mr. VOINOVICH. I ask unanimous consent that I take some of the time
of Senator Bayh, who is supposed to be managing.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise today to speak in support of
the competitive sourcing for the Joint Strike Fighter engines. Senator
Bayh's compromise amendment continues our support for competition for
the Joint Strike Fighter engines and restores the funding for the
Marine Corps helicopters that I know a number of my colleagues are
concerned about.
From my understanding of what happened is that in the Armed Services
Committee, Senator Bayh was concerned that the committee did not have
money in the budget for competition for the Joint Strike Fighter. As a
result of that, he moved to amend and took money away from the
helicopters that Senator Lieberman is so concerned about.
Today we are here because the Senator from Connecticut wants to
restore that money for those helicopters, and at the same time, those
of us who are concerned about competition would like to see the money
included so we can continue competition for the Joint Strike Fighter.
As most of you know, I am a former Governor and mayor who has been an
ardent champion of fiscal responsibility and total quality management
in government. I am not a Johnnie-come-lately to this whole business of
efficiency in terms of our defense budget.
Since 1990, the Department of Defense acquisition management has been
under GAO's high risk list, and that is why, in my capacity as chair
and now ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Government
Management, I strongly supported reforms at the Defense Department that
address contracting weaknesses and promote good business practices to
support our men and women in uniform.
I want everyone to understand, this is not the F-22. This is about
competition, fiscal responsibility, and good government management.
When I came to the Senate, I remember Dwight D. Eisenhower talked about
the military-industrial complex. I must say, since I have been a
Senator, he had it wrong. It is the military-industrial-congressional
complex.
If you watch how things are done on the floor of the Senate, a lot of
it has got to do with protecting the business in our States, even
though in some instances it is not in the best interests of our
country. I am proud to say, in spite of the fact that in my State we
lost about 500 jobs, I voted to eliminate the F-22.
That is what we should see more of here. But too often, when we make
our decisions, it has got more to do with the corporations in our
respective States and the jobs than it has to do with what is in the
best interests of the country or what is fiscally responsible.
I think all of us should be concerned about it. I am going to leave
here at the end of next year. But it seems to me if we do not start
paying more attention to that, we are going to continue to be in
trouble.
In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee this past May,
the Government Accountability Office stated that competition,
competition for the Joint Strike Fighter engine will yield long-term
cost savings for taxpayers.
Does that mean it is not going to cost a little more at the front end
because we are going to have more than one company competing for that
engine? Of course it is going to cost a little bit more. But that
testimony GAO gave cited an example of engine competition for the F-16.
OK? We had competition for the F-16. Let's remember that this Joint
Strike Fighter is going to be the fighter for all of the Federal
agencies. It is going to be with us for the next 25 or 30 years.
That testimony for the F-16 said: It reduced engine costs for the F-
16 by

[[Page S7956]]

over 20 percent. In other words, by putting a little money up front and
having competition between the companies that wanted to do the engines,
we, over the contract, saved 20 percent.
I commend to my colleagues the GAO testimony before the Subcommittee
on Air and Land Forces, Committee on Armed Services, House of
Representatives. This is quite a report. For those who are really
interested in the subject, I ask them to read this or have their staff
look at it. It is entitled ``Joint Strike Fighter Strong Risk
Management Essential as Program Enters Most Challenging Phase.''
It is interesting the way the company that was originally chosen to
do this has had cost overruns even in the beginning--and the two
companies that were competing with them have been on budget and on time
for the Record. By the way, it is right here in this GAO report. All
you have to do is read the report. It is there.
Let me read what the report says:

A competitive strategy has the potential for savings equal
to or exceeding that amount across the life cycle of the
engine. Prior experience indicates that it is reasonable to
assume that competition on the Joint Strike Fighter engine
program could yield savings. . . . As a result, we remain
confident that competitive pressures could yield enough
savings to offset the [upfront] costs of [development] over
the JSF program's life.
Let me repeat that:

As a result, we remain confident that competitive pressures
could yield enough savings to offset the [upfront] costs of
[development] over the [Joint Strike Fighter] program's life.
Most of us understand competition.

We have laws against antitrust, trying to make sure that one company
doesn't get an advantage over another. I think most of my colleagues
understand competition brings out the best and the lowest price.
The GAO testimony goes on to address the impact competition has on
quality of product and incentives to perform:

Our prior work, along with studies by the [Department of
Defense] and others, indicate there are a number of
nonfinancial benefits that may result from competition,
including better performance, increased reliability, and
improved contractor responsiveness.

I heard the Senator from Arizona speak eloquently about all of the
overruns and expenses and everything else about it. If he were here, I
would say to him: Hey, what we want to do is have some competition on
this engine so we get the best price, the best quality, the most
responsiveness.
We don't need the GAO to confirm common sense. We all know that
competition leads to lower cost, improved performance, increased
reliability, and helps to keep our contractors honest. Without a
competitive engine, over 90 percent of our fighter aircraft will be
powered by one engine by 2030. Think about that. One company will have
that contract. Giving an extraordinarily large contract to a single
vendor without competition is reckless and irresponsible. Our
government has an obligation to keep our contractors honest, and the
surest way to achieve that honesty is through competition. I urge
colleagues to support the Bayh compromise amendment that preserves
competitive sourcing for the Joint Strike Fighter engine.
We have an opportunity. I can understand the Senator from Connecticut
was upset because we took money out of the helicopters to maintain the
competition. What Senator Bayh is trying to do is come up with an
amendment that will restore the money so we can buy the helicopters
and, at the same time, maintain competition on the Joint Strike
Fighter.
I urge my colleagues to study this issue. Please, if they have a
chance, they or their staffs ought to look at this report by the GAO.
It substantiates the reasons why we are so ardent in terms of our
support for competition for the Joint Strike Fighter.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I need
from the time allotted.
Let me respond to a few points made in this debate.
First, as was clear, the original place that proponents of this
second engine, which I believe is an unnecessary engine or unnecessary
expenditure of taxpayer money, the place from which they would take the
money originally for the Huey helicopters for the marines, I think
there was a lot of upset about that. So the choice that Senator Bayh
has put before us today would cut the HC-130 and MC-130 aircraft which
would seriously impact both the Air Force's air combat command and the
special operations command. This is a late-breaking development this
morning, the change of source of the funding, but we asked for a
response from the office of the Secretary of Defense and it was this,
that this ``take'' from these two variants of the C-130s that the Air
Force special operations command is using in Afghanistan, Iraq, and
elsewhere, wherever they are needed in the world, the Secretary of
Defense says this would slow down the rate at which the aircraft would
be delivered.
The argument Senator Bayh made is that in the supplemental we adopted
earlier, three additional MC-130s and four HC-130s were included, seven
planes. But the Air Force says to us this morning: Based on the JROC
validation requirements--that is the joint operating committee that
determines acquisition--the Air Force has validated requirements for 37
MC-130s and 78 HC-130s.
The Air Force, including the Air Force special operations command and
air combat command, is grateful for the seven the supplemental gave
them, but they need many more. They need 115 total, and so far we have
given them 7. Removing the nine planes that were in the President's
budget for the Air Force to fund the unnecessary second engine is not a
costless move. It would do damage to the Air Force and its program.
I know Senator Reed is here and wants to speak on the amendment
before us.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise in support of the Lieberman-McCain
amendment. I commend both of them for their efforts in this regard.
This represents part of what I believe Secretary Gates is trying to do,
which is to focus on immediate consequential threats and necessary
equipment while we continue to maintain deterrents for the future.
This second engine has not been fully validated by the Secretary of
Defense. This amendment requires such validation. In addition, one of
the aspects of the underlying legislation is that the alternate engine
for the Joint Strike Fighter would be paid for in part by taking away
funds to purchase additional UH-1Y helicopters for the Marine Corps.
This request was in the President's budget. These helicopters are
absolutely critical to ongoing operations in Afghanistan and throughout
the world. The wear and tear on equipment, particularly in Afghanistan
and Iraq, has been considerable. If we don't upgrade or repair these
pieces of equipment on a regular basis, we will not have the lift to
combat our opponents across the globe.
By comparison, right now in Great Britain there is an argument about
the sufficiency of helicopters their forces have. We don't want to get
into such an argument down the road. We want to make sure our forces in
the field have the equipment they need to carry the fight to our
opponents.
I think this amendment is extremely well crafted. It puts the money
where it should be to help our tactical airlift, marines particularly,
helicopter airlift. It requires the Secretary to justify and validate
that a second engine would reduce the whole life cycle cost and improve
the operational readiness of the F-35. We should go forward with
helicopters and let the Secretary make a judgment about the efficacy of
the second engine.
I thank the Senator for yielding to me.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend from Rhode Island,
Senator Reed, for taking the time to come over to the Chamber. I know
the schedule changed. We had to adjust things. His presence and the
strength of his statement--he is a senior member of the Armed Services
Committee--and his support mean a lot to this cause.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 10 minutes of the time of Senator Bayh.

[[Page S7957]]

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan is
recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I oppose the Lieberman amendment that
would eliminate funding for the Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine.
The committee voted 12 to 10 to keep this competition going. I
emphasize, this is not a new engine that is being introduced. This
effort is to have a competitive engine. This effort has been supported
by Congress for many years. Indeed, our Armed Services Committee had a
vote on this 2 years ago where we determined to maintain the
competition. This year's vote was 12 to 10.
A fundamental tenet for reforming the Defense Department's
acquisition system is ensuring competition throughout the development
and production cycle of major acquisition systems, whenever and
wherever that makes sense. In the case of the Joint Strike Fighter
Program, Congress has concluded repeatedly that competition makes sense
because of the size of this buy.
The JSF program is planned to be one of the largest acquisition
programs ever undertaken by the Defense Department. The Defense
Department intends to buy more than 2,400 JSF aircraft, with our
foreign partners slated to buy at least another 600. That means we are
talking about a program of more than 3,000 aircraft. That means more
than 3,000 engines. The cost of the engines alone will exceed $50
billion over the life of the program. This is not an issue such as
whether we add F-22s. This is a matter of whether we are going to have
competition in a program everybody supports and where we intend to
purchase about 3,000 planes.
A number of studies have been done trying to estimate the economic
costs and benefits of developing a second engine. The analysis of our
Government Accountability Office, which Congress directed to review
this, came out a few years ago. Michael Sullivan, GAO Director of
Acquisition and Sourcing Management, testified as follows in March 2006
before the House Armed Services Committee:

The current estimated remaining life cycle cost for the JSF
engine under the sole-source scenario is $53.4 billion. To
ensure competition by continuing the JSF alternate engine
program, an additional investment of $3.6 billion to $4.5
billion may be required.

This was back in 2007. It is a lot less than that now to complete
this program.
Continuing from the testimony:

However, the associated competitive pressures from this
strategy could result in savings equal to or exceeding that
amount across the life cycle of the engine. The cost analysis
that we performed suggests that a savings of 10.3 to 12.3
percent would recoup that investment, and actual experience
from past engine competitions suggests that it is reasonable
to assume that competition on the JSF engine program could
yield savings of at least that much. These results are
dependent on how the government decides to run the
competition, the number of aircraft that are ultimately
purchased, and the exact ratio of engines awarded to each
contract. In addition, DOD-commissioned reports and other
officials have said that non financial benefits in terms of
better engine performance and reliability, improved
industrial base stability, and more responsive contractors
are more likely outcomes under a competitive environment than
under a sole-source strategy. [Department of Defense]
experience with other aircraft engine programs, including
that for the F-16 fighter, has shown competitive pressures
can generate financial benefits of up to 20 percent during
the life cycle of an engine program and/or the other benefits
mentioned. The potential for cost savings and performance
improvements, along with the impact the engine program could
have on the industrial base, underscores the importance and
long-term implications of [Department of Defense] decision
making with regard to the final acquisition strategy.
A few months ago, before the Armed Services Committee, in May of
2009, that same Mr. Sullivan of the GAO said that his study of 2007 is
still relevant and the same conclusions can be drawn.
This is not a new engine which is being introduced. This is an engine
development program to provide competition which has been long
underway. The Department of Defense and Congress have approved,
authorized, and appropriated spending so far of $2.5 billion for this
alternate engine. The most important point I think I can make is this
is not $4 billion or $5 billion or $6 billion additional funds we are
talking about. In order to complete the development of this competitive
engine, it will require $1.8 billion. So that $2.5 billion is already
sunk into this engine development program. That is probably two-thirds
of its cost already sunk into it. The question is, do we complete the
development of this alternative engine at a cost of about $1.8 billion?
That would conclude the cost for the engine contractor and other
government costs for that program, for testing activities and for
oversight. So again, the issue is not whether to introduce a new
engine. The question is, do we complete the development of a second
engine which is already two-thirds paid for?
We received a letter this morning--I received a letter this morning--
from the Secretary of Defense, and the letter concludes that if the
final bill presented to the President contains provisions that would
seriously disrupt the F-35 program, the President's senior advisers
will recommend that the President veto the bill.
If the final bill presented to the President contained provisions
that would seriously disrupt the F-35 program, I would recommend to the
President that he veto the bill. There is no serious disruption to the
F-35 program that would occur whether or not the Bayh amendment is
adopted. The Bayh amendment makes triply sure there will be no
disruption at all, even a minute disruption, in the F-35 program. It is
not going to be disrupted at all.
The funding for this alternate engine in the bill which the committee
approved came from a Marine helicopter program, a part of which could
not be produced this year. So the committee determined that it could
safely take funds that were requested for that program, which could not
be spent this year. A question has been raised about that. There is no
one on this committee, there is no one in this Senate, who wants to
slow down a Marine helicopter program. None of us will permit that to
happen. That program is a vital program. We have spent a lot of money
on it. It is critically necessary.
The decision, which was made by the Armed Services Committee, was to
simply take funds which could not be spent for that program, because of
development delays, and to spend that, instead, for the second engine.
However, what the Bayh amendment does is to make triply sure, to
reassure everybody there cannot possibly be any impact on a Marine
helicopter program, by finding a separate, a different, a distinct
source, an alternate source, for this second engine.
So the Bayh amendment removes any question about Marine helicopters.
If adopted, that will be off the table. It was off the table in any
event. But everybody wants to assure the Marines, assure our people
that there is not going to be any impact on a Marine helicopter program
for any reason, much less a second engine.
There is another question which some have raised about whether two
engines--
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has consumed 10
minutes.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Acting President pro tempore.
Madam President, how much time is left for Senator Bayh?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Twenty-seven minutes.
Mr. LEVIN. I would, in that case, conclude my statement. If there is
additional time for Senator Bayh, I will then ask at a later point for
some of that time. But for those reasons, and more, which I have not
yet been able to reach, I very much support the Bayh amendment.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Georgia,
Mr. Chambliss, such time as he requires.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, if I could ask the Senator from Georgia,
about how much time does he believe he would be using?
Mr. CHAMBLISS. No more than 10 minutes.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that after that
10-minute time is used Senator Kerry be recognized for a period of up
to 10 minutes on Senator Bayh's time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Georgia.

[[Page S7958]]

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut
for yielding time on this critically important issue.
As we have been here debating on the floor for the last 2 weeks now
the respective issues relative to the priorities from a Defense
authorization standpoint, we have done everything other than going from
increasing pay for our military personnel to the termination of what I
argued on the floor last week and this week of the latest, most
technologically advanced warfighting machine that has ever been
produced by mankind. But the decision was made to terminate the F-22.
The F-22, not only from a technology standpoint, was providing
valuable test material for the follow-on fighter, but it also is
powered by two engines, one engine of which is going to be on the F-35.
And here we are now talking about the issue of whether we should
continue with a competitive second engine for an airplane that now has
an engine that is being flown, has been flown, has been tested by the
Air Force on the F-22. It has successfully flown on the F-22 for years
now, and also has flown successfully in what limited testing has been
done on the F-35.
We have put all of our eggs in the F-35 basket now. As I said during
the debate on the F-22, I am a big supporter of the F-35. It is a great
airplane. I know it is going to succeed. But we are at a point, with
respect to the cost of all weapons systems, where we have to look more
toward where we are going to be in future years from a cost standpoint
and with regard to what we are able to provide our men and women.
When you look at items that need to be included in the mix from a
competition standpoint, there is nobody who supports competition more
than I do. That is the reason I supported the second engine--up to a
point in time. But when it came up again last year, it was pretty
obvious we were at a point where the engine, manufactured by Pratt &
Whitney--two of which fly on the F-22; only one of which is needed for
the F-35--is a good engine. It is doing the job. It has passed the
test. So I decided last year we needed to move away from the spending
of the money on the second engine, and let's concentrate on providing,
obviously, the two engines for the F-22, and the one engine on the F-
35.
We have something else thrown into the mix. I did not support Senator
Bayh's amendment in committee, for what I still think are all of the
right reasons from the standpoint of: Do we need competition for an
engine that is successful? For an engine we know is working? For an
engine for which we know what the cost is today?
Why do we need the second engine? Well, I know detractors have said--
and they have made the argument to me--that: Look, that engine may
fail. Something may happen to that engine. I agree for a point in time
that could have happened. But we have been at this with respect to the
engine that is powering the F-35 for years now, and it is a success. So
I reached a point in time last year when I decided we did not need the
additional competition from the standpoint of the second engine and,
obviously, the committee reached that same result this year.
Now we are changing horses a little bit more. Instead of using the
discontinuance of the helicopters, the Marine helicopters, we are
taking money from six C-130Js to fund the competitive second engine for
the F-35, and the competition is going to be between the new engine we
have tested and have had in production now for several years against an
engine we know to be successful.
Well, the issue has gotten even more sensitive to me because I know
how critically important the C-130J is to our men and women who are in
combat today--not those who might be going into combat and might need
this weapon system somewhere down the road. Our men and women in
theater today depend every single day on the C-130J, and on the C-
130Hs, even, that are old airplanes, that are in theater, that are
flying our men and women. They are looking to get the new C-130Js to
help them transport themselves as well as equipment from one part of
the theater to the other, from outside the theater into the theater.
Our special operations men and women are looking to the C-130J for the
gunship operations they carry out.
Here we are going to say to those men and women: Well, we think it is
more important to have competition for a second engine against an
engine we know is successful than it is to provide you with the latest,
most technologically advanced airlift capability we can give you. That
makes no sense whatsoever to me from a national security standpoint.
All of us have been to Iraq and Afghanistan at some point or another.
I have been to Iraq eight times. I have been to Afghanistan twice. When
we go over there, we fly into either Kuwait or Jordan or some
neighboring country. Then we are transported from that country into
Iraq or into Afghanistan. What have we flown on? I would say not 99
percent of the time but 100 percent of the time when we are transported
into theater, we fly on C-130s. All of us have had the experience of
seeing date plates on C-130s we are flying on into theater, where
rockets are being fired occasionally at those weapons systems, and we
have had some issues relative to that. But the date plates on those
airplanes we fly on almost consistently are in the 1960s or 1970s.
So today what we are asking our men and women to do is to fly C-130s
that are 40 years old, 30 years old, or whatever it may be, that are
not equipped with the latest, most technologically advanced weapons
systems, and here we are saying to those men and women that we are
going to take away from you the entrance of additional C-130Js into
theater because we think it is important we have competition for a
second engine on the F-35.
This makes absolutely no sense from either a fiscal standpoint or a
national security standpoint. The C-130J is a great airplane. We have
nine of them in this authorization bill. This particular amendment
takes six of those nine out of the bill and pays for the funding--the
remainder of the funding--on the second engine. That second engine is a
great engine. It has performed magnificently. But it is competing with
an engine that also is performing magnificently.
So to say we now ought to take a weapons system, such as the C-130J
that our men and women depend on every single day to fly them around
within Afghanistan--because they need these airplanes to land, they
need an airplane that can land on a short runway; and the C-130 has
that capability to fly our men and women around Iraq, to fly our men
and women who carry out special operations and missions and have the
gunships--the guns that are mounted on the C-130J to be transformed
into a gunship--we are going to take away that capability and that need
from our men and women to fund a second engine for an airplane that
already has an engine on it, that is performing well, that we know is
successful, for which we know how much it costs today. It is not like
we are going to see a reduction in price on the engine of the F-35
because we complete the testing and the procurement of an alternative
engine. That is not going to happen, and that is not the issue. The
issue comes down to the point of are we going to take, in this case, a
weapon system away from our men and women to fund a second engine to
compete with an engine that is already successful.

I would say that, obviously, I felt very strongly and was very
emotional about the discontinuance of the F-22 for all of the right
reasons, but this is one of those issues that makes even less sense
than the discontinuance of the F-22. We need to make sure we spend tax
money wisely. We have had the competition on the F-35. It is time we
move down the road of building and procuring as many of those as we
can. With the ramp-up this bill calls for, under the direction of the
chairman, we are going to be buying a lot of F-35s in a short period of
time. They have a great engine on them today. It works. It is
successful. That is where we need to concentrate. That is where we need
to spend our money. We don't need to spend the money on the second
engine, nor do we need to take six C-130 airplanes out of this budget
to pay for an engine we are probably never going to buy.
So I would simply urge my colleagues to vote in support of the
Lieberman amendment and to vote against the Bayh second-degree
amendment.
I yield the floor.

[[Page S7959]]

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts is
recognized.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I rise to join my colleague, Senator
Kennedy, in opposing the Lieberman amendment to eliminate funding for
the Joint Strike Fighter alternative engine. I disagree with the
arguments that were just made by the Senator from Georgia who actually
is inaccurate by saying it is going to take away a weapon system from
our military at the current time. It doesn't take any weapon system
away whatsoever. It simply changes the schedule of production with
respect to the C-130s, but all of the C-130s will be built. So no
system is taken away. It is important to try to be accurate about what
is at stake here.
As does Senator Kennedy and a lot of other people, including Senator
Bayh and others, I believe the alternative engine is critical to reduce
risks to our forces, to protect against cost overruns, to preserve the
U.S. industrial manufacturing base, and to support our international
partners. It is a little strange, I might add, to have some of our
friends on the other side of the aisle who are usually quick to come up
here and support competition in the American marketplace arguing that
we shouldn't have competition and that we ought to have a single-source
production for engines, where we have already seen that there are
problems frequently in those single-source production lines.
I strongly support the second-degree amendment offered by Senator
Bayh and Senator Kennedy that would provide more than $156 million for
the management reserves of the Joint Strike Fighter Program and more
than $280 million for the Marine Corps helicopter fleet. This will
allow the Senate to preserve funding for the vital Marine Corps
helicopters without eliminating competition for the Joint Strike
Fighter's competitive alternative engine program.
Let me say the funding for the Joint Strike Fighter alternative
engine has been important to Senator Kennedy for a long period of time.
As we all know, he is being treated back in Massachusetts and is not
here today, but his statement in support of the amendment he is
offering with Senator Bayh has already been put into the Record by
Senator Bayh. I wish to simply reference one thing Senator Kennedy has
said:

All of us know that is the way we are most effective at producing all
of our goods in this country. We do it through competition. It is that
kind of competition that spurs innovation, and it avoids cost overruns.
Senator Kennedy is 100 percent accurate in his analysis of this issue,
and I hope Senators will weigh his measurement of this based on his
years of experience on the Armed Services Committee as well as on the
facts regarding this particular engine proposition.
The alternate engine program spreads capability and capacity across
the U.S. industrial base. What it does is it ensures the production,
maintenance, and availability of critical components so they are not
concentrated in the hands of one single producer.
Why does that matter? Well, the current engine for the Joint Strike
Fighter has had testing issues. It is simply not appropriate to stand
here and suggest that everything is absolutely hunky-dory with the
single-source program. The fact is, there have been two engine blade
failures within the past 2 years requiring a redesign, remanufacture,
and delays in the flight test program. In fact, the engine has yet to
even be flight tested in the most stressing flight regime--the vertical
landing mode. Those tests have been delayed for up to 2 years, and they
are now scheduled to take place in September.
It is precisely that kind of delay that begs for this kind of
alternative engine program. In fact, the 2007 Institute of Defense
Analysis study concluded:

Competition has the potential to bring benefits in addition
to reduced prices, including force readiness, contractor
responsiveness, and industrial base breadth.

So I don't believe it is in the best interests of our military to
have the major part of the fighter fleet dependent on a single-engine
type provided by a single manufacturer. It is simply too risky, and
experience tells us it is too risky.
In the 1970s, many of the F-15s and F-16 fleets were grounded as a
result of reliability and durability issues because the aircraft were
dependent on one engine type. Similarly, the AV-8 Harrier was grounded
for 11 months due to engine problems. With over 2,400 F-35s currently
planned for procurement and each of the services going to be dependent
on one engine and one aircraft type for the vast majority of its
capability, it simply doesn't make sense to put all of it into one
engine manufacturer--one engine and one producer. We certainly don't
want to take the risk of the entire F-35 fleet being grounded.
Competition will avoid that potential.
So I ask my colleagues to oppose the Lieberman amendment, support the
Bayh-Kennedy amendment to provide additional funding to the Joint
Strike Fighter Program and to the Marine Corps helicopter fleet. I
believe that is the way we best eliminate risk and best serve the armed
services and the needs of this particular aircraft.
Madam President, I reserve the remainder of the time to Senator Bayh.
Does the Senator from Ohio wish to speak?
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I wish to speak to thank Senator Bayh for
his work and Chairman Levin and Senator Kerry in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I yield the Senator such time as he may
use on behalf of Senator Bayh.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio is
recognized.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I wish to thank Chairman Levin for his
leadership and Senator Bayh for his work.
This debate is about competition. It is about how our government
spends money.
Earlier this year, the Senate passed a comprehensive DOD procurement
reform law. Now we are debating a Defense authorization bill of more
than $660 billion. We need to continue to reform the procurement
process. We need to make sure Congress is not just a rubber stamp.
We are debating today whether we should end a near monopoly on
engines and long-term maintenance for the Joint Strike Fighter to one
company. The Department of Defense created the alternative engine
program in the mid-1990s because DOD knew such a program would foster
competition between engine manufacturers. Competition fosters cost
savings and improved performance and flexibility. Now we are debating
whether the Senate should create a monopoly in buying just one engine
for more than 2,400 aircraft.
What would happen if we end the alternative engine program? One
engine manufacturer, frankly, would have us over a barrel. The
government would have no option. The government would have no
bargaining power. That is what we are talking about today. We are
debating whether we should clear the field and have no competition, not
even the threat of competition, for our Nation's most important aerial
defense program.
What would happen if performance standards changed? I tell my
colleagues, we will become price-takers. The company will tell us how
much they want for making the required changes. We will have to accept
it. What would happen if the manufacturer decided they can't deliver
the engine at the agreed price? We would be price-takers again.
What if we needed to ramp up production to defend our Nation but we
have only one production line? We would be in trouble. What if there
are skyrocketing costs in production? We would have to pay them.
If this amendment passes, we are setting the stage for inflated
costs. We are setting the stage for inadequate capacity.
So as we work to find ways to save money in this bill, as we work to
reduce our budget deficit, we are contemplating cutting funding for a
program that could lower the cost of the JSF and save our government
billions of

[[Page S7960]]

dollars while creating a more reliable aircraft, and we are debating
whether to limit the military's ability to pick the best engine
possible.
We have been talking about an alternate engine program, but that is a
bit of a misnomer. It is not an alternate engine; it is a competition
between engines to ensure we pick the right one. Remember the famous
competition between engine manufacturers for the F-16. The so-called
great engine war saved our government billions of dollars and provided
our military with the best engine possible.
The F-16 has kept our Nation safe for a generation. It is in large
part because the military was able to pick the best possible engine.
That competition made it possible to avoid massive cost overruns, to
avoid production problems, to avoid performance issues. That is why we
have a competitive engine program now. We are not talking about one
alternate engine; we are talking about two engine alternatives. It is
an important distinction. It is about competition.
What we are debating is an effort by some to declare the competition
over, even though this body has provided funding for two engines over
and over. We are going to buy more than 2,400 Joint Strike Fighters and
costs will keep going up. According to news reports, we are talking at
least $300 billion.
We need to make sure we spend this money wisely. By eliminating the
alternate engine program just to save a few dollars today, we are
jeopardizing billions later--$300 billion, 2,400 planes, the next
generation aircraft that will serve the entire military for decades.
We have to get this right the first time. There are no do-overs. The
JSF is a single-engine fighter. Any problem with its engine could
ground the entire fleet. This would waste billions of tax dollars, and
even more importantly, it would jeopardize our military's ability to
defend our Nation.
We need to get this right. We need to make sure we are not granting a
monopoly today that we are going to be stuck with for 10 years or 20
years or 30 years from now. Let's keep the second engine program going.
Let's have a competition. Let's make sure our military has the best
plane possible.
Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut is
recognized.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I wish to respond to a few of the
statements that have been made by the proponents of the second engine
which I feel very strongly is a costly waste of taxpayer money and is
unnecessary.
The argument has been made: why stop competition? I can't say it
often enough that there has been competition. There was a competition
in the 1990s between these two great engine manufacturers: Pratt &
Whitney and General Electric. Pratt & Whitney won the competition fair
and square. They did it, as Senator Chambliss said, with an engine that
has now had an enormous amount of experience. The Air Force has had
experience with it in the F-22, and it has worked extraordinarily well.
Secretary Gates, in his letter to us today, says the current engine
is performing well with more than 11,000 test hours. So there has been
a competition. General Electric, which manufactures the second engine
which lost the competition, is trying, in my opinion--I love this
company. I respect them. They are headquartered in Connecticut, but
they are trying to achieve through legislation what they could not
achieve through competition, and it is costly.
It is costly. It delays the Joint Strike Fighter Program. Earlier
this week, we terminated the F-22 technical air fighter program. That
means we are all in the Joint Strike Fighter Program. This is our
single hope and the specific program to take us to the future for
American tactical air war combat.
This second engine--the money for it--according to testimony before
the Senate Armed Services Committee will cost the Air Force between 50
and 83 fewer Joint Strike Fighters for the Air Force, Army, and Navy
over the next 5 years. That is a lot to pay for.
There has been competition and it is over. This engine that has been
selected is a good one, and it will continue to perform well and not
delay the program.
I want to say a few other things about what has been said. There has
been some citing of a GAO report issued in May of this year that
suggested that, in the long term, a second engine might result in
savings. I think it is important to say that the opinion of the GAO is
not documented in their report on that matter, and it is not shared by
other authorities who have done independent analyses.
The Institute for Defense Analyses says flat out that GAO
underestimated the required government investment to develop an
alternative engine by nearly $4 billion. One of the supporters of the
second engine earlier said that we have already spent over $2 billion
on it, and there is only a need to spend another $1.5 billion or $1.8
billion. Of course, any dollar we spend on an engine that I believe we
don't need should go to other programs in the Department of Defense. It
is a waste of dollars.
In the GAO report itself, which is cited by proponents of the second
engine, it is quite clear that they say an additional investment of
$3.5 billion to $4.5 billion in development and production costs may be
required for this program.
That means an additional $3.5 billion to $4.5 billion, in the coming
years totaling over $6 billion--some say even more--for a second
engine, which would be nice to have, like it would be nice to have a
lot of things, but we cannot afford it.
The fact that we cannot afford it is demonstrated by the amendments
introduced by the proponents of the second engine. We will have to
cannibalize, or take from the Marine Huey helicopters and from the Air
Force C-130s being used by the special operations and Air Force combat
command in battle today.
Let me go to this GAO argument. My friend from Massachusetts cited an
Institute of Defense Analyses statement offered in testimony before the
House in March of this year. There is another line in that that makes a
very powerful point on the question of savings from the second engine.
To break even financially, according to the Institute of Defense
Analyses--I am quoting from that:

To offset fully the estimated $8.8 billion investment to
establish the alternative JSF engine would require a savings
rate, during the production phase, of 40 percent on a net
present value basis.

That is a little complicated. Here is the key from the independent
Institute of Defense Analyses:

Savings of this magnitude are implausible, considering the
11 to 18 percent savings realized in other competition.

So it is way beyond what we have seen before. I want to quote from
testimony received in our committee, a very interesting exchange
between Senator Begich, a member of our subcommittee, and the
representative of the Navy and the Air Force. Senator Begich, in
reference to the GAO report cited, indicated that the F-136, the second
engine, had better efficiency and opportunity, ``but you seem to
disagree with that,'' the Senator says to the witnesses, and I believe
that the current Joint Strike Fighter engine is the course you are
taking. Vice Admiral Architzel of the Navy says:

While we generally support competition, the cost of
continuing to develop a second engine versus being able to
use that in procurement dollars for aircraft or in the cost
also to maintain the 2 engines, the Navy supports the
Department of Defense in just having this one F-35 engine.

Lieutenant General Shackleford, from the Office of Acquisition of the
Air Force, says a very important quote regarding the GAO report that
has been cited by proponents of the second engine:

In this particular case, the analysis that the Office of
the Secretary of Defense did to look at the costs associated
with a second engine yielded a different result from what the
GAO reported, which basically says the costs associated with
development of a second engine would be something that we
would consider unaffordable in the current timeframe, while
we would be doing the development. That benefit down the
road, in terms of comparative costs, would be more of a wash
than the more optimistic version of what the GAO report said.

So when we look at balancing the risk of having one engine versus the
costs of paying for the second--be it costs within the program, which
would be taken out of production aircraft with a negative effect in
terms of unit

[[Page S7961]]

costs, or even having to source these dollars someplace else within the
Air Force--we don't consider the purchase of a second engine to be an
affordable solution.
Again, competition has occurred. It is over. We have to really go
forward with the Joint Strike Fighter Program, not delay it, or waste
money on it or take money from other programs to fund this one.
I will introduce this for the Record. I ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the Record two letters, one from Military Families United,
and another from the Vets for Freedom.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

July 23, 2009.
Hon. Joe Lieberman,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lieberman: On behalf of Military Families
United and the military families throughout the country we
represent, I am writing today in support of restoring funding
to the FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act to procure
additional UH-1s and HC-130s.
As we continue to increase deployments of our forces in
Afghanistan, the strain on our military hardware will greatly
increase thus making it more necessary that we continue to
procure and recapitalize vital equipment at a sustainable
rate. Without this equipment America's brave men and women in
uniform will be put in greater danger. They deserve the best
equipment available to defend themselves and successfully
complete the mission they have been asked to accomplish.
Providing the necessary funds for the procurement and
recapitalization of both the UH-1 and the HC-130 will afford
our Armed Forces the ability to successfully execute our
military engagements overseas.
Our warfighters deserve the very best equipment we can
provide them. To that end, Military Families United
aggressively supports this effort to restore funding for the
procurement and recapitalization of these vital weapons
systems. We must never forget the sacrifices the brave men
and women of our Armed Forces make every day in the service
of our nation and for the cause of Freedom. I look forward to
working with your office to get this important legislation
passed.
Sincerely,

Brian Wise,

Executive Director,
Military Families United.
____

July 23, 2009.
Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lieberman: Vets for Freedom has always fought
for the success of the mission and fielding the needs of war-
fighters serving our country in harms way. Recently, we've
seen attempts made in Congress to strip funding from the
Marine Corps H-1Y Huey helicopter program and from the
Special Operations Command's C-130 fleet.
Both pieces of equipment play a key role in making both our
troops more effective and lethal on the battlefield: by both
transporting Marines into the fight and allowing our Special
Operations Forces to take the fight to the Taliban and Al-
Qaeda around the country. Both of the H-1Y Huey and HC/MC-130
Hercules are mission critical assets for the fight we are in
today and tomorrow--and the Secretary of Defense and
Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps agree.
Vets for Freedom calls on the Senate to fund these two
critical programs and ensure that our troops have the
equipment and support they need to successfully accomplish
their current mission.
Sincerely,
Pete Hegseth,
Chairman, Vets for Freedom.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. This is from Bryan Wise, executive director of
Military Families United:

. . . I am writing today in support of funding to the
FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act to procure
additional UH-1s and HC-130s.
. . . Providing the necessary funds for the procurement and
recapitalization of both the UH-1 and the HC-130 will afford
our Armed Forces the ability to successfully execute our
military engagements overseas.
. . . Military Families United aggressively supports this
effort to restore funding for the procurement and
recapitalization of these vital weapons systems. We must
never forget the sacrifices the brave men and women of our
Armed Forces make every day in the service of our Nation and
for the cause of freedom.

The second letter, from the Vets of Freedom, is signed by Pete
Hegseth, a distinguished and decorated veteran, who is chairman of Vets
for Freedom. He says:

Vets for Freedom has always fought for the success of the
mission and fielding the needs of war-fighters serving our
country in harm's way. Recently, we've seen attempts made in
Congress to strip funding from the Marine Corps H-1Y Huey
helicopter program and from the Special Operations Command's
C-130 fleet.
Both pieces of equipment play a key role in making our
troops more effective and lethal on the battlefield: by both
transporting Marines into the fight and allowing our Special
Operations Forces to take the fight to the Taliban and al-
Qaida around the country. Both of [these programs] are
mission critical assets for the fight we are in today and
tomorrow--and the Secretary of Defense and Commandant of the
U.S. Marine Corps agree.

I appreciate these letters. They speak volumes, and I hope they will
lead my colleagues to oppose the Bayh amendment and support the
amendment we have introduced.
I yield the floor.
Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise in support of Senator Lieberman's
amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2010, which would eliminate funding for an alternate engine for the F-
35 Joint Strike Fighter, JSF.
President Obama singled out the alternate engine as wasteful
government and he specifically did not request funding for an
alternative engine in his budget proposal to the Congress. On May 7,
President Obama said that ``we're going to save money by eliminating
unnecessary defense programs that do nothing to keep us safe--but
rather prevent us from spending money on what does keep us safe. One
example is a $465 million program to build an alternate engine for the
Joint Strike Fighter. The Defense Department is already pleased with
the engine it has. The engine it has works. The Pentagon does not
want--and does not plan to use--the alternative version. That's why the
Pentagon stopped requesting this funding two years ago.''
In fact, the administration has already stated its intention to veto
a defense authorization bill that is presented to the President that
includes funding for an alternative engine. The June 24, 2009 Statement
of Administration Policy on HR 2647, the House Defense authorization
bill, which also includes funding for development of an alternative
engine, noted that ``. . . the Administration objects to provisions of
[HR 2647] that mandate an alternative engine program for the JSF. The
current engine is performing well with more than 11,000 test hours.
Expenditures on a second engine are unnecessary and impede the progress
of the overall JSF program. Alleged risks of a fleet-wide grounding due
to a single engine are exaggerated. The Air Force currently has several
fleets that operate on a single-engine source.''
In addition, the Secretaries and Chiefs of the Air Force and Navy
have all said that they do not need or want a second engine for the
JSF. When Air Force Chief of Staff General Schwartz testified before
the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 21, 2009, he said that if he
were asked where he would put his next available dollar for the F-22
program, ``it would not be in a second engine.'' Chief of Naval
Operations Admiral Gary Roughead is also opposed to the second engine,
stating, ``. . . keeping parts for two engines on the decks of aircraft
carriers is not advisable. Therefore you can put me solidly in the one-
engine camp.''
It has been suggested that competition for these engines would be
good for the military. Quite simply, there has already been a
competition and it was won by Pratt & Whitney. In 1996, the Pratt &
Whitney engine was the engine of choice for two of three competitors
for the Joint Strike Fighter: Boeing and Lockheed Martin. The third
competitor, McDonnell Douglass, selected the General Electric engine.
When McDonnell Douglass was not selected for a key milestone in the JSF
development, concept demonstration, while Lockheed Martin and Boeing
were selected, the General Electric engine was eliminated as a future
engine for the JSF. In fact, the P&W engine was well positioned for
this competitive success in the JSF competition by previously besting
competing engines in 1991 for use in the F-22. Moreover, the only other
aircraft in the U.S. military inventory that has a dual source for
engines is the F-16. All other military aircraft have a single source
engine, and it is a strategy that works. Single source jet engines are
the rule, not the exception.
In terms of the industrial base, the leaders of the potential
alternate engine teams would suggest that without an alternate engine
they might be shut out of the military aircraft engine business.
However, these teams already provide engines for multiple military
aircraft platforms. In contrast, Pratt &

[[Page S7962]]

Whitney will only make aircraft engines for the Joint Strike Fighter
with the closing of the C-17 and F-22 lines. In a sense, the reverse
would be more accurate.
This is especially important to me since much of the JSF engine work
will go through the Pratt & Whitney facility in my home State of Maine.
The 1,375 highly skilled employees at the P&W North Berwick facility
should not have their jobs jeopardized for an unnecessary competition.
A competition that they already won.
This debate should not even be occurring. The President and the U.S.
military say they do not want or need this alternate engine. There is
no reasonable justification for spending on a second engine when the
first engine is performing admirably. I urge my colleagues to support
Senator Lieberman's amendment.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the alternate
engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The Armed Services Committee,
which has reviewed the program carefully, made the sensible move in
restoring the almost $440 million necessary this year to continue
design and development of the alternate engine, known as the F136
engine, made by General Electric Aviation.
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program will likely emerge as the
largest tactical aircraft program in the Nation's history.
Given developments in unmanned aerial vehicles, it could also be the
country's last major tactical aircraft program. The F-35 will provide a
tremendous general purpose capability to replace the Air Force's aging
F-16s, the Marine Corps' AV-8Bs, and older versions of the F/A-18. We
have to get development of this aircraft right. The kind of delays and
cost overruns that have plagued development of so many other defense
programs recently would be absolutely unacceptable in this far-reaching
program.
An alternate engine would create competition. Competition would force
both production teams to deliver a better product at a better price to
the government.
An alternate engine would prevent a single-point failure in the F-35s
continued development. If one program reaches insurmountable obstacles,
the Department of Defense will be able to rely on the other engine.
Finally, an alternate engine would ensure that the country has more
than one military engine manufacturer.
Several nonpartisan, rigorous studies from groups such as the
Institute for Defense Analyses and the Government Accountability Office
have underscored the benefits of an alternate engine.
There is some question as to whether the existence of a second engine
and the resulting competition would save money over the life of the
program. One need only look to the history of the F-16 engine in the
1970s and the 1980s for an answer, which is a resounding yes. In that
case, the availability of two engines resulted in a decline in price
for the overall aircraft, allowing the government to buy more for less.
Opponents of the alternative engine claim that cutting the engine will
allow more planes to be built, when in fact what will happen is that
the overall cost of the program will increase and incentives to build
the best engine will be eliminated.
Real cost savings, improved performance: these are the reasons that
we simply must continue development of the Alternate Engine for the
Joint Strike Fighter. And it is these reasons that I will vote to
continue forward with this absolutely essential investment that ensures
we are getting the best product for our troops and at the best price
for taxpayers.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, what is the time situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from Connecticut has
26 minutes. The Senator from Indiana has 14 minutes. Who yields time?
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Might I ask my friend from Oklahoma how much time he
needs?
Mr. INHOFE. A couple minutes.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma up to 5 minutes
of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I look at this issue and think about not
just the hours and days and months but years we have talked about this.
A lot of people have changed their mind and have gone back and forth on
it. I think at the time Senator Warner was here, he actually took a
couple of positions.
I look at it simply. I have been concerned about the funding and
about some of what we need to have. We all had different ideas on the
additional F-22s. I look at this and I see that the only current U.S.
military aircraft with a new engine source is the F-16. All the rest
have single engine sources. It has worked well, and there is no
military requirement for the alternate engine.
I have come to the conclusion it would cost over $5 billion to fund
the alternate engine and, over the next year, it will cost the
program--I have seen estimates from 50 to 80 aircraft, according to the
program manager.
Congress has directed three studies on the alternative engine, and we
have gone over studies in our Armed Services Committee. Two out of the
three studies of the alternate engine stated there would never be any
cost savings associated with the competition.
There has never been actual data--only anecdotal--that proves there
was ever any cost savings brought about by what someone called the
``great engine war'' on the F-16s.
It seems to me it is a savings without the alternate engine, which
will allow us to have more capability, more aircraft.
I strongly support the Lieberman-McCain amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BAYH. How much time remains on our side, Madam President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut has 23 minutes.
The Senator from Indiana has 14 minutes.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I want to add some additional comments
about the $438 million that would be taken from the HC/MC 130s
recapitalization program to fund development of the alternate engine.
I don't think there is any doubt that given the conflict in
Afghanistan, as well as Iraq, but particularly now in Afghanistan, as
we move into the southern part of the country, the HC/MC 130s are
critical weapons systems. Their platforms are designed to specifically
support our special operations warriors, which is the kind of fight we
are in. It is an irregular fight, and it puts increasing demands on our
special forces.
As we know, these aircraft are specialized C-130s that are
specifically designed for that fight. They have capabilities, such as
aerial refueling and gunship weaponry, that meet the requirements of
the special operations command.
I would be very reluctant and strongly opposed to taking funding away
from special operations and using it to fund the second motor for the
Joint Strike Fighter. It is a time, obviously, when we are fighting two
irregular wars, and it is not a time to take this funding away.
According to the Defense Department, the current military requirement
for the HC/MC 130s aircraft is 60. The Department recently recognized
that the need to modernize the aging, worn-out special operations and
combat search and rescue fleets is urgent.
According to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, ``the cut to
these aircraft would slow down deliveries to the warfighter of the HC-
130 and the MC-130 impacting both the Air Force's Air Combat Command
and Special Operations Command.''
According to the Air Force ``based on the JROC validated requirements
for 37 MC-130s and 78 HC-130s, the Air Force, including the Air Force
Special Operations Command and Air Combat Command, would benefit from
an even greater acceleration of the recapitalization rate of all 9
aircraft that remain in the President's budget.
Taking that money out of this program would delay the delivery of new
aircraft to the warfighter. I think that if General McChrystal were
here, and our other leaders, they would make it very clear that in the
very difficult situation we face in Afghanistan--large areas of
geography that need to be traveled and controlled--these aircraft are
very much needed. I hope my colleagues will also take that into
consideration as we consider this vote.
I congratulate the Senator from Indiana for a very eloquent argument
on behalf of his position. Again, I state

[[Page S7963]]

my appreciation for the very important role he plays as a member of the
Armed Services Committee. This is one of the few times we disagree, but
I think he has presented his side of the argument with eloquence.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. BAYH. Madam President, perhaps I should quit while I am ahead
following those very generous remarks by my friend and colleague from
Arizona. I am compelled, however, to save a few minutes of my time for
Senator Levin, who is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and
is supportive of our amendment, for him to offer a few additional
observations. I do want to close with a few closing remarks.
First, I thank Senator Kennedy, who could not be with us today but
who is a strong supporter of our amendment, and Senators Kerry,
Voinovich, Brown, and Senator Levin I have mentioned, who spoke in
support of this amendment. I thank them.
I do want to address a couple of points that have been raised, first
with regard to the issue of the Marine Corps helicopters. Again, for
those who care about the helicopters, for those who care about
supporting the Marine Corps, we have taken care of that issue. The
Marine helicopters will be fully funded. So that is off the table. For
the assertions made in the reduction of the number of Joint Strike
Fighters to be procured, we fully funded the administration's request,
and there will be no reduction because of my amendment. We have taken
care of that issue. That is no longer relevant.
The President's staff recommending a veto was premised on the
presumption that there would be a reduction in the number of planes
purchased. Since that has been taken care of, the veto threat is no
longer relevant. It has been taken care of.
There have been comments made about the C-130 procurement. I, too,
support the C-130 procurement. We have fully funded--fully funded--the
administration's request. It was passed in the supplemental. The money
is there, in recognition of that. That is why the House of
Representatives fully eliminated the account we are using to fund the
second engine.
For those who care about the C-130, as do I--and I thought Senator
McCain's comments were very appropriate about the need for that
important plane--that has been fully funded. In fact, what has been
proposed in our authorization is a duplicate funding, a double funding.
So for those of us who care about duplication, this, in fact, would
save the taxpayers money, which I understand is one of the premises
underlying the Lieberman amendment. Accepting their premise, this is a
fully appropriate funding source.
Finally, I would like to address this issue of competition once
again. It has been asserted and alleged over and over that there was a
competition, that the competition was run by Pratt & Whitney, that
there was competition, competition, competition. I hold in my hands
copies of the contracts given to Pratt & Whitney. I hold them right
here. Cover page, January 23, 1997, Pratt & Whitney, $804 million, et
cetera, in bold type:

This contract was not competitively procured.

Let me repeat that:

This contract was not competitively procured.

The second contract is for the engine dated October 26, 2001, Pratt &
Whitney, in this case $4.8 billion. Once again, in bold type--bold
type--so people can read it and understand:

This contract was not competitively procured.

It could not be any plainer than that for those of us who can read
these documents. There was not a competition with regard to this
engine. It is a sole-source contract.
Therein lies the issue. It is not about helicopters. It is not about
the number of planes that are procured. It is not about the C-130. All
of those things have been taken care of. It is about your belief that
competition is in the best interest of the taxpayers--and quality. If
you believe that, you support this amendment. If you believe single-
source, noncompetitively bid contracts, such as these, are in the best
interests of quality and protecting the taxpayers, then you will
support Senator Lieberman's amendment. That is what this is all about.
Since I don't have much time--how much time do I have, Madam
President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 10\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. BAYH. Madam President, I don't want to exhaust it all. I quoted
at length in my previous comments from the General Accounting Office,
and there are a variety of studies. It is asserted that GAO did not
offer much reasoning for their comments. I point out once again that
they state very clearly the savings from this competition; the second
engine has the potential to be equal to or exceeding its cost. Prior
experience, they indicate, points to this and that they are confident
competitive pressures could yield these kinds of savings. The GAO is
well on record. I understand there is a dispute from other entities and
other studies, but that is the GAO's opinion.
This all comes down to competition, whether my colleagues embrace it,
in which case they support our amendment, or if they do not--and I
suppose there may be legitimate arguments in favor of noncompetitive
bidding--they will support the other amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, will the Senator from Indiana yield me 3
minutes?
Mr. BAYH. Absolutely.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, let me confirm what the Senator from
Indiana said. This issue does not involve 130s. Congress has put all
the money in for 130s that the President requested. The reason this
money for 130s was in our committee report is because we did not know
at the time that the supplemental appropriations bill would put money
in for the 130s. So we do not need this money for the 130s to fully
finance the request of the President of the United States for 130s.
I wish to reiterate one point I made earlier. This is not an issue of
whether we insert a new engine, whether we start down the road with a
second engine. That issue was resolved years ago by Congress when we
started to fund a second engine for the purpose of competition. We have
already put $2.5 billion into this second engine. Roughly $1.8 billion
more is needed. So our sunk costs are approximately two-thirds of the
cost of this second engine.
We have consistently supported it in the Armed Services Committee.
This is not new. We feel the value of competition will more than make
up for all of the costs and surely far more than make up for the final
costs which we need in order to complete the development of this second
engine.
I do support the Bayh amendment. I think it makes sense in terms of
the fundamental point of competition, it makes sense fiscally, and it
makes good sense in terms of the quantity we are buying. There is a
huge buy, 2,500 planes, engines, and perhaps 500 more in terms of the
export market. It is a huge buy. With this size buy and given the
precedent of other planes--at least three that have had two engines
available for them--with that precedent and with these savings, I hope
the Bayh amendment is accepted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, first, I ask unanimous consent that
the Senator from New Hampshire, Mrs. Shaheen, be added as a cosponsor
to the amendment Senator McCain and I and others have offered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend from New Hampshire
for joining us on this amendment. We have a dispute about whether there
was competition. I guess it depends on what you describe as
competition.
There clearly was competition for the Joint Strike Fighter plane
engine in the 1990s. In 1996, Pratt & Whitney and General Electric each
submitted engine proposals to the three airframe manufacturers that
were competing for the Joint Strike Fighter contract: Lockheed, Boeing,
McDonnell Douglas. Two of the three selected the Pratt & Whitney
engine, and it happened that those two airframe manufacturers were
down-selected for the final competition. Ultimately, in 2001, Lockheed
was selected to start the design and development with the Pratt &
Whitney engine.

[[Page S7964]]

I believe there was a competition. General Electric lost. It has gone
the other way on other occasions. And this is a legislative attempt to
achieve by legislation what could not be achieved through competition.
Secondly, my dear friend Senator Levin, the chairman, and I may have
an effectual disagreement on how much more going for the second engine
will cost. He believes it will be $1.8 billion. I cited earlier in this
debate statistics that show it will be between $4.5 and $5.5 billion.
That is not the main point. Madam President, $1.8 billion is a lot more
to spend on an engine I have submitted to my colleagues we do not need.
Not only do we not need it, the Air Force testified before our
committee that if we spend this money on a second engine, we are going
to get, by General Shackelford's testimony to us, 53 fewer Joint Strike
Fighters in the next 5 years. We will not be able to afford them. That
is a serious consequence.
What about this engine that has been selected? The F-135 engine has
flown over 11,000 test hours and delivered 12 flight test engines. The
F-135 uses a core that has been delivered and is being used in the F-
22. It will have close to 1 million flight hours by the time this
selected engine, the Pratt & Whitney F-135, enters operational service
in 2012. That is quite a remarkable record and one that justifies what
Secretary Gates said to us in a letter he sent to us this morning:
``The current engine is performing well with more than 11,000 test
hours.'' I think the record is a clear one.
I, again, respectfully thank my friend from Indiana. Senator McCain
said he has argued well. He is a dear friend. We would rather be on the
same side on issues. We both feel strongly about this issue. Therefore,
I respectfully urge my colleagues to vote against the Bayh amendment
and for our amendment which would end funding for a second unnecessary
engine.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
Mr. BAYH. Madam President, unless my friend and colleague from
Arizona has something new and shocking to say, I am going to yield back
the remainder of my time.
First, I thank both of my colleagues for the tenor of the debate. We
have some honest differences of opinion. I find myself much more
comfortable working with my colleague, Senator Lieberman, in a variety
of capacities. Senator McCain and I are one of a hearty band of a few
who come to the floor in agreement to oppose wasteful measures. I look
forward to resuming that partnership in the future even though we have
a respectful difference of opinion today. I only wish all our debates
could be as focused and collegial as this has been.
Having said that, I thank my colleagues. Unless Chairman Levin has
anything additional to say, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, has all the time been yielded back?
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask my friend from Arizona if there is anything more
he would like to say.
Mr. McCAIN. I think we are prepared to vote.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I will say very briefly, to wind up,
the Bayh amendment does remove the 130s from the Air Force. It is true
they got money in the supplemental, but statements we got this morning
from the Air Force and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the 130s
they got in the supplemental, which are critically needed, leave open--
in other words, they are nowhere near their requirements for that plane
which is critically important to the Air Force and particularly to our
special operations forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, and throughout the
world in the war on terrorism.
I would just close by reading a statement from President Obama, when
he introduced his defense budget on May 15.

We are going to save money by eliminating unnecessary
Defense programs that do nothing to keep us safe but rather
prevent us from spending money on what does keep us safe. One
example is a $465 million program to build an alternate
engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. The Defense Department
is already pleased with the engine it has. The engine it has
works. The Pentagon does not want and does not plan to use
the alternate version. That is why the Pentagon stopped
requesting this program funding 2 years ago.

And then from Secretary Gates, just today:

It is my belief the Joint Strike Fighter program presented
in the President's budget request is in the best interest of
national security. If a final bill is presented to the
President containing provisions that would seriously disrupt
the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, the President's senior
advisers will recommend that the President veto the bill.

That is from Secretary Gates' letter.
So I submit to my colleagues, I believe we have shown today that the
second engine funding will seriously disrupt the Joint Strike Fighter
Program. Again, I respectfully ask my colleagues to oppose the
amendment from our good friend from Indiana and support the amendment
we have offered.
I thank the Chair, and if there is no one else who wants to speak, I
yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12:35
p.m., all time remaining for debate with respect to these amendments,
Nos. 1627 and 1767, having been yielded back, the Senate then proceed
to vote in relation to the amendments in the order previously entered,
with the second vote 10 minutes in duration and all other provisions of
the previous order remaining in effect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I modify that unanimous consent request
and ask that the vote begin immediately at 12:34 and a half p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1767 offered by the
Senator from Indiana. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Byrd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator
from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 38, nays 59, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 240 Leg.]

YEAS--38

Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Brown
Bunning
Burr
Burris
Cantwell
Carper
Cochran
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Dorgan
Feingold
Gillibrand
Graham
Hagan
Hutchison
Inouye
Johanns
Kerry
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lugar
McCaskill
McConnell
Murkowski
Murray
Sanders
Stabenow
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb

NAYS--59

Akaka
Alexander
Barrasso
Bennet
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Cardin
Casey
Chambliss
Coburn
Collins
Crapo
DeMint
Dodd
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Franken
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kaufman
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Lieberman
Lincoln
Martinez
McCain
Menendez
Merkley
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden

NOT VOTING--3

Byrd
Kennedy
Mikulski
The amendment (No. 1767) was rejected.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1627

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to
amendment No. 1627, offered by the Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent, with the
concurrence of the proponents and the opponents, that the 2 minutes be
yielded back and that this be voice voted.

[[Page S7965]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. All time
is yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1627.
The amendment (No. 1627) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion upon the table.
The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.
Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1760

Mr. KYL. Madam President, let me take a moment to indicate to
colleagues where we are at the moment. The pending business is my
amendment, amendment No. 1760, dealing with the START treaty. We need
to have our nuclear weapons program modernized consistent with the
START treaty.
What we are thinking of doing is to start the debate with about 2
minutes of conversation, and then if we are able to work out an
agreement with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and other
members who have an interest in this, we can avoid a long, protracted
debate and potentially a lot of votes on alternatives as well as this
amendment.
In the meantime, other business on the bill could be conducted. I
think the next business the chairman intends would be for Senator
Schumer to speak. So what I would suggest is that we move forward to
try to work out an agreement. The essence is simply this, for my
colleagues who are interested in this START treaty: We know there is a
treaty, or at least we hope a treaty is going to be submitted to the
Senate late this year.
We would be reducing the number of nuclear warheads and delivery
systems in an agreement with the Russians. That makes it even more
necessary to put some money into our current nuclear program, the
infrastructure and our nuclear stockpile, to bring it up to snuff, to
modernize it, and to ensure that it meets the test for safety,
security, and credibility.
We need to have a plan for doing that, that is at least no later than
the point at which the treaty would be submitted to the Senate so we
know what we are going to be able to support. Hopefully, what we would
do is convey to the administration jointly, Democrats and Republicans,
our desire to have that submittal to the Senate to have a study we
could put into law as a part of this bill that would call for bringing
in that modernization program and thereby avoid voting specifically on
the amendment No. 1760 I have proposed.
We are trying to work out the details of that. If we can do that, we
can probably save quite a bit of time.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, let me thank my friend from Arizona.
First of all, we are trying to work out an approach which would be
satisfactory to the issue and will save a lot of time if we can work it
out. If we cannot, we can go to a vote on his amendment. The regular
order would be to go back to the Kyl amendment as I understand it at
this point. We are going to ask unanimous consent that the Senator from
New York be recognized to introduce an amendment, that it be in order
for him to do so, and that after 15 minutes we vote.
I ask unanimous consent that after 15 minutes of debate, with no
amendments being in order to the amendment, we then proceed to a vote,
understanding it would be a voice, and then the regular order would be
restored, which is the Kyl amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, if the chairman would
agree, the Senator from Montana wants to take some time to talk about
his amendment which is germane, but he wants to talk about it. We have
not had a chance to examine it. Then we could go back to the Kyl
amendment, pending hopefully an agreement.
Mr. LEVIN. I would modify my unanimous consent request that after the
disposition of the Schumer amendment, then Senator Tester be recognized
for 10 minutes to talk about his amendment, without the consent to
offer it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Reserving the right to object, is there a time
agreement on the Schumer amendment?
Mr. LEVIN. Fifteen minutes is what I reserved.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Thank you. I do not object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New York is recognized.

Amendment No. 1764

(Purpose: To ensure that absent uniformed services voters and overseas
voters are aware of their voting rights and have a genuine opportunity
to register to vote and have their absentee ballots cast and counted,
and for other purposes)

Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending
amendment so we can call up amendment No. 1764.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an
amendment numbered 1764.

Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text
of Amendments.'')
Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent I be yielded 5 minutes of the
15; Senator Bennett, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, be
given 5 minutes; and Senator Chambliss be given 5 minutes, divided that
way.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). Without objection,
it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. I rise to talk about Amendment No. 1764, called the MOVE
Act, The Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act of 2009. I first
wish to thank my colleague, Senator Bennett, for his hard work. He was
indispensable in getting this done, as were Senator Chambliss and
Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Senator Cornyn, who had previous
legislation that was similar. I also wish to thank the Chairman,
Senator Levin, as well as Senator McCain, for helping us.
The MOVE Act is a bipartisanship solution to a serious, yet all too
familiar, problem. The bottom line is, our soldiers overseas have a
very difficult time in voting. With the MOVE Act, with 58 cosponsors,
we can tackle this problem head on and make voting for our military
overseas men and women easier.
We chaired a hearing in the Rules Committee that brought up the
problems, and they are shocking. The bottom line is very simple. If you
are in the military, it is very difficult to comply with State
registration laws. You have to go through two post offices, military
mail, and then the regular post office. There is no availability of
notaries. Many States require notaries.
There is also the problem, of course, that you have to do everything,
by many State laws, by mail. And the mail takes forever when you are
overseas.
Couple that with the fact that for absentee voting, which by
definition these voters have to use, there are serious deadlines. All
too often our soldiers get their absentee ballot after the deadline has
passed to send them in. All too often, even more frequently, the voting
ballot does not arrive by the deadline the State has set.
So these are serious problems. The bottom line is, with technology,
they all could be overcome. We have faxes, we have e-mails, we have
computers, and we do not use them for our soldiers overseas. They can
risk their lives for us, we can at least allow them to vote. They take
orders from the Commander in Chief. They are the first people who ought
to be allowed to elect and vote for a Commander in Chief.
If we can deploy tanks and high-tech equipment and food to the
frontlines, we can figure out a way to deliver ballots to our troops so
they can be returned and counted. That is what the MOVE Act does,
correcting the many

[[Page S7966]]

flaws that riddle absentee ballots for overseas voting.
The numbers are very troubling. More than a quarter of all ballots
either come in too late or are not counted. That is a serious problem.
When our soldiers who have so much else on their minds go out of their
way to get the absentee ballot cast, then it is not counted. That is
frustrating. That is wrong. That is not American.
So our bill--and the details are available in the Record--deals with
that issue. One soldier sent to the Overseas Vote Foundation a letter
which said: ``I hate that because of my military service from overseas,
I was precluded from voting.''
That soldier continues: ``Of all people, deployed servicemembers
should have a guaranteed ability to vote.'' That sums it up. That sums
it up.
The MOVE Act will ensure it by allowing ballots to be sent
electronically, dealing with the time gaps and all the other problems
we face. It is bipartisan. Again, both Senator Bennett and I on the
Rules Committee support it. Senator Chambliss and Senator Ben Nelson,
who have done such a good job, are the cosponsors of this legislation.
We can finally solve this problem, which is unacceptable, by moving
this legislation.
I ask my colleagues, how can a marine in Fallujah find a notary? Why
are we making things so hard? How can somebody who goes out of his or
her way to cast a ballot have that ballot not counted? This legislation
solves the problem in a fair, measured way that is cognizant of the
rights of States to set the voting laws as they wish. I hope we will
have unanimous support.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am happy to cosponsor the bill Senator
Schumer has just discussed, the Military and Overseas Voters
Empowerment Act or the MOVE Act. As the ranking member of the Rules
Committee, I have served alongside Chairman Schumer and commend him for
his decision to make this a priority and move it through the committee.
Our military personnel make tremendous sacrifices for this country, and
we need to make sure they are able to exercise their right to vote. I
thank Senator Schumer's staff as well for the cooperative way in which
we have moved this forward and for his willingness to deal with two
other colleagues on the committee, Senator Chambliss and Senator
Nelson.
When the legislation was introduced in its original form, I raised
concerns with Senator Schumer about some of its provisions. He worked
with me and my staff to address those concerns, and the amendment
before us today effectively does so. That is why I am pleased to now be
a cosponsor of the bill.
The difficulties our service personnel face in attempting to vote
have been well documented. The Senator from New York has described
them. I believe this amendment deals with them in a proper fashion.
I want to clarify several points for the record. We recognize that
election administration is carried out at the local level, and we have
no intention of transferring those functions to the State in this
legislation. The amendment makes clear that States may comply with the
obligations imposed on them hereunder by delegating their
responsibilities to other jurisdictions in the States, just as they
have for so many years in complying with the Uniformed and Overseas
Citizens Absentee Voting Act. Also, the amendment requires States
seeking Federal funds to meet the requirements imposed by this
amendment to update their State plans which have been previously
submitted pursuant to HAVA, the Help America Vote Act. The amendment
clarifies that only States seeking the funds authorized by and
appropriated pursuant to this amendment are obligated to update their
State plans.
With that clarification, I thank Senator Schumer and my other
colleagues who worked so hard on this legislation: the two I mentioned,
Senators Chambliss and Nelson, as well as Senator Cornyn, who is not a
member of the committee but who has worked on it. I appreciate their
bringing the issue before the Senate. I am proud to support it and look
forward to its unanimous passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for
amendment No. 1764 offered by the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer.
With the leadership of Senator Schumer and Senator Bennett, we have
crafted one of the most substantive and comprehensive military and
overseas voting reforms we have seen in years. This amendment tackles
some very tough issues while taking States rights into account.
In May of this year, Senator Bennett was consumed with another issue,
and he asked me to cochair a hearing with Senator Schumer on military
and overseas voting. We heard testimony from numerous witnesses
regarding the difficulty of military and overseas voting. This
amendment addresses some of those concerns and is a significant step
toward ensuring that military and overseas voters are not
disenfranchised.
The amendment establishes uniform standards for the request and
delivery of blank balloting material that takes into account all
available technologies. It makes sure all overseas voters have time to
vote by requiring States to send out ballots to military and overseas
voters at least 45 days before election day. It utilizes expedited mail
delivery services for our uniformed members serving overseas, ensuring
a timely delivery of completed ballots. It establishes a requirement
for service Secretaries to designate voter registration agencies at
military installations to assist with voter registration and aid our
voting assistance officers. It lays the groundwork to gather needed
information to continue to improve the overseas absentee voting process
and will help existing voting oversight organizations gather key voting
metrics to help make key decisions ahead of future elections.
Not since the passage of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee
Voting Act in 1986 have we proposed such significant legislation
designed to help the men and women of the military who time and time
again are called upon to defend the rights and freedoms we Americans
hold so sacred.
Unfortunately, our military is one of the most disenfranchised voting
blocks we have. Today we have the opportunity to correct this problem.
I am extremely pleased with this legislation and proud to have been a
part of the team that put this amendment together.
There are 57 other cosponsors which is representative of the strong
support for this amendment and significant concern around the country
regarding this issue. I thank Senator Schumer and his staff for leading
this effort and helping make this legislation become a reality. I thank
Senator Ben Nelson, my good friend and colleague, on the Armed Services
Committee, for his efforts in this matter. It would not have happened
without his strong leadership.
I also thank Senator Bennett and his staff for their strong efforts
in putting this bill in the proper perspective and making sure that all
issues were properly addressed. I also thank Senator Cornyn for his
leadership over the years on this issue. Senator Cornyn is not a member
of the Rules Committee, but he has been very engaged on this issue over
the last several years. His input was valuable. There is no question
that his support for the amendment and contributions he and his staff
have made to the amendment have made what was a good amendment a much
better one.
Lastly, I thank the secretary of state of the State of Georgia, Karen
Handel, also a very valuable asset to us as we went through the process
of putting this bill together. She and her staff responded very timely
and were honest in the feedback we got from them. Their contributions
helped make sensible changes that make the amendment better. Their
partnership on this effort will move us forward in the right direction
toward ensuring every overseas voter wishing to vote will be able to do
so.
Again, to my colleague from New York, it has been a pleasure to work
on this. It is one other asset that we can give to our men and women in
uniform; that is, to make sure they have the ability to participate in
what we all take for granted but a very precious right, that being the
right to vote.

[[Page S7967]]

I yield the floor.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of
amendment No. 1764, better known as the Military and Overseas Voter
Empowerment Act. I wish to express my appreciation to Senators Schumer
and Chambliss for their leadership and excellent work on this issue and
acknowledge the outstanding support and contributions of Senators
Bennett and Cornyn, whose involvement has improved this bill and whose
ongoing support will help us enact it into law. This effort has been
constructive and bipartisan all the way, as evidenced by our list of 58
bipartisan cosponsors, and I am very proud of the bill we have
produced.
We owe it to our men and women in uniform to protect their right to
vote. And for military and overseas voters, that right is only as good
as their ability to cast a ballot and have it counted. For years, we
have known of the obstacles these brave Americans face in exercising
their right to vote, often when far from home and in harm's way. I
firmly believe this legislation will make a huge impact in empowering
our military and overseas voters to have their votes counted, no matter
where they find themselves on election day.
Simply put, the status quo for these voters is unacceptable. It is
hard for military families to keep their voter registration information
current, and it is often difficult to deliver ballots to overseas
voters in enough time for them to vote and return the ballot by the
time the polls close.
The poor results from recent elections speak for themselves. In 2008,
statistics from the seven States with the greatest number of deployed
troops show that one in four military and overseas voters were unable
to have their vote counted. In 2006, the situation was even worse:
according to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, up to two-thirds
of ballots requested by voters under the Uniformed and Overseas
Citizens Voting Act were either not cast or not counted.
We discussed these numbers and heard testimony from State and local
officials at a hearing in the Rules Committee earlier this year. The
challenges we face are significant, but a number of very excellent
recommendations were made at that hearing, and Senators Schumer and
Chambliss and I immediately got to work on a commonsense bill to
improve and streamline the process for these voters. The bill we came
up with was amended and reported unanimously by the Rules Committee
last week. The product of that effort is now before the Senate as an
amendment to the Defense bill.
I urge the adoption of the amendment, and I will push for it to be
enacted into law in this bill, because as State and local election
officials know, voting reforms need to be put in place well in advance.
The way they see it, the next Federal election is right around the
corner. Now is our chance to make a difference for 2010.
This legislation harnesses technology to speed up the voting process
by allowing registration and ballot requests to be sent electronically.
It ensures that military and overseas voters have time to vote by
requiring ballots to be sent out 45 days before the election and
allowing blank ballots to be sent electronically. It also provides some
flexibility to States that cannot meet the 45-day deadline, as long as
they come up with an alternative plan to ensure time to vote. In
addition, it will harness the creativity of States and local officials
by authorizing pilot projects to test new voting technology, with
appropriate safeguards for privacy and security. The legislation also
requires the Department of Defense to play a more significant role in
facilitating voter registration and in collecting and returning voted
ballots in cooperation with the Postal Service.
The MOVE Act, as we call it, has the support of the Alliance for
Military and Overseas Voting Rights, which is a coalition of over 30
military associations, nonprofit organizations, elected officials, and
student groups dedicated to ensuring that Americans abroad have an
equal right and opportunity to vote. We also have the support of many
other groups, including the National Association of County Officials,
which is especially important because having the support of State and
local officials means that our efforts are endorsed by the people who
actually carry out elections in this country, which can often be a
thankless job.
In conclusion, I would like to thank all 57 of the amendment's
cosponsors, especially Senators Schumer and Chambliss and the others I
mentioned who have shown real leadership on this issue. This amendment
is bipartisan, noncontroversial, and necessary to solve a persistent
problem that has dogged our troops and overseas voters for years. We
tackle those problems head-on, and I think we will see real, tangible
results from this legislation.
Mr. President, it is our responsibility to ensure the right to vote
for the men and women of our Armed Forces and others serving overseas;
they protect our rights, and we have an opportunity today to return the
favor by passing the MOVE Act. I urge the amendment's adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I will note that this amendment passed
unanimously out of the Committee on Rules, which has joint
jurisdiction, last week.
I yield back all remaining time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
1764.
The amendment (No. 1764) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. SCHUMER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1564

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to say a few
words about amendment No. 1564, an amendment I am seeking agreement on,
and hopefully we will achieve agreement between the majority and
minority. This amendment will allow but not require the Secretary of
each service branch to allow family members of fallen servicemembers to
attend one memorial service as a way of helping to honor those who give
their lives to our Nation. Although the Defense Department's current
regulations permit the services to provide transportation of family
members to the burial service of a servicemember killed on Active Duty,
the regulations do not allow travel to memorial services. This can be
particularly painful when a parent or sibling cannot afford to travel
to a memorial service held by a unit or even other family members.
Although some charity groups have been able to help families attend
memorial services for their fallen loved ones when servicemembers die
in service to their country, it is the government's moral obligation to
help their families in every possible way. This is not an abstract
problem; it is all too real to some families.
A little over a year ago, on May 1, 2008, a soldier with a family in
both Montana and Arizona was seriously wounded while serving in Iraq.
Four days after being injured he was being transferred from an Army
hospital in Germany to Walter Reed. While en route, the soldier's
injuries worsened and the plane was diverted to Halifax, Nova Scotia.
It was there that he passed away on May 15.
Like too many children today, this soldier grew up with divorced
parents. His father is a constituent of mine. His mother is a
constituent of the distinguished ranking Republican on the Armed
Services Committee. When his family and friends in Phoenix organized a
memorial service for him, his father asked the casualty affairs officer
assigned to him if the Army could pay for him to attend the memorial
service. He was told, no; that it is not an authorized expense. The
Army cannot pay for such a plane ticket.
My office was contacted, and we were able to work out with a
nonprofit organization to obtain a plane ticket for the soldier's
father to attend the memorial service but only after considerable
frustration and pain.
This amendment would make travel to a single memorial service an
authorized expense. It is supported by the Gold Star Mothers.
Our troops and veterans have earned every benefit and every paycheck
they get from our country. Every single Member of the Senate has been
steadfast in that support. But the families of folks who serve this
country have earned our Nation's support and respect as well. Sometimes
we do not do

[[Page S7968]]

enough to recognize the sacrifice that comes along with having a loved
one in the Armed Forces. This amendment provides the families of our
servicemembers one small measure of support and appreciation.
I thank Senators Levin and McCain for the work they have done on this
bill and, hopefully, the work they did to get this amendment accepted.
I also wanted to take some time this afternoon to speak about a dire
situation in Columbus, MT. At this moment there are 1,300 employees of
the Stillwater Mining Company who are going to work wondering about the
future of their company and the future of their jobs. Yesterday a
bankruptcy court in New York nullified a contract between Stillwater
Mine, the only palladium and platinum producer in the United States,
and General Motors. General Motors petitioned the bankruptcy court to
drop its precious metals contract with the Montana mining company so it
can instead use foreign, cheaper suppliers based outside this country,
specifically in Russia and South Africa. I would have a big problem
under any circumstances for an American corporate icon to choose
foreign suppliers over a viable American option, but when we consider
that General Motors only exists today due to the direct assistance of
the American taxpayer, this decision is appalling and weakens our
American manufacturing base.
As a member of the Senate Banking Committee, I attended the marathon
hearings late last year where the domestic automakers pleaded for
government assistance. On November 18 of last year, I relayed to
executives from Ford, Chrysler and, yes, GM the importance of spending
taxpayer funds in the United States. I said I would have to ask: Where
is the money going to be spent, who is it going to be spent on, and
what country is it going to be spent in? Those are all critically
important questions.
If we are using taxpayer dollars, from my perspective, it ought to be
spent in the United States. In response, I was assured that taxpayer
funds would be spent domestically to rebuild the auto manufacturers. By
negating Stillwater's contract, GM is not investing domestically. They
are not investing in American jobs. They are not investing in this
country. It goes against the grain when we see a viable company that
has recently gotten into trouble, such as GM, go against what they told
me in committee.
When General Motors came pleading to the Senate late last year, they
spoke of the fate of their employees, but they also spoke of the fate
of small parts manufacturers, miners, dealerships, and other
interconnected businesses dependent on GM.
I voted against giving taxpayer dollars to the auto manufacturers,
just as I voted against the Wall Street bailout. The auto manufacturers
didn't convince me they would spend the money wisely and that they
would spend it in the United States. I wish I were wrong, but they are
not spending the taxpayer dollars wisely, in my opinion, and they are
not spending the taxpayer dollars in the United States. And it is the
folks at Stillwater, like many auto dealerships in Montana and across
rural America, who are hurting.

With its $50 billion in taxpayer funds, General Motors recently
emerged from bankruptcy, and with its first repayment on the $50
billion owed to the American taxpayer, the new GM has decided to dump
its only domestic supplier of palladium. They have failed to present a
significant need to do business with foreign suppliers when they can
contract with a company right here in America that employs more than
1,300 hard-working Americans.
For the last decade, Stillwater has supplied GM with palladium and
rhodium, which are used to make catalytic converters that filter
pollutants from vehicle exhaust. The palladium sales to auto companies
accounted for 42.8 percent of Stillwater's revenue last year.
General Motors' rejection of its contract with Stillwater will result
in company losses of about $500,000 per month and almost certainly
means losing countless good-paying American jobs--and those American
jobs, in this case, happen to be in Montana.
Stillwater is one of Montana's largest employers. The economic well-
being of 1,300 Montanans at Stillwater who work at the mines in Nye and
Big Timber is no doubt in serious trouble. GM's actions threaten the
well-being of families, numerous small communities, and dozens of
interconnected Montana businesses.
Immediately after the court ruled against Stillwater and its
employees, I joined with the senior Senator from Montana, Max Baucus,
in urging General Motors to reconsider their decision to choose foreign
suppliers over a proven domestic partner.
I still hope they make the right decision and realize the new GM only
exists today because of the American taxpayers--taxpayers such as the
Montanans who work at the Stillwater mines. Maybe they do not care
about placing American jobs at risk, but the fact is--as I do, and we
do--they should.
I cannot express adequately today the disappointment I have had and
that I have with GM's decision to negate the contract with Stillwater
Mining. It is part of that manufacturing base that I think is so
critically important to this country, and they are turning their back
on it.
With that, I yield the floor, 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. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to ask unanimous consent to engage
in a colloquy for a minute with the distinguished chairman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I understand we are hopefully close to an
agreement on the Kyl amendment and then we could set up, following that
agreement, the Burr amendment, followed by an Akaka amendment, and our
staffs will be working on further amendments so our colleagues will
know.
Mr. LEVIN. Our goal is precisely that. We are trying to work out an
agreement with Senator Kyl. Staffs are trying to work out a time
agreement. The order, though, hopefully will be Senator Burr and then
Senator Akaka. But we have to make sure the proper committees are
notified that are involved in those amendments, and then we could, I
think, have a unanimous consent agreement. That is our goal.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the chairman. For the benefit of our colleagues I
still think it is possible--and I think the chairman would agree--to
finish up by tonight, if we could have expeditious handling of the
amendments but which may require us to finish by tomorrow, I hope.
Mr. LEVIN. I am very pleased to hear the optimistic assessment. I
can't honestly say I share that optimism, but I will be delighted to be
surprised.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business while we are waiting for the outcome of the
negotiations that I had a colloquy with the chairman about.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Earmark Reform

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have long spoken about the broken
appropriations process and the corruption it breeds. I remain deeply
concerned over the damage done to our country and, indeed, this
institution by their continued abuse. I ask my colleagues: How many
more pay-to-play scandals will it take before we enact comprehensive
and meaningful earmark reform?
Look at the scandals over the last 5 years alone: Former U.S.
Representative Randy Cunningham sits in a Federal prison today for
selling earmarks. Among the many bribes Cunningham admitted receiving
was the sale of his house at an inflated price; the use of a yacht,
free; a used Rolls Royce; antique furniture; Persian rugs; jewelry; and
a $2,000 contribution for his daughter's college graduation party. In
return, he earmarked untold millions of dollars and pressured the
Department of Defense to award contracts to his coconspirators.
Of course, Senator Dorgan and I spent nearly 2 years investigating
the Indian lobbying practices of Jack

[[Page S7969]]

Abramoff, who reportedly dubbed appropriations committees ``a favor
factory.'' One former Senate staffer pled guilty to accepting gifts in
exchange for helping Mr. Abramoff's team on appropriations matters. An
ex-official in the Department of Justice pled guilty to accepting
bribes for helping Mr. Abramoff's client secure millions of dollars to
build a jail. In all, over 20 people--including an ex-Congressman,
administration officials, congressional staffers, and lobbyists--have
been indicted, convicted or pled guilty.
The Department of Justice investigation into this matter still
continues to this day.
We have today multiple pay-to-play scandals unfolding before our
eyes. We read weekly, almost daily, news article after news article
about numerous criminal investigations revolving around earmarks. Take,
for example, the ongoing criminal investigation into the PMA Group.
Most Americans have probably never heard of the PMA Group. The PMA
Group was a DC lobbying firm with deep ties to Capitol Hill and a
reputation for securing lucrative earmarks for its clients, especially
defense earmarks. As I have said many times, it is the ``Willie Sutton
Syndrome,'' because when he was asked why he robbed banks, he said:
``That's where the money is.'' The reason why a lot of these corrupting
earmarks came out of defense is because that is where the money is.
The PMA Group boasted more than $15 million in revenue last year. The
PMA Group clients reportedly received $300 million in defense earmarks
for fiscal year 2008 and $317 million for fiscal year 2009. The PMA
Group and its clients spread around a lot of campaign contributions in
an attempt to curry favor with lawmakers.
Last November, the Federal Bureau of Investigation raided PMA's
offices and the home of its founder, Paul Magliocchetti. According to
news reports, prosecutors were initially focused on whether Mr.
Magliocchetti used a Florida wine steward and a golf club executive as
a front to funnel illegal donations to lawmakers. The Washington Post
examined campaign contributions reportedly given by employees of the
PMA Group and found listed in donor records ``several people who were
not registered lobbyists and did not work for the lobbying firm,''
including a 75-year-old California man who had never even heard of the
firm.
Since then, the Department of Justice has raided the offices of a
number of PMA clients and their business partners. A Federal grand jury
reportedly subpoenaed records from one U.S. Representative's
congressional and campaign offices and the FBI is interviewing his
staffers.
Last week, we read about yet another scandal involving people and
firms in PMA's orbit. According to a July 15 Associated Press news
article, the former head of the defense contractor, Coherent Systems
International, pled guilty in Federal court to defrauding the U.S.
Government and accepting kickbacks. Two former PMA clients are
reportedly caught up in the scandal.
According to court documents, in October of 2005, the Air Force
Research Lab awarded Coherent an $8.1 million contract to deliver four
Ground Mobile Gateway Systems. An $8.2 million earmark contained in a
tsunami relief bill funded the contract. Get that: It was for a Ground
Mobile Gateway System included in a tsunami relief bill. Not
surprisingly, Coherent had lobbied for that earmark. At the time,
Coherent was represented by a firm called KSA Consulting.
Coherent submitted to the government at least $1.8 million in
purchase orders outside the scope of the Air Force contract. What did
the government get for its $1.8 million? Coherent paid two
subcontractors, which were also represented by KSA Consulting, almost
$600,000 for software that was not called for under the Air Force
contract. What did Coherent do with the software? It literally threw
the software in a closet where it sat collecting dust.
Coherent paid another subcontractor $650,000 for the delivery of five
prototypes, also not part of the prime contract. Some reports suggest
that this is the same subcontractor that allegedly bribed Coherent's
president and whose offices the FBI raided earlier this year.
Coherent also paid Schaller Engineering, a former PMA client,
$200,000 for technology that was never delivered. We now know where the
money went. On July 21, 2009, Roll Call reported that the former Air
Force contracting official, on the Mobile Common Data Link Gateway
program, pled guilty to ``skimming money from an earmark that was
provided to a Pennsylvania defense contractor.'' In his plea agreement,
the official admits to approving invoices that were not part of the
contract and then taking the kickback from the defense contractor.
This is outrageous, but I also believe it is only the tip of the
iceberg. We will undoubtedly see the continued march of news reports
about further indictments and guilty pleas.
Earmarks breed corruption, purely and simply. The current earmarking
process doesn't stop it or adequately guard against it. So I ask my
colleagues: How many more scandals must we suffer before we enact
meaningful earmark reform? How low must Congress's approval rating sink
before we act to repair this institution's reputation? How many more
lawmakers, staffers, government officials, and contractors have to go
to jail before we actually fix this process?
Unfortunately, Congress's earmarking practices have grown worse, not
better, just about every year I have served in the Senate. This year
promises to be the worst. We began the year by passing a $400 billion
Omnibus appropriations bill with almost 9,000 earmarks in it. Contrary
to his promise to the American people to stem the tide of earmarks, the
President refused to veto that pork-laden bill. In fact, he signed it
in a quiet room far from the public eye, I might add, using the
rationale it was ``last year's business,'' even though it was passed
this year.

Two weeks ago, the Senate approved a $44 billion Department of
Homeland Security appropriations bill. It was over $200 million more
than last year's bill and almost $100 million more than the President's
budget request. It, too, was laden with numerous unrequested,
unauthorized earmarks added at the direction of members of the
Appropriations Committee in the Senate. Rest assured, we will see more
earmarks in the other appropriations bills that come to the floor later
this year. Even the pending fiscal year 2010 national defense
authorization bill is not insulated from the practice.
Americans all over the country are hurting. People are losing their
jobs, their savings, and their homes. So what do we do? We continue
this disgraceful earmarking process, elevating parochialism and
patronage politics over the true needs and welfare of this Nation. The
President pledged during his campaign he would work to eliminate
earmarks. The Speaker of the House promised to drain the swamp. Given
the abysmal state of our economy, Americans can no longer wait for them
to make good on their promises. Earmark reform is needed and it is
needed now.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following articles be
printed in the Record:
July 21, 2009: ``Ex-Air Force Employee Pleads Guilty in Case Tied to
Murtha Earmark.''
The Hill, July 21, 2009: ``Second Contractor Pleads Guilty in Earmark
Probe.''
July 21, 2009: ``Inquiries Focus on Subcommittee Ties.''
July 15, 2009: ``Ex-Defense Contractor CEO Enters Fraud Guilty
Plea.''
Washington Post, February 14, 2009: ``Despite Listing, Donors Don't
Work For Firm Being Probed.''
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From Roll Call, July 21, 2009]

Ex-Air Force Employee Pleads Guilty in Case Tied to Murtha Earmark

(By Paul Singer)

A former Air Force employee pleaded guilty Monday to
skimming money from an earmark that was provided to a
Pennsylvania defense contractor by Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.).
In the plea agreement, Mark O'Hair admits he was the Air
Force official responsible for evaluating contract proposals
and making technical evaluations of contracts under the
``battlefield airman'' program, which was designed to
integrate battlefield communication technology.
According to the plea agreement, filed in a federal court
in Florida, in May 2005, ``Congress passed a tsunami relief
act which included within the provisions of the act an $8.2
million earmark for the development of

[[Page S7970]]

the `Mobile Common Data Link Gateway.' Coherent Systems
International, Inc. (CSI) had lobbied for this earmark
appropriation.''
Roll Call reported in June that Coherent was represented by
KSA Consulting, the lobbying firm that employed Murtha's
brother, Kit, and that the Congressman had provided this
earmark to Coherent by eliminating the same sum from a
project that had been designated for a previous client of his
brother's firm.
O'Hair admits in the plea agreement that he approved
several purchase orders from Coherent for items that were not
part of the Gateway project, including $275,000 to
VidiaFusion Inc. and $300,000 to Gensym, both for software
that was provided but never used. Gensym and VidiaFusion were
both clients of KSA as well.
O'Hair also approved a payment of $650,000 to Kuchera
Industries--a firm close to Murtha that was raided by the FBI
earlier this year for products that were not part of the
Gateway contract, and $200,000 to Schaller Engineering for
``target tags'' that were never provided. Schaller was
represented by the PMA Group lobbying firm, which was raided
by the FBI in November.
Richard Schaller, the founder of Schaller Engineering, then
distributed the $200,000 to O'Hair though another company he
created and to his business partner Thomas Sumrall, according
to the plea agreement. Sumrall has also pleaded guilty in the
case, but Schaller has not.
Richard Ianieri, the former CEO of Coherent Systems,
pleaded guilty July 14 to charges linked to the same scheme.
He has also pleaded guilty in a Pennsylvania court to taking
kickbacks from a subcontractor referred to as ``K'' for
favorable treatment under government contracts. Coherent
worked closely with Kuchera Industries and shared a facility
with the company. Bill Kuchera, the owner of Kuchera
Industries, has not been charged in the case.
Roll Call has previously reported that Kuchera, Sumrall,
Schaller, Ianieri, O'Hair and two KSA executives--Ken Stalder
and Richard Weiss--as well as a staffer from Rep. Murtha's
district office met with several other defense contractors in
September 2005 at the Nemacolin resort in Pennsylvania to
discuss opportunities to provide communication technologies
to the military.
Murtha has not been accused of any wrongdoing in the case,
and his office has said that anyone involved in illegal
activity connected to the project should be punished.
____

[From the Hill, July 21, 2009]

Second Contractor Pleads Guilty in Earmark Probe

(By Susan Crabtree)

A former Air Force contractor pleaded guilty Monday to a
false statement and conflict-of-interest charge in a widening
case involving several defense companies with ties to Rep.
John Murtha (D-Pa.).
Mark O'Hair faces up to 10 years in prison and a $500,000
fine for omitting any reference to his position as a director
of a defense company on financial disclosure forms required
for his position as a civilian program officer. The company
received more than $200,000 in government contracts while
O'Hair was in charge of awarding contractors for the Air
Force Research Laboratory at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida.
After retiring from the Air Force in 2001, O'Hair became
the senior electronic engineer with the Air Force Research
Lab Munitions. Two years later, he became the contracts
program manager for the Battlefield Airman program, which was
designed to improve the military's battlefield communications
systems.
O'Hair is the second defense contractor in a week to plead
guilty and agree to cooperate with a federal probe of an
earmarked contract Murtha directed to several companies.
Last week, Richard Ianieri, the former chief executive of
Coherent Systems International Corp., pleaded guilty to
accepting $200,000 in kickbacks. He received the kickbacks
from companies that he had parceled off some portions of the
contract to; however, he received little to no concrete work
in return.
Murtha is not accused of any wrongdoing in either case.
O'Hair's sentencing hearing is scheduled for October.
____

[From Politico, July 21, 2009]

Inquiries Focus on Subcommittee Ties

(By John Bresnahan)

The Appropriations Defense Subcommittee--always considered
the high altar of congressional spending power--has suddenly
become a liability for lawmakers touched by criminal
inquiries scrutinizing the nexus of lobbyists, earmarks and
Pentagon contracts.
Just in the past week: A Pennsylvania businessman with ties
to Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) pleaded guilty in a kickback
scheme, leading to new questions about Murtha's role in
getting earmarks for his brother's lobbying business. FBI
agents raided a Florida company linked to Rep. Bill Young (R-
Fla.), leading Young to withdraw a $4 million funding request
for the firm the next day. And Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.)
asked the Federal Election Commission for permission to use
his campaign funds to pay legal bills of current and former
staffers as part of the investigation into the PMA Group, a
lobbying shop that specialized in defense earmarks.
None of these lawmakers, who oversee more than $500 billion
in Pentagon spending, have been accused of wrongdoing, and no
one other than Visclosky and his former chief of staff,
Charles Brimmer, has even been subpoenaed at this point.
But this web of legal actions, all focused on suspicious
ties between lobbying, military contractors and the billions
in funding they receive, has once again cast a negative light
on the relationship between lawmakers and earmark recipients.
At this point, it's unclear whether the separate Justice
Department actions are part of one broad investigation into
earmarking and government contractors or are separate probes
on different tracks.
But the Department of Justice has certainly focused on some
of the most powerful members of Congress. Murtha is chairman
of the Defense Subcommittee, while Young, who chaired the
full Appropriations Committee for six years, is currently
ranking member of the panel. In addition to serving on
Defense, Visclosky is chairman of the Appropriations Energy
and Water Subcommittee.
All three lawmakers have consistently pushed tens of
millions of dollars in earmarks for companies back in their
districts. While Murtha may be the most well-known
practitioner of the trade, both Young and Visclosky are
masters of earmarking, as well.
``The chickens are coming home to roost,'' said Steve
Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a
government watchdog group that opposes earmarking.
The Justice Department is ``beating the drums, that's for
sure. They're really stirring things up,'' said a former
Appropriations Committee staffer turned lobbyist. ``Everyone
is kind of waiting for the next shoe to drop.''
And while the criminal investigations heat up at DOJ, House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is not protecting her
members, letting ethics inquiries move ahead inside the
House. The ethics committee has begun a preliminary review of
lawmakers' ties to PMA, after Democrats initially blocked
such a probe.
``We are going to let the chips fall where they may,'' said
a top aide to one Democratic leader. ``If they did something
wrong, they are going to have to pay for it. We're not going
to cover anything up for them.''
The seemingly constant questions about Murtha and his
relationship with legally troubled contractors have caused
the most political headaches for Pelosi, who pledged to stop
the ``culture of corruption'' she believes thrived under the
Republican-controlled Congress.
In November, the FBI raided the offices of the PMA Group.
Murtha has received more than $2.7 million in campaign
donations from PMA, its lobbyists and clients over the past
decade, but there have been no charges filed until now. The
PMA search was followed in January by another federal raid on
Kuchera Defense Systems, a Pennsylvania firm that has
received more than $50 million in federal contracts via
Murtha earmarks.
Last Wednesday, Richard ``Rick'' Ianieri, former CEO of
Coherent Systems International, pleaded guilty to taking
$200,000 in kickbacks from a subcontractor on an $8.2 million
Air Force contract earmarked by Murtha. Coherent's lobbyist
was Robert ``Kit'' Murtha, the congressman's brother, who
helped them win that earmark.
``We had no knowledge of these disturbing transactions, and
if they are true, then the individuals and companies in
question should be held accountable under the law,'' said
Matt Mazonkey, Murtha's spokesman.
On the same day that Ianieri pleaded guilty, federal agents
raided Conax Florida Corp. of St. Petersburg, Fla. Young has
earmarked more than $28 million for Conax, a maker of safety
devices for NASA and the Pentagon, since 2005, according to
the St. Petersburg Times.
According to the Federal Election Commission record, Young
received $6,000 in campaign contributions from Conax
employees.
Young has never attracted the same kind of scrutiny for his
earmarks as Murtha, although the St. Petersburg Times
reported last year that Young steered more than $73 million
in federal funds to a defense firm and nonprofit groups where
two of his sons work.
``You're going to have a hard time, with Young, finding
people to say he's somehow dirty or put him in the same
category as Murtha,'' said a former Appropriations Committee
aide.
Visclosky, the least well-known of the defense
appropriations trio, meanwhile, is searching for ways to
cover his legal bills--and those of his staffers snared by
his investigation.
Visclosky and Brimmer were issued subpoenas last month by a
federal grand jury in Washington that is investigating PMA.
``It is possible that additional subpoenas or requests for
information could be forthcoming for additional current and/
or former staff members,'' wrote Michael Malczewski,
Visclosky's treasurer.
With his reputation harmed by the PMA controversy,
Visclosky has temporarily stepped aside from overseeing the
energy and water spending bill. He has also given up $18,000
in PMA-related contributions.
While this swirl of legal action around companies and
lobbyists looks bad for these lawmakers, it's important to
point out that none of them have been accused of enriching
themselves personally--and that's what brought down lawmakers
in other recent cases.

[[Page S7971]]

The charges against former Reps. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), Jim
Traficant (D-Ohio), William Jefferson (D-La.) and Rick Renzi
(R-Ariz.) and Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) involved taking
official actions that directly benefited their own wallets.
``To my knowledge, none of these cases that are being
discussed in the press have come up with any evidence of that
at all,'' noted Scott Lilly, a former staff director for the
House Appropriations Committee who is now a senior fellow at
the Center for American Progress.
But the scrutiny of the Department of Justice into who gets
earmarks and how they get them must be rattling Capitol Hill.
``They realize that even with the best of intentions, you
really need to know a lot about the people who are being
helped by this process,'' Lilly added. ``And you need to know
they're on the level.''
____

Ex-Defense Contractor CEO Enters Fraud Guilty Plea

(By Christine Armario)

Pensacola, FL. (AP).--The former chief executive of a
defense contractor with ties to Rep. John Murtha pleaded
guilty in federal court Tuesday to a kickback scheme and
defrauding the Air Force, and promised to cooperate in an
ongoing criminal investigation.
Federal prosecutors said Richard S. Ianieri solicited
kickbacks from a subcontractor in Pennsylvania while he
headed Coherent Systems International Corp. Ianieri also was
charged with filing false purchase orders related to an Air
Force contract in Florida.
Ianieri pleaded guilty to both charges during a hearing in
Pensacola and is scheduled to be sentenced in September. He
could face up to 15 years in prison.
A nine-page plea agreement that Ianieri signed says the
government will urge a lighter prison sentence if he provides
substantial assistance ``in the investigation or prosecution
of other persons who have committed offenses.''
Following Ianieri's plea, Murtha spokesman Matthew Mazonkey
said it is not the congressman's job to oversee companies and
that ``if they broke the law, then they should be held
accountable for their actions.''
Murtha, D-Pa., has directed hundreds of millions of dollars
in government contracts over the years to Coherent and other
defense contractors through a process called earmarking.
``This case isn't about earmarks,'' said Mazonkey. ``It's
about individuals within the defense industry and the Defense
Department accused of defrauding the government.''
Executives at Coherent and two other companies named in
court papers in Ianieri's Florida case have donated over
$95,000 to Murtha's re-election campaigns and his political
action committee since 2002, according to Federal Election
Commission records.
One of the companies is Kuchera Industries Inc. of Windber,
Pa about 10 miles from Murtha's political home base of
Johnstown.
A felony information filed in Pittsburgh states that
Ianieri was given two kickbacks totaling nearly $200,000 from
a company identified only as ``K'' for ``improperly obtaining
and rewarding favorable treatment'' regarding a defense
subcontract.
In an April 2006 news release, Murtha announced that
Coherent and Kuchera Defense Systems were working ``virtually
as one company'' on 14 contracts worth $30 million to develop
high-tech military gear.
Kuchera's offices were raided by federal agents in January.
Kuchera built high-tech military components that Coherent
designed.
The Florida charges concern a Coherent contract given
through the Air Force Research Laboratory to deliver four
Ground Mobile Gateway Systems, which are designed to help
soldiers and pilots trace U.S. units and cut down on friendly
fire.
The United States paid Coherent $5.9 million to build the
systems. According to federal court papers, Coherent
subsequently paid about $1.8 million to subcontractors for
the delivery of software and materials that were not part of
the contract.
Ianieri was charged with presenting purchase orders to the
Air Force that he knew were ``false, fictitious and
fraudulent,'' court records state.
Murtha also has ties to lobbyists for some of the companies
under scrutiny. His brother worked from 2004 to 2006 for KSA
Consulting, of Rockville, Md., which lobbied for Coherent.
Another lobbying firm, PMA Group, represented two of the
companies involved in the Florida investigation.
Founded by a lobbyist who has long been close to Murtha,
PMA and its defense contractor clients have donated over $2
million to Murtha's re-election campaigns and to his
political action committee over the years.
Ianieri's attorney, W. Thomas Dillard, of Knoxville, Tenn.,
declined to comment after the hearing. He would not address
questions regarding whether Murtha had sponsored an $8.2
million earmark that included the money for Coherent.
Murtha's spokesman also has refused to say whether the
congressman was the sponsor.
Dillard also refused to say whether his client could
implicate Murtha or other members of Congress in allegedly
illegal conduct.
____

[From The Washington Post, Feb. 14, 2009]

Despite Listing, Donors Don't Work for Firm Being Probed

(By Carol D. Leonnig)

Marvin Hoffman is listed in campaign finance records as one
of the many lobbyists with the powerful PMA Group donating
money to lawmakers. But Hoffman is a soon-to-retire
information technology manager in Marina del Rey, Calif., who
has never heard of the Arlington lobbying firm or the Indiana
congressman to whom he supposedly gave $2,000.
``It's alarming that someone is stealing my identity
somewhere,'' Hoffman, 75, said in an interview. ``I've never
heard of this company.''
Another contributor listed as a PMA lobbyist is, in fact, a
sales manager for an inflatable boat manufacturer in New
Jersey. John Hendricksen said he did make campaign donations
but never worked at PMA and does not know how he ended up
listed in records that way.
These errors, along with other unusual donations linked to
the firm, come as the Justice Department examines allegations
that PMA may have violated campaign finance laws. The offices
of PMA, which ranked last year as the 10th-largest Washington
lobbying firm by earnings, were raided in November by FBI
agents and Defense Department investigators.
Federal investigators are focused on allegations that PMA
founder Paul Magliocchetti, a former appropriations staffer
close to Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), may have reimbursed
some of his staff to cover contributions made in their names
to Murtha and other lawmakers, according to two sources
familiar with the investigation. PMA has long had a
reputation for securing earmarks from congressional
appropriators, particularly for defense contractors, and it
has donated generously to influential members of Congress.
Magliocchetti personally gave $98,000 in campaign donations
last year, according to campaign records.
Federal election laws limit the amount of money individuals
may contribute to candidates, but lobbying firms often show
their clout by collecting and bundling contributions. It is
illegal for employers to reimburse donors for their
contributions.
The Washington Post examined contributions that were
reported as being made by PMA employees and consultants, and
found several people who were not registered lobbyists and
did not work at the lobbying firm. It is unclear whether the
donors misidentified as PMA associates are part of the
federal probe.
A PMA spokesman said the firm's management does not know
Hoffman or Hendricksen and does not know how the errors were
made in reports to the Federal Election Commission.
``It's up to the campaigns to report contributions in their
FEC filings,'' said PMA spokesman Patrick Dorton.
FEC spokeswoman Mary Brandenberger said she has not often
seen such misidentified donations, but if a complaint were
received, the commission would first question the campaign
about its record-keeping.
Jan Witold Baran, a campaign finance and ethics expert and
Wiley Rein lawyer, said the errors pose serious questions and
should be cleared up.
``It's true that candidate campaigns have the
responsibility for disclosure, but the information they
obtain usually comes from the contributor or the person who
solicited from the contributor,'' Baran said. ``The question
is: Where did that information come from?''
Murtha aide Matthew Mazonkey said the congressman was not
the recipient of the erroneous donations.
PMA, founded in 1989 by Magliocchetti, a former Murtha aide
to the House Appropriations Committee, has enjoyed a high
success rate in winning earmarks for its clients, which
include such major defense contractors as Lockheed and
General Dynamics. PMA also represents a circle of lesser-
known but also successful contractors such as Argon ST, MTS
Technologies, DRS Technologies and Advanced Acoustic
Concepts. Many PMA clients have opened offices in Murtha's
western Pennsylvania district, donated generously to him, and
received millions in earmarks requested by the congressman.
In the last election cycle, PMA and its clients donated
$775,000 to Murtha's campaigns. Last year, those clients
received earmarks worth $299 million and arranged by Murtha
and his colleagues.
The majority of PMA's 35 lobbyists had worked on Capitol
Hill or at the Pentagon. Several of the top lobbyists were
also PMA directors and had ties to lawmakers.
Two men listed in campaign finance reports as together
giving $30,000 to lawmakers and being part of the PMA Group
team are not Washington lobbyists at all. They live and work
in the Florida resort community of Amelia Island, where PMA
founder Magliocchetti has a beachfront condominium. Both are
listed as directors of PMA.
John Pugliese had been a sommelier at the posh Ritz-Carlton
Hotel on the island, his family said. Jon C. Walker is in
charge of golf marketing at the neighboring Amelia Island
Golf Club, according to club personnel and its Web site. They
each donated identical amounts to the same lawmakers, in 12
installments each, almost always on the same date.
Walker and Pugliese did not return repeated phone calls and
messages.
Pugliese is listed as a PMA Group ``associate,'' and Walker
is a PMA Group ``consultant'' in finance records.

[[Page S7972]]

Rebecca DeRosa, who is listed as a part-time accountant at
PMA and director, recently married Magliocchetti and has
given generously on PMA's behalf for several years. Last year
alone, she personally gave $73,000 to lawmakers and
congressional political action committees, records show. For
most of those donations, she is listed as a PMA employee. Her
donations included $22,000 to the Democratic Congressional
Campaign Committee and $4,250 to Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-
Va.).
DeRosa did not answer her phone or return calls to the
Gaithersburg office of the DRS subsidiary, where she is
listed as an employee.

Mr. McCAIN. So I wish to tell my colleagues, I will be coming to the
floor a lot and talking about this, sometimes with charts. This
practice has to stop. We cannot afford not only the earmarking because
of the costs, but we can't afford to have the continued corruption that
is associated with this.
I know some of my colleagues are offended when I use the word
``corruption,'' but when former Members of Congress are residing in
Federal prison and their aides and former staffers and others are
indicted and convicted in Federal court, I don't know how you can
describe it as anything else.
So we will be talking a lot more in the days and weeks ahead. The
American people are sick and tired of it and so am I.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about an amendment I filed.
I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 12 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I appreciate the time to speak about this
amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year
2010 to implement a number of essential reforms to cost comparison
studies at the Department of Defense.
There is an old expression, principally in the legal community, in
our system of justice, where they say ``justice delayed is justice
denied.'' That theme--not the same concept necessarily--is part of what
I am talking about. When we are studying how government agencies are
delivering services to the taxpayers, sometimes we study too long, and
especially in the context of what I am about to speak of. I do thank
the cosponsors of this amendment, several Senators, including Senators
Brown, Schumer, Mikulski, Kennedy, Murray, Gillibrand, and Feingold.
The reforms included in the amendment will achieve two very important
goals: First, it will save taxpayer dollars, and it will enhance
protections for workers across the Department of Defense.
I had the great honor to serve the people of Pennsylvania for 8
years--two terms as auditor general of the State--where I was a fiscal
watchdog looking after money spent, and I audited and sometimes
investigated how money was spent; then 2 years as State treasurer. So I
have a sense of what government studies and reviews entail. Sometimes
they take too long and defeat the purpose because of their length.
Sometimes they should be doing their jobs every day instead of
responding to an endless study.
Some of the language is a little arcane, but when you talk about
competitive sourcing, which is known, as a lot of these things are in
government--I hate to use acronyms or short phrases--but competitive
sourcing, in this context, is known as the A-76 process.
Here is basically what it is. You don't need to know the numbers. We
need to know what we are talking about. It is a government-wide
initiative that subjects functions performed by government employees to
public-private competition. We are all for competition and always have
been. I believe many of my colleagues know in this context we have some
real problems.
This privatization process has been marked by controversy at great
cost to taxpayers. Many workers in the Federal Government bring years
of experience, dealing with problems and dealing with particular
programs; and they also, because of that experience, bring a particular
kind of expertise and skill to that work. We all know what happened
just 2 years ago at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The list could go
on and on, but here are a couple examples: appalling conditions for
those who serve our country, and run down facilities and inadequate
care for our returning veterans.
All of this was uncovered back then, and I know improvements have
been made. Part of the problem rested with a 6-year cost comparison
review, which had an impact on the center's staffing. In 2006, the
Garrison Commander, who was responsible for managing base operation
support activities at Walter Reed, wrote that as a ``direct'' result of
the A-76 study, ``we face the critical issues of retaining skilled
clinical personnel for the hospital and diverse professionals for the
Garrison, while confronted with increased difficulties in hiring.''
Continuing with the quotation, ``Due to the uncertainty associated
with this issue,'' meaning the review underway, ``Walter Reed continues
to lose other highly qualified personnel.''
That was then, at the time; he wrote that a few years ago.
The point is, even something as grave and serious as the problems we
experienced at Walter Reed, part of the reason for that can be traced
to the problems with these kinds of studies.
Despite the heroic efforts by Senator Mikulski from Maryland, the
study continued and the problems persisted at the facility. In 2008,
GAO conducted reviews of the cost comparison process at the Department
of Labor and the Forest Service, finding it impossible to verify cost
savings. They concluded at that time that the problems with the A-76
process were systemic.
Today, the Department of Defense is the only agency with A-76 studies
in the process. According to the DOD, there are almost 30 A-76 studies
still in process, involving about 3,600 employees. By next month,
three-quarters of these studies will be at least 2 years old. A couple
of examples bring this issue into clear life.
Currently, the Defense Logistics Agency is reviewing 279 employees
who perform installation management services in my home State of
Pennsylvania and also in Virginia and Ohio. Prior to the study, this
management of this agency said the A-76 study would be disruptive and
recommended an internal effort instead, believing it would lead to
greater savings. However, as is the common practice, the savings for
this study have already been counted, and the people who ran the A-76
program refused the request from the agency management to scrap the
study, as they should have. If it is not saving money and helping the
taxpayers, it should be scrapped. Therefore, 279 employees, some of
whom work in Pennsylvania, are uncertain of their future and have been
forced to put off major life decisions.
A similar situation is ongoing at West Point, where two studies
continue despite requests to terminate them. These decisions to proceed
with studies in the face of unyielding and reasonable opposition and
alternatives are indeed troubling.
The amendment before the Senate addresses these issues in a number of
ways.
First, the amendment establishes a Department of Defense-specific, 1-
year suspension of new A-76 studies, consistent with the government-
wide suspension included by Senator Durbin in the financial services
appropriations bill.
Secondly, my amendment closes the loophole that currently allows
certain DOD functions to be given to contractors by converting smaller
functions to contractors without conducting any cost comparisons.
Third, our amendment establishes a 24-month time limit for how long
studies can last--from the beginning of preliminary planning to the
final award decision. Currently, there are no established time limits
on A-76 studies, which only increases the costs.
Fourth, the amendment addresses issues pending with A-76 studies and
directs DOD to suspend these studies and determine, based on several
criteria, whether their completion is justifiable.
Fifth, the amendment improves the process for workers by adding
briefings

[[Page S7973]]

to affected employees about contracting out decisions.
Finally, the amendment makes technical corrections to ensure that
Federal employees have bid protest rights, building on previous efforts
by Members of the Senate.
The A-76 process is about cost comparison. Due to the ambiguity
around the timelines and the process, these lengthy studies often fail
to create promised long-term savings.
This amendment addresses these lingering issues with A-76 studies by
lending necessary clarity to the process. In addition, these reforms
will improve conditions for workers. Lengthy studies have been shown to
compromise the capacity of agencies to perform their missions by
placing both the critical functions of the agency and employees who
perform these functions in limbo.
Finally, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment for this
reason: It will promote fiscal responsibility, save money for
taxpayers, while ensuring those who have the experience, expertise, and
skill are able to carry out their tasks in the Department of Defense.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Burr
be recognized next to offer an amendment. I understand there is not
going to be opposition on this side and that he will accept a voice
vote on it. Then I ask unanimous consent that Senator Akaka be
recognized to offer his amendment, which he talked about last night.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
Mr. BURR. What is the pending amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Kyl amendment.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1554

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1554, the Military
Spouses Residency Relief Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. BURR], for himself,
Mr. Bayh, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Wicker, Mr.
Thune, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Johanns, and Ms. Murkowski, proposes an
amendment numbered 1554.

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

(Purpose: To guarantee the equity of spouses of military personnel with
regard to matters of residency)

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

SEC. 573. GUARANTEE OF RESIDENCY FOR SPOUSES OF MILITARY
PERSONNEL FOR VOTING PURPOSES.

(a) In General.--Section 705 of the Servicemembers Civil
Relief Act (50 U.S.C. App. 595) is amended--
(1) by striking ``For'' and inserting the following:
``(a) In General.--For'';
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) Spouses.--For the purposes of voting for any Federal
office (as defined in section 301 of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431)) or a State or local
office, a person who is absent from a State because the
person is accompanying the person's spouse who is absent from
that same State in compliance with military or naval orders
shall not, solely by reason of that absence--
``(1) be deemed to have lost a residence or domicile in
that State, without regard to whether or not the person
intends to return to that State;
``(2) be deemed to have acquired a residence or domicile in
any other State; or
``(3) be deemed to have become a resident in or a resident
of any other State.''; and
(3) in the section heading, by inserting ``AND SPOUSES OF
MILITARY PERSONNEL'' before the period at the end.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section
1(b) of such Act (50 U.S.C. App. 501) is amended by striking
the item relating to section 705 and inserting the following
new item:

``Sec. 705. Guarantee of residency for military personnel and spouses
of military personnel.''.

(c) Application.--Subsection (b) of section 705 of such Act
(50 U.S.C. App. 595), as added by subsection (a) of this
section, shall apply with respect to absences from States
described in such subsection (b) on or after the date of the
enactment of this Act, regardless of the date of the military
or naval order concerned.

SEC. 574. DETERMINATION FOR TAX PURPOSES OF RESIDENCE OF
SPOUSES OF MILITARY PERSONNEL.

(a) In General.--Section 511 of the Servicemembers Civil
Relief Act (50 U.S.C. App. 571) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``A servicemember'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--A servicemember''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Spouses.--A spouse of a servicemember shall neither
lose nor acquire a residence or domicile for purposes of
taxation with respect to the person, personal property, or
income of the spouse by reason of being absent or present in
any tax jurisdiction of the United States solely to be with
the servicemember in compliance with the servicemember's
military orders if the residence or domicile, as the case may
be, is the same for the servicemember and the spouse.'';
(2) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f) as
subsections (d), (e), (f), and (g), respectively;
(3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new
subsection:
``(c) Income of a Military Spouse.--Income for services
performed by the spouse of a servicemember shall not be
deemed to be income for services performed or from sources
within a tax jurisdiction of the United States if the spouse
is not a resident or domiciliary of the jurisdiction in which
the income is earned because the spouse is in the
jurisdiction solely to be with the servicemember serving in
compliance with military orders.''; and
(4) in subsection (d), as redesignated by paragraph (2)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or the spouse of a
servicemember'' after ``The personal property of a
servicemember''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or the spouse's''
after ``servicemember's''.
(b) Application.--Subsections (a)(2) and (c) of section 511
of such Act (50 U.S.C. App. 571), as added by subsection (a)
of this section, and the amendments made to such section 511
by subsection (a)(4) of this section, shall apply with
respect to any return of State or local income tax filed for
any taxable year beginning with the taxable year that
includes the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 575. SUSPENSION OF LAND RIGHTS RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FOR
SPOUSES OF MILITARY PERSONNEL.

(a) In General.--Section 508 of the Servicemembers Civil
Relief Act (50 U.S.C. App. 568) is amended in subsection (b)
by inserting ``or the spouse of such servicemember'' after
``a servicemember in military service''.
(b) Application.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to servicemembers in military
service (as defined in section 101 of such Act (50 U.S.C.
App. 511)) on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. Under
current law, our military men and women, about every 3 years, are
repositioned in the country or out of the country. Their orders change.
When they make that change, it is beneficial to them, and I believe to
society, that their spouses and children go with them.
Years ago, we made accommodations for those military personnel so
they could pick a State of residency, even though they moved
frequently. They could choose the State in which they grew up or the
State they might retire in or a State they had visited during their
assignments that they thought was the best or most advantageous place
for them to claim residency. That provided that every State they went
to, they didn't have to change their driver's license or voter
registration or basically change everything in their lives.
Now with the size of our military and the constant deployments we are
in--this continuation of every 3 years, getting reassigned to a
different post--what we realized from a quality-of-life standpoint was
that we forgot about the spouses as it relates to the accommodations of
a new surrounding. When we think about it, spouses who leave and go
with the servicemember, they go into a community unemployed. They have
to look for a job. They have to go to the DMV, the department of motor
vehicles, and get a driver's license and reregister to vote. I might
also say their husband or wife could claim residency somewhere, and
they may not be on the title of the house they own or the property they
own.
The fact that the spouse cannot claim a State of residency consistent
with the servicemember means they are at a tremendous disadvantage from
the standpoint of what they own. It is easier to put it in the
servicemember's name because they are protected regardless of where
their orders send them.

[[Page S7974]]

Very simply, this amendment extends the same privilege to a spouse
that it does to a servicemember, so they can claim that State of
residency, keep that one constant driver's license, and they can pay
joint taxes in a State versus being forced to file separate taxes where
there may be tax implications so that those military families pay more
taxes than if they could file jointly. They still have the challenge of
walking into a community unemployed, and they might leave a business
behind because they believe the fabric of their family is that
important.
That is what we ask all of our military families to deal with. This
is a simple way to make life a little easier on the spouses of our
servicemembers and to make sure they don't have to change everything in
their lives just because their spouse has been reassigned but only
certain things that they will have to deal with.
I remind my colleagues there is a stand-alone bill, S. 475. It had a
hearing in the Veterans' Affairs Committee. It was passed unanimously
out of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. It is identical to my amendment
today.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. With the Chair's
agreement, I ask for a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1554.
The amendment (No. 1554) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I understand under the previous order, the
Senator from Hawaii is now to be recognized to call up his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. LEVIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. AKAKA. 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. 1522

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask to set aside the pending amendment
and call up amendment No. 1522 to enhance the retirement security of
Federal employees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Akaka], for himself, Ms.
Collins, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Voinovich, Ms. Murkowski, Mr.
Begich, Mr. Kohl, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Inouye, Mr.
Webb, and Mr. Warner, proposes an amendment numbered 1522.

(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as chairman of the Subcommittee on
Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the
District of Columbia, I am proud to join with Senators Collins,
Lieberman, Voinovich, Murkowski, Begich, Kohl, Mikulski, Cardin,
Inouye, Webb, and Warner in this bipartisan effort to correct certain
inequities in the Federal Government retirement system.
This amendment is very similar to an amendment that was included in
the House-passed fiscal year 2010 national Defense authorization bill.
Each of these revisions is much needed and has been thoroughly debated
by the appropriate committees in the House and Senate. Many of the
changes were requested by the administrators of the retirement plans
and are strongly supported by many organizations. The list of
supporters is too long to read here, but it includes every major
Federal employee union, postal unions, supervisors, and postmasters,
the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and several
government managers groups. I spoke in more detail last evening about
the substance of the amendment.
I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, the
Federal retirement reform provisions, and the bill as well.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment by Senator Akaka, the
distinguished chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I would
imagine has some very good and helpful provisions associated with it.
It also applies to Federal employees and perhaps some Department of
Defense employees are included in that. But it is a very large
amendment. It is composed of six retirement-related provisions and some
expenditure of funds.
As I understand the bill, there is not provision for paying for it. I
may be wrong. Let me point out that the Chair and ranking member of the
Homeland Security Committee have looked at these issues as well. I am
wondering why it was not included then on Homeland Security. We just
finished doing the Homeland Security appropriations.
It would reduce mandatory spending by $36 billion over 10 years. It
has significant costs that will have to be appropriated, at least $2.5
billion over the next 10 years. Because they would be added on this
bill, it would add to the cost of the National Defense Authorization
Act and would exceed our budget allocation. Properly, it would be
subject to a budget point of order which the Senate would then speak on
whether it is an appropriate budget point of order.
There has been no strong opposition from the administration, and
these costs were not included in the administration's budget request.
I understand that a lot of these provisions, because of the large
number of employees, fall under the Department of Defense. I don't
think it is a good idea to have a bill of this magnitude, although
certainly the amendment is in order--but I am not sure it is
appropriate that a bill of this magnitude should be tacked on to the
Defense authorization bill.
I say that fully aware that we are tacking on a hate crimes bill
which has even a lot less to do with the Department of Defense.
I say to my friend, I will be glad to have a vote on this amendment.
Perhaps there is going to be a budget point of order raised on this
amendment. But hopefully we can alert our colleagues and give them the
opportunity in the next few minutes to raise a budget point of order or
ask for a recorded vote. If there is no objection, then we would have a
voice vote.
I wish to point out to my colleagues, this is fairly large
legislation which does fall under the proper authority of the Homeland
Security Committee.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, may I further comment that these
provisions, without question, are much needed in Hawaii, Alaska, and
the territories. COLA rates, and with them the pay of Federal
employees, are slated to go down later this year if we do not act. This
is the reason we are trying to move it at this time. Most of these
employees in Hawaii are defense employees, as in these other States and
territories as well.
The provisions on this issue are nearly identical to the bill that
passed the Senate by unanimous consent last year. Most of the
provisions are in the House Defense authorization bill.
Again, Hawaii, Alaska, and the territories received untaxed cost-of-
living allowances that do not count toward retirement instead of
locality pay that other Federal employees receive.
This bill grew out of a Bush administration proposal in response to
repeated litigation over the different systems. This transition will
cost a substantial amount of money for several reasons. The budget
implications are better than they appear. A large portion of
appropriated costs of the COLA provisions are intergovernmental
transfers from Federal employers to either the annuity or the Social
Security trust fund. According to the CBO report, employer
contributions, intragovernmental transactions, do not affect the
deficit.
Many employees in Hawaii and Alaska and the territories, of course,
are looking at this as something that is necessary as they continue to
work in the Federal Government in this area.
Again, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

[[Page S7975]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we set
aside consideration of the Burr amendment and that I be able to call up
amendment No. 1657.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object--and I will need to object--
we are working through unanimous consent agreements and amendments are
lined up on both sides. We have not reached that point yet. There are
other amendments that have to come first from the Senator's side, and
that would be up to Senator McCain. I have to object at this time.
Obviously, we will try to accommodate the Senator getting his amendment
up, but Senator McCain would need to consider the Senator's proposal. I
have to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I understand the difficulties Senator
Levin has, but we are moving to final passage. Cloture has been filed.
It is important that this amendment be considered. I get a little
nervous when things are not moving along in a way that I think they
should or at least in a way that could cause this amendment not to be
considered. I wish to speak briefly about it so it will be clear what
it is we are talking about.
The amendment I sought to bring up would preempt any Federal
Executive, that is Presidential, requirement that our troops in the
field, in Afghanistan and Iraq, read Miranda warnings to al-Qaida
terrorists whom they capture.
The amendment would also clarify that nothing in Federal law requires
that our soldiers read Miranda warnings or give any other kind of
warning to captured terrorists, and it preempts any efforts to enforce
such a requirement through an exclusionary rule. That is, denying
admissibility of evidence if it does not occur.
Miranda is the warning, as most watchers of television detective
programs know, in which an individual who is detained by a police
officer in the United States on suspicion of some crime is told they
have a right to remain silent and they have a right to have a lawyer,
or have one appointed for them.
The question is, How did we get to the point that we are now having
soldiers in the field being asked to give Miranda warnings?
One person, I think, who would agree with me--although recent
activities cause me concern--is our Commander in Chief, President
Obama. In a recent interview on the TV show ``60 Minutes,'' he was
asked about the terrorist detainees, and this is what President Obama
said:

Do these folks deserve Miranda rights? Do they deserve to
be treated like a shoplifter down the block? Of course not.

``Of course not.'' I couldn't have said that with more clarity
myself. Of course, we should not be giving Miranda warnings to captured
terrorists on the battlefield. Unfortunately, not all of the
subordinates in the current administration seem to understand this
message.
A recent article in the magazine the Weekly Standard describes why
the amendment is necessary. As this article explains, the current
administration appears to be requiring our soldiers to read Miranda
warnings to terrorists whom they capture in the field in Afghanistan.
And the article further notes, according to former CIA Director George
Tenet, who was appointed originally by President Clinton and served
under President Bush, that we would not have obtained the valuable
information we did from Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the planner of the 9/11
attacks, if he had been given his Miranda rights--or been given Miranda
rights, not his, because we have never given Miranda rights to captured
soldiers in any kind of conflict in the history of the Republic.

The following is from the Weekly Standard:

When 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was captured on
March 1, 2003, he was not cooperative. ``I'll talk to you
guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer,'' he said,
according to CIA Director George Tenet. Of course, Khalid
Shaikh Mohammed did not get a lawyer until months later,
after his interrogation was completed, and Tenet says that
the information the CIA obtained from him disrupted plots and
saved lives. ``I believe none of these successes would have
happened if we had had to treat KSM like a white-collar
criminal--read him his Miranda rights and get him a lawyer,
who surely would have insisted that his client simply shut
up.

That was Mr. Tenet's view as stated in his memoirs just a couple of
years ago.
If Mr. Tenet is right, it is a good thing KSM was captured before
President Obama became President, for the Justice Department has
quietly ordered the FBI to read Miranda rights to high-value detainees
captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan.
According to a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee:

The administration has decided to change the focus to law
enforcement. Here's the problem. You have foreign fighters
who are targeting U.S. troops today--foreign fighters who go
to another country to kill Americans. We capture them, and
they're reading them their rights--Mirandizing these foreign
fighters.

That was a quote from Representative Mike Rogers, who recently met
with the military and intelligence and law enforcement officials on a
factfinding trip to Afghanistan.
Rogers, a former FBI special agent and a U.S. Army officer, says the
Obama administration has not briefed Congress on the new policy. He is
quoted as saying:

I was a little surprised to find it taking place when I
showed up because we hadn't been briefed on it. I didn't know
about it. We're still trying to get to the bottom of it, but
it is clearly a part of this new global justice initiative.

Representative Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House
Intelligence Committee, said this:

When they Mirandize a suspect, the first thing they do is
warn them that they have the right to remain silent. It would
seem the last thing we want is Khalid Shaikh Mohammed or any
other al-Qaida terrorist to remain silent. Our focus should
be on preventing the next attack, not giving radical
jihadists a new tactic to resist interrogation--lawyering up.

According to Mike Rogers, that is precisely what some human rights
organizations are now advising detainees to do. He says:

The International Red Cross, when they go into these
detention facilities, has now started telling people--``Take
the option. You want a lawyer.''

And Rogers adds:

The problem is you take that guy at 3 in the morning off of
a compound right outside of Kabul, where he's building bomb
materials to kill U.S. soldiers, and read him his rights by
4, and the Red Cross is saying take the lawyer, you have now
created quite a confusion amongst the FBI, the CIA and the
United States military. And confusion is the last thing you
want in a combat zone.

This is from Congressman Rogers, a former FBI agent and a former Army
officer.
So one thing is clear: A detainee who is not talking cannot provide
information about future attacks. Had Khalid Shaikh Mohammed had a
lawyer, Tenet wrote in his book, `` . . . I am confident that we would
have obtained none of the information he had in his head about the
eminent threat against the American people.''
Mr. President, one thing we have to get straight in our minds is that
we are in a state of war against al-Qaida types and others around the
world, and that calls for an entirely different approach to dealing
with the people you capture. In fact, before you capture them, you have
the authority to shoot them and kill them. We have the ability to drop
bombs on them, which results in death. You don't do that in law
enforcement situations against drug dealers or against white-collar
criminals. These are not criminals, they are unlawful enemy combatants.
They are not lawful because they do not operate according to the rules
of war.
The Geneva Conventions require that a lawful combatant, an enemy
soldier, or any kind of soldier from any country wear their uniform so
that you can identify them by their uniform and do not target civilian
personnel gratuitously. Among other requirements, these are some of the
rules of war. But they have never been given the rights of a common
criminal.
So I feel strongly about this issue. And I would note parenthetically
that the Supreme Court has not held that Miranda is even a
constitutional requirement. They passed it as a prophylactic policy to
help police officers do a better job, the Court thought, in doing their
work. It is not a requirement. So

[[Page S7976]]

it is a big mistake. I believe it is a road we should not go down,
requiring these warnings, and if we do, it is an absolutely clear
signal that we are confused about the nature of the deadly enterprise
in which we are engaged, which is defending this country and our allies
from attack by a violent, determined enemy.
I thought after 9/11 there was a consensus in this body that
terrorists and enemy combatants were different from criminals. I
thought the 9/11 Commission went into that, and I thought there was a
bipartisan consensus on that. So I am concerned about it. It suggests
to me that we are confused about the nature of this life-and-death
struggle we are in. We are confused about the risk our soldiers are
being subjected to every day on the battlefield. And they ought not to
be placed in a situation where an additional burden is put on them that
is not justified by law or common sense.
So I hope we get a vote on this, and I hope we are able to send the
message that this is not the right policy and we need to make sure we
stop it and nip it in the bud.
I thank the Chair, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if I could just have Senator McCain's
attention for a minute, I think we have a unanimous consent agreement.
Mr. President, has the Akaka amendment been disposed of?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has not.
Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that the Akaka amendment be
temporarily set aside, that we then move to an amendment on European
missile defense, which is a Lieberman amendment with many cosponsors,
which we have worked very hard on and which is ready to be propounded.
There is at least one additional speaker on it. Senator Sessions
wants to speak on it as well. But I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Lieberman be recognized now to introduce that amendment; that after he
speaks, Senator Sessions be recognized; that I will then be recognized,
and then Senator McCain, if he wishes to be recognized.
I believe the intention here is that we may be able to adopt this by
a voice vote; is that correct? That is the hope, anyway. Well, I will
leave that part alone.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Connecticut.

Amendment No. 1744

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up
amendment No. 1744.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman], for himself,
Mr. Sessions, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska,
Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Begich, and
Mr. McCain, proposes an amendment numbered 1744.

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

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on and reserve funds for
the development and deployment of missile defense systems to Europe)

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

SEC. 245. SENSE OF SENATE ON AND RESERVATION OF FUNDS FOR
DEVELOPMENT AND DEPLOYMENT OF MISSILE DEFENSE
SYSTEMS IN EUROPE.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) In the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
Bucharest Summit Declaration of April 3, 2008, the Heads of
State and Government participating in the meeting of the
North Atlantic Council declared that ``[b]allistic missile
proliferation poses an increasing threat to Allies' forces,
territory and populations. Missile defence forms part of a
broader response to counter this threat. We therefore
recognize the substantial contribution to the protection of
Allies from long-range ballistic missiles to be provided by
the planned deployment of European-based United States
missile defence assets''.
(2) The Bucharest Summit Declaration also stated that
``[b]earing in mind the principle of the indivisibility of
Allied security as well as NATO solidarity, we task the
Council in Permanent Session to develop options for a
comprehensive missile defence architecture to extend coverage
to all Allied territory and populations not otherwise covered
by the United States system for review at our 2009 Summit, to
inform any future political decision''.
(3) In the Bucharest Summit Declaration, the North Atlantic
Council also reaffirmed to Russia that ``current, as well as
any future, NATO Missile Defence efforts are intended to
better address the security challenges we all face, and
reiterate that, far from posing a threat to our relationship,
they offer opportunities to deepen levels of cooperation and
stability''.
(4) In the Strasbourg/Kehl Summit Declaration of April 4,
2009, the heads of state and government participating in the
meeting of the North Atlantic Council reaffirmed ``the
conclusions of the Bucharest Summit about missile defense,''
and declared that ``we judge that missile threats should be
addressed in a prioritized manner that includes consideration
of the level of imminence of the threat and the level of
acceptable risk''.
(5) Iran is rapidly developing its ballistic missile
capabilities, including its inventory of short-range and
medium-range ballistic missiles that can strike portions of
Eastern and Southern North Atlantic Treaty Organization
European territory, as well as the pursuit of long-range
ballistic missiles that could reach Europe or the United
States.
(6) On July 8, 2008, the Government of the United States
and the Government of the Czech Republic signed an agreement
to base a radar facility in the Czech Republic that is part
of a proposed missile defense system to protect Europe and
the United States against a potential future Iranian long-
range ballistic missile threat.
(7) On August 20, 2008, the United States and the Republic
of Poland signed an agreement concerning the deployment of
ground-based ballistic missile defense interceptors in the
territory of the Republic of Poland.
(8) Section 233 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417;
122 Stat. 4393; 10 U.S.C. 2431 note) establishes conditions
for the availability of funds for procurement, construction,
and deployment of the planned missile defense system in
Europe, including that the host nations must ratify any
missile defense agreements with the United States and that
the Secretary of Defense must certify that the system has
demonstrated the ability to accomplish the mission.
(9) On April 5, 2009, President Barack Obama, speaking in
Prague, Czech Republic, stated, ``As long as the threat from
Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense
system that is cost-effective and proven. If the Iranian
threat is eliminated, we will have a stronger basis for
security, and the driving force for missile defense
construction in Europe will be removed.''.
(10) On June 16, 2009, Deputy Secretary of Defense William
Lynn testified before the Committee on Armed Services of the
Senate that the United States Government is reviewing its
options for developing and deploying operationally effective,
cost-effective missile defense capabilities to Europe against
potential future Iranian missile threats, in addition to the
proposed deployment of a missile defense system in Poland and
the Czech Republic.
(11) On July 9, 2009, General James Cartwright, the Vice
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the
Committee on Armed Services of the Senate that the Department
of Defense was considering some 40 different missile defense
architecture options for Europe that could provide a
``regional defense capability to protect the nations'' of
Europe, and a ``redundant capability that would assist in
protecting the United States,'' and that the Department was
considering ``what kind of an architecture best suits the
defense of the region, the defense of the homeland, and the
regional stability''.
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) the United States Government should continue developing
and planning for the proposed deployment of elements of a
Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, including a
midcourse radar in the Czech Republic and Ground-Based
Interceptors in Poland, consistent with section 233 of the
Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2009;
(2) in conjunction with the continued development of the
planned Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, the United
States should work with its North Atlantic Treaty
Organization allies to explore a range of options and
architectures to provide missile defenses for Europe and the
United States against current and future Iranian ballistic
missile capabilities;
(3) any alternative system that the United States
Government considers deploying in Europe to provide for the
defense of Europe and a redundant defense of the United
States against future long-range Iranian missile threats
should be at least as capable and cost-effective as the
proposed European deployment of the Ground-based Midcourse
Defense system; and

[[Page S7977]]

(4) any missile defense capabilities deployed in Europe
should, to the extent practical, be interoperable with United
States and North Atlantic Treaty Organization missile defense
systems.
(c) Reservation of Funds for Missile Defense Systems.--
(1) In general.--Of the funds authorized to be appropriated
or otherwise made available for fiscal years 2009 and 2010
for the Missile Defense Agency for the purpose of developing
missile defenses in Europe, $353,100,000 shall be available
only for the purposes described in paragraph (2).
(2) Use of funds.--The purposes described in this paragraph
are the following:
(A) Research, development, test, and evaluation of--
(i) the proposed midcourse radar element of the Ground-
based Midcourse Defense system in the Czech Republic; and
(ii) the proposed long-range missile defense interceptor
site element of such defense system in Poland.
(B) Research, development, test, and evaluation,
procurement, construction, or deployment of other missile
defense systems designed to protect Europe, and the United
States in the case of long-range missile threats, from the
threats posed by current and future Iranian ballistic
missiles of all ranges, if the Secretary of Defense submits
to the congressional defense committees a report certifying
that such systems are expected to be--
(i) consistent with the direction from the North Atlantic
Council to address ballistic missile threats to Europe and
the United States in a prioritized manner that includes
consideration of the imminence of the threat and the level of
acceptable risk;
(ii) operationally effective and cost-effective in
providing protection for Europe, and the United States in the
case of long-range missile threats, against current and
future Iranian ballistic missile threats; and
(iii) interoperable, to the extent practical, with other
components of missile defense and complementary to the
missile defense strategy of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization.
(d) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed as limiting or preventing the Department of Defense
from pursuing the development or deployment of operationally
effective and cost-effective ballistic missile defense
systems in Europe.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, may I ask Senator Lieberman to yield for a
moment?
First of all, I ask unanimous consent that no second-degree
amendments be in order to this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair, and I thank the chairman of the
committee.
Mr. President, I rise to offer this amendment, along with the Senator
from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, and a broad bipartisan group of cosponsors.
This amendment concerns the deployment of missile defenses in Europe.
I am very pleased to say, as Chairman Levin suggested, that there has
been a lot of work done on this issue by a lot of people, including
Chairman Levin, Ranking Member McCain, their staff, and our staff. I
think we have reached a very important agreement here which holds up
some standards of what is most important to our national security
regarding the deployment of missile defenses to Europe.

If I may, the administration, as we know, is now evaluating
alternatives to the planned European deployment of a Ground-based
Midcourse Defense, or GMD, system to Poland and the Czech Republic. In
the context of that policy review, this amendment states that any
alternative to the GMD deployment to Poland and the Czech Republic must
be as effective and affordable as the current plan. We think this is a
reasonable standard by which to judge any alternative and I am hopeful
and grateful my colleagues seem to agree.
Let me now go forward to explain why Senator Sessions and I and
others think it is so important to set a standard for the alternatives
that are now under consideration, and why the growing Iranian threat
requires us to deploy an effective missile defense in Europe.
Last year the United States reached a pair of groundbreaking
agreements with two of our closest European allies on the deployment of
elements of a Ground-based Midcourse Defense, GMD, system to protect
Europe and the United States from Iran's growing ballistic missile
threat.
When I say ``and the United States,'' they don't have the ability
now, or the ballistic missile, to reach the United States, but they are
clearly investing in a ballistic missile program whose range they hope
will grow and grow to a point where they will be able to reach the
United States.
Specifically, on July 8, 2008, the United States and the Czech
Republic agreed on establishing an American ballistic missile defense
radar site on Czech territory. Two months later, on August 20, the
United States and the Government of Poland reached a similar agreement
under which we would deploy 10 ground-based interceptors to Poland.
Just less than a year after these agreements, at a June 16 hearing at
our Senate Armed Services Committee, Deputy Secretary of Defense Bill
Lynn told the members of the committee:

We think there are a number of ways to address [the
Iranian] threat and one of the options is to deploy the
missiles in Poland and the radar in the Czech Republic, and
we are certainly evaluating that option as well as other
possible options.

We heard other testimony before our committee, including from the
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Cartwright, along the same
lines, that though the agreements were entered into with Poland and the
Czech Republic, the administration is evaluating other options.
To help place the other options that are under consideration into
perspective, and to explain why Senator Sessions and I and the others
who have joined us as cosponsors introduce this amendment today, I want
to go to a Congressional Budget Office study that was released earlier
this year, in February. It is titled ``Options for Deploying Missile
Defenses in Europe.'' This study was requested by then-Congresswoman
Ellen Tauscher, in her capacity as Chair of the House Armed Services
Strategic Forces Subcommittee. It examined the potential cost and
defense capability of the European ground-based defense system in
Poland and the Czech Republic, as well as alternatives to it.
What are the alternatives? These include deployment of sea-based
interceptors on Navy ships around Europe, or using mobile land-based
interceptors in Europe. The study also considered the possible benefits
of closer cooperation on missile defense with the Russian Federation.
The findings of this report clearly demonstrate that the Ground-based
Midcourse Deployment in Poland and the Czech Republic is the most
effective and affordable option that is before us today. I am
particularly struck by the report's conclusion that the alternatives to
the GMD system in Poland and the Czech Republic would significantly
reduce America's ability to provide a layered defense for our American
homeland against the eventual threat of intercontinental ballistic
missiles launched by Iran or anyone else in that region against the
United States of America.
I want to be clear about this and what it means. Whereas the GMD
deployment to Poland and the Czech Republic would provide, according to
the report, a so-called shoot-look-shoot capability for the defense of
the entire continental United States, the alternatives that the
Congressional Budget Office considered would leave most of our country
without such a layered defense.
Let me explain. Shoot-look-shoot is an operational concept that is
actually the cornerstone of our increasingly successful missile defense
program. It is the idea that we should be able to shoot at an incoming
missile, assess whether that shot was successful, and then shoot again.
This shoot-look-shoot capability dramatically increases the
effectiveness of our missile defense system.
You might say it is redundant. Most of our military systems are
redundant because of what is on the line. I cannot think of a place
where I would rather have redundancy than the situation we are dealing
with, with an incoming ballistic missile, presumably containing a
nuclear weapon, perhaps chemical or biological. I know people watching
this debate may think this is far off and unrealistic, but these are
the realities we do have to deal with in our world because we know a
country such as Iran, whose leaders regularly lead tens of thousands of
their citizens in shouting ``death to America'' is in fact investing in
a growing intercontinental ballistic missile system.
What does shoot-look-shoot mean with regard to this amendment? If you
have a GMD system in Europe and a missile that is fired from Iran, we
have

[[Page S7978]]

a first opportunity to take a shot at that missile. We then obviously
have a chance to look and see whether we hit it. If we did not, we have
a second opportunity utilizing the ground-based missile defense system
that we have now installed in California and Alaska. That is an
important redundancy in the God-awful circumstance that a rogue nation,
an anti-American nation, is actually firing missiles at the United
States.
I want to draw the attention of my colleagues to a pair of maps that
I think indicate the differences as CBO found them between the planned
GMD system in Poland and the Czech Republic and the proposed land-based
SM-3 block IIA system that I think is a favored alternative--a possible
alternative--I don't mean it is selected, but one looked at with great
interest by the Defense Department.
Incidentally, these maps were prepared by the Congressional Budget
Office and included in the study I just mentioned, which I would
commend to my colleagues to read in full.
On the first map here we can see the planned GMD system in Poland and
the Czech Republic would provide a layered defense for the entire
continental United States. In other words, this is the area that would
be defended. Most of Europe, if a missile were fired from Iran, and all
of the United States would be covered. That means the concept of shoot-
look-and-shoot would be in effect a defense for our entire population.
The second map shows the capabilities of a prospective land-based SM-
3 IIA block system, which is quite different. You can see that this
one, as the CBO estimated, only covers a portion of the United States.
I note it does cover Connecticut, but there is a lot of the rest of the
United States--even though there are those of us who love this small
State--a lot of the rest of the United States we do not want to leave
unprotected by this redundancy.
In fact, on a population basis, because there is a concentration of
population, of course, on the east coast, almost 80 percent of the
population would be left uncovered by this redundant defense. All
States west of the Mississippi, for example, would not be defended by
this system.
In terms of operational capability, it is also important to note that
the components of the proposed GMD system for Europe are much farther
along in their development and purchase closer to being proven to work
than the proposed SM-3 Block IIA interceptor, which may not be
available until close to 2020. So the consequences of pulling away from
the Poland and Czech Republic system are serious in the near term.
As for the question of cost, the Congressional Budget Office in this
study estimates that the two alternate systems would cost nearly the
same to develop, deploy, and operate. In other words, if we opt for an
alternative to ground missile defense, CBO will be telling us we will
be paying the same amount of money but for a less capable defense and a
dramatically less comprehensive coverage of the population and
territory of the United States.

Another question under consideration, I know by the administration,
is the possibility--and was with the last administration, too--the
possibility of partnership between the United States and Russia through
the joint use of two Russian radar stations, as well as the sharing of
information and data. I support very much the exploration of this
opportunity of cooperating with Russians on missile defense, but I
believe we have to have a clear understanding of its potential benefits
and limitations.
Let me begin with some of the benefits. Obviously, closer cooperation
with Russia on missile defense could increase our early warning
detection capability for missile launches from the Middle East, based
on their radar. With this capability we could send a clear message to
Iran that not just the United States but the world, including Russia,
is opposed to its weapons of mass destruction and intercontinental or
continental ballistic missile systems. So I support the objective of
negotiating and discussing this with the Russians.
But I want to say there are also limitations that are in this
proposal. The Russian radar stations that are most discussed as part of
a joint United States-Russian ballistic missile system as a technical
matter cannot be a substitute for a European-based GMD system. Although
these radars would give us additional early warning capabilities, as I
indicated, they would not provide any additional targeting capability
which, of course, is a critical component to reducing threats. Radar
helps to target, sends the message to the interceptors in Poland and to
the other system, and that facilitates an accurate shoot-down.
As the CBO pointed out in its February report, the radars face south
and any missiles facing south and any missiles targeted toward Europe
and the United States would, according to the report, ``tend to fly
through and out of the Russian radar's field of regard very early in
their trajectories.'' Though this system would provide us with early
warning, it is also very important, really critical, to have targeting
capability.
The amendment Senator Sessions and I and the others have proposed
would not in any way prohibit the possibility of cooperation, or even
deter the possibility of cooperation with the Russian Federation--
certainly not with regard to sharing radar data, and I hope we can all
agree we should not seek an agreement with Moscow that leaves the
United States more vulnerable to the threat from Iran.
Very briefly, what about that threat? Some may ask, Why do we still
need to be investing so much in missile defense? The answer, simply
put, is because our most unpredictable and irresponsible adversaries,
in particular rogue states such as Iran and North Korea, are investing
very aggressively in ballistic missiles. That is why we need ballistic
missile defense. The investments we make in missile defense will quite
literally provide greater personal security to the coming generations
of Americans, our children and their grandchildren and beyond. As LTG
Mike Maples, then Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency,
testified before our Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this year:

The threat posed by ballistic missile delivery systems is
likely to increase over the next decade. Ballistic missile
defenses with advanced liquid or solid propellant propulsion
systems are becoming more mobile, survivable, reliable,
accurate, and possess greater range.

That is the end of the quote from the former head of the Defense
Intelligence Agency.
In the last few months we have seen graphic reminders of the progress
our enemies are making toward fielding intercontinental ballistic
missiles. In February, Iran launched its first satellite into orbit
using the same technologies that Tehran can draw upon to develop the
capacity to build an intercontinental ballistic missile that could
strike the continental United States.
In May, Iran carried out its first successful test flight of a two-
stage solid fuel ballistic missile, a development that the White House
Coordinator for Arms Control and WMD Terrorism, Gary Seymour, warned
was ``a significant step forward in terms of Iran's capability to
develop weapons.''
Iran's growing ballistic capabilities are made, of course, even more
threatening when coupled with its nuclear weapons development program.
Of course, we all hope the United States and the rest of the
international community can persuade Iran, through diplomacy and
economic sanctions, to abandon both its nuclear and ballistic ambitions
and programs.
Missile defense is an important component of that effort on the
premise that we may be able to convince Iran it is not worth spending
those countless millions of dollars on perfecting these weapons if its
leaders come to realize that we in the West are determined to stay one
step ahead of them in neutralizing their strategic impact with a
missile defense system.
As the Department of Defense now undertakes its review of the planned
GMD deployment to Europe and possible alternatives, this amendment
would express the Senate's opinion of what we expect our missile
defenses in Europe to deliver, generally.
It would state that the United States expects those missile defenses
to be the most capable and affordable and give a defense in the short
term, not just to our allies in Europe but to our fellow citizens
throughout the United States of America.

[[Page S7979]]

I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to join my colleague, Senator
Lieberman, in introducing amendment No. 1744, concerning the deployment
of missile defenses in Europe, and also thank him for his leadership on
this issue over many years. He is clearly one of the most effective
spokesmen for clear and strategic thinking and has helped us for many
years to establish good defense policy for our Nation.
As Senator Lieberman has explained, this amendment would state it is
the sense of the Congress that the administration should continue to
develop the planned missile defense deployment through Poland and the
Czech Republic, even as it considers other alternatives.
Further, it would state that any alternative to the current plan must
be as effective and affordable, and, most important, must be able to
defend the United States as well as Europe against long-range ballistic
missiles.
This amendment is important at this time because the administration
is now considering alternatives to the plan long pursued by the Bush
administration to station ground-based interceptors in Poland, a
missile-tracking radar system in the Czech Republic. Both Poland and
the Czech Republic have signed agreements to host these missile defense
assets after being told by the United States that we believed the plan
is important to protect Europe and the United States from rogue states,
more specifically, Iran's developing missile capability.
After much effort and political capital has been expended, both in
the United States and by our Polish and Czech Republic allies and
friends, now the project has been put in somewhat of a limbo, I am
afraid.
Russia and the domestic left opposed this plan from the beginning.
They lobbied the people and members of Congress in Poland and the Czech
Republic to not do it. But they have gone forward with it today. If the
objections of the United States to this system arise from Czech
reasons, then I would refer my colleagues to a February 2009 CBO study
Senator Lieberman cited, ``Options for Deploying Missile Defense in
Europe,'' which came to the conclusion that a ground-based interceptor
deployment in Poland and the Czech Republic is the most effective and
affordable option available for the foreseeable future.
The CBO concluded: ``This is the most effective and affordable option
for the foreseeable future.''
Other options apparently now under consideration include the
deployment of a land- or sea-based version of the Standard Missile 3,
SM-3 which is now deployed on Aegis ships of the United States.
The CBO found that this option, the SM-3, will not available until
late in the next decade, is no less expensive than the GBI option and
does not provide protection for the United States against long-range
Iranian missiles. In other words, while the deployment of a land- or
sea-based version of SM-3 may be suitable to protect Europe against
medium- and intermediate-range missile threats, it would not contribute
to the defense of the United States which could occur from the launch
of an ICBM, an intercontinental ballistic missile, which would travel
at a much higher altitude.
Likewise, Admiral Stavridis, the new commander of the U.S. European
Command, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee during a
hearing last month:

Sea-based and transportable land-based assets are integral
components of a comprehensive ballistic missile defense
system but cannot defeat the entire range of threats by
themselves. Sophisticated sensors are required for early
acquisition and target determination, and ground-based
interceptors are needed to defeat longer-range missiles.

The missile Iran seeks to develop, and is moving forward to develop,
would be capable of hitting the United States. Now they are seeking to
develop ICBMs, and they are actively pursuing nuclear weapons, as we
all know.
Why, I would ask my colleagues, would we want to consider
alternatives to the proposed GBI deployment in Europe that would not
save any money and would not provide additional protection for the
United States?
I would recall the comments former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger
made a few years ago about missile defense and whether we should
deploy. His comment was: I have never heard of a nation whose policy it
is to keep itself vulnerable to attack.
Well, we do not need to be kept vulnerable to attack. We have the
capability to defend ourselves and protect against incoming missiles.
Some have suggested that such additional protection is not needed, that
current ground-based interceptors deployed at our missile defense site
in Fort Greely, AK, can provide complete protection for the United
States against Iranian threats.
But that argument does not tell the complete story. The truth is,
deploying GBIs in Europe would provide an early opportunity to
intercept Iranian missiles headed to the east coast, which could then
be followed by an intercept attempt by Alaska, providing the United
States an extra layer of protection. Just 10 missiles could provide a
great additional protection for the United States. That is what is
needed, an integrated, layered, ballistic missile defense shield that
effectively protects America and her allies from rogue attack.
Most Americans think we are adequately protected. I do remember a
townhall meeting I held, and I asked the people there: What would
happen if a missile was launched at the United States? They said: We
would shoot it down. Well, that was before our system was up and
running in Alaska, and it was not accurate. People think we do have a
fully operational system, but we only have a few of those missiles up
in Alaska, and we need this additional shield in Europe.
Without the site in Poland, the United States would have only one
opportunity to engage Iranian missiles headed for certain portions of
our country. Why should we take that risk?
Although the search for alternatives may please the Russians, it
would perversely send the wrong message to our NATO allies and, in
particular, to our friends in Poland and the Czech Republic who,
despite pressure and threats from Russia, have agreed and stood firm
and expressed their willingness to host these missile defense assets on
their territory.
I would remind my colleague that NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, the most successful defense treaty in the history of the
world, endorsed the current plan at the April 2008 Bucharest Summit and
noted in their declaration:

We therefore recognize the substantial contribution to the
protection of Allies from long-range ballistic missiles to be
provided by the planned deployment of European-based United
States missile defense assets.

I also understand the Polish and Czech Parliaments have yet to ratify
the agreements, and the ambivalence presented by the Obama
Administration now regarding what was a firm policy of the United
States, means, frankly, it is unlikely they will do so until our
administration completes its consideration of alternatives. This has
placed our situation in limbo. I am not happy with that. I think it was
a mistake.
After all, why should those parliaments take up an agreement that the
United States may pull off the table? This unfortunate event was
obvious from the beginning when we backed away from our plan and
started showing uncertainty. It is obvious the political support in
Central Europe may erode.
I am left to conclude that the reason the administration is pursuing
alternatives in this current plan is its hopes it will address Russian
objections about the proposed deployment as part of a grand strategy to
reset relations with Russia and conclude a follow-on to the START
nuclear reduction agreement. I am not confident in this effort. In
fact, it seems to, instead of moving our relations forward, have moved
them backward.
Let me make note of some recent events. Just days after the United
States and Russia reached a broader agreement on arms reductions and
missile defense cooperation at the July 6 Moscow summit, Reuters News
Agency reported, on July 10, 4 days later, that Russian President
Medvedev threatened the United States that if it did not reach
agreement with Russia on our joint NATO/Polish/Czech plans for

[[Page S7980]]

missile defense systems, Moscow would deploy rockets in an enclave near
Poland.
Typical Russian bluster, threat. Likewise, Russian Foreign Minister
Sergey Lavrov has threatened to end arms control talks with the United
States if we pursue cooperation with our allies on missile defense, a
system that in no way threatens Russia's massive nuclear capability,
and they know it.
Ten interceptors of the United States in Europe are going to somehow
have a capability to stop the thousands of Russian missiles and nuclear
weapons that they have? Russia knows that our defenses would be no
match.
As reported by the Associated Press, just 1 day after the summit,
Lavrov stated:

If our partners make a decision to create an American
missile defense system with global reach, then that will
doubtless place a big question mark over the prospects for
further reduction in strategic offensive weapons.

Again, this is, unfortunately, a regressive approach by Russia on
issues that I do not think is justified. It seems we are falling back
into a darker approach to world affairs with threats instead of working
together to build a more peaceful and prosperous, harmonious world.
If, in fact, there were technical arguments in favor of alternative
deployments, which there are not, Russian belligerence would now indeed
be an argument for proceeding, nevertheless.
The former Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, Mirek Topolanek, put
the issue in its proper perspective when he stated:

The moral challenge is clear and simple: If we are not
willing to accept in the interests of the defense of the
Euro-Atlantic area such a trifle as the elements of a missile
defense system, then how shall we be able to face more
difficult challenges that may come?
That is an important statement. Are we losing confidence in
ourselves? He is not alone in that view. Just last week, 22 prominent
Eastern European political figures of important historic importance,
including Poland's Lech Walesa and the Czech Republic's Vaclav Havel,
published an open letter to President Obama expressing their uneasiness
over U.S. maneuvers with Russia. This letter was sent to address their
concerns in light of what appears to them to be Russia's attempt to
reassert its influence over Russia's former Eastern European
satellites. These are independent nations. They have been freed from
Soviet domination. It is not their desire to kowtow to Russia and to
have to seek Russia's permission over whether to put a radar site in
their country. They are sovereign nations.
These leaders noted in their letter that America's planned missile
defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic have become ``a
symbol of America's credibility and commitment in the region.'' They
further warned that:

The Alliance should not allow the issue to be determined by
unfounded Russian opposition. Abandoning the program entirely
or involving Russia too deeply in it without consulting
Poland or the Czech Republic can undermine the credibility of
the United States across the whole region.

I don't think that is no small matter. These are historic figures in
Eastern Europe who suffered under the Communist boot. They do not want
to go back. They are sending us a message. They are great American
allies. They believe in freedom and democracy. This is not an academic
matter to them, it is very real.
I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record at
the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). Without objection, it
is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. SESSIONS. On March 5, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
``applaud[ed] the decision by the people of the Czech Republic and
their government--as well as the people and Government of Poland--for
proceeding with missile defense on their soil.'' That was just in March
of this year. The United States should honor this commitment by
proceeding with the missile defense deployment as planned and not be
affected by Russia's unfounded objections. I remain baffled by their
objections, other than, perhaps, this is a way they think they can
extract concessions from the United States as a bargaining chip.
As the CBO study referenced above makes clear:

Only the Polish and Czech deployments can protect the
United States and Europe. Any other option costs more and
defends the U.S. less, if at all.

I ask my colleagues to support this message. It will be good for our
country to be clear on this question and for Congress to speak up.
I express a concern about what has happened in this budget to
national missile defense. It represents a major reduction in spending
for missile defense. We intend to deploy 44 missiles in Alaska. The
budget proposes, I believe, now just 30. It was proposed and part of
the agenda for the last number of years to place a multikill vehicle on
top of these interceptors so it could take out dummies and decoys and
multiple missiles. That was zeroed out, ended in this budget. For a
number of years, we have been funding research and development of the
kinetic energy interceptor. That is a high-speed system that can take
out missiles in the launch phase, which is the best phase to do so.
That was zeroed out. There was the airborne laser which has the
capability of shooting down missiles in their launch phase when they
have so much heat coming out of them. It is funded for 1 more year, and
it will be ended, apparently. Of course, now the 10 interceptors in
Europe are in question.
We need to be sure we understand how seriously we are impacting the
long-term strategy of the United States. We have spent $20 billion to
develop a system that will actually work at incredible rates of speed,
with hit-to-kill technology to knock down an incoming missile. After
all of these investments and all these years, for $1 billion we could
complete the program. We are saving about $150, $200 million this year
that would have kept us on track. Maybe we can keep the system going
forward. I hope so with this resolution and some other things.
But the American people need to know that we are not talking about a
minor retrenchment of national missile defense in the budget that has
come forward out of our committee. It represents the biggest reduction
of missile defense funding during my time in the Senate, over 12 years.
I hope that as the months go along we will be able to reevaluate what
we are doing and make sure we don't abandon the progress we have made
and take full advantage of decades of research and development that has
produced a system that will work to protect us.
I yield the floor.

[July 15, 2009]

Exhibit 1

An Open Letter to the Obama Administration from Central and Eastern
Europe

(By Valdas Adamkus, Martin Butora, Emil Constantinescu, Pavol Demes,
Lubos Dobrovsky, Matyas Eorsi, Istvan Gyarmati, Vaclav Havel, Rastislav
Kacer, Sandra Kalniete, Karel Schwarzenberg, Michal Kovac, Ivan
Krastev, Alexander Kwasniewski, Mart Laar, Kadri Liik, Janos Martonyi,
Janusz Onyszkiewicz, Adam Rotfeld, Vaira Vike-Freiberga, Alexandr
Vondra, Lech Walesa)

We have written this letter because, as Central and Eastern
European (CEE) intellectuals and former policymakers, we care
deeply about the future of the transatlantic relationship as
well as the future quality of relations between the United
States and the countries of our region. We write in our
personal capacity as individuals who are friends and allies
of the United States as well as committed Europeans.
Our nations are deeply indebted to the United States. Many
of us know firsthand how important your support for our
freedom and independence was during the dark Cold War years.
U.S. engagement and support was essential for the success of
our democratic transitions after the Iron Curtain fell twenty
years ago. Without Washington's vision and leadership, it is
doubtful that we would be in NATO and even the EU today.
We have worked to reciprocate and make this relationship a
two-way street. We are Atlanticist voices within NATO and the
EU. Our nations have been engaged alongside the United States
in the Balkans, Iraq, and today in Afghanistan. While our
contribution may at times seem modest compared to your own,
it is significant when measured as a percentage of our
population and GDP. Having benefited from your support for
liberal democracy and liberal values in the past, we have
been among your strongest supporters when it comes to
promoting democracy and human rights around the world.
Twenty years after the end of the Cold War, however, we see
that Central and Eastern European countries are no longer at
the heart of American foreign policy. As the new Obama
Administration sets its foreign-policy priorities, our region
is one part of the

[[Page S7981]]

world that Americans have largely stopped worrying about.
Indeed, at times we have the impression that U.S. policy was
so successful that many American officials have now concluded
that our region is fixed once and for all and that they could
``check the box'' and move on to other more pressing
strategic issues. Relations have been so close that many on
both sides assume that the region's transatlantic
orientation, as well as its stability and prosperity, would
last forever.
That view is premature. All is not well either in our
region or in the transatlantic relationship. Central and
Eastern Europe are at a political crossroads and today there
is a growing sense of nervousness in the region. The global
economic crisis is impacting on our region and, as elsewhere,
runs the risk that our societies will look inward and be less
engaged with the outside world. At the same time, storm
clouds are starting to gather on the foreign policy horizon.
Like you, we await the results of the EU Commission's
investigation on the origins of the Russo-Georgian war. But
the political impact of that war on the region has already
been felt. Many countries were deeply disturbed to see the
Atlantic alliance stand by as Russia violated the core
principles of the Helsinki Final Act, the Charter of Paris,
and the territorial integrity of a country that was a member
of NATO's Partnership for Peace and the Euroatlantic
Partnership Council--all in the name of defending a sphere of
influence on its borders.
Despite the efforts and significant contribution of the new
members, NATO today seems weaker than when we joined. In many
of our countries it is perceived as less and less relevant--
and we feel it. Although we are full members, people question
whether NATO would be willing and able to come to our defense
in some future crises. Europe's dependence on Russian energy
also creates concern about the cohesion of the Alliance.
President Obama's remark at the recent NATO summit on the
need to provide credible defense plans for all Alliance
members was welcome, but not sufficient to allay fears about
the Alliance's defense readiness. Our ability to continue to
sustain public support at home for our contributions to
Alliance missions abroad also depends on us being able to
show that our own security concerns are being addressed in
NATO and close cooperation with the United States.
We must also recognize that America's popularity and
influence have fallen in many of our countries as well.
Public opinions polls, including the German Marshall Fund's
own Transatlantic Trends survey, show that our region has not
been immune to the wave of criticism and anti-Americanism
that has swept Europe in recent years and which led to a
collapse in sympathy and support for the United States during
the Bush years. Some leaders in the region have paid a
political price for their support of the unpopular war in
Iraq. In the future they may be more careful in taking
political risks to support the United States. We believe that
the onset of a new Administration has created a new opening
to reverse this trend but it will take time and work on both
sides to make up for what we have lost.
In many ways the EU has become the major factor and
institution in our lives. To many people it seems more
relevant and important today than the link to the United
States. To some degree it is a logical outcome of the
integration of Central and Eastern Europe into the EU. Our
leaders and officials spend much more time in EU meetings
than in consultations with Washington, where they often
struggle to attract attention or make our voices heard. The
region's deeper integration in the EU is of course welcome
and should not necessarily lead to a weakening of the
transatlantic relationship. The hope was that integration of
Central and Eastern Europe into the EU would actually
strengthen the strategic cooperation between Europe and
America.
However, there is a danger that instead of being a pro-
Atlantic voice in the EU, support for a more global
partnership with Washington in the region might wane over
time. The region does not have the tradition of assuming a
more global role. Some items on the transatlantic agenda,
such as climate change, do not resonate in the Central and
Eastern European publics to the same extent as they do in
Western Europe.
Leadership change is also coming in Central and Eastern
Europe. Next to those, there are fewer and fewer leaders who
emerged from the revolutions of 1989 who experienced
Washington's key role in securing our democratic transition
and anchoring our countries in NATO and EU. A new generation
of leaders is emerging who do not have these memories and
follow a more ``realistic'' policy. At the same time, the
former Communist elites, whose insistence on political and
economic power significantly contributed to the crises in
many CEE countries, gradually disappear from the political
scene. The current political and economic turmoil and the
fallout from the global economic crisis provide additional
opportunities for the forces of nationalism, extremism,
populism, and anti-Semitism across the continent but also in
some of our countries.
This means that the United States is likely to lose many of
its traditional interlocutors in the region. The new elites
replacing them may not share the idealism--or have the same
relationship to the United States--as the generation who led
the democratic transition. They may be more calculating in
their support of the United States as well as more parochial
in their world view. And in Washington a similar transition
is taking place as many of the leaders and personalities we
have worked with and relied on are also leaving politics.
And then there is the issue of how to deal with Russia. Our
hopes that relations with Russia would improve and that
Moscow would finally fully accept our complete sovereignty
and independence after joining NATO and the EU have not been
fulfilled. Instead, Russia is back as a revisionist power
pursuing a 19th-century agenda with 21st-century tactics and
methods. At a global level, Russia has become, on most
issues, a status-quo power. But at a regional level and vis-
a-vis our nations, it increasingly acts as a revisionist one.
It challenges our claims to our own historical experiences.
It asserts a privileged position in determining our security
choices. It uses overt and covert means of economic warfare,
ranging from energy blockades and politically motivated
investments to bribery and media manipulation in order to
advance its interests and to challenge the transatlantic
orientation of Central and Eastern Europe.
We welcome the ``reset'' of the American-Russian relations.
As the countries living closest to Russia, obviously nobody
has a greater interest in the development of the democracy in
Russia and better relations between Moscow and the West than
we do. But there is also nervousness in our capitals. We want
to ensure that too narrow an understanding of Western
interests does not lead to the wrong concessions to Russia.
Today the concern is, for example, that the United States and
the major European powers might embrace the Medvedev plan for
a ``Concert of Powers'' to replace the continent's existing,
value-based security structure. The danger is that Russia's
creeping intimidation and influence-peddling in the region
could over time lead to a de facto neutralization of the
region. There are differing views within the region when it
comes to Moscow's new policies. But there is a shared view
that the full engagement of the United States is needed.
Many in the region are looking with hope to the Obama
Administration to restore the Atlantic relationship as a
moral compass for their domestic as well as foreign policies.
A strong commitment to common liberal democratic values is
essential to our countries. We know from our own historical
experience the difference between when the United States
stood up for its liberal democratic values and when it did
not. Our region suffered when the United States succumbed to
``realism'' at Yalta. And it benefited when the United
States used its power to fight for principle. That was
critical during the Cold War and in opening the doors of
NATO. Had a ``realist'' view prevailed in the early 1990s,
we would not be in NATO today and the idea of a Europe
whole, free, and at peace would be a distant dream.
We understand the heavy demands on your Administration and
on U.S. foreign policy. It is not our intent to add to the
list of problems you face. Rather, we want to help by being
strong Atlanticist allies in a U.S.-European partnership that
is a powerful force for good around the world. But we are not
certain where our region will be in five or ten years time
given the domestic and foreign policy uncertainties we face.
We need to take the right steps now to ensure the strong
relationship between the United States and Central and
Eastern Europe over the past twenty years will endure.
We believe this is a time both the United States and Europe
need to reinvest in the transatlantic relationship. We also
believe this is a time when the United States and Central and
Eastern Europe must reconnect around a new and forward-
looking agenda. While recognizing what has been achieved in
the twenty years since the fall of the Iron Curtain, it is
time to set a new agenda for close cooperation for the next
twenty years across the Atlantic.
Therefore, we propose the following steps:
First, we are convinced that America needs Europe and that
Europe needs the United States as much today as in the past.
The United States should reaffirm its vocation as a European
power and make clear that it plans to stay fully engaged on
the continent even while it faces the pressing challenges in
Afghanistan and Pakistan, the wider Middle East, and Asia.
For our part we must work at home in our own countries and in
Europe more generally to convince our leaders and societies
to adopt a more global perspective and be prepared to
shoulder more responsibility in partnership with the United
States.
Second, we need a renaissance of NATO as the most important
security link between the United States and Europe. It is the
only credible hard power security guarantee we have. NATO
must reconfirm its core function of collective defense even
while we adapt to the new threats of the 21st century. A key
factor in our ability to participate in NATO's expeditionary
missions overseas is the belief that we are secure at home.
We must therefore correct some self-inflicted wounds from the
past. It was a mistake not to commence with proper Article 5
defense planning for new members after NATO was enlarged.
NATO needs to make the Alliance's commitments credible and
provide strategic reassurance to all members. This should
include contingency planning, prepositioning of forces,
equipment, and supplies for reinforcement in our region in
case of crisis as originally envisioned in the NATO-Russia
Founding Act.
We should also re-think the working of the NATO-Russia
Council and return to the practice where NATO member
countries enter

[[Page S7982]]

into dialogue with Moscow with a coordinated position. When
it comes to Russia, our experience has been that a more
determined and principled policy toward Moscow will not only
strengthen the West's security but will ultimately lead
Moscow to follow a more cooperative policy as well.
Furthermore, the more secure we feel inside NATO, the easier
it will also be for our countries to reach out to engage
Moscow on issues of common interest. That is the dual track
approach we need and which should be reflected in the new
NATO strategic concept.
Third, the thorniest issue may well be America's planned
missile-defense installations. Here too, there are different
views in the region, including among our publics which are
divided. Regardless of the military merits of this scheme and
what Washington eventually decides to do, the issue has
nevertheless also become--at least in some countries--a
symbol of America's credibility and commitment to the region.
How it is handled could have a significant impact on their
future transatlantic orientation. The small number of
missiles involved cannot be a threat to Russia's strategic
capabilities, and the Kremlin knows this. We should decide
the future of the program as allies and based on the
strategic plusses and minuses of the different technical and
political configurations. The Alliance should not allow the
issue to be determined by unfounded Russian opposition.
Abandoning the program entirely or involving Russia too
deeply in it without consulting Poland or the Czech Republic
can undermine the credibility of the United States across the
whole region.
Fourth, we know that NATO alone is not enough. We also want
and need more Europe and a better and more strategic U.S.-EU
relationship as well. Increasingly our foreign policies are
carried out through the European Union--and we support that.
We also want a common European foreign and defense policy
that is open to close cooperation with the United States. We
are the advocates of such a line in the EU. But we need the
United States to rethink its attitude toward the EU and
engage it much more seriously as a strategic partner. We need
to bring NATO and the EU closer together and make them work
in tandem. We need common NATO and EU strategies not only
toward Russia but on a range of other new strategic
challenges.
Fifth is energy security. The threat to energy supplies can
exert an immediate influence on our nations' political
sovereignty also as allies contributing to common decisions
in NATO. That is why it must also become a transatlantic
priority. Although most of the responsibility for energy
security lies within the realm of the EU, the United States
also has a role to play. Absent American support, the Baku-
Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline would never have been built. Energy
security must become an integral part of U.S.-European
strategic cooperation. Central and Eastern European countries
should lobby harder (and with more unity) inside Europe for
diversification of the energy mix, suppliers, and transit
routes, as well as for tough legal scrutiny of Russia's abuse
of its monopoly and cartel-like power inside the EU. But
American political support on this will play a crucial role.
Similarly, the United States can play an important role in
solidifying further its support for the Nabucco pipeline,
particularly in using its security relationship with the main
transit country, Turkey, as well as the North-South
interconnector of Central Europe and LNG terminals in our
region.
Sixth, we must not neglect the human factor. Our next
generations need to get to know each other, too. We have to
cherish and protect the multitude of educational,
professional, and other networks and friendships that
underpin our friendship and alliance. The U.S. visa regime
remains an obstacle in this regard. It is absurd that Poland
and Romania--arguably the two biggest and most pro-American
states in the CEE region, which are making substantial
contributions in Iraq and Afghanistan--have not yet been
brought into the visa waiver program. It is incomprehensible
that a critic like the French anti-globalization activist
Jose Bove does not require a visa for the United States but
former Solidarity activist and Nobel Peace prizewinner Lech
Walesa does. This issue will be resolved only if it is made a
political priority by the President of the United States.
The steps we made together since 1989 are not minor in
history. The common successes are the proper foundation for
the transatlantic renaissance we need today. This is why we
believe that we should also consider the creation of a Legacy
Fellowship for young leaders. Twenty years have passed since
the revolutions of 1989. That is a whole generation. We need
a new generation to renew the transatlantic partnership. A
new program should be launched to identify those young
leaders on both sides of the Atlantic who can carry forward
the transatlantic project we have spent the last two decades
building in Central and Eastern Europe.
In conclusion, the onset of a new Administration in the
United States has raised great hopes in our countries for a
transatlantic renewal. It is an opportunity we dare not miss.
We, the authors of this letter, know firsthand how important
the relationship with the United States has been. In the
1990s, a large part of getting Europe right was about getting
Central and Eastern Europe right. The engagement of the
United States was critical to locking in peace and stability
from the Baltics to the Black Sea. Today the goal must be to
keep Central and Eastern Europe right as a stable, activist,
and Atlanticist part of our broader community.
That is the key to our success in bringing about the
renaissance in the Alliance the Obama Administration has
committed itself to work for and which we support. That will
require both sides recommitting to and investing in this
relationship. But if we do it right, the pay off down the
road can be very real. By taking the right steps now, we can
put it on new and solid footing for the future.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I very much support the pending amendment.
It is the product of a lot of work by a lot of people. Senator
Lieberman, in particular, was considering offering an amendment during
our markup in the committee. He agreed that he would hold off until we
got to the floor to try to get broad bipartisan agreement on a very
important subject. He did that. We are grateful to him for doing so.
This amendment is consistent with the administration's policies for
missile defense in Europe, including its consideration of a variety of
options and architectures for defending Europe, including the so-called
third site in Poland and the Czech Republic. The main purpose of these
efforts in Europe is to act against an Iranian missile threat should it
materialize. It is very important that we do so.
Earlier this month, General Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs, testified before the Armed Services Committee that the
Department of Defense is considering a number of missile defense
options in Europe.
This amendment is also consistent with the administration's efforts
to pursue missile defense cooperation with Russia as part of our
efforts to address the Iranian missile threat. Those missiles, of
course, potentially could be armed with nuclear warheads. This
potential Iranian missile threat is a threat that confronts not just
Europe as NATO but also Russia as well, obviously, and a number of
other countries. It is a real threat. Everything we can do to deter
that, everything we can do to defend, should it ever materialize, is
something we must do. It is a major threat.
In one of its findings, NATO recognizes this Iranian threat. This is
the way NATO recognized this Iranian threat and the importance of
trying to work together to deter, to try to prevent it from happening,
and then, should it happen, to defend against it, to make it useless.
Here is what NATO said in April:

We support increased missile defense cooperation between
Russia and NATO, including maximum transparency and
reciprocal confidence-building measures to allay any
concerns. We reaffirm our readiness to explore the potential
for linking United States, NATO and Russian missile defense
systems at an appropriate time and we encourage the Russian
Federation to take advantage of [U.S.] missile defense
cooperation proposals.

Back in April, I led a delegation, with Senators Collins and Bill
Nelson, to visit Russia, Poland, and the Czech Republic to discuss
missile defense and the potential for a cooperative approach. What we
found is that there appears to be real potential for a cooperative
approach and for having missile defense be a uniting issue against a
common threat instead of a dividing issue. If we can find a way to
cooperate with Russia on missile defense, it would send an
extraordinarily powerful message to Iran that we are united against
their continued development of nuclear technology and long-range
ballistic missiles.
That is the point of missile defense in Europe, to address the
Iranian missile and nuclear program in order to enhance their security
and our security. This amendment will authorize prior year's funds for
a variety of cost-effective and operationally effective missile defense
options that could protect Europe and the United States from Iranian
missiles of all ranges, current and future. The amendment is designed
to command and hopefully attract strong bipartisan support. I hope it
does just that.
I believe a voice vote may be possible after Senator McCain speaks. I
hope that is the case, given the schedule.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Lieberman
amendment expressing the sense of the Senate that the U.S. Government
should continue developing and planning for the proposed deployments of
elements of a

[[Page S7983]]

ground-based midcourse defense system. I thank the Senator from
Connecticut for this amendment and his willingness to work with all
parties, which will then allow us to voice vote this very important
amendment.
Obviously, there are a lot of strong feelings on the issue of missile
defense in Europe. I believe this amendment addresses and expresses our
concerns and our goals, including a midcourse radar in the Czech
Republic and ground-based interceptors in Poland, as well as the
reservation of funds for the development and deployment of missile
defense systems in Europe.
As rogue nations, including North Korea and Iran, push the nuclear
envelope and work tirelessly to develop delivery vehicles capable of
reaching America and its allies, we must aggressively develop the
systems necessary to counter such belligerent efforts. Enhancing
missile defense capabilities in Europe is an essential component to
addressing rogue state and in-theater threats we face and expect to
face in the future.
As Iran works to develop ballistic missile capabilities of all
ranges, the United States must reaffirm its commitments to its allies
and develop and deploy effective missile defense systems. The Iranian
ballistic missile threat is real and growing. During the NATO summit in
Bucharest in April of 2008, the allies cited the threat of ballistic
missile proliferation as one of great concern to their forces,
territory, and populations. Missile defense in Europe, according to
NATO ``forms part of a broader response to counter this threat . . .
[a] substantial contribution to the protection of Allies from long-
range ballistic missiles to be provided by the planned deployment of
European-based United States missile defense assets.''
Uncertainty about the future of missile defense in Europe, some
stemming from perceptions, whether wanted or not, that Russia will have
a say or veto power over the disposition of our missile defense
architecture, has caused concerns both here in the Senate and among
some of our closest European allies. I urge the administration to
provide some clarity on how it plans to honor the commitments the
United States has made to Poland and the Czech Republic.
The last administration recognized the importance and need for a
European component to our missile defense system, reached out to the
Governments of Poland and the Czech Republic, and asked that they make
what many at the time perceived as an unpopular agreement. Despite
unwanted threats from Russia, both governments recognized the
importance such a capability would provide to their citizens and to
Europe as a whole and agreed to allow the United States to place
ground-based interceptors in Poland and a midcourse radar site in the
Czech Republic.
Given the perception, one that has been strengthened by the testimony
of administration officials before the Armed Services Committee, that
the United States is preparing to back away from its commitments to our
Polish and Czech allies, this amendment comes at an important moment.
It was only a year ago, after all, that the United States and the Czech
Republic affirmed that:

Within the context of, and consistent with, both the North
Atlantic Treaty and the Czech Republic . . . the United
States is committed to the security of the Czech Republic.
[And that] the Czech Republic and the United States will work
together to counter emerging military or non-military threats
posed by third parties or to minimize the effects of such
threats.

Similarly, on August 20, 2008, the United States signed an agreement
with Poland stating that the:

United States is committed to the security of Poland and of
any U.S. facilities located on the territory of the Republic
of Poland. . . .The United States and Poland intend to expand
air and missile defense cooperation. In this regard, we have
agreed on an important new area of such cooperation involving
the deployment of a U.S. Army Patriot air and missile defense
battery in Poland.

Our Polish friends are clearly uneasy and have been quite vocal.
During a forum earlier this year in Brussels, Polish Foreign Minister
Radoslaw Sikorski said:

We hope we don't regret our trust in the United States.

I urge the administration and my colleagues in the Senate to join me
in reiterating our commitment to the security and freedom of these
nations as well as deterring and defending them against any threats to
their security.
With respect to Russia and the ongoing START negotiations, I urge the
President to continue to reject any Russian attempt to link reductions
in offensive strategic nuclear weapons with defensive capabilities such
as missile defense. Russia, too, must recognize that the current
Iranian path is unsettling to the global interests of all peace-seeking
nations. Missile defense in Europe is not and should not be viewed in
Moscow as some new form of post-Cold War aggression. It is, rather, a
reasonable and prudent response to the very real threats the Iranian
regime continues to pose to the United States, Europe, and the world.
Again, I thank my good friend from Connecticut for offering this
amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support its adoption.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, very briefly, I want to thank Senator
Levin and Senator McCain for their very thoughtful statements in
support of this amendment. I thank their staffs for the work that has
been done with all of my staff, Senator Sessions, and others to reach
this agreement. It is an important statement of policy about our
national security in the years ahead. I appreciate all that has been
done by everyone here in the spirit of unity.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the
amendment, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1744) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that Senator
Dorgan be recognized for up to 15 minutes and then we return to regular
order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me thank the chairman of the
committee, Senator Levin, and Senator McCain, for their work on this
bill.
We talk about a lot of things in this bill: jet fighters, bombers,
tankers, submarines, unmanned aerial vehicles--lots and lots of
subjects. The subjects are about the defense of our country, what
provides national security for our country, so these are all very
important. I wish to speak, however, about one piece of this
legislation that probably is not mentioned much but I think is very
important; that is, the reduction of the threat of nuclear weapons.
There is something over $400 million in this bill that deals with the
efforts to try to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons.
I have had at my desk in the Senate for a long while some pieces of
equipment. I ask unanimous consent to show them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is a piece of a wing of a Soviet
Backfire bomber. We did not shoot this plane down. This was sawed off
of a wing of a Backfire bomber that would have carried nuclear weapons,
presumably, to threaten our country. But under something called the
Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program that we engaged in with
the countries of the former Soviet Union, bombers were destroyed--oh,
not by bullets, but they were sawed in half and the wings were taken
off and so on.
This is a tube of copper, I show you, from the electrical wiring of a
Russian submarine that carried nuclear weapons targeting this country.
This was

[[Page S7984]]

ground up by the Cooperative Threat Reduction program. The submarine
was not destroyed by American bullets. This is part of the Cooperative
Threat Reduction effort.
This, I show you, is a hinge from a nuclear weapon on top of a
missile that was in the Ukraine, presumably aimed at an American
target. Where this missile once sat now grows sunflowers in the
Ukraine.
The Cooperative Threat Reduction Program--now, why is that important?
Mr. President, we have a lot of threats to this country, but none is
as great as the threat of a nuclear warhead being exploded in a major
American city or any metropolitan area of this world, for example.
Here, as shown on this chart, is how many nuclear warheads we have.
This is from the Carnegie Endowment in 2009. They estimate the number
of nuclear warheads that exist on the planet--Russia, about 14,000
nuclear weapons; the United States, 10,500 nuclear weapons; China,
about 125; France, about 300; Britain, about 160 nuclear weapons;
Israel, 80; India, 50; Pakistan, 60, and so on.
Let me tell you a story, if I might. It is a story that has been
written about extensively. In fact, it was the lead for a book called
``Nuclear Terrorism,'' written by Graham Allison.
It was 1 month after 9/11/2001. It was October 11, 2001, when, at the
Presidential daily briefing to President George W. Bush, George Tenet,
the then-head of the CIA, informed the President that a CIA agent code
named Dragonfire had reported that al-Qaida terrorists possessed a 10-
kiloton nuclear weapon, evidently stolen from the Russian arsenal.
According to Dragonfire, the CIA agent, it had been smuggled into an
American city, probably New York City. Again, at the President's daily
briefing, 1 month to the day after 9/11, it was said that al-Qaida had
smuggled a 10-kiloton stolen nuclear weapon into perhaps New York City.
The CIA had no independent confirmation of it, but in the hours that
followed, the Secretary of State, the National Security Adviser, and
others struggled with the question of whom do you call to talk about
the threat and how do you do it without the news media putting out a
bulletin that there is a rumor that a stolen 10-kiloton Russian nuclear
weapon is in an American city without causing panic and mass exodus?
So they tried to determine what to do about this and analyzed: Was it
plausible, possible that al-Qaida terrorists had stolen a 10-kiloton
nuclear weapon? The answer is yes. Did the Russians possess 10-kiloton
nuclear weapons? Yes. Did they have good command and control over them,
absolute command and control? No. Was it possible, having stolen it,
that the terrorists could have smuggled it into New York City or,
perhaps, Washington, DC? Yes. And could the terrorists detonate it? The
answer is yes. If it were trucked, for example, to Times Square and
exploded, would half a million people be killed instantly? Yes.
But they did not tell anybody. They did not tell the mayor of New
York. They sent nuclear weapons search teams to New York. The President
sent teams to New York but did not inform anybody, for obvious reasons.
About a month later, while there were a lot of people having an
apoplectic seizure about this prospect, it was determined that perhaps
the report by the CIA agent, Dragonfire, was not credible.
Now, think of that. Think of the unbelievable angst about the
potential of one rather small nuclear weapon, a 10-kiloton nuclear
weapon, having been stolen on a planet where there are 25,000 of them--
most of them much larger than that. Think of the angst about the
potential of having one stolen by a terrorist group and exploded in the
middle of an American city. That is just one weapon, and there are
25,000.
There are a lot of people who are good thinkers and very experienced
in these areas who will tell you, including former Defense Secretary
Perry and others, that there is a very high probability that within the
coming 10 years there will be a nuclear weapon exploded in a major
city.
So with all of the talk about planes and ships and all of the issues
in this bill, this issue of the threat reduction, with $400 million-
plus in this bill--the threat reduction that allowed us to dismantle
nuclear weapons, cut off the wings of an adversary's bombers, grind up
the wiring, and destroy the submarines--that is critically important.
The question for us is, What are we going to do to reduce the number of
nuclear weapons and to stop the spread of nuclear weapons around the
world? Because almost certainly there will be an explosion of a nuclear
weapon in a metropolitan area at some point in the future unless we
provide the leadership in arms talks and arms reductions. It is our
responsibility to lead. It falls on our shoulders to bear this burden
to lead.
I know there are some who would say: Do you know what, that is a sign
of weakness to be talking about reducing nuclear weapons. I am not
suggesting reducing America's strength or allowing America to be
undefended. I am suggesting the world will be a much safer place if we
do not have 25,000 nuclear weapons, and this world will be a much safer
place if we find a way to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. Every day
now, we see the spectacle of Iran. Iran possessing a nuclear weapon?
That is scary. North Korea. We do not know how many weapons North Korea
has, but the Carnegie Endowment says perhaps less than 10.
But what do we do now? What do we do to decide we are going to be
involved in a very aggressive way leading the world in the
nonproliferation of nuclear weapons and beginning to reduce the number
of nuclear weapons?
We are operating now under what is called the Strategic Offensive
Reductions Treaty, also known as the Moscow Treaty, that our last
President negotiated. It required the United States and Russia to have
no more than 2,200 operationally deployed nuclear weapons. It does not
mean that is the limit. That is just the operationally deployed limit.
They can have far more nuclear weapons than that. By 2012, they had to
be down to 2,200 operationally deployed. It does not restrict delivery
vehicles of any kind--missiles, ships, planes. It does not have any
verification measures, and it expires in 2012.
There is another treaty called the START Treaty, which was superseded
by the treaty I just described. But some parts of the START Treaty are
still in force because it does have verification and onsite monitoring
and confidence-building measures and it does limit delivery vehicles.
But that limitation is going to expire, and that START Treaty expires
at the end of this year.
So the point I want to make today simply is this: We are talking
about a lot of very important things, and I think the bill put together
by the chairman and ranking member, this Defense authorization bill, is
very important. I understand that. We need an Army, a Navy, the
Marines, the Air Force. We need them well equipped. This is a troubling
world in some corners. We face an enormous threat of terrorism. We face
a lot of different threats. We must keep our eye on the ball. We, above
all, here in the United States have a responsibility to provide the
leadership that is necessary to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and
to try to push and push and push for agreements that would reduce the
number of nuclear weapons.

As I said before, when, again, a CIA agent code named Dragonfire
shows up and says to the CIA, I have picked up information which
indicates there is one nuclear weapon that has been stolen and it is in
the hands of terrorists, and it is now in New York City, ready to be
detonated, when that happens next, we had better worry a great deal if
we haven't prevented it, if we haven't taken all of the steps necessary
to say, that can't happen. That report in October of 2001 turned out to
be false, but all of the post mortems by experts understood that it
could well have been true, and all of the elements could have been
accurate. A weapon could have been stolen, smuggled into the city,
detonated and a half a million people within three-quarters of a mile
of Times Square would have died immediately. If that would have
happened the world would never be the same. Everything will have
changed.
So it seems to me we have a responsibility to aggressively pursue
arms control agreements. We have an opportunity now, and a
responsibility to pursue aggressively, even in legislation such as
this, the reduction of nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles to try to

[[Page S7985]]

see if we can step back from the abyss and actively engage with other
nuclear powers to do things that will tighten controls, and in a very
significant way, prevents the opportunity from other nations, and
especially rogue nations, and especially, most especially, terrorist
groups, from acquiring nuclear weapons.
We know, we have the history, that Osama bin Laden has been
fascinated with and has wanted to acquire the mechanics for nuclear
weapons and the materials for nuclear weapons for a long time. We know
that. Al-Qaida is still there. As far as we know, Osama bin Laden is
still leading al-Qaida. It is pretty unbelievable to think about that.
On 9/11 we were told there isn't one acre on this Earth that would be
safe for the person who designed the attack against our country, but it
is now 8 years later and we are told in the public briefings by our CIA
that the greatest threat to our homeland is al-Qaida, a reconstituted
al-Qaida. The terrorist threat which is the greatest threat to our
homeland is a reconstituted al-Qaida with training camps where they are
designing attacks against our country.
Let us hope that we are able to make the kinds of efforts and provide
the kind of leadership that singularly says to the world: It is this
country that leads the way to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and
it is our country that wants to reduce the number of nuclear weapons on
this planet. No, that won't make us weaker; I don't suggest any
approach that would ever weaken this country relative to its
adversaries. But it will certainly strengthen the future of this planet
if we reduce the number of nuclear weapons below the 25,000 nuclear
weapons that now exist as well as take very significant steps to stop
other countries and certainly to prevent forever rogue nations and
terrorist organizations from acquiring nuclear weapons. That needs to
be job one. We don't talk nearly enough about it. We don't talk about
the subject as much as we should. But I wanted to bring this issue to
the floor during this discussion because it is in this bill,
Cooperative Threat Reduction, which we know works and which we have
funded in the past and will continue to fund in this bill again, and is
something that addresses the issue of not just building more weapons
but actually finding ways to engage with our adversaries to reduce the
weapons that can, frankly, threaten the existence of this planet.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, what is the pending amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Akaka amendment
No. 1522.

Amendment No. 1519

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 1519.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I will not
object--of course--this would be the next amendment which would be in a
line of amendments that Senator McCain and I are trying to work out
alternating between the two sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Burr], for himself and
Mrs. Hagan, proposes an amendment numbered 1519.

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

(Purpose: To prohibit the establishment of an outlying landing field at
Sandbanks or Hale's Lake, North Carolina)

On page 565, after line 20, add the following:

Subtitle D--Other Matters

SEC. 2481. PROHIBITION ON OUTLYING LANDING FIELD AT SANDBANKS
OR HALE'S LAKE, NORTH CAROLINA, FOR OCEANA
NAVAL AIR STATION.

The Secretary of the Navy may not establish, consider the
establishment of, or purchase land, construct facilities,
implement bird management plans, or conduct any other
activities that would facilitate the establishment of an
outlying landing field at either of the proposed sites in
North Carolina, Sandbanks or Hale's Lake, to support field
carrier landing practice for naval aircraft operating out of
Oceana, Naval Air Station, Virginia.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, most Members don't know much about this
amendment. If you are not from Virginia or if you are not from North
Carolina or you are not on the Armed Services Committee, this amendment
will probably not make a lot of sense. This is about the proposed
acquisition of land in North Carolina for an outlying landing field for
carrier-based aircraft to practice their touch and goes for the
purposes of night takeoffs and night landings.
This is not new to North Carolina. Let me say to my colleagues, I
don't think there is a State more friendly to the military than North
Carolina. We are home to Fort Bragg, the Pentagon of the Army; we are
home to Camp LeJeune, the east coast hub of the Marine Corps; Seymour
Johnson Air Force Base. Our communities don't just welcome the
military, they support the military. I think it is the most military-
friendly State you can find. There is no military family that is
stationed within North Carolina that has not been extended in-State
tuition regardless of how long they are there or whether their kids are
still in education once their parents might have been deployed
elsewhere.
This is not an issue of ``not in my backyard.'' There are two
proposed sites. One thing my amendment very clearly does is it
prohibits the establishment of an outlying landing field at the
proposed Hale's Lake, Camden County/Currituck County landing sites and
the Sandbanks, Gates County sites in North Carolina. It says to the
Navy: You have to take them off your list; you can't include them.
The Navy is proposing to construct an outlying landing field for
their carrier-based fixed-wing aircraft squadrons stationed in Virginia
Beach at the Naval Air Station Oceana. They propose to acquire 30,000
acres. So they get 30,000 acres to allow for the accommodation of fee-
simple purchases, the purchase of restrictive use or through
conservation easements.
Approximately 2,000 acres would be used for the core area, which
would include an 8,000-foot runway. Think about 30,000 acres relative
to the airport that is in your local community and you get an idea of
how much bigger this footprint is.
I said earlier this is not about ``not in my backyard.'' As a matter
of fact, North Carolina has proffered to the Navy currently a Marine
air station in Cherry Point as a potential OLF site where we already
have squadrons of Marine aircraft. We have the capacity and, more
importantly, we have a community that wants to have this site. The Navy
doesn't support the Cherry Point proposal, supposedly because it is
considered to be in a location too far from Oceana. Well, let me
describe for my colleagues, when you draw the line that says anything
outside of this is too far, Cherry Point falls 20 miles outside of the
line they have drawn. Twenty miles is the glidepath to land and the
glidepath to take off. We are not talking about a big distance. It
doesn't seem to make sense why the Navy is looking to condemn 30,000
acres for the purposes of constructing a new facility instead of using
an existing facility, an existing military base that would be much more
efficient and cost effective for the Navy and, more importantly, cost
effective for taxpayers.
Why am I here? Why is Senator Hagan offering this amendment? Because
the people in Gates County, in Currituck County, in Camden County,
don't want it. The Navy went into this process saying: If people don't
want us, we won't go there. The truth is it doesn't stop there.
I wish to enter into the Record, if I may--on May 27, 2009, the North
Carolina General Assembly unanimously passed a bill, House bill 613,
which states that the consent of the State is not granted to the
Federal Government for acquisition of land for an outlying landing
field in a county or counties which have no existing military base
where squadrons are stationed. I ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the Record this document, as well as a letter from the president of
the North Carolina Senate.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S7986]]

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA, SESSION 2009

Session Law 2009-20, House Bill 613

An Act providing that consent of the State is not granted to
the United States for acquisition of land for an outlying
landing field in a county or counties which have no
existing military base at which aircraft squadrons are
stationed
The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
Section 1. G.S. 104-7 reads as rewritten:
``Sec. 104-7. Acquisition of lands by the United States for
customhouses, courthouses, post offices, forts, arsenals, or
armories; cession of jurisdiction; exemption from taxation.
(a) The consent of the State is hereby given, in accordance
with the seventeenth clause, eighth section, of the first
article of the Constitution of the United States, to the
acquisition by the United States, by purchase, condemnation,
or otherwise, of any land in the State that either is:
(1) Required for customhouses, courthouses, post offices,
forts, arsenals, or armories; provided that the total land to
be acquired for a particular facility does not exceed 25
acres; or
(2) To be added to Fort Bragg, Pope Air Force Base, Camp
Lejeune, New River Marine Corps Air Station, Seymour Johnson
Air Force Base, Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station,
Military Ocean Terminal at Sunny Point, or the United States
Coast Guard Air Station at Elizabeth City. Any of the land to
be added to a military base named in this subdivision shall
be contiguous to and within a 25-mile radius of the military
base for which the property is acquired.
(a1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)
above, the consent of the State is not given to the
acquisition by the United States, by purchase, condemnation
or otherwise, of any land in a county or counties which have
no existing military base at which aircraft squadrons are
stationed, for the purpose of establishing an outlying
landing field to support training and operations of aircraft
squadrons stationed at or transient to military bases or
military stations located outside of the State. Exclusive
jurisdiction in and over any land acquired by the United
States without the consent of the State under this subsection
is not ceded to the United States for any purpose.
(b) Exclusive jurisdiction in and over any land acquired by
the United States with the consent of the State under
subsection (a) of this section is hereby ceded to the United
States for all purposes for which the United States requests
cession of jurisdiction except that jurisdiction in and over
these lands with respect to: (i) the service of all civil and
criminal process of the courts of this State, (ii) the
concurrent power to enforce the criminal law, (iii) the power
to enforce State laws for the protection of public health and
the environment and for the conservation of natural
resources, and (iv) the entire legislative jurisdiction of
the State with respect to marriage, divorce, annulment,
adoption, commitment of the mentally incompetent, and descent
and distribution of property is reserved to the State.
Cession of jurisdiction shall continue only so long as the
United States owns the land.
(c) The jurisdiction ceded shall not vest until the United
States has acquired title to the land by purchase,
condemnation, or otherwise; accepted the cession of
jurisdiction in writing; and filed a certified copy of the
acceptance in the office of the register of deeds in the
county or counties in which the land is located. The
acceptance of jurisdiction shall be made by an authorized
official of the United States and shall include a precise
description of the land involved and a statement of the
extent to which cession of jurisdiction is accepted. The
register of deeds shall record the acceptance of jurisdiction
and index it in both the grantor and the grantee index under
the name of the United States and, if title to the land over
which jurisdiction is ceded is vested in any entity other
than the United States, then the register of deeds shall also
index the acceptance of jurisdiction in both the grantor and
the grantee index under the name of that entity.
(d) So long as land acquired with the consent of the State
under subsection (a) of this section remains the property of
the United States, and no longer, the land shall be exempt
and exonerated from all State, county, and municipal
taxation, assessment, or other charges that may be levied or
imposed under the authority of this State.
(e) Persons residing on lands in the State for which any
jurisdiction has been ceded under this section shall not be
deprived of any civil or political rights, including the
right of suffrage, by reason of the cession of jurisdiction
to the United States.''
Section 2. This act is effective when it becomes law.
In the General Assembly read three times and ratified this
the 23rd day of April, 2009.
Walter H. Dalton,
President of the Senate.
William L. Wainwright,
Speaker pro tempore of the House of Representatives.
Beverly E. Perdue,
Governor.
Approved 3:21 p.m. this 30th day of April, 2009.

North Carolina General Assembly,

Raleigh, NC, May 27, 2009.
Dear North Carolina Congressional Delegation: We are
writing to inform you of the North Carolina General
Assembly's unanimous opposition to the Navy's plans to build
an outlying landing field in northeastern North Carolina.
Last month, both the North Carolina House of Representatives
and North Carolina Senate unanimously passed House Bill 613,
which says that the consent of the state is not granted to
the federal government for acquisition of land for an
outlying landing field in a county or counties which have no
existing military base where aircraft squadrons are
stationed. This new law, which the Governor signed April
30th, will make it more difficult for the Navy to force an
OLF into Camden, Currituck, or Gates Counties and sends a
strong, unified message of opposition from our state. We are
including a copy of the legislation for your information.
All along, we have known that an OLF in northeastern North
Carolina would benefit the people of Virginia and would be
built to alleviate noise and congestion at Naval Station
Oceana in Virginia Beach. For years, the Navy has refused to
admit this very basic rationale for their proposed OLF.
Therefore, we respectfully ask you, as our federal
representatives, to urge the Navy to move some of the
squadrons based at Oceana to the Marine Corps Air Station at
Cherry Point. This would alleviate the need for an OLF in
northeastern North Carolina and our state would benefit from
the employment surrounding these additional squadrons. If an
OLF is needed, North Carolina's new law would allow one near
Cherry Point, in an area of our state that wants it and
receives the economic benefits as well.
North Carolina is the most military-friendly state in the
nation and we intend to remain so. It is our hope that we can
work toward a solution that allows the Navy to meet its
training needs and continues the proud tradition of
cooperation between the military and our state.
Sincerely,
Marc Basnight,
President pro tempore.
Bill Owens,
Representative.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, an OLF at any of the proposed sites in North
Carolina and Virginia would create 52 jobs. Fifty-two jobs, for a
30,000-acre footprint. The location at the Hale's Lake site is a
38,000-acre farm that currently employs 90 employees and has a local
economic impact of approximately $6.5 million. Let me say that again.
We are being asked to consider a 30,000-acre footprint at Hale's Lake
where we are going to take 90 jobs and we are going to replace them
with 52 jobs, where they have $6.5 million worth of economic impact and
we are going to go to a situation where the Federal Government doesn't
pay property taxes.
The core of the Sandsbank outlying landing field site contains 1,269
acres of wetland. Let me say this again. The core of the Sandsbank
30,000 acres contains 1,269 acres of wetlands. In October of 2007, the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality recommended that the Sandsbank
site not be pursued. Why? Because of the significance of wetlands.
I say to my colleagues--and I think we will probably lose this
amendment and we will have a voice vote on it--I think it is important
to understand, North Carolina has taken option after option after
option to the Navy. As a matter of fact, this is our second round after
they shortcut an environmental impact study and the courts got involved
for a site they had picked and had already purchased the land. They are
now in the unusual position of having a lot of land and they can't
build the site there based upon where the environmental impact study
sent them because they were trying to put it next to one of the largest
migratory bird areas on the east coast. Not a smart thing when you want
to have pilots taking jets in. It has to go through the environmental
impact study whether they pick the Sandsbank site or whether they pick
the Hale Lake's site. So I am not sure if the EIS will allow them to go
to Sandsbank where there are 1,269 acres of wetlands that will be
incorporated into this. Those are all out there.
We have communities today that are being affected. They are being
affected by the fact that property can't sell, that people don't want
to move there because they don't know whether there is going to be a
naval jet base. They don't know whether there is going to be a 30,000-
acre protected area where all night long you are going to have aircraft
going in, and it only produces 52 jobs for the local community. Not a
very good trade-off on the part of North Carolina. Not a very good
action on the part of the military.
I ask my colleagues--I think we probably know the outcome of the
vote, but

[[Page S7987]]

we have to be vigilant. North Carolina is an incredible State when it
relates to our military. That doesn't mean that the military can walk
in and make a decision that is inconsistent with what is good for our
State, and potentially forces an adverse relationship between the State
and the military. They pushed it in and that is why the General
Assembly did what they did. It is my hope that as this bill moves
through conference, since the House has this provision in it, at least
this provision will prevail.
I thank my colleagues, I thank the Chair, and I thank the ranking
member for their understanding and allowing me to bring this amendment
up. It is important that every Member understand what is involved and
at the core of this. It is the lives of the people in North Carolina.
It is the ability to have predictability in the future and not
necessarily a decision that may linger for 6 or 7 or 10 years with
individuals not knowing what the disposition of the Navy decision is
going to be and, therefore, a market for their property or the plans
for the next generation of farmer as it might relate to Hale's Lake,
not knowing exactly how to plan their lives.
I would suggest that we call the question on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in reluctant opposition to the
amendment offered by my friend from North Carolina. He and the other
Senator, the junior Senator from North Carolina, argued passionately
and, to some degree, persuasively in the markup of this legislation.
I think it is very appropriate that they are reacting to local
concerns and perhaps even the fact that I think, in straight talk,
perhaps the Department of the Navy has not approached some of these
communities in a way that would gain the cooperation of the
communities.
I agree also with Senator Burr that the people of North Carolina are
among the most patriotic that we have in our Nation. But facts are
facts, and the Navy needs a field to train carrier pilots stationed on
the east coast within the range of both Naval Air Station Oceana and
Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point in North Carolina. The Navy needs
to field trained pilots in order for us to have the best qualified
pilots in the world. Part of that training, of course, is to learn
landing on aircraft carriers, among other types of training.
Again, a lot of local communities in North Carolina and Virginia have
expressed concern about noise, about hours, and about the impact it
will have on their communities. During the markup we adopted an
amendment by the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Webb, that basically
requires the Navy to do extensive consultation with local communities,
to consider assistance to local communities in case there is
substantial economic impact, and to do everything they can to reach an
agreement with the local communities as they go through this siting
procedure.
Madam President, I cannot change geography. I think this committee
can do a lot of things, but we cannot change the map. The map is that
two of our major air stations, Oceana and Cherry Point, are where our
pilots and air wings are stationed. They have to have the ability to
train, and they have to train someplace within a reasonable range.
So I believe after a spirited discussion in committee, the Senator
from Virginia came up with a very excellent amendment that basically
requires a lot more participation in the local communities, a lot more
consideration and consultation, and even--I have never seen this
before--some economic assistance to the local communities, if
necessary. Nobody likes to be awakened at 1 or 2 a.m. by the sound of
jet engines. I understand that. But I also understand--and I hope our
colleagues do--that on the entire east coast, because of population and
the location of these two major bases--Cherry Point and Oceana--we
don't have much choice but to look in Virginia and North Carolina. We
cannot let, over time, that requirement be overridden forever. We can
try to accommodate and understand, and we can try to do whatever is
necessary to ease the burden. But the fact is, our pilots have to
train.
I appreciate the fact that both Senators from North Carolina were
eloquent in stating the concerns their local communities have, which
may be under consideration for the location of an airfield--just as the
Senator from Virginia was concerned; but the Senator from Virginia, I
think, in his amendment, laid out some parameters that I think will
lead to a fair process, which will take into consideration the very
understandable concerns of the local communities.
With reluctance but concern for the ability of our Navy and Marine
Corps pilots to train and be adequately prepared to fight, I oppose
this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The Senator from Michigan is
recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I also reluctantly oppose this amendment.
Senator Burr and Senator Hagan have both been very eloquent in their
positions, and it is understandable how they and their States feel in
this matter. The Navy has not done a particularly good job.
Senator Webb, in committee, suggested some important language that
will, hopefully, be helpful. Senator Webb was equally eloquent in his
position. We adopted that report language. I think we should stand with
it. It is simply not good public policy for Congress to prematurely
limit training locations--particularly when those sites have not been
fully considered by the military.
So it is, hopefully, going to prod the Navy to do a lot better in
terms of its consultation and communications with our communities in
North Carolina, Virginia, and around the country. I also must oppose
this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1519) was rejected.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider that vote, and I
move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I see the Senator from Oklahoma here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. COBURN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. 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. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we set
aside the current pending amendment for the consideration of Inhofe
amendment No. 1559.
Mr. LEVIN. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

Amendment No. 1710

(Purpose: To provide for classified information procedures for military
commissions, and to provide for interlocutory appeals by the United
States of certain orders and rulings of military judges)

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be laid aside temporarily and that it be in order for me to
offer an amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Graham, and Senator
McCain.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] for himself, Mr.
Graham, and Mr. McCain, proposes an amendment numbered 1710.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in the Record of Wednesday, July 23, 2009,
under ``Text of Amendments.'')
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the amendment I now offer, along with
Senators Graham and McCain, would modify the procedures for the
handling of classified evidence by military commissions. This is
language that was requested by the administration witnesses at our
hearing on military commissions procedures a few weeks ago.
We have worked closely together, and we have worked closely with the
administration on the language. It is our

[[Page S7988]]

understanding that this amendment will fully address the
administration's concerns. It has the support of the Justice Department
and the Department of Defense.
Section 1031 of the bill, which addresses military commissions, is
based on the standard established by the Supreme Court in the Hamdan
case that military commissions should be conducted in a manner
consistent with the procedures applicable in trials by courts-martial,
and that any deviation from those procedures be justified by ``evident
practical need.'' For this reason, the procedures now in the bill for
the handling of classified information are based on the procedures
established in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

However, the witnesses at our July 7 hearing on military commissions
made a persuasive case that the procedures for the handling of
classified information in Federal court--the Classified Information
Procedures Act, or CIPA--would provide a better model for handling
classified information. The reason is, the Federal courts have far more
experience handling classified information and far more precedent
applicable to the difficult issues raised by classified information in
detainee cases. DOD general counsel Jeh Johnson explained the issue as
follows:

[W]e note that the legislation incorporates certain of the
classified evidence procedures currently applicable in
courts-martial, where there is relatively little precedent
and practice regarding classified information.

Mr. Johnson continues:

We in the administration believe that further work could be
done to codify the protections of classified evidence, in a
manner consistent with the protections that now exist in
Federal civilian courts. We believe that those protections--
--

Referring to the Federal civilian court protections----

would work better to protect classified information, while
continuing to ensure fairness and providing a stable body of
precedent and practice for doing so.

VADM Bruce McDonald, the Judge Advocate General of the Navy,
testified in a very similar way. He said:

Section 949d provides for the use of rules of evidence in
trials by general courts-martial in the handling of
classified evidence. This is consistent with our overall
desire to use those procedures found within the UCMJ . . .
whenever possible. However, experience has shown that
practitioners struggle with a very complex and unclear rule
within the Military Rules of Evidence. The military rules do
not have a robust source of informative or persuasive case
law. Frankly, prosecutions using Military Rule of Evidence
505 are rare. In developing the rules for the handling of
classified material during a military commission, it would be
more prudent to rely upon the Classified Information
Procedures Act (CIPA) used in Article III courts as a
starting point.

Since the time of the hearing, we have been working on a bipartisan
basis with the administration to produce new language on the handling
of classified information, consistent with the recommendations of our
witnesses. In accordance with those recommendations, and our own
thinking and discussion, the language in the amendment we are
considering today tracks very closely with CIPA. In a few areas, we
have chosen to codify standards that are applicable case law under CIPA
to provide additional clarity.
The amendment is consistent with the intention of the bill to apply
established procedures to military commissions and to deviate from
those established procedures, where justified, by evident practical
need. There is an evident practical need here. We have a good
experience under CIPA, and we decided that is the better model to
follow.
We also believe the procedures in this amendment will facilitate the
handling of classified information in trials by military commissions in
a way that is fair to both sides.
I have a letter from the Department of Justice on this matter which I
ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Legislative Affairs,

Washington, DC, July 23, 2009.
Hon. Carl Levin,
Chairman.
Hon. John McCain,
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Armed Services, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain: This letter
expresses the strong support of the Department of Justice for
the Levin-Graham-McCain amendment to S. 1390, the ``National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010,'' regarding
classified information procedures for military commissions.
The amendment would establish a system for addressing
classified information issues in military commissions that is
similar to the system provided by the Classified Information
Procedures Act (``CIPA'') for criminal cases prosecuted in
Federal court. Although CIPA might need to be updated in some
respects to address terrorism cases more effectively, we
believe it has generally worked well both in protecting
national security and ensuring fair proceedings. The Levin-
Graham-McCain amendment adapts CIPA to the military
commissions context, with some modifications to reflect
lessons learned from past terrorism prosecutions. The
amendment expressly provides that the judicial construction
of CIPA shall, in most instances, be authoritative in
interpreting the analogous provisions in the amendment. It
sets substantive standards for providing the defense access
to classified information in the discovery phase, and for the
use of classified information at trial. It also establishes a
range of tools and procedures, such as protective orders, ex
parte hearings, alternatives to disclosure of classified
information, expanded interlocutory appeal rights, and
sanctions for failure to comply, that will provide
appropriate guidance to military judges in handling these
complex issues as they arise in the course of military
commission proceedings.
The Department of Justice consulted at length with
committee staff as they developed this amendment, and we are
grateful for their work on this important issue. We believe
the amendment will advance the President's objective of
reforming the commissions and ensuring that they are a fair,
legitimate, and effective forum for the prosecution of law of
war offenses.
The Office of Management and Budget has advised us that,
from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is
no objection to the submission of this letter.
Sincerely,
Ronald Weich,
Assistant Attorney General.

Mr. LEVIN. Again, I thank Senator Graham and Senator McCain. Senator
Graham is an expert we all look to in matters such as this. He has not
only personal experience but he has a vast amount of personal knowledge
from study, as well as his own experience in this area, and it is
invaluable to us. It does help make possible the conclusion we offer
the body.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I would like to, once again, thank
Chairman Levin for the work he has done in this bill on the structure
of military commissions. I appreciate his working closely with me and
with Senator Graham, and I believe that the changes in this bill put
our military commissions framework on a solid footing so that our
nation will be ready to proceed with the trials of terrorist detainees
by military commission.
In the same vein, I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Levin's amendment
No. 1710, which deals with the protection of classified information
used in military commissions. This amendment is based on extensive
meetings between our staffs and the professional prosecutors who wish
to ensure that classified information receives the fullest possible
protection in the course of these trials.
The amendment is based in large part on the Classified Information
Procedures Act, CIPA, which includes protections for the use of
classified information in trials. Based on 20 years of experience with
CIPA, and with 3 years of experience with the Military Commissions Act,
the protections contained in this amendment are what the professional
prosecutors believe they need to ensure that classified information is
not improperly disclosed and to allow trials to proceed more
efficiently by providing military judges with an extensive body of law
based on CIPA upon which to base their decisions. Avoiding the
unauthorized disclosure of classified information is a key to ensuring
the protection of our national interests, and so I am pleased to
advocate the adoption of this amendment. I note that the Departments of
Defense and Justice concur with the language contained in this
amendment. I urge my colleagues to support its adoption.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the Classified Information Procedures
Act, CIPA, provides a framework for using classified information in
criminal cases. It is a valuable and flexible tool that allows courts
to review classified information and provide for the protection of such
material while ensuring a defendant's right to a fair trial. And it
works. For close to 30 years, Federal courts have used CIPA to
successfully

[[Page S7989]]

handle complex criminal cases, including hundreds of terrorism-related
cases since 9/11, and still protect sensitive information from public
disclosure.
I reintroduced the State Secrets Protection Act this Congress,
legislation that would allow the Government to claim the State secrets
privilege while ensuring that a judge would review the evidence the
Government is relying upon to determine whether the privilege applies.
This concept mirrors CIPA and our bill draws heavily from CIPA
procedures. But our bill does not water them down.
I was encouraged to see that Senator Levin, along with Senators
Graham and McCain, proposed an amendment to the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 that would provide procedures in
line with CIPA for handling classified information in military
commissions. One of the complaints that we have heard about commissions
involves procedural confusion, including how to approach the handling
of classified information. As Senator Levin pointed out, ``the unique
procedures and requirements hampered the ability of defense teams to
obtain information.''
In recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Vice
Admiral MacDonald, the Judge Advocate General for the U.S. Navy,
discussed the difficulty that prosecutors have had using military rules
for classified evidence and acknowledged:

[T]he military rules on the use of classified information
fall short of our overall goals. On the other hand, for over
20 years, Article III courts have relied upon the Classified
Information Procedures Act, or CIPA.

David Kris, the Assistant Attorney General for the Department of
Justice's National Security Division, agreed that CIPA ``has generally
worked well in both protecting classified information and ensuring
fairness of proceedings'' and that drawing on CIPA would ``allow
military judges to draw on a substantial body of CIPA case law and
practice that has been developed over the years.''
I agree that, especially with this novel use of military commissions,
it is crucial that we draw on evidentiary standards supported by
precedent and a proven track record. However, I am concerned that some
of the modifications proposed by this amendment would depart from the
traditional protections provided by CIPA. For example, CIPA requires
the Attorney General to certify that the disclosure of certain
information would cause identifiable damage to the national security of
the United States. Here, an unidentified ``knowledgeable United States
official'' would make that declaration, instead. This amendment also
imports a new standard that would require a judge to consider whether
disclosure of information would be ``detrimental to national
security.'' It would further prohibit the accused from appealing a
court order allowing the Government to withhold access to information
based on an ex parte proffer by the Government. This marks a serious
departure from CIPA's framework for allowing defendants to reconsider
such rulings in order to ensure that they are allowed meaningful access
to evidence and can present a thorough defense.
I support the administration and Senator Levin's goal of using more
article III standards in military commissions, and the use of CIPA
procedures is certainly a marked improvement. However, it is important
that we not minimize the protections and standards that make tools like
CIPA effective in protecting both classified information and the rights
of the accused. Until we have a more thorough review and understanding
of why these changes are necessary, I believe we should proceed
cautiously before we depart from the standards that have served us well
for so long in our Federal jurisprudence.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his kind
comments. I have been a military lawyer for a while, but I am smart
enough to know what I don't know.
The bottom line is judge advocates, to a person, have indicated the
procedures as outlined by Senator Levin would be the best way to go.
Under the civilian Classified Information Procedures Act, there is a
robust body of cases. Military rule of evidence 505(b) is not used very
often in courts-martial. What we have tried to do is interject into the
commissions some reforms that will make the trials go forward in a
manner that the courts are likely to approve the work product.
I think everybody involved--military judges, defense counsel,
prosecutors--welcome this change. Senator Levin and his staff and our
staffs have worked with the White House. I think we found a way to
reform the military commissions that would provide balance when it
comes to admission of classified evidence to protect the Nation at
large and also allowing the people accused of a crime as much access as
possible.
Every military lawyer who is going to be involved in the commissions
supports this change. I think it is one way to make the commissions
better. This whole effort to make the commissions better is bearing
fruit. I appreciate what Senator Levin has done.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN. 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. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there is now pending an amendment that I
have offered on behalf of myself, Senator Graham, and Senator McCain
relative to the protection of classified information; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 1710, offered by Senator Levin,
is pending, yes.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I think we are now ready to vote on this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1710) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. The pending matter now would be to return to the Akaka
amendment; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I am sorry I couldn't be down here this
afternoon, and I apologize to my colleagues that we will have a delay
on this bill, probably with cloture, until tomorrow morning. My
statement is in no way meant to reflect any ill will on Senator Akaka
or Senator Collins or Senator Voinovich or Senator Lieberman, but we
have before us in this amendment something that is intolerable to the
unemployed people in this country today, or should be intolerable to
everybody.
In fact, what we are going to do is take $3.1 billion and give it to
Federal employees in their retirement systems and adjustments to
retirement systems when we have 9.5 percent unemployment and we have
six States with over 15 percent. What we should be doing is taking that
$3 billion and making sure we are creating jobs so people have jobs in
this country rather than paying Federal workers.
I want to enter into the Record what the average pay and benefits are
for Federal employees because most Americans are unaware.
The average Federal pay and benefit for an employee of the Postal
Service is $80,353 a year. If you work at the Pentagon, but you are not
a soldier, your average pay and benefit is $89,000 a year. If you are a
soldier, it is about $25,000 less than that. The guy taking the bullets
is making $25,000 less than the civilians working in the Pentagon. Then
you have all the rest of the Federal employees, and their average is
$113,000. That is twice what the average wage in this country is, and
we have attached this amendment to this bill--an amendment which has
nothing to do with the Defense Department, it has to do with adjusting
pension benefits for Federal employees outside of the Defense
Department.

[[Page S7990]]

I think our Federal employees are valuable, and I do not mind paying
them. But I do mind spending more money at that level now when we have
a large number of people who are unemployed. If we count people who are
not looking for work anymore because they are so discouraged, we have
over 15 percent unemployment. The very idea that we would take $3.2
billion from our grandkids to add to a program, when we have millions
and millions of Americans not collecting a paycheck at all, to me, is
inappropriate. We can't afford it because we are going to charge it to
the next two generations. We don't have the money.
That reminds me. If we go back and talk about where we are in this
country, we have the first $4 trillion budget ever, this year. That is
what is going to be spent--$4 trillion in 1 year. We are spending $1
trillion more this year in the last 7 months than we did last year in
this country. We have passed bill after bill after bill after bill that
we can't afford to buy things that we don't need with money we don't
have.
Let me, for my colleagues, read the unemployment rates throughout the
country: Alabama, 10.1 percent; Alaska, 8.4; Arizona, 8.7; Arkansas,
7.2; California, 11.6; Colorado, 7.6; Connecticut, 8 percent; Delaware,
8.4 percent; Washington, DC, 10.9 percent; Florida, 10.6 percent;
Georgia, 10.1; Hawaii, 7.4 percent; Idaho, 8.4 percent; Illinois, 10.3
percent; Indiana, 10.7 percent; Iowa, 6.2; Kansas, 7 percent; Kentucky,
10.9 percent unemployment; Louisiana, 6.8; Maine, 8.5 percent;
Maryland, 7.3 percent; Massachusetts, 8.6 percent; Michigan, 15.2
percent.
What would the people of Michigan do with $3 billion to invest in
jobs in Michigan right now?
Minnesota, 8.4 percent; Mississippi, 9 percent; Missouri, 9.3
percent; Montana 6.4 percent; Nebraska, 5 percent; Nevada, 12 percent;
New Hampshire, 6.8 percent; New Jersey, 9.2 percent; New Mexico 6.8
percent; New York, 8.7 percent; New York, 11 percent; North Dakota, 4.2
percent; Ohio, 11.1 percent; Oklahoma, 6.3 percent; Oregon 12.2
percent; Pennsylvania, 8.3 percent; Puerto Rico, 14.5 percent; Rhode
Island, 12.4 percent; South Carolina, 12.1 percent; Tennessee, 10.8. If
I missed South Dakota, it is 5.1; Tennessee, 10.8 percent; Texas, 7.5
percent; Utah, 5.7 percent; Vermont, 7.1 percent; Virginia, 7.2
percent; Washington State, 9.3 percent; West Virginia, 9.2 percent;
Wisconsin, 9 percent; and Wyoming 5.9 percent.
Those are just percentages. But you know what they represent? They
represent real hard-core pain for American families today. The fact
that we would have the gumption to come and take another $3 billion
from them to increase the benefit structure of Federal employees at a
time when what we should be doing is seeing how we can become more
efficient in the Federal Government and spend less money in the Federal
Government flies in the face of the difficulties that these individuals
find themselves faced with.
If you look at what is actually happening to our country and take the
75-year projections, this year we are going to spend under $200 billion
in interest. Eight years from now we are going to spend $806 billion in
interest just on the interest rates we have today.
How many people believe we will have a Fed discount rate of a quarter
of 1 percent 8 years from now and that we will be able to borrow money
on a 10-year T-bill at 3.6 percent? It isn't going to happen. We are
going down the road to destruction, and we are clueless about how to
solve it.
So if we add up the 75-year projected unfunded liabilities for
Medicare and if we add up the 75-year unfunded liabilities for Medicaid
and if we add up the 75-year unfunded liabilities for Social Security
and if we add up the 75-year unfunded liabilities for Federal employee
retirement and if we add up the 75-year unfunded liabilities for
military retirement and if we add up the 75-year unfunded liabilities
for every other trust fund this Congress and Congresses before have
robbed the money from to spend now--which should have been endowed--
what we come to is $100 trillion.
If we look at what our population is expected to be then, and the
percentage that would not be working in the workforce--in other words,
the very young children and the very large 40 percent of that
population that is going to be retired--what we end up having is an
unfunded obligation for every one of those people who are going to be
the taxpayers of $500,000 apiece. That doesn't include the debt we have
now, which is $11.4 trillion--which is going to double to $22 trillion
over the next 10 years--and the internal debt of that will triple. So
now we have $122 trillion worth of liabilities. Yet we are saying, now
is the time to increase the benefits for Federal employees.
I don't deny that the Federal employees do great work. But when you
look at what the average pay plus benefit is for Federal employees
versus everybody else in the country, now is not the time to do it. Not
only because, No. 1, we can't afford it; but, No. 2, it is patently
unfair to everybody else in this country based on the average salaries.

So the fact that we would add an amendment onto the Defense bill--
because it is a bill that is going to move; there is no question it
would not survive cloture--that doesn't bother me. I have done that a
lot. What bothers me is that we lack the perspective of what is
happening. We passed a $787 billion stimulus bill, of which only $80
billion has gone out the door. The unemployment rate is still rising--
and I am not critical. This body passed it. But it is not going to be
highly stimulative because most of it was not meant to be stimulative.
It was meant to be transfer payments. But we have spent that, and that
is all borrowed money. We passed an omnibus. We passed a supplemental.
None of that was paid for. Not a penny of it was paid for. That is all
borrowed.
So what we have done is we are going to add $2.2 trillion to our debt
this year, and now we have something that, well, it just adds a measly
little $3.2 billion. But think about what $3.2 billion would do to help
people who don't have a job in this country today. Instead, we are
going to enhance the benefits of Federal employees. To me, it is an
insult to every other worker who is out there who is either struggling
to keep their job--and, by the way, we are going to add 100,000 Federal
employees this year. So these numbers are underestimating what the real
cost is.
Here is the amendment. It is 49 pages long. It has six major titles
in it--adjusting. We allow people who left the government to come back
and put their money back in, and we will say: Oh, you didn't leave, so
you didn't lose any of your retirement. You still get it compounded.
We have institutionalized sick pay and we have made it an
entitlement. We have said everybody who has ever worked for the DC
government, they can work for the Federal Government and all of their
retirement years will transfer to the Federal Government. But we don't
do that for anybody else who works for any other State government. We
certainly don't do that for people who have retirement plans from any
other company. We don't add that retirement to the Federal
Government's. So why are we doing things that are patently unfair to
the rest of the American workforce in this country?
I plan on speaking on this bill until cloture ripens, which means we
are going to be here all night. Until this amendment is withdrawn, I
will stay here, or I will have a colleague stay here, and we will talk
about how this country is out of control in its spending. We will talk
about how we have failed the American people by not being good
stewards; how we have not done oversight on the $350 billion worth of
waste every year. Not one amendment has passed that has gotten rid of
any of the waste that this government wastes every year. Not one has
gotten through this Congress. Not one.
We are getting ready to work on a health care bill. We have been
working on it. We have spent a ton of time on it. We have $120 billion
worth of fraud in Medicare and Medicaid, but we haven't addressed that
at all. It is not being addressed. We are twiddling our thumbs as
Medicare goes bankrupt, while Medicare doesn't offer the services that
are promised, and we are going to create another $1.6 trillion worth of
cost for the American people. The only thing I can figure is that
Washington thinks we can spend more money to save money in a
significant way. We have been trying to do that since 1965 and it
hasn't worked once, and it isn't going to work this time.
Let me mention, for a minute, just some of the things that we have
been doing that do not fit with the priorities

[[Page S7991]]

of American citizens. It does not come anywhere close to matching what
every family in this country is doing today. Here is what they are
doing.
First of all, they are scared and they are fearful and they are
worried. Do you know what they are doing? We see it in the economic
statistics. When consumer spending drives normally 70 percent of our
economy, we have the highest savings rate we have had in 40 years
because they are afraid to spend. One of the reasons they are afraid to
spend is because they don't trust what we are doing up here. They think
things might get worse. I think things are going to get better, but
they are certainly not going to get better by spending another $3.2
billion in this way.
What they do is they sit down as a family and they say here is what
is coming in and here is the auto payment and here is the house payment
and here is what we have to have for groceries and here is the utility
bills. What is left? In other words, they make a list of priorities.
They decide what has to be done, what must be done, but what they want
to do comes last because we are in tough times. That applies to almost
every family in this country. It implies heartaches because it means a
father is not doing something he would like to do for his son or a
mother is not buying a new dress for a daughter to help her own self-
esteem in comparison with other children. It has real-world factors on
families.
They make those hard decisions every day, absolutely every day. The
reason they make those hard decisions is they do not lack the courage
to face reality, such as we do. They also do not have the other option
we have, and that is charging our lack of courage to the next two
generations.
Most Americans are not cowards. They look at the real world, they
look at what is responsible of them, what decision is going to have to
be made. They dig in their heels, they work and work to solve the
problem, and they will go through tough times doing the very best they
can to make good of a bad situation.
That is opposite the behavior this place has been displaying. We have
ignored the fact that we have $11.4 trillion worth of debt. We passed a
stimulus spending bill, of which less than $150 billion was true
stimulus. We have created dependencies of, now, the States. Anytime
they are in tough times, they have now been infected with our illness:
Don't worry about it, we will just charge it to the next generation.
Because every State we helped through the stimulus we did charge it to
the next generation. We have now instituted lack of discipline by every
State legislature in the country because now they no longer have to
worry about it. The Senate will just borrow from their grandkids and
send it to them and now they don't have to worry about it, they don't
have to have any courage to make the tough decisions.
What all have we done that would secure the honor of the American
people, that we are working for them? What symbol have we given them,
in terms of limiting our excesses in Washington, that might give them
hope?
The Akaka amendment is the opposite of that. It is saying: You don't
get it, your priorities are not right. You think you can forget what
has happened to us. You think you can charge it to our grandchildren
and our children. You think you can steal their opportunity and nobody
is ever going to know it.
I have barked up this tree a lot in the last 5 years in this body,
and I am not ever going to stop barking up this tree because it is
morally wrong to steal the future from your grandchildren. It is
morally wrong. It is not just ethically wrong, it is not just
conveniently wrong, it is morally wrong to take the great attributes of
this country away from your children and grandchildren. It is time for
some grownups to start making hard decisions that may cost us
reelection but are in the best long-term interests of this country.
So this issue is not going to go away. I may ultimately get defeated
on it, but those families out there who do not have a job, those
families out there making those hard choices every day--every night
worrying where is the money to buy the food that is going on the table
the next day, who still have a job--they are going to know somebody is
going to fight for some common sense in the Senate.
There is no question, I lost this amendment in committee. I was
mortified at the lack of sensitivity to the rest of this country,
placing Federal employees' very good benefits--enhancing those above
the negatives that are occurring to every family in this country based
on our economic situation. Even if we were not having a tough economic
time, it would still be wrong to do this. It would still be incorrect
to do this.
If you think for a minute about what it costs to fund the interest
costs on $500,000--if it is 6 percent, it is $30,000 a year. If I were
a schoolteacher here and we had a blackboard, I would be making
everybody write home that I am sorry I am stealing $30,000 a year from
each of your children. That is what I would be doing--I am sorry I am
stealing $30,000 a year just to pay the interest, never mind paying the
principal off, on what we have accumulated.
Take a young child 6 years of age today and extrapolate that out to
right before their retirement. What you have done is you have stolen
their opportunity to have the American dream because it is not just
going to be the $30,000, because all the years they can't work it is
going to build that they will have to pay and all the years in their
retirement are going to be less because they will not have the
benefits.
By the way, if you are a Federal employee and unhappy with me trying
to defeat this amendment, you should pay attention to something. There
is no guarantee to your Federal pension based on the economics we face
today in this country. If you think it is guaranteed, you have another
thought coming because the world economic system is going to determine
whether we can honor that pension. That is what is coming. We are very
close.
It was not long ago that Alan Greenspan was asked a question: What is
the maximum limit which we can borrow? There is a lot of question about
whether people want to loan us money anymore. What he said is, I don't
know what it is, but I can tell you we are getting very close.
What happens to us when we tap out? You know, he is not an
unrespected thinker in materials of economics and banking.
Here is what happens to us. Interest rates that are 3.6 percent for a
10-year government note go to 7 percent, 8 percent, 9 percent, 10
percent. All of a sudden, the cost of funding our debt becomes $2 or $3
trillion a year, 20 years from now. What is the option? The option is
there not be any government pensions, there will not be any Medicare.
We will barely have money to defend our country. All these wonderful
Federal programs that we have, most of which have a duplicate somewhere
in the Federal Government that they defend, that we cannot get rid of
because they have a constituency that somebody might be afraid, if we
eliminate some of the $350 billion in waste, fraud, and duplication,
they are not going to be there.
So what it comes down to and what we are facing is, can our Republic
survive our excesses? Can we survive this tremendous direction that we
have stepped away from reality, saying economic forces do not apply to
us? The answer to that is no. There will not be a Federal pension when
interest is at 10 or 12 percent and we have $35 or $40 trillion worth
of debt.
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. COBURN. Certainly.
Mr. McCAIN. Does the Senator have an estimate how much this will cost
the taxpayers?
Mr. COBURN. Over the first 10 years, $3.3 billion.
Mr. McCAIN. I understand from the amendment there is a provision that
all the money is paid back.
Mr. COBURN. It is another trick and game. There is an assumption it
will be paid back, but it will never be paid back. What it will do is
increase the obligations of the Federal taxpayer--that is myself and
you and all your families and everybody we represent--the liabilities
of the people who are going to get the benefit from this amendment.
Mr. McCAIN. Could the Senator tell me the connection between this
amendment and the Defense authorization bill?

Mr. COBURN. There is no connection between this amendment and the
Defense authorization bill.

[[Page S7992]]

Mr. McCAIN. May I say to the Senator from Oklahoma, I am in
agreement. We do strange things around here, particularly late in
consideration of the bill. I thank him for at least bringing it to the
attention of the American taxpayer.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I wish to finish my line of thought
because what I sense is the American people get it and we do not. The
American people are worried we do not get it. They are worried we think
we can continue spending money, not reform things, not make things more
efficient, not eliminate duplication. What they know is this is not
monopoly money. They know this is not ``not real money.'' They know
this issue about us having common sense, about us being fiscally
responsible--they know the future of their children and their
grandchildren depends on whether we start acting the same way every
other family in this country has to act. That is in the real world. It
is not in the world of Washington that: Don't worry, we will put it off
because the next election is much more important than I addressing this
and taking the next tough vote. We are going to put it off.
I say to my colleagues, I have plenty of topics. I am going to spend
the next couple hours going through waste so the American people can
actually see how well we have done with their money--waste and earmarks
and things that benefit the well-heeled and the well-connected but hurt
your children and hurt your grandchildren.
Before I do that, I wish to spend a moment talking about what the
heritage of our country is. How did American exceptionalism come into
being? How is it that this became the greatest country in the world,
that had more technological advances than anybody else in the world?
That created the highest standard of living of any society ever known
in the world? What was the glue, what was the key, what was the
characteristic that allowed that to happen?
I will tell you what it was. It was called sacrifice. If you think
back four or five generations in your family and you try to find out
what was going on, no matter what your racial background is or what
your lineage is, what you saw was people willing, absolutely willing to
sacrifice the short term to make sure the long term was better for
their children, their family, and their grandchildren. That is what I
call a heritage of sacrifice. It is what made us great. It is what
created this vast, great country.
I am sorry to say that, since I entered the area of public service--
and one of the reasons I entered it was because I didn't see this
trait--is that, since 1994 I have not seen any change. Actually, it is
worse.
When you take the oath to be a Senator, what it says is you will do
what the Constitution says. You will uphold it, you will make sure it
is protected, that you will follow it.
I have a bill, it is called the Enumerated Powers Act. It has a lot
of cosponsors, but none of the big spenders here want to cosponsor it.
Do you know why? Because it creates a challenge for wasteful spending.
What it says is what our Founders thought was pretty important. They
very clearly, in article I, section 8 of our Constitution, listed out
what the responsibilities of the Federal Government are. They listed
them out. What Madison and Jefferson wrote about when they wrote in
article I, section 8, they said people are going to try to say it is
something different than this. They are trying to say the general
welfare clause is we can do anything we want. The commerce clause is--
don't believe them. That is not what we intended. Yet that happens
every day in this body. We abandon the intent.
We just had a hearing on a Supreme Court nominee and one of the
questions she was asked by a lot of us was: Are you going to uphold the
Constitution?
Well, my thoughts and prayers would be that she will do a better job
than we do, because we get an F. And the American people know it. They
know we cannot tolerate this spending. They know we cannot tolerate
this debt. They know we cannot tolerate raising taxes on the American
people if we are going to hope to get out of this. Their wisdom needs
to be brought here. And the way you bring your wisdom here is to let us
know. Hold us accountable. Call, e-mail, go to the offices, write to
our homes, make sure that people who are representing you uphold that
oath of fulfilling the Constitution, honoring the tenth amendment.
You know, our Founders in the Bill of Rights put in the tenth
amendment, and it is a very important amendment, because it says:
Whatever is not spelled out specifically under article I, section 8--
here is the limited things the Federal Government is supposed to do--is
explicitly reserved for the States and for the people.
So how is it that we are going to have a $2 trillion deficit this
year? I can tell you how it is. It is because we have ignored the
Constitution. We have done things that are totally outside the realm
our Founders thought we would ever do. We have taken over things that
are truly the responsibilities of the States and the communities and
individuals. We have created dependency by the States, created
dependency in all sorts of others.
I got a letter last week asking me to sponsor money for fire engines
for Oklahoma. When did buying firetrucks for Oklahoma become a part of
the U.S. Constitution? Am I supposed to steal money from people in
Pennsylvania and New Jersey and New York so Oklahoma can have fire
engines, which is an Oklahoma responsibility? It is not even an
Oklahoma responsibility; it is a community responsibility.
As we create this dependency, we create something that is worse after
it. If you cannot get it, you all of a sudden are a victim. That is why
earmarks are so bad, because what they do is keep us from making the
great and hard decisions we should make because we benefit from it
politically.
That is why several of us have fought since we have been here to
change the earmarking process so that the American people can see what
it is about. And what you will see, you watch on this bill, on the
appropriations bills that follow, is if somebody has an earmark in this
bill, they will never vote against it. Because what they will be told
by the chairman or ranking member of the committee the next time they
go to request something is: Oh, you requested something. I put it in
the bill, but you did not vote for the bill, so I am not going to give
it to you.
What happens is, instead of looking at the content of a bill and the
best long-term interests of the country, we look at the content of the
earmark and how we look back home to the well-heeled and the well-
connected few, the source of campaign, the source of political
empowerment, instead of looking at our oath that says: You will follow
the Constitution.
There is no question we have the right to say where money goes. And
there is no question we should be able to have earmarks if they are
authorized, which means that a committee of your peers, through the
Appropriations Committee, says: This is something we as a country ought
to do. But you will not see that. What you see are not authorized
earmarks. They do not go through a committee of your peers. So it
becomes the very foul stink that ends up corrupting the whole system of
following that Constitution and being loyal to that oath.
In 2016, every American is going to pay $13,000 on the national
debt--think about that--for interest. I said that wrong. Every American
family is going to be responsible for $13,000 worth of interest on the
national debt. That is if it does not grow a penny from now. And we
know we are going to have trillion-dollar deficits from now for as long
as we can see under the budget that has passed this body.
The average American family, do you have $13,000? Do you have $13,000
for us to continue the excess of uncontrolled spending in Washington,
the excess of failing to do our job to eliminate waste and fraud and
duplication? Do you have it? Maybe you ought to call us and borrow it
from the Senators. Maybe you ought to ask us for it since we are the
ones labeling you with it.
So as you hear what we are saying today when we talk about what is
going on, these are not just words; they are real facts that affect
real lives, that limit opportunity, that steal this wonderful country
from us and our kids. Because what is happening is we are slowly
putting handcuffs on ourselves. We are slowly diminishing our ability
to be creative. We are slowly taking away the opportunity and the
freedom with which we have excelled.

[[Page S7993]]

If, in fact, the government said more about how you live your life
than you say how you live your life, you have lost freedom. You have
lost it. As we encounter this mountain, this truly high mountain of
debt, what is going to happen is those handcuffs are going to get
tighter and tighter--they are not going to get tighter, they are going
to get closer and closer together before we have little ability to get
out of them, little opportunity to change.
We are close to being on an irreversible course. What we do and how
we do it over the next 2 years in this country is going to determine
whether your children live in freedom. And I do not mean controlled by
a dictator, I am talking about having the freedom to have the
opportunity to work hard, to develop your skills, to take risks, and to
hopefully reward yourself and your family so that, in fact, you can be
benevolent to someone else who may not be able to do that. That is what
America is all about.
We are losing. It is going away. And it goes away every week in this
body. Every week that we create another new government program that
limits your freedom and puts a bureaucrat between you and your choice,
it goes away. Quite frankly, we have gotten pretty good at stealing
your freedom.
For me and the people I represent, we have had enough. We have had
enough of the government deciding everything for us. We have had enough
of judges not following the Constitution. We have had enough of Federal
bureaucrats limiting our property rights, and what we can do on our own
property. We have had enough of people telling us what our freedoms are
and what they are not. We have had enough of the Federal bureaucracy in
education ruining our schools rather than giving us the freedom to
educate the children the way we want; taking our taxes, absorbing 20
percent and sending 80 percent back and saying: You can have this money
if you do this, this, this, and this. It is interesting, in the
Constitution, there is no role for Federal education, no role for the
Federal Government to be involved in education. None. Zero. Where did
we get the idea that 80 percent of the people who work in the
Department of Education, who do not know how to teach a child, should
be telling the teachers in this country what to teach, and what to do,
and what they can get paid for and what they cannot.
That is a loss of freedom, folks. You have a bureaucracy in
Washington that determines the outcome of what your children's
education is going to be, rather than you determining what that outcome
will be.
Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. COBURN. I will yield for a question.
Mr. SESSIONS. I know my colleague has given more time and effort to
studying the sickness that is affecting our Congress with regard to how
we spend money than anyone in this body, and he has taken a lot of heat
for standing up and raising these issues. I salute him for it.
But the amendment that is before us, it seems to me, is absolutely
typical of how out of step Congress is. This may be a swell amendment
for whoever benefits from it, but the people who are paying for it are
not aware that the money they have earned from the sweat of their brow
is now going to somebody who got a better health care plan, a better
retirement plan and higher pay than they get, and more job security
than they get.
In my home county, the unemployment rate is over 20 percent. Then we
have people with so much better jobs wanting more money. This is what,
a $2 billion amendment? I would ask you, is this not sort of a pretty
egregious example of the tendency we have to try to reward one group
and ignore the cost that everybody else is going to have to pay?

Mr. COBURN. I would answer the Senator, yes, but it is even worse in
another way, and it is this: You know, we are not going to get killed
by one big punch. It is going to be the little pinpricks. This is
another pinprick. The fact is, I would love for our Federal employees
to get this benefit. But we cannot afford it, one.
No. 2, it is highly unfair to everybody else out there trying to
struggle right now to pay the taxes that pay those salaries. No. 3 is,
we do not even have the money to fund the pensions for the Federal
employees that we have promised right now. So it is about us getting it
wrong. Our priorities are wrong. That is my whole point. There is no
common sense to what we are doing.
Sure, it is nice, you can be lauded by all of the Federal employees:
You did this. You did this. You can get their vote. But what about the
future of our Republic? What is going to happen to us?
I have a granddaughter who is going to be born in the next 2 weeks,
and I am wondering if she will even recognize what I knew to be what we
were like in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, because the freedom, the
diminution of our freedom in this country has been massive. It is in
direct correlation with the size of the growth of the Federal
Government, directly correlated.
The bigger the Federal Government is, the less freedom we have. As it
gets smaller, we can possibly get back some of our freedom. But we are
talking about growing the Federal Government, we are talking about
making it bigger. We are talking about having it more involved in every
aspect of our life and taking away the ability of you and your family
to make critical decisions about your family.
Are we totally dependent on the Federal Government? If that is where
we are, our freedom is lost. If we have decided we do not need the
States any more, get rid of all of the State legislatures; the Federal
Government is doing it all anyway. And we do it so efficiently and so
well, you can interact with your bureaucrat so well. They always make
sense, they are always 100 percent responsible. That is garbage.
The fact is, the farther away your government is from you, the less
control you have over it. There is no need, if we continue the
direction we are in, to have a city council. We are directing what you
have got to do on street lights now. We are going to tell you what car
you can drive.
I thank the Senator from Alabama for his question. I appreciate his
help on a lot of these issues.
This is not anything other than a departure point for our country. So
let me spend a little time--first, let me tell you how good of a job we
do. We passed a $787 billion stimulus bill of which $70 billion is out
the door. So not even 10 percent, maybe 10 percent by this week; I have
not checked the Web site this week to see.
Let's talk about what has gone out the door. What has gone out the
door in my home State in Perkins, OK, that to get the money for a new
water sewage system that the Federal Government said they had to have--
State government did not say it, the Federal Government did--they had
to spend an extra $2 million to build a water disposal and sewage plant
that originally was going to cost $4 million. Now it costs $6.2
million. Guess what they got from the Federal Government--$1.5 million.
Think about that for a minute. Here is the stimulus. There is no
question some jobs are being created from that. There is no question
the citizens of that town will have to pay higher water rates and
sewage rates to get a new plant. But what we did in the meantime of
having the Federal Government involved in it is we raised the net cost
of it by $500,000 so that the people who are going to benefit from it
are going to end up paying water rates, sewage rates, at elevated
levels for a longer period of time because the Federal Government got
involved in it.
It doesn't mean we didn't need the sewage plant. We did. It didn't
mean the city fathers didn't do the best thing they could for the city.
They had to get a bond. So when somebody comes up and says, I am the
Federal Government, here is $1.5 million, take it; and you say, maybe I
can help my city out and get this thing done--except the net result of
that is, it will actually end up costing $2 million more--ask yourself
a question: If you were to build a garage onto the back of your house
and the Federal Government says: We will give you a grant to help you
do that, but when you finish up, the net cost to you is going to be
about 8 to 20 percent more than what it would have cost if you did it
yourself, are you going to take that deal? No, you are not.
This is money that is already out the door on the stimulus. It is an
example of what happens when we lose common

[[Page S7994]]

sense and when we lose economic parameters with which to make
decisions.
No. 2, in the stimulus was, heretofore, before we got to the health
care bill that we just passed out, was the largest earmark in history,
$2 billion. Here we have FutureGen. Let me tell you what we know about
FutureGen. The idea behind it is pretty good. Let's figure out if we
can take coal and make it absolutely clean and take the carbon dioxide
out of it and sequester the carbon dioxide and use this resource we
have and have a totally nonpolluting coal plant for generating
electricity. Good idea, right? It got canceled in late 2007 because the
Department of Energy, relying on a study from the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, said: We don't have the technology to do it.
You shouldn't spend the money. The technology isn't there.
Isn't it funny, in 4\1/2\ months that report gets ignored and we put
a $2 billion earmark in to build a coal plant that we don't have the
technology for? Let me explain what will happen. We will spend that $2
billion, but when the $2 billion is gone, they are going to come back
and say: We almost got it. How about $2 billion more? We will get
another $2 billion earmark and another $2 billion earmark, and 5 to 10
years from now, we will have $24 billion in it. Then they will either
do one or two things. They will say: We finally figured it out, which
means had we waited to build on it a small prototype plant and
perfected the technology, we could have done it for 5 percent of that,
or they will say: It just didn't work. We can't do it. But we did it on
the basis of parochialism and the enhanced interest of some power
companies that were well-heeled and well connected to this body. So now
we have $2 billion of your money going to a project that MIT says the
technology isn't finished yet, and we should not be spending any money
to build a final plant. Yet we did it. Yet the claim was that there
weren't any earmarks in the stimulus bill.
Here is another fact that a lot of people don't know. Every fact I
will give you I can absolutely document, either from the Department of
Transportation or somewhere else. We have over 230,000 major bridges in
disrepair. Remember Minneapolis. We have tons of those bridges. I am
not saying they will collapse, but structurally they have been deemed
to need repair.
The stimulus bill spent $24 billion on roads, highways, and bridges.
We should have spent $100 billion because we really would have created
four times as many jobs. We would have bought things we know we will
have to buy anyhow, and we would have fixed problems we know we have
today. If we are going to borrow money against our kids' future, it
ought to be on high-priority items that will truly benefit us and our
kids rather than that which is not going to benefit us.
Here we have Wisconsin, which has 1,256 structurally deficient
bridges--more than Florida, Colorado, Arizona, and Alaska combined.
Instead of fixing those, they put $58 million into bridge repair to
repair 37 rural bridges that people hardly ever use. Why? How? How did
it happen? We have interstate highway bridges that need to be repaired
that have tens of thousands of cars going over them every day, and
instead we repair a bridge to a bar. I guess that Rusty's Backwater
Saloon is more important than the safety of kids on the highway.
Then we have a Florida project. When we build highways today,
especially interstates, we put these eco-passages underneath them so
that wild animals--sometimes cattle, if they are connected lands--can
have transportation underneath the highway without going around. Good
idea. In Florida, we have a highway sitting there, and less than a
couple miles down the road we have an eco-passage, and a couple miles
up the road we have one. We are going to spend $3.4 million to put
another one in because too many turtles are crossing the road and
getting hit. Maybe that is OK. But when we have a $11.4 trillion debt,
we are going to run a $2 trillion deficit this year, when everything we
are spending this year--50 cents out of every dollar we spend, we are
borrowing on the backs of our children--should we be spending this kind
of money on turtles? There are plenty of turtles in Florida. It is
probably not going to have an ecological impact. But is that a
priority? Is that something we should be doing? I think not.
We have a nonprofit that got fired for doing weatherization contracts
in one of our States, for poor performance and noncompliance. We get
the stimulus, and guess who gets the contract--somebody who has already
cheated the taxpayers. Nevada. Somebody has already been fired for
noncompliance and not doing appropriate work, and the first thing we do
is we hire them back. Do you think there might not have been a
political connection with the person who got that contract? Think it is
strange?
Here is my favorite. This is Oklahoma. In the wonderful wisdom of the
Corps of Engineers, back in the late 1940s and 1950s in western
Oklahoma--fairly arid land, good for raising cattle, and where you can
get irrigation, it is great for growing wheat--we built a dam and a
spillway and generation and everything. Only one problem: There never
was any water that came to the lake.
So we have this little road that runs along the edge of it, and they
replaced the guardrails 2 years ago. Less than 10 cars a day in the
regular summer season go across this, 3 average in the winter. The
Corps of Engineers decides, since we have all this money, we need to
replace the guardrails. The reason they wanted to replace the
guardrails is they are an inch and a half too short for the 10 cars
that go by there. But if you run off the road, you run into something
down there that is dry as a bone. You don't run into a lake. But
because the Corps has the code that you have to have guardrails on
anything around a lake, even if you don't have a lake there, we are
going to spend millions of dollars putting guardrails around a
nonexistent lake because the bureaucratic code is: Never do what is
best when you can do what is good for you. Here goes millions of
dollars to build guardrails. I pretty well have gotten this one stopped
by having my staff out there with the Corps, but had I not done it, we
would have spent the money.
What are we doing? Do you like the fact that the Federal Government
is involved in all this? Do you think they are exhibiting wisdom and
prudence?
We can take Elizabethtown, PA. They have had an old train station
that hasn't been used in 30 years. Granted, they could maybe use a
train station, but they have been getting along pretty well without one
for 30 years in this particular location. We are going to spend
millions of dollars to renovate an old train station, not because we
have a need but because we have money to spend and it will create a
job.
There is nothing wrong with having deficit spending, in terms of
Keynesian economics, to try to stimulate the economy, but there ought
to be a priority that what we spend the money on actually, in fact, is
a long-term benefit that we would have spent the money on anyway. When
we throw the money out there and we roll the dice, what happens is,
yes, we get a benefit. We get the millions of dollars spent on our
behalf. It gets spent on our behalf. But was it the best way to spend
the money? Was there another priority that would have been better, that
would have created more jobs, that was something we truly have to have,
that would have created a permanent job, that would have helped truly
stimulate the economy? Those questions are not getting asked.
Here is another one of my favorites. Part of the stimulus was that we
give seniors a check. I don't understand that, but we did. But the IRS
sent checks to 10,000 dead people. It can happen. I could see how that
could happen, but 10,000? So if we are sending checks to 10,000 dead
people on a stimulus, what else are we not doing right at the IRS and
every other agency? I think it totaled $25 million.
Here is another one of my favorites: Union, NY. The town of Union was
surprised when it was notified that it would be receiving a $578,661
stimulus grant to prevent homelessness for several reasons. Here is
another interesting point: They never applied for the grant. Second,
they don't have a homeless problem. ``Union did not request the money
and does not currently have any homeless programs in place in the town
to administer such funds,'' said the town supervisor, John Bernardo.
``We were surprised. We were never a recipient before.'' He is not
aware of

[[Page S7995]]

any homeless issue in the largely suburban town. Where did that one
come from? Where is the connection? The people at the Department of
Housing and Urban Development just sent them a check. It is not their
money. Get the money out the door. Send it to somebody who doesn't need
it. When asked about it, HUD just sent the money to every town based on
its population, whether it had a homeless problem or not.
When did it become, under the Constitution, a Federal responsibility
rather than a community responsibility to take care of homeless people?
As we shift that responsibility to the Federal Government, what happens
to the freedom of your hometown to care for homeless people? When you
get the money from the Federal Government come the rules and
regulations on what you will do and how you will do it. Rather than a
community-based or a church-based homeless shelter, now you will follow
these regs and do these things if you want our help.
What is our help? Our help is taking money from you, filtering it
through Washington, wasting 20 percent of it, and then sending it back
to you to tell you what you already know how to do, except now they
will tell you how to do it and give you 35 pieces of paper and forms to
fill out as you tell them how you spent your money that they took 20
percent of to care of your homeless that you should have never sent the
money to Washington for in the first place.
Let me spend time--I will pick and choose through a few of these. The
Federal Government gives weatherization grants to help people
weatherproof their homes. We have been doing this for over 25 years,
and we continue to spend more and more money on it every year. Either
we are not doing a good job or we have weatherized every home in the
country and we are starting to do it a second time.
But here is one from Illinois, where they took the weatherization
grant and bought eight pickup trucks for the county--under a
weatherization grant.
In Wisconsin, a nursing home got $2.8 million in stimulus money it
did not need or request. Prior to the stimulus funding, the Knapp Haven
Nursing Home was on track for a loan from the USDA. In other words,
they had the finances set up to get a loan to where they could repay
it. When the stimulus money came available, the funding source was
shifted to a new source of Federal assistance. Carmen Newman, the city
clerk-treasurer said:

It's kind of a joke as far as I'm concerned. I don't
understand how they can say this is stimulus.

They were going to do it anyway. The mayor of that city said:

I don't see how the project benefited.

Well, somebody benefited. But somebody also lost, and that was our
kids and our grandkids.
Here is a good one: Iowa State legislators are using money freed up
by the Federal stimulus cash to buy $11 million in new cars the State
does not need. About four dozen brandnew cars owned by the State are
already sitting unused in a parking lot near the capitol. According to
State Representative Christopher Rants:

Some of them [still] have the [sales] stickers on them.
None of them have license plates. Some of them still have
their seats wrapped in plastic.

But we are going to buy the cars because we got the money. So see
what is happening here? There is no priority. Because the money comes
in, spend it. Even though you have excess cars sitting in the parking
lot, you buy it. Spend it or lose it.
Michigan is going to spend $500,000 to renovate an old freight house
for a yoga class. There is no question if you renovate an old warehouse
and you employ people to do that, you will stimulate the economy. The
criticism here is, are there not other things more important in
Michigan that we could spend $500,000 on that would create more
permanent jobs, long-lasting jobs, and be of stronger benefit to the
community?
The only reason I question this is because it came through the
Federal Government down there. If that money came through the
statehouse or the city, I would have no business questioning it at all.
But in light of where we find ourselves as a country, it is difficult
for me to see the priorities that are expressed.
In Macomb, IL, $643,945 was spent on a Prairieview public housing
parking lot that nobody wants. Many of the residents whom the parking
lot was supposed to benefit have protested it. Explaining his concern,
a local resident said: The kids love the grass. We have enough pavement
already for all the cars here. We need a playground.
But we are going to pour concrete over it because we have the money
to do it--another wasted priority.
In Chicago, rather than help welfare recipients obtain jobs and
escape poverty, $1 million will be used to study whether 300 people in
Chicago are healthier when living in a ``green'' public housing
facility. The study will evaluate whether green housing is healthier
for people and will focus on 300 residents at a Chicago public housing
facility. Researchers expect to find that residents living in these
more energy-efficient facilities will have much lower health care
costs. The study will create jobs because it will get two or three
people to interview the residents.
Oh, here is another priority that came out of the stimulus. The
National Institutes of Health has given an Indiana University professor
a grant of $356,000. Maybe this is OK but not now. It is not OK where
we find ourselves. But here is what they are going to do with it. They
are going to ``test how children perceive foreign-accented speech
compared to native-accented speech.'' It will also determine how such
accents might influence speech development in children.
I do not doubt that might, in fact, be something we want to study.
But we still have a lot of women in this country with a lot of disease
and we have a lot of men in this country with a lot of disease. I am
not sure accents are as important as studying ways to lower health care
costs or funding a professor to do research on one of the cancers that
are plaguing our country. How about buying H1N1 flu vaccine? Might that
not be a better expenditure of that money? In other words, priorities
get lost.
Detroit Public Schools will reap massive benefits from the stimulus
despite a $150 million deficit. According to the Intelligencer--that
is, evidently, a newspaper in the area--financial management problems
became ``so tangled the state recently appointed a manager to take the
financial reins.'' The Detroit Public School System stands to get $530
million, which $355 million would have ``no strings attached.''
So we have a school system that has been totally irresponsible with
their financing and the management of their money, and what do we do
with the stimulus? We reward the incompetence and then give them twice
that amount to pull them out of a hole rather than fix the real
problem.
Consequences to our behavior are a great learning episode for all of
us, no matter how old we are. If we are very young and we touch the hot
stove, we learn it is hot. When we are adolescents and we do some of
the stupid things we do as adolescents, we learn from them. Do you know
what. Governments do not learn, and that is because governments do not
have compassion. Only people have compassion. And when you bail out a
school system that has been irresponsible, without them suffering the
consequences--and I know the answer is: Well, the kids suffer the
consequences. That is right. We all suffer the consequence. You do not
think kids are suffering the consequences right now in our economy?
So this one is just cute. You will love it. Yale University and the
University of Connecticut are going to get $850,000--they have already
gotten it, by the way--in stimulus money for research ``to study how
paying attention improves performance of difficult tasks.''
Did you ever hit your thumb with a hammer? Studying that paying
attention helps you with difficult tasks? I do not know who thinks
these things up. But, more importantly, it does not matter who thinks
them up. Who would give a grant for that? I am not opposed to giving
grants for sound scientific study. But do you know what. We already
know the answer this thing is going to give us--a statistically
significant answer: You do better if you pay attention; and you do not
do as well if you do not. It is pretty straightforward.
Hanscom Field, MA, where we are going to put excess money for
additional runways, has received criticism

[[Page S7996]]

from local representatives, including a State representative from
Lexington. The State legislative leaders did not want us to do it. But
do you know what. We did it anyway. The people who represent the area,
the political leaders, did not want it to happen because they thought
it promoted irresponsible corporate behavior. Do you know what we did?
We did it anyway. It goes back to that point we were talking about:
freedom. When you give it to us, you lose it. We are supposed to be the
bastion that protects your freedom, and what we have become, through
this myriad number of Federal programs and spending, is we have been
the ones who are taking away your freedom.
In Oklahoma, I trap armadillos in my yard. They come in and they will
ruin a good yard because they like grub worms. So all you have to do is
to lay a few marshmallows out and then put a marshmallow or two in the
trap cage and you will catch those suckers.
Well, that is what Washington is doing to the American liberty. We
bite the first little bite off the marshmallow and say: Oh, that tastes
good. I got a little benefit here. There is no connection between what
I have done and me receiving this benefit. And then we take another
little bite off the marshmallow or the next one in. And all of
a sudden, before you know it, this armadillo--that runs at night mainly
that my dogs chase into the woods every time they see one of them--
pretty soon that armadillo fellow is in my cage. I got him. The reason
I got him is he kept thinking he could get something for nothing. He
kept thinking: Man, that is a sweet marshmallow.

So what happens is, here he comes down the road, like us--us
promising more, promising more--but, remember, whatever we are
promising to give you, we have already taken from you. And when we take
it from you, we lessen your liberty, to a great extent. We steal your
liberty. We steal your choice. We steal your freedom. We steal your
ability to be whom you want to be. We steal your ability to be the
parent you want to be because we are interjecting us in the education
system between you and your child. We are interjecting and planting the
seeds of a lack of responsibility and accountability, as we bite the
marshmallow, as we walk into the trap, and the cage closes.
There are two things I do with those armadillos--one of two things. I
either put them in the back of my pickup and take them 10 or 15 miles
away from my property or I shoot them. That is exactly what is going to
happen to us. We are either going to be carried far away from what we
know, we trust, and believe in to be right or we are going to be
extinct as a nation. We are going to lose the wonderful flavor of the
greatest Nation that has ever been on this Earth. We are going to
lose--and we are doing that--we are losing it, a little bit at a time
because we are similar to the frog that climbed into this wonderful pot
of water that slowly and slowly heated up, and he never thought to jump
out because, before he knew it, he could not.
So I have just listed about 30 of the first 1,000 projects that went
out on the stimulus so you can get a flavor as to what kind of judgment
is being made with the money we stole from our grandchildren. I would
say we are not doing great. I voted for a stimulus bill that would have
spent almost $500 billion--I didn't vote for this one, but it was real
stimulus. It was real roads, it was real bridges, it was real sewage
plants. It included things we were going to have to do. It was really
resetting the military because we are going to buy a whole bunch more
military. We are going to be forced to do it. To buy it now will create
job after job after job, and it will save us money because we are going
to buy it now at a cheaper price than what we will pay 5 years from
now.

So I am not critical of having stimulus. I am critical of how we
manage it, what we are doing about it, and the severe lack of oversight
that Members of this body daily fail to do. They do not do the job
demanded of them. It is not enough for us to say where the money is
spent. What is required of us is to say where the money is spent and
then make sure it is spent wisely, prudently, and in the best interests
of everybody in this country, not in the best interests of our next
election cycle.
I quoted earlier $350 billion worth of pure waste, fraud, and abuse
every year in this country. It is not fair for me to quote that without
going through it for you so you can actually see where it is. I did
this last year, so I am sure it is worse this year since we have not
had the courage to do anything about fixing the problems that cause
this. But let me go through it. These are either department agency
numbers, CBO numbers, inspector general numbers, or General Accounting
Office numbers. They are not Tom Coburn's numbers. Every one of them
can be backed up.
Medicare fraud: At a minimum, $80 billion a year. We are
contemplating a health care bill. We have Medicare that is upside down,
both Part A and Part B, running in the red, and is projected to run
into the trillions of dollars. Name something that has been done on
that in the last 2 years, 3 years, by us. Medicare improper payments,
net loss--in other words, we paid out more than we should or we paid
out less than we should--the net difference is $10 billion, so now we
are at $10 billion a year.
Medicaid fraud at a minimum--and the reason we say it is at a minimum
is because Medicaid can't even tell us what their fraud is. They can't
even report it--$30 billion. Improper payments, net loss, $15 billion.
So now we are at $135 billion and we have just gone through two
programs.
Social Security disability fraud: I hear every day in my office from
people in my State about people who are getting disability who are
absolutely not disabled, but they get the check. They are living off
us, but they can actually go to work and do something. At a minimum, it
is estimated to be--I think this is a very low number, and it doesn't
mean I don't want to help people with disability if they are truly
disabled. But everybody out in the country will know somebody who is
collecting a check who can still ride their horse, still run their
rotor tiller, still lay brick, or still do anything else they want, but
they can't work: $2.5 billion.
Government-wide improper payments in all of the other agencies, but
seven of them we still don't have any reporting on, even though the law
says they have to report. It is a Federal law you have to report your
improper payments every year, but they don't do it. Of the ones that do
report, another $15 billion net loss of paying out more than they
should. That is just on the agencies that report.
Maintenance of buildings by the Defense Department that they will not
use in the future nor do they use now, but we can't sell them because
we have all of these laws in Congress that create an impossibility for
us to get them to the market. We have created a bureaucratic nightmare
that takes about 10 years to put a building up for sale. We are
spending in the Defense Department $3 billion that could go for soldier
pay, health care for our veterans, health care for our soldiers; $3
billion to maintain buildings that are sitting empty and to maintain
security for them.
We have contracting problems. The bill before us, the Defense
authorization--everybody recognizes we have a significant problem with
contracting in this country. This data comes not from last year but
from the year before last. The Department of Defense paid out $8
billion for performance awards to contractors who did not earn the
awards. In other words, they had a contract. Here are the requirements
to meet the contract. They didn't meet the requirements of the
contract. The Department of Defense paid them anyway. It hasn't
stopped, folks. Where is the connection?
It is estimated by GAO that at a minimum, if we eliminated no-bid
contracts everywhere in the Federal Government--most earmarks, by the
way, are no-bid contracts; it is a sweetheart deal--we would save, at a
minimum, $5 billion a year--at a minimum--probably closer to $7 billion
or $8 billion. Just to eliminate no-bid contracts pays for the entire
budget of the State of Oklahoma for 1 year. Every expense we have, just
1 year of eliminating no-bid contracts would have that kind of savings.
Then we have the wonderful trick: we send bills through here that are
supposedly emergency supplementals, and we add all of these things of
extra spending onto them that aren't emergencies. It is kind of like an
earmark process, except the difference is they

[[Page S7997]]

don't have to be within the budget numbers, so they just go straight to
the bottom line against our kids. So it doesn't pull back any spending
anywhere else, but we spend this money anyhow, and that is another $15
billion a year that the Members of Congress do outside of the budget.
So let's see here. We are at $184 billion. We have a crop insurance
program that benefits the crop insurance industry but not the farmers,
but we refuse to modernize it. We can save $4 billion if we modernize
it, but we don't modernize it because the effect and power of the well-
heeled and well-connected keeps us from doing what is right.
Then we send $5.9 billion to the U.N. every year. We know--and this
is a report we finally got forced to get out of there; it got leaked
out and we finally got ahold of it--that our entire contribution to
peacekeeping, which amounts to about 40 percent of our contributions--
$2 billion a year--is totally wasted in fraud. In other words, it
doesn't help us do peacekeeping anywhere in the world because there is
only one agency and one government that is more inefficient than us,
and it is the United Nations. Yet we can't have transparency.
Every year I put on the foreign appropriations bill a requirement
that for the U.N. dues to be paid, they have to give us transparency
about where they are spending our money. It passes 99 to 0, and as soon
as it goes to the conference, guess what happens. It gets pulled out
because we don't have the courage to confront the U.N. and say: We are
giving you $5.9 billion. Tell us how it is being spent. So there is
another one.
One of the greatest areas of worry the inspectors general have across
all the agencies of government is investment in IT. Last year, we
contracted $64 billion of IT contracts through the Federal Government--
$64 billion. What we know is at least 20 percent of that ends up
totally getting mismanaged and wasted. It gets wasted because they
don't know what they want when they sign the contract. They continue to
change what they want as the contract goes through, and when we get to
what was going to be a $200 million contract, it ends up being an $800
million contract because we have changed what the contract did.
By the way, the contract isn't no-bid; the contract is cost plus, so
whoever is doing the contract has every inclination to give them new
ideas to make it better and change it. So what happens is we fall way
behind, we don't get it, we pay four times as much. What is estimated
is that we lose almost $11 billion a year on that kind of poor
management. What is being done about it? Nothing in this body. Nothing
in this body.
The National Flood Insurance Program is another $17.5 billion of
waste and duplication. If we reformed the Tax Code--by the way, we are
now right at $218 billion. If we reformed the Tax Code--if we just made
it either straight line or simple, straight, fill it in on a postcard,
or went to the fair tax, what we know is the Federal Government, just
everything else being equal this year, would have $100 billion more
collected because there would be $100 billion less in fraud. Just $100
billion. Just $100 billion. But we have a Tax Code that is this thick
that no IRS department will give you the same answer to the same
question anywhere else in the country, and neither will any of the big
auditing firms because the code is so complex that nobody knows what
the truth is. So we spend over $200 billion a year in this country
paying our taxes.
I am not talking about the taxes we pay, paying our taxes. Either
paying somebody else to figure it out or paying the interest because we
couldn't figure it out or paying the penalty because we couldn't get it
done on time, but most of it comes from paying people to pay our taxes
for us.
Then there is a miscellaneous, another $18 billion. I said $350
billion. The total I have given is $385 billion. The reason I said $385
billion, I don't want to exaggerate, so I cut 10 percent off of it. So
nobody can say we have exaggerated the waste, fraud, and abuse in the
Federal Government that occurs every year.
What would it be like right now if we weren't wasting that? What
would happen to Medicare if we didn't have this high number, billions
and billions of dollars of fraud in Medicare every year? What would
happen? What would happen is Medicare would last a lot longer. No. 2,
we would actually get more resources directed to the people who
actually need it.
The one story Dr. John Barrasso, the other physician in the Senate
tells, is that Medicare is so well designed to be defrauded that people
who deal in drugs stop that and start doing Medicare fraud because it
is easier to hit a home run, No. 1; No. 2, if you get caught, the
penalties are less. No. 3 is you can make a whole lot more money with a
whole lot lower jail sentence. So we have this system that is designed
to get defrauded that has $80 billion in it.
So let me make that point and say, if in fact you take--even if you
only take half of what I say--$175 billion--but even if you only take
half of what I say, here are the things we know: This country is
absolutely on an unsustainable course. We cannot sustain what we are
doing. We cannot have another year such as this year. We cannot have
another year that comes anywhere close to this year.
We can't have another year that moves forward in the direction we are
moving in terms of the government taking more of your freedom away and
building itself up and building the bureaucracies in this town.
I understand my colleague from Hawaii is here.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.

Amendment No. 1522 withdrawn

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank my friend Senator Coburn for
allowing me to speak at this time. I have been working with him in our
Committee on Homeland Security. We have taken up these amendments in
committee. I think I am correct when I say that Senator Coburn at the
time did support these amendments.
Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. AKAKA. Yes.
Mr. COBURN. I think the record will show that I did not support the
amendment.
Mr. AKAKA. I thank the Senator for the clarification.
First, I understand the current economic climate. I want the Federal
Government to save as much money as it can and to reduce all the
inefficiencies there are. My amendment would do that.
My amendment also has been supported by a bipartisan group of
Senators. I am proud that the cosponsors include Senators Collins,
Lieberman, Voinovich, Murkowski, Begich, Kohl, Mikulski, Cardin,
Inouye, Webb, and Warner. It is a bipartisan effort to correct certain
inequities in the Federal retirement system. That has been our effort
in these amendments.
Also, this effort was supported by a huge number of groups. Some of
the organizations are: The American Federation of Government Employees,
National Treasury Employees Union; International Federation of
Professional and Technical Engineers; Federal Law Enforcement Officers
Association; the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal
Employees; American Postal Workers Union; National Association of
Letter Carriers; National Rural Letter Carriers Association; National
Federation of Federal Employees; National Active and Retired Federal
Employees Association; Senior Executives Association; Federal Managers
Association; Government Managers Coalition; National Association of
Postal Supervisors; National Association of Postmasters of the U.S.;
and the National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys.
That is the kind of support we have. This amendment will ensure that
all Federal employees are treated the same when it comes to retirement.
This will save money, due to the reduced lost days of work and avoid
unnecessary employee transfers, which reduces the need for additional
training; reduces litigation costs borne by the government due to
different treatment of different classes of employees; improve employee
morale, which increases efficiency; and ensure that we are able to
transfer institutional knowledge to the next generation of Federal
workers.
OPM estimates that $68 million is wasted per year because of the
different leave policies in effect. In fact, the amendment would
certainly help in that respect. My amendment will reduce the Federal
deficit by $36 million over 10 years.

[[Page S7998]]

This amendment has the bipartisan support of the committee of
jurisdiction and by both managers and employees. I have read a list of
the others who support it.
This is a good government bill that protects the taxpayers' dollars.
I look forward to continuing this effort. I want to at this time say
that this is a good amendment. I will fight for these provisions in
conference. But I don't want to hold up the Defense authorization bill.
Under the circumstances, I will withdraw this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. COBURN. I thank the Senator. I think he will find another vehicle
at some other time. I know this bill is important to him. We just
happen to disagree about the priorities. That is what I have been
speaking on for 1 hour 20 minutes. I appreciate him doing that as a
courtesy to the rest of the Members of this body. I love him dearly as
a friend and as a brother. I appreciate it.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me add my thanks to the Senator from
Hawaii. He is doing this for the good of the order to permit us to get
on with the bill. He knows how important this is. I appreciate his
willingness to withdraw the amendment at this time. It is very much
appreciated by all of us. I hope something good could come out of
conference.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Hagan
be recognized to speak on a previous amendment for up to 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Levin and Ranking Member
McCain for reporting out a bill that enacts reforming the Defense
Department's budget and reorients weapons systems geared toward the
wars we are fighting today. Our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen
need capabilities that are conducive to implementing the Department's
shift to counterinsurgency tactics, techniques, and procedures. There
is nothing more important than enhancing the force protection of our
troops. That is why I am pleased that this bill provides proven,
effective ground capabilities, such as the MRAP vehicles to protect
against IEDs.
I want to highlight a couple of provisions in the bill. First, I
support funding the administration's request for $7.5 billion for the
Afghanistan security forces fund to train and equip the Afghan national
army and police. The commander of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade,
Brigadier General Nicholson, recently indicated that the success of the
Marine offensive in the Helmand Province is dependent upon placing an
Afghan face on the operation, in order to instill confidence among
local Afghans in the Afghan Government's abilities to provide safe
communities and to govern efficiently.
Equally important is providing coalition support funds for Pakistan.
The stability of Afghanistan is dependent on the stability of Pakistan,
and vice versa. We need to enable the Pakistan Army and Frontier Corps
with the capability to conduct sustained direct action missions against
the dangerous elements of the Pakistani Taliban along the federally
ministered tribal areas, as well as against the Afghan Taliban High
Command in Pakistan's Balochistan province.
Key to successful operations in theater are effective aviation
assets. I am a big proponent of the Joint Strike Fighter as it can
serve multiple roles, including close air support, tactical bombing,
and air defense missions. I am disappointed that we were unable to
secure enough votes for Senator Bayh's amendment. I want to reiterate
that I think it is important we safeguard language to authorize funding
to develop and procure an alternate Joint Strike Fighter engine.
I know the issue of the location of the Navy's OLF has already been
debated and voted on, so I will not spend a lot of time on it. I
cosponsored an amendment with Senator Burr to prevent the Navy from
building an OLF in the Sandbanks and the Hale's Lake locations within
Camden, Currituck, and Gates Counties in North Carolina. I am against
an OLF at these proposed sites because it would destroy small family
farms that have been around for generations, as well as thousands of
acres of farmland, essential to the livelihood and economic base of
those communities. An OLF in these locations would only bring 52 jobs,
and it would destroy valuable farmland that currently employs over
2,000 workers. Moreover, the OLF would only be a few miles away from
ongoing projects that will attract new businesses and tourists.

Last week, I met with local government leaders of the respective
counties to discuss their concerns regarding construction of the OLF.
The State of North Carolina recently passed a law banning the
construction of an OLF at these sites. I do not think it would be in
the Navy's interests to continue to pursue construction of an OLF at
these sites, knowing that it will more likely than not be tied up in
litigation for years.
I want to make sure North Carolina is treated fairly. The residents
of these counties simply do not want the OLF there. The State of North
Carolina is the friendliest military State in the Nation, and we would
welcome the opportunity to work with the Navy in identifying sites that
could potentially meet the Navy's OLF requirement, and also have the
support of the North Carolinians in those counties. One of those sites
can be at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point or a site close to it
within Craven County. All of the elected local officials in that
community are in support of having an OLF located there.
The Navy excluded Cherry Point as a potential OLF site because Navy
standards specify that an OLF should be no more than 120 nautical miles
from home base. Cherry Point sits approximately 135 nautical miles from
Oceana, VA. That is just 15 nautical miles beyond the Navy's current
requirement. I want to work with the Navy to examine the impact of
having an OLF that is located just outside its current requirements,
and especially on the readiness of the Navy's personnel and aircraft
fleet.
Senator Webb and I worked together to insert additional language
within the committee report to do two things: one, to mandate the
Secretary of the Navy issue a report detailing the Navy's consultations
with local governments, communities, and stakeholders in North Carolina
and Virginia regarding OLF site options; two, to mandate the Navy
identify all suitable options for the location of an OLF beyond the
five sites identified in both States.
However, I don't think that is good enough. The State of North
Carolina has had previous negative experiences with the manner in which
the Navy has implemented its OLF site selection process. I strongly
feel that the Navy should delete the two current sites in North
Carolina.
I also thank the chairman and ranking member for accepting my
amendment in committee that provides the Department of Defense with the
option to increase the acquisition of additional C-27s in the outyears
as mission requirements dictate. That amendment requires the Department
to provide its strategic plan to deploy and station C-27 joint cargo
aircraft in theater and in the continental United States, as well as
plans to procure additional aircraft beyond the 38.
Forty-eight adjutants of the National Guard signed a letter to the
committee last month supporting the funding of 78 joint cargo aircraft.
Their letter emphasized the C-27 provides an essential airlift
capability in war, as well as to State emergency management teams in 48
States.
I also thank the chairman and Ranking Member McCain for accepting my
amendment to direct the Secretary of the Army to submit a report to
assess the feasibility and advisability of creating a trainees,
transients, holdees, and students account within the Army National
Guard to ensure all soldiers in

[[Page S7999]]

units have completed their initial entry training prior to being
deployed.
Approximately 27,000 of the National Guard's end strength are not
deployable because they are awaiting training. This account would allow
new Guardsmen to be fully trained prior to reporting to their
assignment. A TTHS account with the National Guard would improve the
unit readiness, increase individual dwell time between deployments, and
provide more predictability to soldiers, families, and employers.
Finally, I thank the chairman and ranking member for accepting my
amendment involving depot maintenance work. This amendment directs the
Secretary of the Navy to submit a cost-benefit analysis report
identifying each alternative the Secretary is considering for the
performance of the AV-8B Harrier aircraft planned maintenance and
aircraft modifications.
We are working with the Navy and the Marine Corps to ensure that
depots allow partnerships with the commercial sector, while recognizing
the legitimate national security need for the Department of Defense
civilian and military personnel to retain the key skills to be
responsive to our soldiers fighting in these two wars.
This is an important bill, and despite my and Senator Burr's ongoing
concerns about this outlying landing field, I think that Senators Levin
and McCain deserve our gratitude for their work on this bill, and this
bill deserves the support of all of my colleagues.
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. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Kyl
amendment be temporarily set aside and that the following four
amendments then be in order: the Sessions amendment, No. 1657, which is
going to be modified and which I understand will not require a rollcall
vote; the Isakson amendment, No. 1525, which would then be called up
and I understand would require some debate; the Lieberman amendment,
No. 1650, which I also understand may be modified; and then the next
amendment after that, which I thought I could enumerate, but I cannot
now, would be a Democratic amendment and would then be in place; that
no amendments would be in order to any of the above amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair.
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. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me modify my previous unanimous consent
agreement: that prior to those three amendments being called up, we
take up the Lincoln amendment, No. 1487, which I understand has been
cleared. Again, as to the other three amendments we identified for
debate, no amendments will be in order to any of those amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is now my understanding that under that
UC, we would take up Lincoln amendment No. 1487.
I am wondering whether the Senator from Arkansas would like to have
one quick minute to explain her amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.

Amendment No. 1487

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment
No. 1487 be called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln], for herself, Mr.
Cornyn, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Risch, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr.
Wyden, proposes an amendment numbered 1487.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To amend title 32, United States Code, to modify the
Department of Defense share of expenses under the National Guard Youth
Challenge Program)

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

SEC. 573. MODIFICATION OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SHARE OF
EXPENSES UNDER NATIONAL GUARD YOUTH CHALLENGE
PROGRAM.

(a) Modification.--Section 509(d)(1) of title 32, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``may not exceed'' and
all that follows and inserting ``may not exceed the amount as
follows:
``(A) In the case of a State program of the Program in
either of its first two years of operation, an amount equal
to 100 percent of the costs of operating the State program in
that fiscal year.
``(B) In the case of any other State program of the
Program, an amount equal to 75 percent of the costs of
operating the State program in that fiscal year.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 2009, and shall apply with
respect to fiscal years beginning on or after that date.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman, Senator Levin, and
Senator McCain, Senator Graham, and the others for allowing me to bring
up this amendment.
This is a critical amendment at a critical time. Many of us visit our
home States, and we see the disadvantaged youth all across our States
who are having difficult times. We know unstable economic times bring
about instability in our schools, in our families, and in a host of
different places.
One of the ways we have of combating this is with the National Guard
Youth ChalleNGe Program. It is an excellent program put on by our
National Guard in many of our States where these at-risk youth come in
and they are surrounded by both structure and support and guidance to
be able to meet their needs of getting a GED and their high school
education and then going on to make something of their lives, really
turning themselves around and making sure they are becoming great parts
of our communities, whether it is finding a job or entering the
military on their own but certainly turning their lives around and
being productive.
What we do in this amendment is we open up our National Guard Youth
ChalleNGe Program to new States. Right now, we have it in several of
our States. Many of us have been able to see the rewards of this
program, but this will open it up to other States to be able to
participate.
One of the biggest problems we have had with this program is not the
success, because the success has been tremendous, but it is the ability
of our States to be able to financially support these programs. Right
now, they have to come up with 40 percent of the resources that are
necessary. Quite frankly, our States are not entering into these
programs because they do not have the resources. These are excellent
programs. They have tremendous results. And one of the things we want
to make certain of is that we don't lose the opportunity to catch these
young people early on and turn their lives around. So our amendment
provides a 75-25 percent cost sharing with the States instead of the
60-40. We don't change the amount of money spent, we just change the
way it is allocated. We also allow the opportunity for some new States
that want to start these programs to come in, and for the first 2 years
the Federal Government will support 100 percent of those programs as
they get their feet on the ground and they get these programs started,
and then they must again resume that 25-percent State responsibility in
these programs.
We have a great bill we have introduced. We have tremendous
bipartisan support. We have 32 cosponsors of our bill. I am joined in
this amendment by Senators Byrd, Casey, Cornyn, Hagan, Landrieu,
Murkowski, Risch, Rockefeller, Snowe, and Udall of Colorado, along with
Senator Wyden. So we have great support for this amendment. It is
something that is important for our kids, and it is certainly a great
opportunity for us to see how our military can empower our youth by
giving them the kind of support that is necessary to turn their lives
around through both education and opportunity, helping them to develop
skills, working in the community, and really making something of
themselves.

[[Page S8000]]

I thank the chairman for the ability to be able to offer this
amendment on behalf of our States and on behalf of our National Guard,
which is doing a tremendous job in these programs, but most importantly
on behalf of our children and the great things it does for our children
all across this Nation.
Mr. President, a special thanks to the chairman and the ranking
member for their indulgence in letting me offer this amendment. I am
looking forward to hopefully seeing how we can move it forward.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first let me thank Senator Lincoln for this
amendment. The linkage of the National Guard and States and our kids is
a very powerful link indeed. I have seen this up close and personal
because I am sort of the godfather of the STARBASE Program, which
started in Michigan at Selfridge Air National Guard Base, and it has
spread. While this program which Senator Lincoln is so deeply involved
with, and her cosponsors, is not an outgrowth of that program, it is
very similar in terms of its purpose to link our National Guard and the
inspiration they can provide and the technical skills they can provide
our children with. So I thank her for her amendment and hope it will be
promptly adopted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1487) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. GRAHAM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I believe the next amendment is the
Sessions amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.

Amendment No. 1657, as Modified

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1657, as modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Graham], for Mr.
Sessions, proposes an amendment numbered 1657, as modified.

The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress that military commissions
are the preferred forum for the trial of alien unprivileged
belligerents for violations of the law of war and other offenses
triable by military commission)

On page 394, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

SEC. 1032. TRIAL BY MILITARY COMMISSION OF ALIEN UNPRIVILEGED
BELLIGERENTS FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW OF WAR.

(a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 47A of title 10,
United States Code, as amended by section 1031(a), is further
amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``Sec. 948e. Trial by military commission of alien
unprivileged belligerents for violations of the law of war

``(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the preferred forum for the trial of alien unprivileged enemy
belligerents subject to this chapter for violations of the
law of war and other offenses made punishable by this chapter
is trial by military commission under this chapter.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections of the
beginning of such subchapter, as amended by section 1031(a),
is further amended by adding after the item relating to
section 948d the following new item:

``948e. Trial by military commission of alien unprivileged belligerents
for violations of the law of war.''.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, we have been working with Senator
Sessions--myself, Senator Levin and his staff, and Senator Sessions'
staff. This amendment basically clarifies the fact that when a detainee
is in military custody or an intelligence agent's custody, being
detained as a result of wartime activity, to be interrogated for
intelligence gathering, there is no requirement that person have
article 31, or Miranda, rights read to them. We don't want to
criminalize the war. Military intelligence gathering is not a law
enforcement function.
There has been some confusion at Bagram Air Force Base about the
Department of Justice FBI agents reading Miranda rights. Clearly, there
could be a time when that would be appropriate, but this amendment
states unequivocally that Miranda warnings, or article 31 rights, are
not to be read or required to be read by DOD personnel or intelligence
agencies as a result of battlefield activities or military intelligence
gathering.
I think it is a good amendment that will clarify a potentially
confusing situation. I appreciate Senator Levin's staff helping us with
it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, after a very brief comment, I am going to
suggest a quorum be called. This amendment has been significantly
modified from its original form. It has been modified in a way which I
believe is now satisfactory. It addresses interrogations by the
military, by defense agencies. It does not involve interrogations by
the Department of Justice, as I understand it.
Mr. GRAHAM. That is correct.
Mr. LEVIN. The Department of Justice is not involved in the warnings
that are involved here. It especially provides it must be applied in a
manner consistent with the constitutional requirements. With these
changes, I am satisfied, but I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the
pending Sessions amendment, as modified, be temporarily laid aside and
we now proceed to the next item under the unanimous consent agreement,
which would be the amendment of Senator Isakson.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Georgia is recognized.

Amendment No. 1525

Mr. ISAKSON. I call up amendment No. 1525.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Isakson], for himself and Mr.
Chambliss, proposes an amendment numbered 1525.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To repeal the sunset of authority to procure fire resistant
rayon fiber for the production of uniforms from foreign sources)

On page 245, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

SEC. 803. REPEAL OF SUNSET OF AUTHORITY TO PROCURE FIRE
RESISTANT RAYON FIBER FOR THE PRODUCTION OF
UNIFORMS FROM FOREIGN SOURCES.

Subsection (f) of section 829 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181;
122 Stat. 229; 10 U.S.C. 2533a note) is repealed.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, a few years ago this body granted a Berry
waiver on the purchase of rayon fiber made in Austria for the purpose
of making fire-resistant uniforms of the U.S. Marines, Army, and
aviators. The Berry requirement is the buy American requirement,
meaning that you first have to buy American before you go offshore to
buy a product.
At the beginning of the Iraq war, the U.S. Army and Marines noticed
immediately we had a tremendous increase, because of the nature of that
war, in burn injuries. They conducted a survey and looked at the 24
best alternatives they could find anywhere to make fire-resistant
uniforms. They finally settled on a para-aramid fire-resistant fiber
blend of rayon with nylon.
Environmental Protection Agency requirements to make rayon make it
prohibitive in the United States, and there is no rayon produced in the
United States. It is produced in Austria.
So the Berry waiver we received a few years ago was to allow them to
import, through now and 2013, rayon, fire-resistant rayon, which in the
United States is blended for fabric, cut, sewn, produced, and shipped
to the U.S. military--10,000 American jobs. The rayon cannot be
produced in the United States because of the EPA requirements.
The reason to request an exception and postpone the sunset in 2013 is
because the military procurement in the outyears is now reaching beyond
that. With the absence of a Berry waiver for those years, they would
have to zero

[[Page S8001]]

out the purchase for those uniforms which, in turn, would mean the
people who make those uniforms would not have the certainty of the
Berry waiver because it would be subject to a Berry waiver again.
Therefore, the investment they would make would be limited to the years
they knew they could make the guaranteed deliveries.
I have offered this amendment as an extension for that very reason.
The U.S. Army, the Marine Corps, and the aviators who use the material
love it because it breathes, it gives them some circulation, it has
tremendous protection against burns and it has performed very
satisfactorily and they want to continue to use it and there is no
American competitor that can meet or exceed it.
Obviously, if there were, that waiver would go away and we could
compete, but at this time they do not. I ask the Members for their
consideration on behalf of our military men and women in harm's way in
Afghanistan and Iraq and wherever they might be for the uniform that
was chosen for the very battle we are now in because it was the best
the military could find anywhere in the country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, regrettably, I must rise in opposition to
this amendment. I believe this amendment is not timely. It is premature
to eliminate a congressionally imposed sunset clause for an existing
temporary exception to the Berry amendment, an exception that was
supposed to be temporary.
In May of this year, Senator Graham and I jointly requested the
Secretary of Defense to review the Department of Defense continuing
reliance on this exception. The Under Secretary of Defense, Mr. Carter,
has confirmed that this review is now underway and the results are
expected soon. I do not believe we should modify the current statutory
requirement, which would prejudice the outcome of the Department of
Defense review, until we have heard the Department's assessment.
Removing the sunset clause would result in an indefinite extension of
an exception that favors foreign suppliers of rayon over our own
American companies.
A vote against this amendment will not have an adverse effect on
current arrangements to obtain rayon from foreign sources. Today's Army
uniform procurement contract will continue until 2013, so long as the
Army stipulates that a requirement for rayon fiber in fire-resistant
uniforms and the Department of Defense maintains the exception to the
Berry amendment is needed.
The 2013 sunset clause was designed to ensure that American industry
will be fairly treated during future competitions for contracts if
industry can demonstrate an ability to manufacture materials that
satisfy Army requirements for fire resistance and other features. Under
the current arrangement, companies are losing jobs because they cannot
compete to provide alternate materials. Our domestic manufacturers are
now able to provide alternate materials that could satisfy Army
procurement requirements. It is not in the best interests of the U.S.
defense industrial base, our economy or the U.S. military to remove a
congressionally imposed sunset provision at this time.
We have had discussions with General Fuller, the Army's Program
Executive Officer Soldier, who is responsible for acquiring the best
equipment for the Army and fielding it as quickly as possible. He has
confirmed to my staff that he will consult industry to determine what
the domestic market has to offer to satisfy performance-based
requirements for military uniforms. This will allow American industry
to come in with a whole spectrum of ideas and alternate materials. The
Army would then be able to explore new technologies that may have
evolved since we last visited this issue.
Removing the sunset clause also poses a risk to the Army's future
research and development requirements. The Army relies on American
private industries to an extensive degree to conduct R&D for next-
generation materials and fabrics for uniforms, body armor, and other
mission-essential materials. Some companies, such as Dupont, for
example, have already lost hundreds of jobs owing to that inability to
compete for Army contracts. A continued reliance on this Berry
amendment exception would jeopardize their ability to remain
competitive in this segment of the defense industrial base. I do not
believe the Army can afford to lose this critical R&D capacity. For
those reasons, I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to also
oppose it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to echo the sentiments of
Senator Webb. We have been working together on this. I very much
appreciate Senator Isakson. I understand this is a bit complicated--
there are parochial interests involved--until we understand the dilemma
we are in here.
In the fiscal year 2008 Defense authorization bill, we included
language that grants a 5-year waiver to the Berry amendment for the
procurement of flame-resistant rayon, the material used to make
military uniforms. There are 3 years left on the waiver. The Isakson
amendment permanently extends this waiver and will end all efforts to
produce a domestic material to make military uniforms.
I respectfully oppose the amendment. We are currently procuring the
material from Europe. There is no source of domestic rayon.
Neither Congress nor DOD has ever issued a determination or finding
that the domestic market lacks sufficient products that could perform
the functions desired by DOD. This amendment unfairly excludes, in my
opinion, U.S. manufacturers from competing for DOD procurements and
improperly limits competition since the domestic market contains
products such as flame-resistant cotton, Nomex, and nylon which can
fulfill DOD's needs.
DOD's decision to procure flame-resistant fabric from foreign
suppliers without even examining whether domestic manufacturers could
meet the agency's need with other products violates DOD's statutory
mandate to use performance rather than material specifications and to
seek free and fair open competition whenever practical.
Instead of affirmatively extending a waiver that has 3 years
remaining, we should continue to let the technologies and fabrics
develop and reassess where we are in 1 or 2 years. I think that is the
wise thing to do, and I respectfully urge my colleagues to oppose the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. ISAKSON. Through the Chair, will the Senator from South Carolina
yield for a moment for a question?
Mr. GRAHAM. I will.
Mr. ISAKSON. With respect, isn't it true that there is nothing in
this waiver that in any way inhibits or prohibits American
manufacturers from doing the research and development necessary to
attempt to come up with a material that meets or exceeds the rayon made
in Austria? The problem is they cannot produce rayon in the United
States of America because of EPA prohibitions and the costs to meet
that.
Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator for that question. It is my
understanding that the efforts made in Virginia and South Carolina to
produce this product domestically, and the concerns the Senator has
addressed, the private sector is dealing with; and that the ability to
produce this material domestically is a viable option. I don't want to
take a precedent, in terms of the Berry amendment, that I think would
change the spirit of the amendment at a time when we have a potential
to make this domestically. I think, as much as we can do domestically
to protect our military and to provide resources to our military, the
better.
A year or two from now, we will know better. To lift the waiver, to
make it a permanent waiver, I think would be an unwise erosion of the
Berry amendment at this time. That would be my answer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, let me comment, if I can. The Berry ``Buy
American'' program is absolutely 100 percent on target. The reason for
waivers is when we find that there is no domestic product equal to or
better than a product that has a component overseas, in the interest of
our men and women in the military, we give the

[[Page S8002]]

waiver so it doesn't keep us--so we do not prohibit ourselves from
having the best material possible. If an American domestic manufacturer
produces an alternative fiber or fabric which meets or exceeds the
fire-resistant para-aramid rayon that is now being used, the Berry
waiver will no longer apply because there will be a domestically
produced U.S. product that is superior or equal to that particular
product of rayon.
So I would respectfully submit to the Senators from Virginia and
South Carolina that the argument that there is a prohibition--that this
would keep people from making an investment in R&D to produce something
better is the reverse. It actually will accelerate the need for them to
make the R&D investment to try and produce something better in the
United States, if they can.
One last point. The U.S. military did 24 different evaluations after
the initial move into Iraq when we had so many burn injuries. It
determined this fabric has to be the best for our men and women
aviators, men and women in the Marine Corps, men and women in the Army
in combat, and it has performed well in Afghanistan and Iraq ever
since.
So I would submit the R&D argument is actually accelerated with the
extension of the waiver, and the proof of the product is in the pudding
which we have seen with the safety of our troops and our men and women
in harm's way.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. I rise very quickly in support of the Isakson
amendment. There is currently a waiver to the Berry amendment in place
which allows companies to import the fire-resistant rayon from foreign
countries.
Let me be very clear. The jobs that go with the manufacture of these
uniforms for the Army and Marines are U.S. jobs. All of these uniforms
are made in the United States. But this fabric is used by TenCate,
Incorporated, to make its Defender M fabric to produce fire-resistant
uniforms for both the Army and the Marines.
The material is not made in the United States due to EPA standards.
This is a classic example of where EPA standards can be too stringent
to allow U.S. manufacturers to operate. And, the reason is, it is cost
prohibitive to do so.
The current waiver, which includes a 5-year sunset clause, was
included in the 2008 Defense authorization bill after a tremendous
effort by my colleague, Senator Isakson, and obviously is set to
expire.
The Army's PEO Soldier expressed very strongly that FR rayon is the
superior fabric based upon key selection criteria. The criteria were
cost, comfort, durability, and length of time before receiving third-
degree burns. We have had some very serious situations, obviously, that
have occurred with burns in both Iraq and Afghanistan. That is why the
Army and the Marines like this uniform.
We buy 115,000 new FR uniforms every month. This uniform is superior
because of the fact that we have been able to import this fabric with
the Berry amendment waiver. It is, in my opinion, imperative that we
continue for the competition. The uniforms are still competitively bid.
So it is not like we are taking anybody out of the marketplace.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Isakson amendment.
I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 1657, as Further Modified

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send a further
modification of the Session's amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is further
modified.
The amendment as further modified is as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. NO MIRANDA WARNINGS FOR AL QAEDA TERRORISTS.

(a) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``foreign national'' means an individual who
is not a citizen or national of the United States; and
(2) the term ``enemy combatant'' includes a privileged
belligerent and an unprivileged enemy belligerent, as those
terms are defined in section 948a of title 10, United States
Code, as amended by section 1031 of this Act.
(b) No Miranda Warnings.--Absent an unappealable court
order requiring the reading of such statements, no military
or intelligence agency or department of the United States
shall read to a foreign national who is captured or detained
as an enemy combatant by the United States the statement
required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), or
otherwise inform such a prisoner of any rights that the
prisoner may or may not have to counsel or to remain silent
consistent with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). No
Federal statute, regulation, or treaty shall be construed to
require that a foreign national who is captured or detained
as an enemy combatant by the United States be informed of any
rights to counsel or to remain silent consistent with Miranda
v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) that the prisoner may or may
not have, except as required by the United States
Constitution. No statement that is made by a foreign national
who is captured or detained as an enemy combatant by the
United States may be excluded from any proceeding on the
basis that the prisoner was not informed of a right to
counsel or to remain silent that the prisoner may or may not
have, unless required by the United States Constitution.

Amendment No. 1525

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Byrd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from
Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), and
the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Utah (Mr. Bennett).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 40, nays 54, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 241 Leg.]

YEAS--40

Alexander
Barrasso
Bayh
Bond
Brownback
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Dodd
Ensign
Enzi
Franken
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
Lugar
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Murkowski
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Voinovich
Whitehouse

NAYS--54

Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Bunning
Burr
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
DeMint
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Graham
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Martinez
Menendez
Merkley
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Rockefeller
Sanders
Shaheen
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Webb
Wicker
Wyden

NOT VOTING--6

Bennett
Byrd
Kennedy
Landrieu
Mikulski
Warner
The amendment (No. 1525) was rejected.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DORGAN. 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. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1760

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
resume debate on the Kyl amendment No. 1760; that it be in order for
Senator Kyl to offer a second-degree amendment to his amendment; that
once the second degree is reported, it be agreed to, amendment No.
1760, as amended, be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid
upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Arizona is recognized.

[[Page S8003]]

Amendment No. 1807 to Amendment No. 1760

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I call up the second-degree amendment to my
amendment No. 1760 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment
numbered 1807 to amendment No. 1760.

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

(Purpose: To require a report on the plan for the United States nuclear
weapons stockpile, nuclear weapons complex, and delivery platforms, and
to express the sense of the Senate on follow-on negotiations to the
START Treaty)

Beginning on page 1, line 2, strike ``LIMITATION'' and
all that follows through page 5, line 3, and insert the
following: ``REPORT ON THE PLAN FOR THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR
WEAPONS STOCKPILE, NUCLEAR WEAPONS COMPLEX, AND DELIVERY
PLATFORMS AND SENSE OF THE SENATE ON FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS
TO START TREATY.
(a) Report on the Plan for the United States Nuclear
Weapons Stockpile, Nuclear Weapons Complex, and Delivery
Platforms.--
(1) Report required.--Not later than 30 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act or at the time a follow-on
treaty to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START Treaty)
is submitted by the President to the Senate for its advice
and consent, whichever is earlier, the President shall submit
to the congressional defense and foreign relations committees
a report on the plan to enhance the safety, security, and
reliability of the United States nuclear weapons stockpile,
modernize the nuclear weapons complex, and maintain the
delivery platforms for nuclear weapons.
(2) Coordination.--The President shall prepare the report
required under paragraph (1) in coordination with the
Secretary of Defense, the directors of Sandia National
Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, the Administrator for the
National Nuclear Security Administration, and the Commander
of the United States Strategic Command.
(3) Elements.--The report required under paragraph (1)
shall include the following:
(A) A description of the plan to enhance the safety,
security, and reliability of the United States nuclear
weapons stockpile.
(B) A description of the plan to modernize the nuclear
weapons complex, including improving the safety of
facilities, modernizing the infrastructure, and maintaining
the key capabilities and competencies of the nuclear weapons
workforce, including designers and technicians.
(C) A description of the plan to maintain delivery
platforms for nuclear weapons.
(D) An estimate of budget requirements, including the
costs associated with the plans outlined under subparagraphs
(A) through (C), over a 10-year period.
(b) Sense of the Senate on Follow-on Negotiations to the
START Treaty.--The Senate urges the President to maintain the
stated position of the United States that the follow-on
treaty to the START Treaty not include any limitations on the
ballistic missile defense systems, space capabilities, or
advanced conventional weapons systems of the United States.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to thank the ranking member on the
committee, my colleague John McCain, and the chairman of the committee,
as well as Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar, for working through this
amendment. We have a good resolution. We will be writing a letter to
the President. We will be adding a short provision to the bill that
calls for appropriate studies and reports to accompany the START Treaty
when that treaty is sent to the Senate. I think it is a good resolution
of this issue.
I call for the immediate disposition of the amendment. We do not need
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me thank Senator Kyl and all of those
who have been involved in working the Kyl amendment to a point where we
are comfortable with it. I think all of us had concerns, and those
concerns have been fairly met. I thank the Senator from Arizona for his
effort, as well as, of course, my ranking member on the committee and
all of the others who have been helpful.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendment No. 1807
is agreed to.
Under the previous order, amendment No. 1760, as amended, is agreed
to.
The motion to reconsider is made and laid upon the table.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER Mr. Bennet). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I believe it is appropriate now to call up
the Lieberman amendment, as modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I think we have a package of cleared
amendments we would like to do first, if that is agreeable.
Mr. LEVIN. We are not ready yet.
Mr. McCAIN. 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. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1650, as Modified

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that Senators
Lieberman and Graham call up amendment No. 1650, as modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I appreciate the assistance of Chairman
Levin and all those involved. This is to me a very important statement
by the Senate at a crucial time in our Nation's history. Simply put,
our amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate statement that there is a
preference for military commission trials regarding detained
terrorists.
The reason we are making this statement and trying to urge our
colleagues to agree with us is that the interim detainee report that
has been issued in the last day or two by the White House has a
statement within that report that there should be a presumption that
detained terrorists would be tried in article III Federal civilian
courts.
I could not disagree more. We will keep working with the
administration on this issue. There may be an odd case where a Federal
court may be an appropriate venue. But I think I speak for Senator
Lieberman and I hope most Americans that the people we are talking
about are not common criminals. They are not detained because of some
violation of domestic criminal law. They are detained because they have
been found to be part of al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations
that the Congress has previously determined to be enemy combatant
belligerents, people who have taken up arms against the United States
of America, who are intent on our destruction. They are not accused of
robbing a liquor store. They fall within a narrow statutory definition
that was created after 9/11. This is an opportunity for the Senate to
express itself and say there is a preference for military courts.
I conclude with this thought. I believe we are at war. It is an
unusual war but nonetheless a deadly war. The people we are talking
about, again, need to be viewed as military threats, and under military
law it is appropriate to try someone who has operated outside the law
of armed conflict in a military commission.
Our Nation has been doing this for 200 years. The Nazi saboteurs who
were caught landing on the coast of Florida were tried by military
commission. I can give a long history of how military commissions were
used by our Nation at times of war. That is the preferred vehicle when
a nation is at war.
I conclude with this thought. Those who can be tried should be tried
by military commissions. There will be some enemy combatants determined
to be part of al-Qaida who will not be subject to criminal process
either in Federal courts or military commission trials. It is my belief
that this country cannot afford to release them if they are still a
military threat.
Under military law, there is no requirement to release an enemy
prisoner as long as they present a threat to your country. There is no
such concept in domestic criminal law. We cannot

[[Page S8004]]

criminalize this war. It will come back to haunt us.
Due process is available under military law. The men and women
running these trials are officers, judge advocates. I have been one for
25 years. They are wonderful people. They will adhere to the law. They
understand the law. They will provide transparent justice. But this is
the setting that we need to be in regarding these detainees. This
statement by the Senate is appropriate.
Mr. President, to my good friend, Senator Lieberman, he has, above
all others, tried to remind himself that the Nation's defense is more
important than politics. I cannot tell Senator Lieberman how much I
admire him. We have worked together to get a sense of the Senate, not
binding, but a strong statement that it is a preference that these
terrorists detained as part of an al-Qaida network be tried in military
commissions, as we have done in our history.
I yield to Senator Lieberman and hope my colleagues will accept this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I call up our amendment No. 1650, as
modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman], for himself
and Mr. Graham, proposes an amendment numbered 1650, as
modified.

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

On page 394, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

SEC. 1032. TRIAL BY MILITARY COMMISSION OF ALIEN UNPRIVILEGED
BELLIGERENTS FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW OF WAR.

(a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 47A of title 10,
United States Code, as amended by section 1031(a), is further
amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``Sec. 948e. Trial by military commission of alien
unprivileged belligerents for violations of the law of war

``(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the preferred forum for the trial of alien unprivileged enemy
belligerents subject to this chapter for violations of the
law of war and other offenses made punishable by this chapter
is trial by military commission under this chapter.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections of the
beginning of such subchapter, as amended by section 1031(a),
is further amended by adding after the item relating to
section 948d the following new item:

``948e. Trial by military commission of alien unprivileged belligerents
for violations of the law of war.''.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Graham for his overly
generous words in my direction. It is always a pleasure to work with
him on matters of this kind. Really more than anyone else in the
Senate, he knows military law because he practices it in his capacity
as a member of the JAG. I thank him for cosponsoring this amendment
with me.
Also, I thank Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, and Senator Graham for
the extraordinary work they have done in improving the military
commission system that has been set up. It is the basis for the
amendment that Senator Graham and I put in this evening.
The fact is that military commissions, by one name or another, have
played a time-honored role in our country in bringing war criminals to
justice. The use of military tribunals dates all the way back to the
beginning of our country. Our first President, GEN George Washington,
relied on them during the Revolutionary War for the trial of violations
of the laws of war.
The United States has continued to utilize military commissions or
tribunals for the trial of people accused of violations of the laws of
war and related crimes throughout our history.
The fact is we are once more at war today against those who planned,
authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001. There is an existing authorization for the use of military force.
Military commissions, in my opinion, and Senator Graham's, are,
therefore, the appropriate forum for the trial of war criminals
captured during this conflict, as they have been throughout our
history. And all the more comfortable should we be in saying that after
the amendments to the Military Commissions Act have been adopted as
part of this National Defense Authorization Act.
I remind our colleagues, because it was done without a lot of debate,
that the package of amendments to the Military Commissions Act that has
been adopted as part of this legislation, offered by Senators McCain,
Levin, and Graham, would ensure lawful, fair, and effective trials by
providing a series of protections to the accused for the military
commissions, including a prohibition on the use of statements obtained
through cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, access to exculpatory
evidence, and meaningful appellate review of legal and factual
findings.
As distinguished witnesses and authorities have testified at a
hearing Chairman Levin led before the Armed Services Committee on this
issue 2 weeks ago, according to these witnesses, including people who
work as general counsel in the Defense Department, for instance, the
military commission provisions in the bill before us not only meet but
surpass by far the fundamental standards of fairness and due process
required by our Supreme Court, the Geneva Conventions, and the rules of
the International Criminal Court.
Given those robust procedural and substantive rights provided by the
system of military commissions established in this bill, I must say
that I have been surprised, troubled, and I would even go so far as to
say astounded that officials of our administration have now made clear
that they prefer prosecuting war criminals in Federal district courts
here in the United States as opposed to before the military commissions
we have established. That was testimony given before the Armed Services
Committee in response to questions of the General Counsel of the
Defense Department.
Just this week, an interim report was issued by a Department of
Defense and Department of Justice task force on the legal questions
associated with the detainees. In that report there is this sentence:

There is a presumption that, where feasible, referred cases
will be prosecuted in an Article III court, in keeping with
traditional principles of federal prosecution.

Article III courts, of course, are federal courts.
So it is the testimony of the General Counsel of the Defense
Department, and now this interim report from the Department of Defense
and the Department of Justice, that has led Senator Graham and me to
offer this amendment, because we simply disagree, as we think most
Americans and most Members of the Senate do, with the idea that there
is a presumption in favor of trying prisoners of war before our Federal
courts instead of before military commissions, as has been done
throughout our history.
This realizes the worst fears of people that we would begin to
criminalize the war on terrorism instead of treating it and its
perpetrators as war and criminals of war. This change in direction
departs from our history and, in some sense, diminishes the
extraordinary work that has been done by Chairman Levin, Senator
McCain, Senator Graham, and others to create and improve these military
commissions. It may, in fact, cast unfounded doubt on the legitimacy of
the convictions obtained by military commissions on the strength of the
evidence used to secure convictions in those proceedings and the
procedural protections accorded to defendants by the military
commissions process.
Our amendment is very simple. It is a long sentence, and I read it,
as follows:

It is the sense of Congress that the preferred forum for
the trial of alien unprivileged enemy belligerents subject to
this chapter for violations of the law of war and other
offenses made punishable by this chapter is trial by military
commission under this chapter.

So we adopt wording in the military commissions section of this
legislation regarding violations of the law of war and other offenses
made punishable by this chapter, and we say that it is our preference
that people accused of such crimes of war be tried before the military
commissions.

[[Page S8005]]

We have created a system of military commissions that I believe
offers remarkable protections--perhaps the best ever offered to people
in the status of alleged war criminals against our country or any
country, against our citizens or the citizens of any country. And, I
repeat, obviously we are at war, and therefore we should use these
military commissions we have created and preference should be in their
direction.
The fact is, where to bring charges against people accused of
violating laws of war or, as we have said in the legislation, other
offenses made punishable by this chapter is a decision made by the
executive branch. It is not one we can control. But we can express an
opinion. We can express an opinion to the executive branch,
respectfully, that we think they have made a mistake in stating a
presumption to try prisoners of war in Federal district courts. Such an
approach would cast doubt, as I have said, on the use of military
commissions but I think would also set an unfortunate, even dangerous,
precedent for the trial of war criminals today or in future conflicts
in Federal courts rather than our Nation's time-honored use of military
commissions for the violation of the law of war.
I hope we can unite across party lines to adopt this expression of
opinion on a most important question.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment, in response
to my good friends, Senator Graham and Senator Lieberman, and say a
word on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice and its prosecutors,
who have been actively engaged in the war on terror for many years now
and who have shown considerable success.
The information they have is that the number of individuals who have
been successfully prosecuted, convicted, and incarcerated as a result
of military commissions numbers in the handful--perhaps even fewer than
five. By contrast, just since January 1 of this year, more than 30
individuals have been charged with terrorism, successfully prosecuted,
and sentenced to Federal prison--more than 30 convicted or sentenced
just this year. There are 355 inmates in Federal prison now who have
been successfully charged, prosecuted, convicted, and are now serving
lengthy sentences as a result of their history or connection with
international or domestic terrorism.
I don't want to get into a discussion right now on whether military
commissions are a good or bad idea, but what has proven tried-and-true
in terms of actually putting terrorists behind bars, where they belong,
has been the expertise and the experience and the capability of the
U.S. Department of Justice. They have been successful. There are
hundreds of terrorists behind bars. There are far more than have ever
come through the military commissions during the course of this
struggle. And I think we should bear that in mind as we speak about
this issue and as we vote about this issue. There is a lot of high-
quality prosecutorial work and a lot of patriotism in the Department of
Justice, and there is a reason we should allow the professionals to
sort out case by case which is the better venue for the trial, whether
a military commission, however new and untested in this modern era, or
the tried-and-true model of the U.S. Federal prosecutor.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I hope we can quickly get to a voice vote.
I would briefly say that the executive branch created a presumption
that the cases would be tried before criminal courts--article III
courts. I thought it was a mistake. We should not have a presumption
one way or the other. The amendment before us redresses the balance to
the extent we can do it tonight.
Also, we were able to get the agreement on the part of the sponsors
to strike a part of the original amendment which would have created
some very difficult bureaucratic problems in terms of reporting case by
case as to why decisions were made one way or another.
So I do hope we can promptly agree to the amendment. I thank Senators
Lieberman and Graham.
Again, my own preference is there not be either a presumption or a
preference one way or the other, but I think this does even the
balance. Again, it is a sense of the Senate, so it will be left to the
Department of Justice.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Levin for his
statement. It is always a very thoughtful and mutually respectful
process when you work with Senator Levin, even on matters of
disagreement, and I appreciate the resolution.
I would just like to say in response to the comments of my friend
from Rhode Island--and there is nothing here intended to in any way
disparage the work of the Federal prosecutors, and I appreciate the
record he cited of the prosecutions, but the point Senator Graham and I
are trying to make, and I hope the whole Senate will, is that
violations of the laws of war are inherently different. Regardless of
the outcome--how many people are convicted or put in jail or not--those
allegations of such crimes belong before military commissions, or
tribunals as they have been called throughout our history, not in
Federal criminal courts where other violations of our domestic criminal
law are handled. Part of that is just an appropriate allocation of
responsibility. Part of it is that I think it is important we not fall
into a misunderstanding that we are not involved in war. It is a very
different kind of war, but it is a war, and we know that from the
casualties we suffered on 9/11 and people around the world have
suffered before and since in a lot of other cities and countries. So we
are making a point of an appropriate forum for the trial of cases, not
based on outcome but based on where these allegations are best tried.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1650), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

Amendments Nos. 1481, 1621, as Modified, 1675, 1700, 1680, 1697, 1494,
1718, 1601, 1738, 1703, 1656, 1523, 1647, 1662, 1741, 1746, 1543, 1740,
1687, 1702, 1717, 1521, 1768, 1752, 1739, as Modified, 1775, 1735,
1564, 1773, 1774, 1795, 1788, 1780, 1782, 1779, 1785, 1806, 1803, 1727,
1706, 1749, as Modified, 1799, 1620, 1688, 1765, En Bloc

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send a series of 46 amendments to the
desk, which have been cleared by myself and Senator McCain, the ranking
member, and I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider these
amendments en bloc, the amendments be agreed to, and that the motions
to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments were agreed to, as follows:

amendment no. 1481

(Purpose: To require the Director of National Intelligence to submit a
report to Congress on retirement benefits for former employees of Air
America)

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

SEC. 1073. REPORT ON AIR AMERICA.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Air america.--The term ``Air America'' means Air
America, Incorporated.
(2) Associated company.--The term ``associated company''
means any entity associated with, predecessor to, or
subsidiary to Air America, including Air Asia Company
Limited, CAT Incorporated, Civil Air Transport Company
Limited, and the Pacific Division of Southern Air Transport
during the period when such an entity was owned and
controlled by the United States Government.
(b) Report on Retirement Benefits for Former Employees of
Air America.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Director of National
Intelligence shall submit to Congress a report on the
advisability of providing Federal retirement benefits to
United States citizens for the service of such citizens prior
to 1977 as employees of Air America or an associated company
during a period when Air America or the associated company
was owned or controlled by the United States Government and
operated or managed by the Central Intelligence Agency.

[[Page S8006]]

(2) Report elements.--The report required by paragraph (1)
shall include the following:
(A) The history of Air America and the associated companies
prior to 1977, including a description of--
(i) the relationship between Air American and the
associated companies and the Central Intelligence Agency or
any other element of the United States Government;
(ii) the workforce of Air America and the associated
companies;
(iii) the missions performed by Air America, the associated
companies, and their employees for the United States; and
(iv) the casualties suffered by employees of Air America
and the associated companies in the course of their
employment.
(B) A description of--
(i) the retirement benefits contracted for or promised to
the employees of Air America and the associated companies
prior to 1977;
(ii) the contributions made by such employees for such
benefits;
(iii) the retirement benefits actually paid such employees;
(iv) the entitlement of such employees to the payment of
future retirement benefits; and
(v) the likelihood that such employees will receive any
future retirement benefits.
(C) An assessment of the difference between--
(i) the retirement benefits that former employees of Air
America and the associated companies have received or will
receive by virtue of their employment with Air America and
the associated companies; and
(ii) the retirement benefits that such employees would have
received or be eligible to receive if such employment was
deemed to be employment by the United States Government and
their service during such employment was credited as Federal
service for the purpose of Federal retirement benefits.
(D)(i) Any recommendations regarding the advisability of
legislative action to treat such employment as Federal
service for the purpose of Federal retirement benefits in
light of the relationship between Air America and the
associated companies and the United States Government and the
services and sacrifices of such employees to and for the
United States.
(ii) If legislative action is considered advisable under
clause (i), a proposal for such action and an assessment of
its costs.
(E) The opinions of the Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency, if any, on any matters covered by the
report that the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
considers appropriate.
(3) Assistance of comptroller general.--The Comptroller
General of the United States shall, upon the request of the
Director of National Intelligence and in a manner consistent
with the protection of classified information, assist the
Director in the preparation of the report required by
paragraph (1).
(4) Form.--The report required by paragraph (1) shall be
submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified
annex.

amendment no. 1621, As Modified

On page 161, after line 23, add the following:

SEC. 557. EXPANSION OF SUICIDE PREVENTION AND COMMUNITY
HEALING AND RESPONSE TRAINING UNDER THE YELLOW
RIBBON REINTEGRATION PROGRAM.

Section 582 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181; 10 U.S.C. 10101 note)
is amended--
(1) in subsection (h)--
(A) by striking paragraph (3); and
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (4) through (15) as
paragraphs (3) through (14), respectively; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(i) Suicide Prevention and Community Healing and Response
Program.--
``(1) Establishment.--As part of the Yellow Ribbon
Reintegration Program, the Office for Reintegration Programs
shall establish a program to provide National Guard and
Reserve members and their families, and in coordination with
community programs, assist the communities, with training in
suicide prevention and community healing and response to
suicide.
``(2) Design.--In establishing the program under paragraph
(1), the Office for Reintegration Programs shall consult
with--
``(A) persons that have experience and expertise with
combining military and civilian intervention strategies that
reduce risk and promote healing after a suicide attempt or
suicide death for National Guard and Reserve members; and
``(B) the adjutant general of each State, the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the
Virgin Islands.
``(3) Operation.--
``(A) Suicide prevention training.--The Office for
Reintegration Programs shall provide National Guard and
Reserve members with training in suicide prevention. Such
training shall include--
``(i) describing the warning signs for suicide and teaching
effective strategies for prevention and intervention;
``(ii) examining the influence of military culture on risk
and protective factors for suicide; and
``(iii) engaging in interactive case scenarios and role
plays to practice effective intervention strategies.
``(B) Community healing and response training.--The Office
for Reintegration Programs shall provide the families and
communities of National Guard and Reserve members with
training in responses to suicide that promote individual and
community healing. Such training shall include--
``(i) enhancing collaboration among community members and
local service providers to create an integrated, coordinated
community response to suicide;
``(ii) communicating best practices for preventing suicide,
including safe messaging, appropriate memorial services, and
media guidelines;
``(iii) addressing the impact of suicide on the military
and the larger community, and the increased risk that can
result; and
``(iv) managing resources to assist key community and
military service providers in helping the families, friends,
and fellow soldiers of a suicide victim through the processes
of grieving and healing.
``(C) Collaboration with centers of excellence.--The Office
for Reintegration Programs, in consultation with the Defense
Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic
Brain Injury, shall collect and analyze `lessons learned' and
suggestions from State National Guard and Reserve
organizations with existing or developing suicide prevention
and community response programs.''.
``(4) Termination.--The program established under this
subsection shall terminate on October 1, 2012.''.

amendment no. 1675

(Purpose: To ensure that members of the reserve components of the Armed
Forces who are injured while on active duty are advised of programs to
assist in their transition back to civilian life)

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

SEC. 652. CONTINUATION ON ACTIVE DUTY OF RESERVE COMPONENT
MEMBERS DURING PHYSICAL DISABILITY EVALUATION
FOLLOWING MOBILIZATION AND DEPLOYMENT.

Section 1218 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d)(1) The Secretary of a military department shall
ensure that each member of a reserve component under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary who is determined, after a
mobilization and deployment to an area in which imminent
danger pay is authorized under section 310 of title 37, to
require evaluation for a physical or mental disability which
could result in separation or retirement for disability under
this chapter or placement on the temporary disability retired
list or inactive status list under this chapter is retained
on active duty during the disability evaluation process until
such time as such member is--
``(A) cleared by appropriate authorities for continuation
on active duty; or
``(B) separated, retired, or placed on the temporary
disability retired list or inactive status list.
``(2)(A) A member described in paragraph (1) may request
termination of active duty under such paragraph at any time
during the demobilization or disability evaluation process of
such member.
``(B) Upon a request under subparagraph (A), a member
described in paragraph (1) shall only be released from active
duty after the member receives counseling about the
consequences of termination of active duty.
``(C) Each release from active duty under subparagraph (B)
shall be thoroughly documented.
``(3) The requirements in paragraph (1) shall expire on the
date that is five years after the date of the enactment of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2010.''.

SEC. 653. USE OF LOCAL RESIDENCES FOR COMMUNITY-BASED CARE
FOR CERTAIN RESERVE COMPONENT MEMBERS.

Section 1222 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Use of Local Residences for Certain Reserve Component
Members.--(1)(A) A member of a reserve component described by
subparagraph (B) may be assigned to the community-based
warrior transition unit located nearest to the member's
permanent place of residence if residing at that location
is--
``(i) medically feasible, as determined by a licensed
military health care provider; and
``(ii) consistent with--
``(I) the needs of the armed forces; and
``(II) the optimal course of medical treatment of the
member.
``(B) A member of a reserve component described by this
subparagraph is any member remaining on active duty under
section 1218(d) of this title during the period the member is
on active duty under such subsection.
``(2) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as
terminating, altering, or otherwise affecting the authority
of the commander of a member described in paragraph (1)(B) to
order the member to perform duties consistent with the
member's fitness for duty.

[[Page S8007]]

``(3) The Secretary concerned shall pay any reasonable
expenses of transportation, lodging, and meals incurred by a
member residing at the member's permanent place of residence
under this subsection in connection with travel from the
member's permanent place of residence to a medical facility
during the period in which the member is covered by this
subsection.''.

SEC. 654. ASSISTANCE WITH TRANSITIONAL BENEFITS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 61 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 1218 the
following new section:

``Sec. 1218a. Discharge or release from active duty:
transition assistance

``The Secretary of a military department shall provide to a
member of a reserve component under the jurisdiction of the
Secretary who is injured while on active duty in the armed
forces the following before such member is demobilized or
separated from the armed forces:
``(1) Information on the availability of care and
administrative processing through community based warrior
transition units.
``(2) The location of the community based warrior
transition unit located nearest to the member's permanent
place of residence.
``(3) An opportunity to consult with a member of the
applicable judge advocate general's corps, or other qualified
legal assistance attorney, regarding the member's eligibility
for compensation, disability, or other transitional
benefits.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 61 of such title is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 1218 the following new
item:

``1218a. Discharge or release from active duty: transition
assistance.''.

amendment no. 1700

(Purpose: To ensure the security of Iraq through defense cooperation
between the United States and Iraq)

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

SEC. 1211. ENSURING IRAQI SECURITY THROUGH DEFENSE
COOPERATION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND IRAQ.

The President may treat an undertaking by the Government of
Iraq that is made between the date of the enactment of this
Act and December 31, 2011, as a dependable undertaking
described in section 22(a) of the Arms Export Control Act (22
U.S.C. 2762(a)) for purposes of entering into contracts for
the procurement of defense articles and defense services as
provided for in that section.

amendment no. 1680

(Purpose: To authorize the availability of appropriated funds for
certain activities conducted under the State Partnership Program of the
National Guard)

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

SEC. 1211. AVAILABILITY OF APPROPRIATED FUNDS FOR THE STATE
PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.

(a) Availability of Appropriated Funds.--The Secretary of
Defense may, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary,
use funds appropriated to the Department of Defense for
fiscal year 2010 to pay the costs incurred by the National
Guard (including the costs of pay and allowances of members
of the National Guard) in conducting activities under the
State Partnership Program--
(1) to support the objectives of the commander of the
combatant command for the theater of operations in which such
activities are conducted; or
(2) to build international civil-military partnerships and
capacity on matters relating to defense and security.
(b) Limitations.--
(1) Approval by commander of combatant command and chief of
mission.--Funds shall not be available under subsection (a)
for activities conducted under the State Partnership Program
in a foreign country unless such activities are jointly
approved by the commander of the combatant command concerned
and the chief of mission concerned.
(2) Participation by members.--Funds shall not be available
under subsection (a) for the participation of a member of the
National Guard in activities conducted under the State
Partnership Program in a foreign country unless the member is
on active duty in the Armed Forces at the time of such
participation.
(c) Reimbursement.--In the event of the participation of
personnel of a department or agency of the United States
Government (other than the Department of Defense) in
activities for which payment is made under subsection (a),
the head of such department or agency shall reimburse the
Secretary of Defense for the costs associated with the
participation of such personnel in such activities. Amounts
reimbursed the Department of Defense under this subsection
shall be deposited in the appropriation or account from which
amounts for the payment concerned were derived. Any amounts
so deposited shall be merged with amounts in such
appropriation or account, and shall be available for the same
purposes, and subject to the same conditions and limitations,
as amounts in such appropriation or account.

amendment no. 1697

(Purpose: To require a biennial report on the military power of Iran)

On page 479, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:

SEC. 1222. REPORT ON MILITARY POWER OF IRAN.

(a) Biennial Report.--Not later than March 31, 2010, and in
each even-numbered year thereafter until 2020, the Secretary
of Defense shall submit to Congress a report, in both
classified and unclassified form, on the current and future
military strategy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The report
shall address the current and probable future course of
military developments on the Army, Air Force, Navy, and
Revolutionary Guard Corps of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
(b) Matters To Be Included.--The report required under
subsection (a) shall include the following elements:
(1) As assessment of the grand strategy, security strategy,
and military strategy of the Government of the Islamic
Republic of Iran, including the following:
(A) The goals of the grand strategy, security strategy, and
military strategy.
(B) Aspects of the strategies that would be designed to
establish Iran as the leading power in the Middle East and to
enhance the influence of Iran in other regions of the world.
(C) The security situation in the Persian Gulf and the
Levant.
(D) Iranian strategy regarding other countries in the
Middle East region.
(2) An assessment of the capabilities of the conventional
forces of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran,
including the following:
(A) The size, location, and capabilities of the
conventional forces.
(B) A detailed analysis of the conventional forces of the
Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran facing United
States forces in the region and other countries in the Middle
East region.
(C) An estimate of the funding provided for each branch of
the conventional forces of the Government of the Islamic
Republic of Iran.
(3) An assessment of the unconventional forces of the
Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the
following:
(A) The size and capability of special operations units,
including the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force.
(B) The types and amount of support provided to groups
designated by the United States as terrorist organizations in
particular those forces that have been assessed as willing to
carry out terrorist operations on behalf of the Islamic
Republic of Iran.
(C) A detailed analysis of the unconventional forces of the
Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and their
implications for the United States and other countries in the
Middle East region.
(D) An estimate of the amount of funds spent by the
Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to develop and
support special operations forces and terrorist groups.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Conventional forces of the government of iran.--The
term ``conventional forces of the Government of the Islamic
Republic of Iran''--
(A) means military forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran
designed to conduct operations on sea, air, or land, other
than Iran's unconventional forces and Iran's strategic
missile forces; and
(B) includes Iran's Army, Iran's Air Force, Iran's Navy,
and elements of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, other
than the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force.
(2) Middle east region.--The term ``Middle East region''
means--
(A) the countries within the area of responsibility of
United States Central Command; and
(B) the countries within the area covered by the Bureau of
Near Eastern Affairs of the Department of State.
(3) Unconventional forces of the government of iran.--The
term ``unconventional forces of the Government of the Islamic
Republic of Iran''--
(A) means forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran that carry
out missions typically associated with special operations
forces; and
(B) includes--
(i) the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force; and
(ii) any organization that--

(I) has been designated a terrorist organization by the
United States;
(II) receives assistance from the Government of Iran; and
(III)(aa) is assessed as being willing in some or all cases
of carrying out attacks on behalf of the Government of the
Islamic Republic of Iran; or
(bb) is assessed as likely to carry out attacks in response
to a military attack by another country on the Islamic
Republic of Iran.

amendment no. 1494

(Purpose: To require a report on criteria for the selection of
strategic embarkation ports and ship layberth locations)

On page 429, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

SEC. 1073. REPORT ON CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF STRATEGIC
EMBARKATION PORTS AND SHIP LAYBERTHING
LOCATIONS.

(a) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Commander of the
United States Transportation Command shall submit to the
congressional defense committees a report with criteria for
the selection of strategic embarkation ports and ship
layberth locations.
(b) Development of Criteria.--The criteria included in the
report required under subsection (a) shall--

[[Page S8008]]

(1) prioritize the facilitation of strategic deployment and
reduction of combatant commander force closure timelines;
(2) take into account--
(A) time required to crew, activate, and sail sealift
vessels to embarkation ports;
(B) distance and travel times for the forces from assigned
installation to embarkation ports;
(C) availability of adequate infrastructure to transport
forces from assigned installation to embarkation ports; and
(D) time required to move forces from embarkation ports to
likely areas of force deployment around the world; and
(3) inform the selection of strategic embarkation ports and
the procurement of ship layberthing services.

amendment no. 1718

(Purpose: To provide authority to transfer covered defense articles no
logner needed in Iraq and to provide defense services to the security
forces of Iraq and Afghanistan)

On page 475, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

SEC. 1211. AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER DEFENSE ARTICLES AND PROVIDE
DEFENSE SERVICES TO THE MILITARY AND SECURITY
FORCES OF IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.

(a) Authority.--The President is authorized to transfer
defense articles from the stocks of the Department of
Defense, and to provide defense services in connection with
the transfer of such defense articles, to--
(1) the military and security forces of Iraq to support the
efforts of those forces to restore and maintain peace and
security in that country; and
(2) the military and security forces of Afghanistan to
support the efforts of those forces to restore and maintain
peace and security in that country.
(b) Limitations.--
(1) Value.--The aggregate replacement value of all defense
articles transferred and defense services provided under
subsection (a) may not exceed $500,000,000.
(2) Source of transferred defense articles.--The authority
under subsection (a) may only be used for defense articles
that--
(A) immediately before the transfer were in use to support
operations in Iraq;
(B) were present in Iraq as of the date of enactment of
this Act; and
(C) are no longer required by United States forces in Iraq.
(c) Applicable Law.--Any defense articles transferred or
defense services provided to Iraq or Afghanistan under the
authority of subsection (a) shall be subject to the
authorities and limitations applicable to excess defense
articles under section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j), other than the authorities and
limitations contained in subsections (b)(1)(B), (e), (f), and
(g) of such section.
(d) Report.--
(1) In general.--The President may not exercise the
authority under subsection (a) until 30 days after the
Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary
of State, provides the appropriate congressional committees a
report on the plan for the disposition of equipment and other
property of the Department of Defense in Iraq.
(2) Elements of report.--The report required under
paragraph (1) shall include the following elements:
(A) An assessment of--
(i) the types and quantities of defense articles required
by the military and security forces of Iraq to support the
efforts of those military and security forces to restore and
maintain peace and security in Iraq; and
(ii) the types and quantities of defense articles required
by the military and security forces of Afghanistan to support
the efforts of those military and security forces to restore
and maintain peace and security in Afghanistan.
(B) A description of the authorities available for
addressing the requirements identified in subparagraph (A).
(C) A description of the process for inventorying equipment
and property, including defense articles, in Iraq owned by
the Department of Defense, including equipment and property
owned by the Department of Defense and under the control of
contractors in Iraq.
(D) A description of the types of defense articles that the
Department of Defense intends to transfer to the military and
security forces of Iraq and an estimate of the quantity of
such defense articles to be transferred.
(E) A description of the process by which potential
requirements for defense articles to be transferred under the
authority provided in subsection (a), other than the
requirements of the security forces of Iraq or Afghanistan,
are identified and the mechanism for resolving any potential
conflicting requirements for such defense articles.
(F) A description of the plan, if any, for reimbursing
military departments from which non-excess defense articles
are transferred under the authority provided in subsection
(a).
(G) An assessment of the efforts by the Government of Iraq
to identify the requirements of the military and security
forces of Iraq for defense articles to support the efforts of
those forces to restore and maintain peace and security in
that country.
(H) An assessment of the ability of the Governments of Iraq
and Afghanistan to absorb the costs associated with
possessing and using the defense articles to be transferred.
(I) A description of the steps taken by the Government of
Iraq to procure or acquire defense articles to meet the
requirements of the military and security forces of Iraq,
including through military sales from the United States.
(e) Notification.--
(1) In general.--The President may not transfer defense
articles or provide defense services under subsection (a)
until 15 days after the date on which the President has
provided notice of the proposed transfer of defense articles
or provision of defense services to the appropriate
congressional committees.
(2) Contents.--Such notification shall include--
(A) a description of the amount and type of each defense
article to be transferred or defense services to be provided;
(B) a statement describing the current value of such
article and the estimated replacement value of such article;
(C) an identification of the military department from which
the defense articles being transferred are drawn;
(D) an identification of the element of the military or
security force that is the proposed recipient of each defense
article to be transferred or defense service to be provided;
(E) an assessment of the impact of the transfer on the
national technology and industrial base and, particularly,
the impact on opportunities of entities in the national
technology and industrial base to sell new or used equipment
to the countries to which such articles are to be
transferred; and
(F) a certification by the President that--
(i) the Secretary of Defense has determined that--

(I) the defense articles to be transferred are no longer
required by United States forces in Iraq;
(II) the proposed transfer of such defense articles will
not adversely impact the military preparedness of the United
States;
(III) immediately before the transfer, the defense articles
to be transferred were being used to support operations in
Iraq;
(IV) the defense articles to be transferred were present in
Iraq as of the date of enactment of this Act; and
(V) the defense articles to be transferred are required by
the military and security forces of Iraq or the military and
security forces of Afghanistan, as applicable, to build their
capacity to restore and maintain peace and security in their
country;

(ii) the government of the recipient country has agreed to
accept and take possession of the defense articles to be
transferred and to receive the defense services in connection
with that transfer; and
(iii) the proposed transfer of such defense articles and
the provision of defense services in connection with such
transfer is in the national interest of the United States.
(f) Quarterly Report.--Not later than 90 days after the
date of the report provided under subsection (d), and every
90 days thereafter during fiscal year 2010, the Secretary of
Defense shall report to the appropriate congressional
committees on the implementation of the authority under
subsection (a). The report shall include the replacement
value of defense articles transferred pursuant to subsection
(a), both in the aggregate and by military department, and
services provided to Iraq and Afghanistan during the previous
90 days.
(g) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
``appropriate congressional committees'' means--
(A) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed
Services, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House
of Representatives; and
(B) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed
Services, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate.
(2) Defense articles.--The term ``defense articles'' has
the meaning given the term in section 644(d) of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2403(d)).
(3) Defense services.--The term ``defense services'' has
the meaning given the term in section 644(f) of such Act (22
U.S.C. 2403(f)).
(4) Military and security forces.--The term ``military and
security forces'' means national armies, national air forces,
national navies, national guard forces, police forces and
border security forces, but does not include non-governmental
or irregular forces (such as private militias).
(h) Expiration.--The authority provided under subsection
(a) may not be exercised after September 30, 2010.
(i) Excess Defense Articles.--
(1) Additional authority.--The authority provided by
subsection (a) is in addition to the authority provided by
Section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
(2) Aggregate value.--The value of excess defense articles
transferred to Iraq during fiscal year 2010 pursuant to
Section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 shall not
be counted against the limitation on the aggregate value of
excess defense articles transferred contained in subsection
(g) of such Act.

amendment no. 1601

(Purpose: To require a report on simplifying defense travel)

On page 429, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

SEC. 1073. REPORT ON DEFENSE TRAVEL SIMPLIFICATION.

(a) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this

[[Page S8009]]

Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees
on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives a report setting forth a comprehensive plan
to simplify defense travel.
(b) Elements.--The report required under subsection (a)
shall include the following:
(1) A comprehensive discussion of aspects of the Department
of Defense travel system that are most confusing,
inefficient, and in need of revision.
(2) Critical review of opportunities to streamline and
simplify defense travel policies and to reduce travel-related
costs to the Department of Defense.
(3) Options to leverage industry capabilities that could
enhance management responsiveness to changing markets.
(4) A discussion of pilot programs that could be undertaken
to prove the merit of improvements identified in
accomplishing actions specified in paragraphs (1) and (2),
including recommendations for legislative authority.
(5) Such recommendations and an implementation plan for
legislative or administrative action as the Secretary of
Defense considers appropriate to improve defense travel.

amendment no. 1738

(Purpose: To provide for an annual comprehensive report on the status
of United States efforts and the level of progress achieved to counter
and defeat Al Qaeda and its related affiliates and undermine long-term
support for the violent extremism that helps sustain Al Qaeda's
recruitment efforts)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. ANNUAL COUNTERTERRORISM STATUS REPORTS.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Success in Countering Al Qaeda Reporting Requirements Act
of 2009''.
(b) Annual Counterterrorism Status Reports.--
(1) In general.--Not later than July 31, 2010, and every
July 31 thereafter, the President shall submit a report, to
the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, the
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives,
the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate, the Committee
on Armed Services of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives, the Select
Committee on Intelligence of the Senate, and the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives, which contains, for the most recent 12-month
period, a review of the counterterrorism strategy of the
United States Government, including--
(A) a detailed assessment of the scope, status, and
progress of United States counterterrorism efforts in
fighting Al Qaeda and its related affiliates and undermining
long-term support for violent extremism;
(B) a judgment on the geographical region in which Al Qaeda
and its related affiliates pose the greatest threat to the
national security of the United States;
(C) a judgment on the adequacy of interagency integration
of the counterterrorism programs and activities of the
Department of Defense, the United States Special Operations
Command, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of
State, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of
Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and other
Federal departments and agencies;
(D) an evaluation of the extent to which the
counterterrorism efforts of the United States correspond to
the plans developed by the National Counterterrorism Center
and the goals established in overarching public statements of
strategy issued by the executive branch;
(E) a determination of whether the National
Counterterrorism Center exercises the authority and has the
resources and expertise required to fulfill the interagency
strategic and operational planning role described in section
119(j) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 404o),
as added by section 1012 of the National Security
Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 (title I of Public Law 108-
458);
(F) a description of the efforts of the United States
Government to combat Al Qaeda and its related affiliates and
undermine violent extremist ideology, which shall include--
(i) a specific list of the President's highest global
counterterrorism priorities;
(ii) the degree of success achieved by the United States,
and remaining areas for progress, in meeting the priorities
described in clause (i); and
(iii) efforts in those countries in which the President
determines that--

(I) Al Qaeda and its related affiliates have a presence; or
(II) acts of international terrorism have been perpetrated
by Al Qaeda and its related affiliates;

(G) a specific list of United States counterterrorism
efforts, and the specific status and achievements of such
efforts, through military, financial, political,
intelligence, paramilitary, and law enforcement elements,
relating to--
(i) bilateral security and training programs;
(ii) law enforcement and border security;
(iii) the disruption of terrorist networks; and
(iv) the denial of terrorist safe havens and sanctuaries;
(H) a description of United States Government activities to
counter terrorist recruitment and radicalization, including--
(i) strategic communications;
(ii) public diplomacy;
(iii) support for economic development and political
reform; and
(iv) other efforts aimed at influencing public opinion;
(I) United States Government initiatives to eliminate
direct and indirect international financial support for the
activities of terrorist groups;
(J) a cross-cutting analysis of the budgets of all Federal
Government agencies as they relate to counterterrorism
funding to battle Al Qaeda and its related affiliates abroad,
including--
(i) the source of such funds; and
(ii) the allocation and use of such funds;
(K) an analysis of the extent to which specific Federal
appropriations--
(i) have produced tangible, calculable results in efforts
to combat and defeat Al Qaeda, its related affiliates, and
its violent ideology; or
(ii) contribute to investments that have expected payoffs
in the medium- to long-term;
(L) statistical assessments, including those developed by
the National Counterterrorism Center, on the number of
individuals belonging to Al Qaeda and its related affiliates
that have been killed, injured, or taken into custody as a
result of United States counterterrorism efforts; and
(M) a concise summary of the methods used by National
Counterterrorism Center and other elements of the United
States Government to assess and evaluate progress in its
overall counterterrorism efforts, including the use of
specific measures, metrics, and indices.
(2) Interagency cooperation.--In preparing a report under
this subsection, the President shall include relevant
information maintained by--
(A) the National Counterterrorism Center and the National
Counterproliferation Center;
(B) Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of
Investigation;
(C) the Department of State;
(D) the Department of Defense;
(E) the Department of Homeland Security;
(F) the Department of the Treasury;
(G) the Office of the Director of National Intelligence;
(H) the Central Intelligence Agency;
(I) the Office of Management and Budget;
(J) the United States Agency for International Development;
and
(K) any other Federal department that maintains relevant
information.
(3) Report classification.--Each report required under this
subsection shall be--
(A) submitted in an unclassified form, to the maximum
extent practicable; and
(B) accompanied by a classified appendix, as appropriate.

amendment no. 1703

(Purpose: To reauthorize the SBIR program and the STTR program, and for
other purposes)

(The amendment is printed in the Record of Wednesday, July 22, 2009,
under ``Text of Amendments.'')

amendment no. 1656

(Purpose: To require a report on the recruitment and retention of
members of the Air Force in nuclear career fields)

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

SEC. 652. REPORT ON RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION OF MEMBERS OF
THE AIR FORCE IN NUCLEAR CAREER FIELDS.

(a) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Air
Force shall submit to the congressional defense committees a
report on the efforts of the Air Force to attract and retain
qualified individuals for service as members of the Air Force
involved in the operation, maintenance, handling, and
security of nuclear weapons.
(b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall
include the following:
(1) A description of current reenlistment rates, set forth
by Air Force Specialty Code, of members of the Air Force
serving in positions involving the operation, maintenance,
handling, and security of nuclear weapons.
(2) A description of the current personnel fill rate for
Air Force units involved in the operation, maintenance,
handling, and security of nuclear weapons.
(3) A description of the steps the Air Force has taken,
including the use of retention bonuses or assignment
incentive pay, to improve recruiting and retention of
officers and enlisted personnel by the Air Force for the
positions described in paragraph (1).
(4) An assessment of the feasibility, advisability,
utility, and cost effectiveness of establishing additional
bonuses or incentive pay as a way to enhance the recruitment
and retention by the Air Force of skilled personnel in the
positions described in paragraph (1).
(5) An assessment of whether assignment incentive pay
should be provided for members of the Air Force covered by
the Personnel Reliability Program.
(6) An assessment of the long-term community management
plan for recruitment and retention by the Air Force of
skilled personnel in the positions described in paragraph
(1).

[[Page S8010]]

(7) Such other matters as the Secretary considers
appropriate.

amendment no. 1523

(Purpose: To amend provisions relating to Federal civilian employee
retirement, and for other purposes)

(The amendment is printed in the Record of Tuesday, July 14, 2009,
under ``Text of Amendments.'')

amendment no. 1647

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on costs for health care
for members of the Armed Forces and their families)

On page 213, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

SEC. 706. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON HEALTH CARE BENEFITS AND
COSTS FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND THEIR
FAMILIES.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) Career members of the Armed Forces and their families
endure unique and extraordinary demands, and make
extraordinary sacrifices, over the course of 20-year to 30-
year careers in protecting freedom for all Americans.
(2) The nature and extent of these demands and sacrifices
are never so evident as in wartime, not only during the
current combat operations, but also during the wars of the
last 60 years when current retired members of the Armed
Forces were on continuous call to go in harm's way when and
as needed.
(3) A primary benefit of enduring the extraordinary
sacrifices inherent in a military career is a range of
retirement benefits, including lifetime health benefits, that
a grateful Nation provides for those who choose to
subordinate their personal life to the national interest for
so many years.
(4) Currently serving and retired members of the uniformed
services and their families and survivors deserve benefits
equal to their commitment and service to our Nation.
(5) Many employers are curtailing health benefits and
shifting costs to their employees, which may result in
retired members of the Armed Forces returning to the
Department of Defense, and its TRICARE program, for health
care benefits during retirement, and contribute to health
care cost growth.
(6) Defense health costs also expand as a result of
service-unique military readiness requirements, wartime
requirements, and other necessary requirements that represent
the ``cost of business'' for the Department of Defense.
(7) While the Department of Defense has made some efforts
to contain increases in the cost of the TRICARE program, too
many of those efforts have been devoted to shifting a larger
share of the costs of benefits under that program to retired
members of the Armed Forces who have earned health care
benefits in return for a career of military service.
(8) In some cases health care providers refuse to accept
TRICARE patients because that program pays less than other
public and private payors and imposes unique administrative
requirements.
(9) The Department of Defense records deposits to the
Department of Defense Military Retiree Health Care Fund as
discretionary costs to the Department in spite of legislation
enacted in 2006 that requires such deposits to be made
directly from the Treasury of the United States.
(10) As a result, annual payments for the future costs of
servicemember health care continue to compete with other
readiness needs of the Armed Forces.
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) the Department of Defense and the Nation have an
obligation to provide health care benefits to retired members
of the Armed Forces that equals the quality of their selfless
service to our country;
(2) past proposals by the Department of Defense to impose
substantial fee increases on military beneficiaries have
failed to acknowledge properly the findings addressed in
subsection (a); and
(3) the Department of Defense has many additional options
to constrain the growth of health care spending in ways that
do not disadvantage retired members of the Armed Forces who
participate or seek to participate in the TRICARE program,
and should pursue any and all such options rather than
seeking large increases for enrollment fees, deductibles, and
copayments for such retirees, and their families or
survivors, who do participate in that program.

amendment no. 1662

(Purpose: To expand the provision authorizing special compensation for
members of the uniformed services with certain injuries or illnesses
incurred in the line of duty)

Strike section 617 and insert the following:

SEC. 617. SPECIAL COMPENSATION FOR MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED
SERVICES WITH SERIOUS INJURIES OR ILLNESSES
REQUIRING ASSISTANCE IN EVERYDAY LIVING.

(a) In General.--Chapter 7 of title 37, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``Sec. 439. Special compensation: members of the uniformed
services with serious injuries or illnesses requiring
assistance in everyday living

``(a) Monthly Compensation.--The Secretary concerned may
pay to any member of the uniformed services described in
subsection (b) monthly special compensation in an amount
determined under subsection (c).
``(b) Covered Members.--A member eligible for monthly
special compensation authorized by subsection (a) is a member
who--
``(1) has been certified by a licensed physician to be in
need of assistance from another person to perform the
personal functions required in everyday living;
``(2) has a serious injury, disorder, or disease of either
a temporary or permanent nature that--
``(A) is incurred or aggravated in the line of duty; and
``(B) compromises the member's ability to carry out one or
more activities of daily living or requires the member to be
constantly supervised to avoid physical harm to the member or
to others; and
``(3) meets such other criteria, if any, as the Secretary
of Defense (or the Secretary of Homeland Security, with
respect to the Coast Guard) prescribes for purposes of this
section.
``(c) Amount.--(1) The amount of monthly special
compensation payable to a member under subsection (a) shall
be determined under criteria prescribed by the Secretary of
Defense (or the Secretary of Homeland Security, with respect
to the Coast Guard), but may not exceed the amount of aid and
attendance allowance authorized by section 1114(r)(2) of
title 38 for veterans in need of aid and attendance.
``(2) In determining the amount of monthly special
compensation, the Secretary concerned shall consider the
following:
``(A) The extent to which home health care and related
services are being provided by the Government.
``(B) The extent to which aid and attendance services are
being provided by family and friends who may be compensated
with funds provided through the monthly special compensation.
``(d) Payment Until Medical Retirement.--Monthly special
compensation is payable under this section to a member
described in subsection (b) for any month that begins before
the date on which the member is medically retired.
``(e) Construction With Other Pay and Allowances.--Monthly
special compensation payable to a member under this section
is in addition to any other pay and allowances payable to the
member by law.
``(f) Benefit Information.--The Secretary of Defense, in
collaboration with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, shall
ensure that members of the uniformed services who may be
eligible for compensation under this section are made aware
of the availability of such compensation by including
information about such compensation in written and online
materials for such members and their families.
``(g) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense (or the
Secretary of Homeland Security, with respect to the Coast
Guard) shall prescribe regulations to carry out this
section.''.
(b) Report to Congress.--
(1) In general.--Not later than one year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense (and the
Secretary of Homeland Security, with respect to the Coast
Guard) shall submit to Congress a report on the provision of
compensation under section 439 of title 37, United States
Code, as added by subsection (a) of this section.
(2) Elements.--The report required by paragraph (1) shall
include the following:
(A) An estimate of the number of members of the uniformed
services eligible for compensation under such section 439.
(B) The number of members of the uniformed services
receiving compensation under such section.
(C) The average amount of compensation provided to members
of the uniformed services receiving such compensation.
(D) The average amount of time required for a member of the
uniformed services to receive such compensation after the
member becomes eligible for the compensation.
(E) A summary of the types of injuries, disorders, and
diseases of members of the uniformed services receiving such
compensation that made such members eligible for such
compensation.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 7 of such title is amended by adding at
the end the following new item:

``439. Special compensation: members of the uniformed services with
serious injuries or illnesses requiring assistance in
everyday living.''.

amendment no. 1741

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to report on the status
of the Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve)

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

SEC. 342. REPORT ON STATUS OF AIR NATIONAL GUARD AND AIR
FORCE RESERVE.

Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
Secretary of the Air Force, the Chief of the National Guard
Bureau, the Director of the Air National Guard, the Chief of
the Air Force Reserve, and such other officials as the
Secretary of Defense considers appropriate, shall submit to
Congress a report on--
(1) the status of the Air National Guard and the Air Force
Reserve; and
(2) the plans of the Department of Defense to ensure that
the Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve remain ready
to meet the requirements of the Air Force and the combatant
commands and for homeland defense.

[[Page S8011]]

amendment no. 1746

(Purpose: To require reports on the service life and replacement of AC-
130 gunships of the Air Force)

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

SEC. 125. AC-130 GUNSHIPS.

(a) Report on Reduction in Service Life in Connection With
Accelerated Deployment.--Not later than 90 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Air
Force, in consultation with the United States Special
Operations Command, shall submit to the congressional defense
committees an assessment of the reduction in the service life
of AC-130 gunships of the Air Force as a result of the
accelerated deployments of such gunships that are anticipated
during the seven- to ten-year period beginning with the date
of the enactment of this Act, assuming that operating tempo
continues at a rate per year of the average of their
operating rate for the last five years.
(b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall
include the following:
(1) An estimate by series of the maintenance costs for the
AC-130 gunships during the period described in subsection
(a), including any major airframe and engine overhauls of
such aircraft anticipated during that period.
(2) A description by series of the age, serviceability, and
capabilities of the armament systems of the AC-130 gunships.
(3) An estimate by series of the costs of modernizing the
armament systems of the AC-130 gunships to achieve any
necessary capability improvements.
(4) A description by series of the age and capabilities of
the electronic warfare systems of the AC-130 gunships, and an
estimate of the cost of upgrading such systems during that
period to achieve any necessary capability improvements.
(5) A description by series of the age of the avionics
systems of the AC-130 gunships, and an estimate of the cost
of upgrading such systems during that period to achieve any
necessary capability improvements.
(c) Form.--The report required by subsection (a) shall be
submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified
annex.
(d) Analysis of Alternatives.--The Secretary of the Air
Force, in consultation with the United States Special
Operations Command, shall conduct an analysis of alternatives
for any gunship modernization requirements identified by the
2009 quadrennial defense review under section 118 of title
10, United States Code. The results of the analysis of
alternatives shall be provided to the congressional defense
committees not later than 18 months after the completion of
the 2009 quadrennial defense review.

amendment no. 1543

(Purpose: To authorize the service Secretaries to increase the end
strength of the Selected Reserve by two percent)

On page 100, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

SEC. 417. AUTHORITY FOR SERVICE SECRETARY VARIANCES FOR
SELECTED RESERVE END STRENGTHS.

Section 115(g) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
to read as follows:
``(g) Authority for Service Secretary Variances for Active-
Duty and Selected Reserve End Strengths.--(1) Upon
determination by the Secretary of a military department that
such action would enhance manning and readiness in essential
units or in critical specialties or ratings, the Secretary
may--
``(A) increase the end strength authorized pursuant to
subsection (a)(1)(A) for a fiscal year for the armed force
under the jurisdiction of that Secretary or, in the case of
the Secretary of the Navy, for any of the armed forces under
the jurisdiction of that Secretary, by a number equal to not
more than 2 percent of such authorized end strength; and
``(B) increase the end strength authorized pursuant to
subsection (a)(2) for a fiscal year for the Selected Reserve
of the reserve component of the armed force under the
jurisdiction of that Secretary or, in the case of the
Secretary of the Navy, for the Selected Reserve of the
reserve component of any of the armed forces under the
jurisdiction of that Secretary, by a number equal to not more
than 2 percent of such authorized end strength.
``(2) Any increase under paragraph (1) of the end strength
for an armed force or the Selected Reserve of a reserve
component of an armed force shall be counted as part of the
increase for that armed force or Selected Reserve for that
fiscal year authorized under subsection (f)(1) or subsection
(f)(3), respectively.''.

amendment no. 1740

(Purpose: To require a plan for sustaining the land-based solid rocket
motor industrial base)

On page 435, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

SEC. 1083. PLAN FOR SUSTAINMENT OF LAND-BASED SOLID ROCKET
MOTOR INDUSTRIAL BASE.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense shall review and
establish a plan to sustain the solid rocket motor industrial
base, including the ability to maintain and sustain currently
deployed strategic and missile defense systems and to
maintain an intellectual and engineering capacity to support
next generation rocket motors, as needed.
(b) Submission of Plan.--Not later than March 1, 2010, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional
defense committees the plan required under subsection (a),
together with an explanation of how fiscal year 2010 funds
will be used to sustain and support the plan and a
description of the funding in the future years defense
program plan to support the plan.

amendment no. 1687

(Purpose: To require a national security interest certification for
Coalition Support Fund reimbursements provided to the Government of
Pakistan)

On page 475, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

SEC. 1211. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT FOR COALITION SUPPORT
FUND REIMBURSEMENTS.

Section 1232(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 392), as
amended by section 1217 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417;
122 Stat. 4634), is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``the Secretary of
Defense shall submit'' and inserting ``the Secretary of
Defense, after consultation with the Secretary of State,
shall submit''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as
clauses (i), (ii), and (iii), respectively, and indenting
each clause, as so redesignated, 6 ems from the left margin;
(B) by striking ``shall include an itemized description''
and inserting the following: ``shall include the following:
``(A) An itemized description''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) A certification that the reimbursement--
``(i) is consistent with the national security interests of
the United States; and
``(ii) will not adversely impact the balance of power in
the region.''.

amendment no. 1702

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to submit to Congress a report on the use of
alternative therapies in the treatment of post-traumatic stress
disorder, including the therapeutic use of animals)

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

SEC. 733. REPORT ON USE OF ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES IN TREATMENT
OF POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER.

(a) In General.--Not later than December 31, 2010, the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall jointly submit to the appropriate committees of
Congress a report on research related to post-traumatic
stress disorder.
(b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall
include the following:
(1) The status of all studies and clinical trials that
involve treatments of post-traumatic stress disorder
conducted by the Department of Defense and the Department of
Veterans Affairs.
(2) The effectiveness of alternative therapies in the
treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder, including the
therapeutic use of animals.
(3) Identification of areas in which the Department of
Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs may be
duplicating studies, programs, or research with respect to
post-traumatic stress disorder.
(c) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this
section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress''
means--
(1) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on
Appropriations, and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the
Senate; and
(2) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on
Appropriations, and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the
House of Representatives.

amendment no. 1717

(Purpose: To carry out a pilot program to assess the feasibility and
advisability of using service dogs for the treatment or rehabilitation
of veterans with physical or mental injuries or disabilities)

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

SEC. 1083. PILOT PROGRAM ON USE OF SERVICE DOGS FOR THE
TREATMENT OR REHABILITATION OF VETERANS WITH
PHYSICAL OR MENTAL INJURIES OR DISABILITIES.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The United States owes a profound debt to those who
have served the United States honorably in the Armed Forces.
(2) Disabled veterans suffer from a range of physical and
mental injuries and disabilities.
(3) In 2008, the Army reported the highest level of
suicides among its soldiers since it began tracking the rate
28 years before 2009.
(4) A scientific study documented in the 2008 Rand Report
entitled ``Invisible Wounds of War'' estimated that 300,000
veterans of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi
Freedom currently suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder.
(5) Veterans have benefitted in multiple ways from the
provision of service dogs.
(6) The Department of Veterans Affairs has been
successfully placing guide dogs with the blind since 1961.
(7) Thousands of dogs around the country await adoption.
(b) Program Required.--Not later than 120 days after the
date of the enactment of this

[[Page S8012]]

Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall commence a
three-year pilot program to assess the benefits, feasibility,
and advisability of using service dogs for the treatment or
rehabilitation of veterans with physical or mental injuries
or disabilities, including post-traumatic stress disorder.
(c) Partnerships.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out the pilot
program by partnering with nonprofit organizations that--
(A) have experience providing service dogs to individuals
with injuries or disabilities;
(B) do not charge fees for the dogs, services, or lodging
that they provide; and
(C) are accredited by a generally accepted industry-
standard accrediting institution.
(2) Reimbursement of costs.--The Secretary shall reimburse
partners for costs relating to the pilot program as follows:
(A) For the first 50 dogs provided under the pilot program,
all costs relating to the provision of such dogs.
(B) For dogs provided under the pilot program after the
first 50 dogs provided, all costs relating to the provision
of every other dog.
(d) Participation.--
(1) In general.--As part of the pilot program, the
Secretary shall provide a service dog to a number of veterans
with physical or mental injuries or disabilities that is
greater than or equal to the greater of--
(A) 200; and
(B) the minimum number of such veterans required to produce
scientifically valid results with respect to assessing the
benefits and costs of the use of such dogs for the treatment
or rehabilitation of such veterans.
(2) Composition.--The Secretary shall ensure that--
(A) half of the participants in the pilot program are
veterans who suffer primarily from a mental health injury or
disability; and
(B) half of the participants in the pilot program are
veterans who suffer primarily from a physical injury or
disability.
(e) Study.--In carrying out the pilot program, the
Secretary shall conduct a scientifically valid research study
of the costs and benefits associated with the use of service
dogs for the treatment or rehabilitation of veterans with
physical or mental injuries or disabilities. The matters
studied shall include the following:
(1) The therapeutic benefits to such veterans, including
the quality of life benefits reported by the veterans
partaking in the pilot program.
(2) The economic benefits of using service dogs for the
treatment or rehabilitation of such veterans, including--
(A) savings on health care costs, including savings
relating to reductions in hospitalization and reductions in
the use of prescription drugs; and
(B) productivity and employment gains for the veterans.
(3) The effectiveness of using service dogs to prevent
suicide.
(f) Reports.--
(1) Annual report of the secretary.--After each year of the
pilot program, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a
report on the findings of the Secretary with respect to the
pilot program.
(2) Final report by the national academy of sciences.--Not
later than 180 days after the date of the completion of the
pilot program, the National Academy of Sciences shall submit
to Congress a report on the results of the pilot program.

amendment no. 1521

(Purpose: To enable State homes to furnish nursing home care to parents
any of whose children died while serving in the Armed Forces)

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

SEC. 1083. EXPANSION OF STATE HOME CARE FOR PARENTS OF
VETERANS WHO DIED WHILE SERVING IN ARMED
FORCES.

In administering section 51.210(d) of title 38, Code of
Federal Regulations, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall
permit a State home to provide services to, in addition to
non-veterans described in such subsection, a non-veteran any
of whose children died while serving in the Armed Forces.

amendment no. 1768

(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Defense to carry out a pilot
program for providing cognitive rehabilitative therapy services under
the TRICARE program)

Strike section 731 and insert the following:

SEC. 731. PILOT PROGRAM FOR THE PROVISION OF COGNITIVE
REHABILITATIVE THERAPY SERVICES UNDER THE
TRICARE PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense may, in
consultation with the entities and officials referred to in
subsection (d), carry out a pilot program under the TRICARE
program to determine the feasibility and advisability of
expanding the availability of cognitive rehabilitative
therapy services for members or former members of the Armed
Forces described in subsection (b).
(b) Covered Members and Former Members.--A member or former
member of the Armed Forces is described in this subsection
if--
(1) the member or former member--
(A) is otherwise eligible for medical care under the
TRICARE program;
(B) has been diagnosed with a moderate to severe traumatic
brain injury incurred in the line of duty in Operation Iraqi
Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom;
(C) is retired or separated from the Armed Forces for
disability under chapter 61 of title 10, United States Code;
and
(D) is referred by a qualified physician for cognitive
rehabilitative therapy; and
(2) cognitive rehabilitative therapy is not reasonably
available to the member or former member through the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
(c) Elements of Pilot Program.--The Secretary of Defense
shall, in consultation with the entities and officials
referred to in subsection (d), develop for inclusion in the
pilot program the following:
(1) Procedures for access to cognitive rehabilitative
therapy services.
(2) Qualifications and supervisory requirements for
licensed and certified health care professionals providing
such services.
(3) A methodology for reimbursing providers for such
services.
(d) Entities and Officials to Be Consulted.--The entities
and officials referred to in this subsection are the
following:
(1) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
(2) The Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological
Health and Traumatic Brain Injury.
(3) Relevant national organizations with experience in
treating traumatic brain injury.
(e) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the
House of Representatives a report--
(1) evaluating the effectiveness of the pilot program in
providing increased access to safe, effective, and quality
cognitive rehabilitative therapy services for members and
former members of the Armed Forces described in subsection
(b); and
(2) making recommendations with respect to the
effectiveness of cognitive rehabilitative therapy services
and the appropriateness of including such services as a
benefit under the TRICARE program.
(f) TRICARE Program Defined.--The term ``TRICARE program''
has the meaning given that term in section 1072(7) of title
10, United States Code.
(g) Funding.--Of the amount authorized to be appropriated
by section 1403 for the Defense Health Program, not more than
$5,000,000 may be available to carry out the pilot program
under this section.

amendment no. 1752

(Purpose: To reduce the minimum distance of travel necessary for
reimbursement of covered beneficiaries of the military health care
system for travel for specialty health care and to provide an offset)

At the end of subtitle B of title VII, insert the
following:

SEC. 713. REDUCTION OF MINIMUM DISTANCE OF TRAVEL FOR
REIMBURSEMENT OF COVERED BENEFICIARIES OF THE
MILITARY HEALTH CARE SYSTEM FOR TRAVEL FOR
SPECIALTY HEALTH CARE.

(a) Reduction.--Section 1074i(a) of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``100 miles'' and inserting ``50
miles''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date that is 90 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to
referrals for specialty health care made on or after such
effective date.
(c) Offset.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by
section 301(a)(5) for operation and maintenance for Defense-
wide activities is hereby decreased by $14,000,000, with the
amount of the decrease to be derived from unobligated
balances.

amendment no. 1739, as modified

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

SEC. 1083. FEDERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM AGE AND
RETIREMENT TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RETIREES OF
THE ARMED FORCES.

(a) Increase in Maximum Age Limit for Positions Subject to
FERS.--
(1) Law enforcement officers and firefighters.--Section
3307(e) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``(e) The'' and inserting ``(e)(1) Except
as provided in paragraph (2), the''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) The maximum age limit for an original appointment to
a position as a firefighter or law enforcement officer (as
defined by section 8401(14) or (17), respectively) shall be
47 years of age, in the case of an individual who on the
effective date of such appointment is eligible to receive
retired pay or retainer pay for military service, or pension
or compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs
instead of such retired or retainer pay.''.
(2) Other positions.--The maximum age limit for an original
appointment to a position as a member of the Capitol Police
or Supreme Court Police, nuclear materials courier (as
defined under section 8401(33) of title 5, United States
Code), or customs and border protection officer (as defined
in section 8401(36) of title 5, United States Code) shall be
47 years of age, in the case of an individual who on the
effective date of such appointment is eligible to receive
retired pay or retainer pay for military service, or pension
or compensation from the Department

[[Page S8013]]

of Veterans Affairs instead of such retired or retainer pay.
(b) Eligibility for Annuity.--Section 8412(d) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (2), by adding ``or'' at the end; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) after becoming 57 years of age and completing 10
years of service as a law enforcement officer, member of the
Capitol Police or Supreme Court Police, firefighter, nuclear
materials courier, customs or border protection officer, or
any combination of such service totaling 10 years, if such
employee--
``(A) is originally appointed to a position as a law
enforcement officer, member of the Capitol Police or Supreme
Court Police, firefighter, nuclear materials courier, or
customs and border protection officer on or after the
effective date of this paragraph under section 1083(e) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010;
``(B) on the date that original appointment met the
requirements of section 3307(e)(2) of this title or section
1083(a)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010.
(c) Mandatory Separation.--Section 8425 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(1), in the first sentence, by
inserting ``, except that a law enforcement officer,
firefighter, nuclear materials courier, or customs and border
protection officer eligible for retirement under 8412(d)(3)
shall be separated from service on the last day of the month
in which that employee becomes 57 years of age'' before the
period;
(2) in subsection (c), in the first sentence, by inserting
``, except that a member of the Capitol Police eligible for
retirement under 8412(d)(3) shall be separated from service
on the last day of the month in which that employee becomes
57 years of age'' before the period; and
(3) in subsection (d), in the first sentence, by inserting
``, except that a member of the Supreme Court Police eligible
for retirement under 8412(d)(3) shall be separated from
service on the last day of the month in which that employee
becomes 57 years of age'' before the period.
(d) Computation of Basic Annuity.--Section 8415(d) of title
5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``total service as'' and
inserting ``civilian service as a law enforcement officer,
member of the Capitol Police or Supreme Court Police,
firefighter, nuclear materials courier, customs and border
protection officer, or air traffic controller that, in the
aggregate,''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``so much of such
individual's total service as exceeds 20 years'' and
inserting ``the remainder of such individual's total
service''.
(e) Effective Date.--This section (including the amendments
made by this section) shall take effect 60 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to
appointments made on or after that effective date.

amendment no. 1775

(Purpose: To support freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom
of expression, and freedom of assembly in Iran, to support the Iranian
people as they seek, receive, and impart information and promote ideas
in writing, in print, or through any media without interference, and
for other purposes)

(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')

AMENDMENT NO. 1735

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress regarding the development of
manned airborne irregular warfare platforms)

On page 435, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

SEC. 1083. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON MANNED AIRBORNE IRREGULAR
WARFARE PLATFORMS.

It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense
should, with regard to the development of manned airborne
irregular warfare platforms, coordinate requirements for such
weapons systems with the military services, including the
reserve components.

AMENDMENT NO. 1564

(Purpose: To enhance travel and transportation benefits for survivors
of deceased members of the uniformed services for purposes of attending
memorial ceremonies)

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

SEC. 635. TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION FOR SURVIVORS OF DECEASED
MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES TO ATTEND
MEMORIAL CEREMONIES.

(a) Allowances Authorized.--Subsection (a) of section 411f
of title 37, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraph (2):
``(2) The Secretary concerned may provide round trip travel
and transportation allowances to eligible relatives of a
member of the uniformed services who dies while on active
duty in order that the eligible relatives may attend a
memorial service for the deceased member that occurs at a
location other than the location of the burial ceremony for
which travel and transportation allowances are provided under
paragraph (1). Travel and transportation allowances may be
provided under this paragraph for travel of eligible
relatives to only one memorial service for the deceased
member concerned.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Subsection (c) of such section
is amended--
(1) by striking ``subsection (a)(1)'' the first place it
appears and inserting ``paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection
(a)''; and
(2) by striking ``subsection (a)(1)'' the second place it
appears and inserting ``paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection
(a)''.

AMENDMENT NO. 1773

(Purpose: To require the Comptroller General to conduct a study on the
stockpile stewardship program)

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

SEC. 3136. COMPTROLLER GENERAL STUDY OF STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP
PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct a study of the stockpile stewardship
program established under section 4201 of the Atomic Energy
Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2521) to determine if the program was
functioning, as of December 2008, as envisioned when the
program was established.
(b) Elements.--The study required by subsection (a) shall
include the following:
(1) An assessment of whether the capabilities determined to
be necessary to maintain the nuclear weapons stockpile
without nuclear testing have been implemented and the extent
to which such capabilities are functioning.
(2) A review and description of the agreements governing
use, management, and support of the capabilities developed
for the stockpile stewardship program and an assessment of
enforcement of, and compliance with, those agreements.
(3) An assessment of plans for surveillance and testing of
nuclear weapons in the stockpile and the extent of the
compliance with such plans.
(4) An assessment of--
(A) the condition of the infrastructure at the plants and
laboratories of the nuclear weapons complex;
(B) the value of nuclear weapons facilities built after
1992;
(C) any plans that are in place to maintain, improve, or
replace such infrastructure;
(D) whether there is a validated requirement for all
planned infrastructure replacement projects; and
(E) the projected costs for each such project and the
timeline for completion of each such project.
(5) An assessment of the efforts to ensure and maintain the
intellectual and technical capability of the nuclear weapons
complex to support the nuclear weapons stockpile.
(6) Recommendations for the stockpile stewardship program
going forward.
(c) Report.--Not later than 270 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit
to the congressional defense committees a report containing
the results of the study required by subsection (a).

AMENDMENT NO. 1774

(Purpose: To extend the sunset for the Congressional Commission on the
Strategic Posture of the United States and to require an additional
report)

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

SEC. 1083. EXTENSION OF SUNSET FOR CONGRESSIONAL COMMISSION
ON THE STRATEGIC POSTURE OF THE UNITED STATES.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Congress is grateful for the service and leadership of
the members of the bipartisan Congressional Commission on the
Strategic Posture of the United States, who, pursuant to
section 1062 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 319), spent
more than one year examining the strategic posture of the
United States in all of its aspects: deterrence strategy,
missile defense, arms control initiatives, and
nonproliferation strategies.
(2) The Commission, comprised of some of the most
preeminent scholars and technical experts in the United
States in the subject matter, found a bipartisan consensus on
these issues in its Final Report made public on May 6, 2009.
(3) Congress appreciates the service of former Secretary of
Defense William Perry, former Secretary of Defense and Energy
James Schlesinger, former Senator John Glenn, former
Congressman Lee Hamilton, Ambassador James Woolsey, Doctors
John Foster, Fred Ikle, Keith Payne, Morton Halperin, Ellen
Williams, Bruce Tarter, and Harry Cartland, and the United
States Institute of Peace.
(4) Congress values the work of the Commission and pledges
to work with President Barack Obama to address the findings
and review and consider the recommendations of the
Commission.
(b) Extension of Sunset.--Section 1062 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law
110-181; 122 Stat. 319) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections
(g) and (h), respectively;
(2) in subsection (h), as redesignated by paragraph (1), by
striking ``September 30, 2009'' and inserting ``September 30,
2010''; and
(3) by inserting after subsection (e) the following new
subsection:
``(f) Follow-on Report.--Following submittal of the report
required in subsection

[[Page S8014]]

(e), the Commission may conduct public outreach and
discussion of the matters contained in the report.''.

AMENDMENT NO. 1795

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress on continued support by the
United States for a stable and democratic Republic of Iraq)

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

SEC. 1232. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON CONTINUED SUPPORT BY THE
UNITED STATES FOR A STABLE AND DEMOCRATIC
REPUBLIC OF IRAQ.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The men and women of the United States Armed Forces who
have served or are serving in the Republic of Iraq have done
so with the utmost bravery and courage and deserve the
respect and gratitude of the people of the United States and
the people of Iraq.
(2) The leadership of Generals David Petraeus and Raymond
Odierno, as the Commanders of the Multi-National Force Iraq,
as well as Ambassador Ryan Crocker, was instrumental in
bringing stability and success to Iraq.
(3) The strategy known as the surge was a critical factor
contributing to significant security gains and facilitated
the economic, political, and social gains that have occurred
in Iraq since 2007.
(4) The people of Iraq have begun to develop a stable
government and stable society because of the security gains
following the surge and the willingness of the people of Iraq
to accept the ideals of a free and fair democratic society
over the tyranny espoused by Al Qaeda and other terrorist
organizations.
(5) The security gains in Iraq must be carefully maintained
so that those fragile gains can be solidified and expanded
upon, primarily by citizens of Iraq in service to their
country, with the support of the United States as
appropriate.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) a stable and democratic Republic of Iraq is in the
long-term national security interest of the United States;
(2) the people and the Government of the United States
should help the people of Iraq promote the stability of their
country and peace in the region; and
(3) the United States should be a long-term strategic
partner with the Government and the people of Iraq in support
of their efforts to build democracy, good governance, and
peace and stability in the region.

AMENDMENT NO. 1788

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress that flexible spending
arrangements should be established for members of the uniformed
services)

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

SEC. 652. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON ESTABLISHMENT OF FLEXIBLE
SPENDING ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE UNIFORMED
SERVICES.

(a) In General.--It is the sense of Congress that, the
Secretary of Defense, with respect to members of the Army,
Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force, the Secretary of Homeland
Security, with respect to members of the Coast Guard, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, with respect to
commissioned officers of the Public Health Service, and the
Secretary of Commerce, with respect to commissioned officers
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
should establish procedures to implement flexible spending
arrangements with respect to basic pay and compensation, for
health care and dependent care on a pre-tax basis in
accordance with regulations prescribed under sections 106(c)
and 125 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(b) Considerations.--It is the sense of Congress that, in
establishing the procedures described by subsection (a), the
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of
Commerce should consider life events of members of the
uniformed services that are unique to them as members of the
uniformed services, including changes relating to permanent
changes of duty station and deployments to overseas
contingency operations.

amendment no. 1780

(Purpose: To require a report on the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration
Program and plans for further implementation)

On page 161, after line 23, insert the following:

SEC. 557. REPORT ON YELLOW RIBBON REINTEGRATION PROGRAM.

(a) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report
on the various reintegration programs being administered in
support of National Guard and Reserve members and their
families.
(b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall
include the following:
(1) An evaluation of the initial implementation of the
Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program in fiscal year 2009,
including an assessment of the best practices from pilot
programs offered by various States to provide supplemental
services to Yellow Ribbon and the feasibility of
incorporating those practices into Yellow Ribbon.
(2) An assessment of the extent to which Yellow Ribbon
funding, although requested in multiple component accounts,
supports robust joint programs that provide reintegration and
support services to National Guard and Reserve members and
their families regardless of military affiliation.
(3) An assessment of the extent to which Yellow Ribbon
programs are coordinating closely with the Department of
Veterans Affairs and its various veterans' programs.
(4) Plans for further implementation of the Yellow Ribbon
Reintegration Program in fiscal year 2010.

amendment no. 1782

(Purpose: To require a report on the feasibility of requiring post-
deployment health assessments of Guard and Reserve members deployed in
connection with contingency operations at their home stations or
counties of residence)

On page 220, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:

SEC. 713. REPORT ON POST-DEPLOYMENT HEALTH ASSESSMENTS OF
GUARD AND RESERVE MEMBERS.

(a) Report Required.--Not later than March 1, 2010, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional
defense committees a report on post-deployment health
assessments of Guard and Reserve members.
(b) Elements.--The report required under subsection (a)
shall include the following:
(1) An assessment of the feasibility of administering a
Post-Deployment Health Assessment (PDHA) to each member of a
reserve component of the Armed Forces returning to the
member's home station from deployment in connection with a
contingency operation at such home station or in the county
of residence of the member within the following timeframes:
(A) In the case of a member of the Individual Ready
Reserve, an assessment administered by not later than the
member's release from active duty following such deployment
or 10 days after the member's return to such station or
county, whichever occurs earlier.
(B) In the case of any other member of a reserve component
of the Armed Forces returning from deployment, by not later
than the member's release from active duty following such
deployment.
(2) An assessment of the feasibility of requiring that
Post-Deployment Health Assessments described under paragraph
(1) be performed by a practitioner trained and certified as
qualified to participate in the performance of Post-
Deployment Health Assessments or Post-Deployment Health
Reassessments.
(3) A description of--
(A) the availability of personnel described under paragraph
(2) to perform assessments described under this subsection at
the home stations or counties of residence of members of the
reserve components of the Armed Forces; and
(B) if such personnel are not available at such locations,
the additional resources necessary to ensure such
availability within one year after the date of the enactment
of this Act.

amendment no. 1779

(Purpose: To provide for the notification of certain individuals
regarding options for enrollment under Medicare part B)

On page 213, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

SEC. 706. NOTIFICATION OF CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS REGARDING
OPTIONS FOR ENROLLMENT UNDER MEDICARE PART B.

Chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 1111. NOTIFICATION OF CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS REGARDING
OPTIONS FOR ENROLLMENT UNDER MEDICARE PART B.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense shall establish
procedures for identifying individuals described in
subsection (b). The Secretary of Defense shall immediately
notify individuals identified under the preceding sentence
that they are no longer eligible for health care benefits
under the TRICARE program under chapter 55 of title 10,
United States Code, and of any options available for
enrollment of the individual under part B of title XVIII of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395j et seq.). The
Secretary of Defense shall consult with the Secretary of
Health and Human Services to accurately identify and notify
individuals described in subsection (b) under this
subsection.
``(b) Individuals Described.--An individual described in
this subsection is an individual who is a covered beneficiary
(as defined in section 1072(5) of title 10, United States
Code) at the time the individual is entitled to part A of
title XVIII of the Social Security Act under section 226(b)
or section 226A of such Act (42 U.S.C. 426(b) and 426-1) and
who is eligible to enroll but who has elected not to enroll
(or to be deemed enrolled) during the individual's initial
enrollment period under part B of such title.''.

AMENDMENT NO. 1785

(Purpose: To require a report on the defense modeling and simulation
industrial base)

On page 429, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

SEC. 1073. REPORT ON MODELING AND SIMULATION ACTIVITIES OF
UNITED STATES JOINT FORCES COMMAND.

(a) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this

[[Page S8015]]

Act, the Secretary of Defense, working through the Director
for Defense Research and Engineering, the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base, and the
Commander of the United States Joint Forces Command, shall
submit to the congressional defense committees a report that
describes current and planned efforts to support and enhance
the defense modeling and simulation technological and
industrial base, including in academia, industry, and
government.
(b) Elements.--The report required under subsection (a)
shall include the following:
(1) An assessment of the current and future domestic
defense modeling and simulation technological and industrial
base and its ability to meet current and future defense
requirements.
(2) A description of current and planned programs and
activities of the Department of Defense to enhance the
ability of the domestic defense modeling and simulation
industrial base to meet current and future defense
requirements.
(3) A description of current and planned Department of
Defense activities in cooperation with Federal, State, and
local government organizations that promote the enhancement
of the ability of the domestic defense modeling and
simulation industrial base to meet current and future defense
requirements.
(4) A comparative assessment of current and future global
modeling and simulation capabilities relative to those of the
United States in areas related to defense applications of
modeling and simulation.
(5) An identification of additional authorities or
resources related to technology transfer, establishment of
public-private partnerships, coordination with regional,
State, or local initiatives, or other activities that would
be required to enhance efforts to support the domestic
defense modeling and simulation industrial base.
(6) Other matters as determined appropriate by the
Secretary.

AMENDMENT NO. 1806

(Purpose: To include additional members and additional duties for the
independent panel assessing the 2009 quadrennial defense review)

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

SEC. 1083. ADDITIONAL MEMBERS AND DUTIES FOR INDEPENDENT
PANEL TO ASSESS THE QUADRENNIAL DEFENSE REVIEW.

(a) Finding.--Congress understands that the independent
panel appointed by the Secretary of Defense pursuant to
section 118(f) of title 10, United States Code, will be
comprised of twelve members equally divided on a bipartisan
basis.
(b) Sense of Congress on Independent Panel.--It is the
sense of Congress that the independent panel appointed by the
Secretary of Defense pursuant to section 118(f) of title 10,
United States Code, should be comprised of members equally
divided on a bipartisan basis.
(c) Additional Members.--
(1) In general.--For purposes of conducting the assessment
of the 2009 quadrennial defense review under section 118 of
title 10, United States Code (in this section referred to as
the ``2009 QDR''), the independent panel established under
subsection (f) of such section (in this section referred to
as the ``Panel'') shall include eight additional members to
be appointed as follows:
(A) Two by the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services
of the House of Representatives.
(B) Two by the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services
of the Senate.
(C) Two by the ranking member of the Committee on Armed
Services of the House of Representatives.
(D) Two by the ranking member of the Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate.
(2) Period of appointment; vacancies.--Any vacancy in an
appointment to the Panel under paragraph (1) shall be filled
in the same manner as the original appointment.
(d) Additional Duties of Panel for 2009 QDR.--In addition
to the duties of the Panel under section 118(f) of title 10,
United States Code, the Panel shall, with respect to the 2009
QDR--
(1) conduct an independent assessment of a variety of
possible force structures of the Armed Forces, including the
force structure identified in the report of the 2009 QDR; and
(2) make any recommendations it considers appropriate for
consideration.
(e) Report of Secretary of Defense.--Not later than 30 days
after the Panel submits its report with respect to the 2009
QDR under section 118(f)(2) of title 10, United States Code,
the Secretary of Defense, after consultation with the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, shall submit to the
congressional defense committees any comments of the
Secretary on the report of the Panel.
(f) Termination.--The provisions of this section shall
terminate on the day that is 45 days after the date on which
the Panel submits its report with respect to the 2009 QDR
under section 118(f)(2) of title 10, United States Code.

AMENDMENT NO. 1803

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of the Army to conduct a comparative
evaluation of extended range modular sniper rifle systems)

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

SEC. 252. EVALUATION OF EXTENDED RANGE MODULAR SNIPER RIFLE
SYSTEMS.

(a) In General.--Not later than March 31, 2010, the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics,
and Technology shall conduct a comparative evaluation of
extended range modular sniper rifle systems, including .300
Winchester Magnum, .338 Lapua Magnum, and other calibers. The
evaluation shall identify and demonstrate an integrated suite
of technologies capable of--
(1) extending the effective range of snipers;
(2) meeting service or unit requirements or operational
need statements; or
(3) closing documented capability gaps.
(b) Funding.--The Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology shall conduct the
evaluation required by subsection (a) using amounts
appropriated for fiscal year 2009 for extended range modular
sniper rifle system research (PE # 0604802A) that are
unobligated.
(c) Report.--Not later than April 30, 2010, the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and
Technology shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of
the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House
of Representatives a report containing the results of the
evaluation required by subsection (a), including--
(1) detailed ballistics and system performance data; and
(2) an assessment of the operational capabilities of
extended range modular sniper rifle systems to meet service
or unit requirements or operational need statements or close
documented capabilities gaps.

AMENDMENT NO. 1727

(Purpose: To require the report on the global defense posture
realignment to include information relating to the effect of the
comprehensive master plans for overseas military main operating bases,
forward operating sites, and cooperative security locations on United
states security commitments under international security treaties and
the current security environments in the combatant commands)

On page 549, strike line 9 and all that follows through
``any comments resulting'' on line 16 and insert the
following: ``congressional defense committees and the
Committee on Foreign relations of the Senate and the
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives
a report on the status of overseas base closure and
realignment actions undertaken as part of a global defense
posture realignment strategy and the status of development
and execution of comprehensive master plans for overseas
military main operating bases, forward operating sites, and
cooperative security locations. The report shall address the
following:
(1) How the plans would support the security commitments
undertaken by the United States pursuant to any international
security treaty, including, the North Atlantic Treaty, The
Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United
States and Japan, and the Security Treaty Between Australia,
New Zealand, and the United States of America.
(2) The impact of such plans on the current security
environments in the combatant commands, including United
States participation in theater security cooperation
activities and bilateral partnership, exchanges, and training
exercises.
(3) Any comments of the Secretary of Defense resulting

AMENDMENT NO. 1706

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of
Transportation to develop a plan for providing access to the national
airspace for unmanned aircraft)

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

SEC. 933. PLAN ON ACCESS TO NATIONAL AIRSPACE FOR UNMANNED
AIRCRAFT.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary
of Transportation shall, after consultation with the
Secretary of Homeland Security, jointly develop a plan for
providing access to the national airspace for unmanned
aircraft of the Department of Defense.
(b) Elements.--The plan required by subsection (a) shall
include the following:
(1) A description of how the Department of Defense and the
Department of Transportation will communicate and cooperate,
at the executive, management, and action levels, to provide
access to the national airspace for unmanned aircraft of the
Department of Defense.
(2) Specific milestones, aligned to operational and
training needs, for providing access to the national airspace
for unmanned aircraft and a transition plan for sites
programmed to be activated as unmanned aerial system sites
during fiscal years 2010 through 2015.
(3) Recommendations for policies with respect to use of the
national airspace, flight standards, and operating procedures
that should be implemented by the Department of Defense and
the Department of Transportation to accommodate unmanned
aircraft assigned to any State or territory of the United
States.

[[Page S8016]]

(4) An identification of resources required by the
Department of Defense and the Department of Transportation to
execute the plan.
(c) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of Transportation shall submit to the congressional
defense committees, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate, and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives a report containing the plan required by
subsection (a).

AMENDMENT NO. 1749, as modified

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

SEC. 904. REESTABLISHMENT OF POSITION OF VICE CHIEF OF THE
NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU.

(a) Reestablishment of Position.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 1011 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) by redesignating section 10505 as section 10505a; and
(B) by inserting after section 10504 the following new
section 10505:

``Sec. 10505. Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau

``(a) Appointment.--(1) There is a Vice Chief of the
National Guard Bureau, selected by the Secretary of Defense
from officers of the Army National Guard of the United States
or the Air National Guard of the United States who--
``(A) are recommended for such appointment by their
respective Governors or, in the case of the District of
Columbia, the commanding general of the District of Columbia
National Guard;
``(B) have had at least 10 years of federally recognized
service in an active status in the National Guard; and
``(C) are in a grade above the grade of colonel.
``(2) The Chief and Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau
may not both be members of the Army or of the Air Force.
``(3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), an officer
appointed as Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau serves
for a term of four years, but may be removed from office at
any time for cause.
``(B) The term of the Vice Chief of the National Guard
Bureau shall end within a reasonable time (as determined by
the Secretary of Defense) following the appointment of a
Chief of the National Guard Bureau who is a member of the
same armed force as the Vice Chief.
``(b) Duties.--The Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau
performs such duties as may be prescribed by the Chief of the
National Guard Bureau.
``(c) Grade.--The Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau
shall be appointed to serve in a grade decided by the
Secretary of Defense.
``(d) Functions as Acting Chief.--When there is a vacancy
in the office of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau or in
the absence or disability of the Chief, the Vice Chief of the
National Guard Bureau acts as Chief and performs the duties
of the Chief until a successor is appointed or the absence of
disability ceases.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 1011 of such title is amended by
striking the item relating to section 10505 and inserting the
following new items:

``10505. Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau.
``10505a. Director of the Joint Staff of the National Guard Bureau.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 10506(a)(1) of such
title is amended by striking ``and the Director of the Joint
Staff of the National Guard Bureau'' and inserting ``, the
Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau, and the Director of
the Joint Staff of the National Guard Bureau''.

AMENDMENT NO. 1799

(Purpose: To require the Department of Defense to improve access to
mental health care for family members of members of the National Guard
and Reserve who are deployed overseas)

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the
following:

SEC. 557. IMPROVED ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH CARE FOR FAMILY
MEMBERS OF MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL GUARD AND
RESERVE WHO ARE DEPLOYED OVERSEAS.

(a) Initiative to Increase Access to Mental Health Care.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense shall develop and
implement a plan to expand existing initiatives of the
Department of Defense to increase access to mental health
care for family members of members of the National Guard and
Reserve deployed overseas during the periods of mobilization,
deployment, and demobilization of such members of the
National Guard and Reserve.
(2) Elements.--The plan required by paragraph (1) shall
include the following:
(A) Programs and activities to educate family members of
members of the National Guard and Reserve who are deployed
overseas on potential mental health challenges connected with
such deployment.
(B) Programs and activities to provide such family members
with complete information on all mental health resources
available to such family members through the Department of
Defense and otherwise.
(C) Efforts to expand counseling activities for such family
members in local communities.
(b) Reports.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, and at such times thereafter as
the Secretary of Defense considers appropriate, the Secretary
of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services
of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on
this section.
(2) Elements.--Each report shall include the following:
(A) A current assessment of the extent to which family
members of members of the National Guard and Reserve who are
deployed overseas have access to, and are utilizing, mental
health care available under this section.
(B) A current assessment of the quality of mental health
care being provided to family members of members of the
National Guard and Reserve who are deployed overseas, and an
assessment of expanding coverage for mental health care
services under the TRICARE program to mental health care
services provided at facilities currently outside the network
of the TRICARE program.
(C) Such recommendations for legislative or administration
action as the Secretary considers appropriate in order to
further assure full access to mental health care by family
members of members of the National Guard and Reserve who are
deployed overseas during the mobilization, deployment, and
demobilization of such members of the National Guard and
Reserve.

AMENDMENT NO. 1620

(Purpose: To amend the Small Business Act to create parity among
certain small business contracting programs)

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

SEC. 838. SMALL BUSINESS CONTRACTING PROGRAMS PARITY.

Section 31(b)(2)(B) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
657a(b)(2)(B)) is amended by striking ``shall'' and inserting
``may''.

AMENDMENT NO. 1688

(Purpose: To create parity among small business contracting programs,
and for other purposes)

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

SEC. 1083. CONTRACTING IMPROVEMENTS.

(a) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the terms ``Administration'' and ``Administrator'' mean
the Small Business Administration and the Administrator
thereof, respectively; and
(2) the terms ``HUBZone small business concern'', ``small
business concern'', ``small business concern owned and
controlled by service-disabled veterans'', and ``small
business concern owned and controlled by women'' have the
same meanings as in section 3 of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 632).
(b) Contracting Opportunities.--Section 31(b)(2)(B) of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657a(b)(2)(B)) is amended by
striking ``shall'' and inserting ``may''.
(c) Contracting Goals.--Section 15(g)(1) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644(g)(1)) is amended in the fourth
sentence by inserting ``and subcontract'' after ``not less
than 3 percent of the total value of all prime contract''.
(d) Mentor-Protege Programs.--The Administrator may
establish mentor-protege programs for small business concerns
owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans, small
business concerns owned and controlled by women, and HUBZone
small business concerns modeled on the mentor-protege program
of the Administration for small business concerns
participating in programs under section 8(a) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(a)).

AMENDMENT NO. 1765

(Purpose: To require a report on the re-engining of E-8C Joint
Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System (Joint STARS) aircraft)

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

SEC. 125. REPORT ON E-8C JOINT SURVEILLANCE AND TARGET ATTACK
RADAR SYSTEM RE-ENGINING.

(a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Air Force
shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report
on replacing the engines of E-8C Joint Surveillance and
Target Attack Radar System (Joint STARS) aircraft. The report
shall include the following:
(1) An assessment of funding alternatives and options for
accelerating funding for the fielding of Joint STARS aircraft
with replaced engines.
(2) An analysis of the tradeoffs involved in the decision
to replace the engines of Joint STARS aircraft or not to
replace those engines, including the potential cost savings
from replacing those engines and the operational impacts of
not replacing those engines.
(3) An identification of the optimum path forward for
replacing the engines of Joint STARS aircraft and modernizing
the Joint STARS fleet.
(b) Limitation on Certain Actions.--The Secretary of the
Air Force may not take any action that would adversely impact
the pace of the execution of the program to replace the
engines of Joint STARS aircraft before submitting the report
required by subsection (a).

[[Page S8017]]

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

amendment no. 1759

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like to speak today about an
amendment I have offered to the National Defense Authorization Act, No.
1759, to provide $16.8 million in funding for the research and
development of a program called ``1760 in the Bay,'' which will allow
for our B-52 fleet to carry GPS-guided ``smart weapons'' internally in
the bomb bay.
Currently, the B-52 can only carry these important weapons
externally, on its wing pylons. Giving the B-52 this expanded
capability would allow for an increase in the aircraft's overall bomb-
load capacity, or for an increase in its fuel efficiency and range by
using an internal-only weapons load.
As early as 1993, the Air Force documented the requirement for
internal carriage of precision-guided munitions in its B-52H
Conventional Upgrade Operational Requirements Document. The Air Force
reaffirmed its belief in the need for this requirement in 2005, and
Congress continued to fund the program in 2006 and 2007. The program is
on the Air Force's fiscal year 2010 unfunded priorities list.
My amendment would provide $16.8 million in R&D funding to complete
required hardware and software development and testing for an
electrical upgrade to ``military standard 1760,'' which provides a
common electrical and digital interface between weapons and aircraft.
The MIL-STD-1760 connecter is used to transfer guidance information to
weapons including the GBU-32 JDAM, the AGM-154, and the CBU-103, CBU-
104, and CBU-105. This technology upgrade will also make it easier to
add WCMD, JSOW, and JASSM weapons to the B-52 in the future.
This is exactly the kind of investment we need to be making in the B-
52, an aircraft that is indispensable to maintaining an effective
bomber force. It is unmatched in its range and payload ability. It is
the most cost-effective and reliable component of our Nation's bomber
force. It is a plane that we are going to be using more than 30 years
from now. It is truly the ``best bomb truck for the buck.''
Particularly in light of the decision by the President and Secretary
Gates to delay procurement of the next-generation bomber, it is
critical that we continue to outfit each B-52 with new technology like
the ``1760 in the Bay'' program.

amendment no. 1656

Mr. President, I want to take a moment to talk about an amendment I
have offered to the National Defense Authorization Act, No. 1656, that
would require a study and report on the recruitment and retention of
members of the Air Force in nuclear career fields.
One of the key lessons learned from the nuclear incidents that
occurred a couple of years ago is that we need to be able to keep our
best and brightest in the nuclear force. Working with America's nuclear
arsenal is one of the most demanding jobs in the Air Force. It takes
special people with unique skills to maintain and safeguard our
nation's most powerful weapons. That is why the Air Force has stated
that one of its biggest priorities is reinvigorating the nuclear
mission.
In recent months, I have heard from a number of senior Air Force
leaders working in the nuclear mission that interest among airmen in
the nuclear career field is very high, in part due to sustained
leadership attention to the nuclear force. Right now, the best and the
brightest are flocking to this career field. However, I remain
concerned about the long-term outlook of this important area of work. I
want to be sure that interest in the field will not wane if the Air
Force's top priority shifts to other issues.
There is absolutely no doubt that leadership at every level of the
Air Force understands that our nuclear weapons are one of our Nation's
most critical assets. By deterring America's enemies, assuring our
allies, and dissuading potential future adversaries, our nuclear
personnel are at war every single day. This is the message of Air Force
and Department of Defense leadership, and it is the message of the
Senate and the Congress. But it is not enough for our airmen to simply
hear that message. They must be given evidence to demonstrate that it
is more than words.
Few needs are more critical than the ongoing effort to determine the
best ways to make the systemic change necessary to ensure that every
airman working on the nuclear mission believes each and every day that
his job is critical to the strength and security of the United States.
The standup of the Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration Office
on the Air Staff and the new Global Strike Command major command are
important steps. But steps must also be taken to make sure that the
message is understood at every level, even to the youngest cadet.
I believe it is necessary to examine what incentives could or should
be built into the system in order to ensure that we continue to be able
to recruit, retain, and develop highly trained and motivated nuclear
personnel. That is why I have introduced this amendment to ask the Air
Force to provide a report on the steps it has taken to improve
recruiting and retention and to gauge the potential impact that new
retention bonuses or assignment incentive pay could have on the
attractiveness of serving in the nuclear mission, and, in turn, on the
effectiveness of the force.

amendment no. 1780

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I wish to speak about an amendment that
I have filed to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2010. The
amendment is an attempt to improve our Nation's support system for our
National Guard and Reserve members and their families. The amendment
requires evaluating the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program, and
identifying programs that will make the program truly comprehensive.
Today, our military and our country have come to rely heavily on the
men and women of our National Guard and Reserves to protect our
national security. More and more, these citizen-soldiers and their
families have gone above and beyond the call of duty to serve our
country's interests, engaging in multiple deployments in dangerous
regions all over the world. Since 9/11, we have seen this increasing
reliance on our Guard and Reserves in States throughout the country.
New Hampshire is no exception. Thousands of Guardsmen and women have
already deployed overseas into combat areas. And more than 1,100
members of the 197th Fires Brigade were recently notified that they
will be deployed to the Middle East sometime in the next year. This
will represent the single largest deployment in New Hampshire's
history. Although our Guardsmen and Reservists show unwavering passion
and courage no matter their assignment, these men and women and their
families did not sign up for this high number of dangerous deployments.
It is our responsibility to make sure servicemembers and their families
receive the proper services before, during and after deployment so that
they can return to their normal lives.
The Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program provides important support
services to Guard and Reserve members through informational events and
activities throughout the predeployment and deployment phases, as well
as after 30, 60, and 90 days upon their return. However, these
programs--often held in an impersonal group setting--are not enough.
The National Guard in New Hampshire came to realize that, despite
their best efforts, many of those who deployed continued to fall
through the cracks upon their return. They realized that they needed a
more intensive, more personal, professional, and persistent program
which catered to individual family needs. The New Hampshire National
Guard developed a pilot program to provide each National Guard and
Reservist a professional ``care coordinator'' who is responsible for
the kind of personal attention and support that is required to identify
and support those who are struggling.
Though the names have been changed, the real-life stories of the New
Hampshire Guard who have participated in the program are moving and
demonstrate a clear need for creating a seamless, nationwide program.
In his twenties and a self-employed mechanic by trade, Sergeant Joe
served in Iraq from 2006 to 2007. Prior to his deployment, he set up
his girlfriend and her children in a rental apartment and gave his
savings to support her while he has in Iraq. When he

[[Page S8018]]

returned to New Hampshire, he suffered from ongoing back pain and PTSD
that went undiagnosed; he found that his girlfriend had squandered his
savings and defaulted on the rent; and that his business partner had
closed up shop. Distraught but not defeated, he rented a room and tried
to reestablish his business. Despite his best efforts, he has faced a
series of jobs losses, bills he could not pay, increasingly severe
PTSD, and, ultimately, eviction. The New Hampshire National Guard
Chaplain eventually found out about Joe's circumstances and connected
him immediately with a care coordinator. His personal care coordinator
helped Joe turn his life around: she used emergency funds to provide a
modest income and secure temporary housing; she connected him with
medical and mental health services through the VA; and paired him with
the Easter Seals job placement services that helped Joe get a less
physically demanding, full-time job with benefits. Because of this
safety net, Joe recently bought a home and is continuing treatment for
his PTSD.
Because of the New Hampshire National Guard's unique partnership with
the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services, Easter Seals
in New Hampshire and 22 other civilian and veteran service
organizations, Guard members and Reservists like Sergeant Joe are able
to reenter civilian life.
However, there is a clear need to provide counseling and support
services predeployment as well. As shown in the story of Staff Sergeant
Mary, a single mother of two who is slated for deployment later this
year, predeployment services create a foundation for parents and
families to adjust to deployment while minimizing disruptions to their
lives.
Mary, upon learning of her deployment, feared that she could not
leave her children with her ex-husband and that she would be unable to
fulfill her duty with the New Hampshire National Guard despite her
desire to serve alongside her colleagues. Hesitant to take help from a
stranger, she initially resisted meeting with her care coordinator. The
coordinator persisted, slowly built a close bond with Mary, and
designed a plan to address Mary's concerns. The care coordinator
connected Mary to legal representation to negotiate how the children
will be cared for while she is in Iraq--a necessary step to create a
positive environment for Mary to leave her children. The coordinator
also went to the children's school, met with the teachers and
administration personally, and provided them with a direct link for
communication and concerns while Mary is deployed. She also arranged
counseling for the children so that they will have extra support while
grappling with their mother's absence. Mary says that her care
coordinator is a ``beacon of light'' who helps guide her through the
challenges of being a single parent and deploying soldier. She finds
comfort in knowing she has one person by her side throughout her
deployment.
Unfortunately, the problems Adam and Mary faced are not unique.
National Guard and Reservists nationwide face similar problems, and
without programs like the New Hampshire National Guard pilot program
they may fall between the cracks.
My amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to evaluate the
nationwide Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program and to closely examine
how states have filled gaps in the program to better serve our National
Guard and Reserve members and their families. Furthermore, the
amendment seeks to identify the best programs so that they can be
replicated nationwide.
As we call on the National Guard and Reserve to protect the Nation at
home and abroad, I call on my colleagues in the Senate to protect these
brave men and women and their families to the best of our ability. We
need to make sure our policies and programs are worthy of the great
sacrifice of our citizen-soldiers.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the
pending amendment?
Mr. LEVIN. 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. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
Mr. LEVIN. Objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The assistant legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1799, as Modified

Mr. LEVIN. First, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify a
previously agreed to amendment, No. 1799.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 1799), as modified, is as follows:

Amendment No. 1799, as modified

At the end of subtitle F of title V add the following:

SEC. 557. IMPROVED ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH CARE FOR FAMILY
MEMBERS OF MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL GUARD AND
RESERVE WHO ARE DEPLOYED OVERSEAS.

Intercontinental Ballistic Missile.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with my
esteemed colleague Senator Enzi, the cochairman of the Senate ICBM
Coalition, about an amendment the coalition has offered to express the
sense of Congress on the strategic importance of the intercontinental
ballistic missile.
I am happy to offer this amendment on behalf of the members of the
Senate ICBM Coalition, including my cochairman Senator Enzi, as well as
Senators Hatch, Tester, Bennett, Baucus, Barrasso, and Dorgan.
This amendment, No. 1682, expresses the sense of the Congress that we
must maintain the long-term vitality of the triad, that the land-based
nuclear force is the most stabilizing portion of our nuclear arsenal,
and that our robust ICBM force must be retained to advance our Nation's
strategy of deterrence, assurance, and dissuasion.
I strongly believe that all three legs of the triad must be
maintained in order to retain a highly reliable and credible nuclear
force, and we particularly believe that our ICBM force takes on even
greater importance as we draw down our nuclear force.

[[Page S8019]]

As GEN Larry Welch and others have argued, our land-based nuclear
force is the most stabilizing portion of our nuclear arsenal, and it
becomes even more so as total warhead numbers shrink. The readiness,
broad dispersion, numbers, and low warhead loading of the ICBM force
make a successful disarming attack nearly impossible. That deters
attack from near-peer competitors and dissuades future adversaries from
building their nuclear forces. It also eliminates the pressure to
maintain a launch-on-warning posture.
While almost everyone agrees with us that the ICBM is an essential
part of the triad, some believe that the size of the force can or
should be reduced. I strongly oppose cutting the ICBM force below its
current force structure of 3 wings of 150 missiles each. A reduction in
the size of the force below 3 wings would make it increasingly
difficult to recruit, retain, and develop highly trained and motivated
people. That would have a tremendous impact on the effectiveness of the
force.
Finally, in light of the serious fiscal challenges facing our Nation,
it is worth noting that ICBMs are by far the most cost-effective leg of
the nuclear triad, coming in at about one-fifth the annual operating
cost of the submarine-launched leg. What is more, ICBM costs will be
stable for many years to come, while an extremely expensive replacement
program for the Ohio-class submarine is just about to begin.
I support President Obama's efforts to negotiate a new arms control
treaty with Russia to replace the expiring Strategic Arms Reduction
Treaty. However, we must be very careful that reductions to our nuclear
forces are conducted in a way that avoids creating unnecessary risks.
Our ICBM force dramatically decreases the risk of nuclear war by
providing a stabilizing constant in our nuclear posture, and it ought
to be maintained at its current levels as an essential part of our
nation's nuclear force.
I thank my colleague Senator Enzi for his work as cochair of the ICBM
Coalition.
Mr. ENZI. I would echo my colleague's remarks, and I share his
concern about a reduction in the current ICBM force. The current force
of 3 missile wings of 150 missiles is appropriate for our national
needs.
America's dispersed and alert Minuteman III ICBM force is a critical
element of the nuclear triad and represents our most responsive,
stabilizing, and cost-effective strategic force.
The strategic nuclear forces that deterred Soviet aggression and kept
the limited conflicts of the Cold War era from escalating continue to
play a critical role in deterring aggression and dissuading new near-
peer competitors. At its present size, our ICBM force represents a
nearly insurmountable hedge against strategic surprise. That force,
because of its broad dispersion and high survivability, is nearly
impossible to preempt or disarm. Additionally, the current ICBM force
offers a high level of crisis stability. This capability also helps to
reduce the risk of regional arms races that could encourage friends and
allies to develop their own nuclear capabilities.
As our Nation proceeds to analyze and make decisions on future
strategic posture and U.S. nuclear policy, I believe that ICBMs will
continue to be the most responsive and stabilizing element of the
nuclear triad. Minuteman III is a robust, cost-effective, and highly
capable system.
I also thank my colleague, Senator Conrad, for his work on behalf of
the coalition on this issue.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank my friend Senator Enzi and each
member of the ICBM Coalition for their support for this amendment.

national guard--state partnership program

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I would like to thank the chairman and
ranking member for their leadership and courtesy regarding my amendment
to provide budget authority for the National Guard--State Partnership
Program. I understand that this amendment as accepted would provide the
program with budget authority for fiscal year 2010. I urge the
committee to consult with the Department of Defense, our combatant
commanders in the field, and our State adjutant generals regarding the
efficacy of permanent authority for the program as the committee
prepares next year's defense bill.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the efforts of my friend from
Ohio on this issue. I know that the committee will continue to consider
the views of all stakeholders about this program. I encourage the
Department of Defense to include a request for formal authority in its
annual legislative proposal to the committee should they find permanent
authority necessary.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I would like to thank Chairman Levin and
Ranking Member McCain for their leadership and my colleagues on the
Senate Armed Services Committee for working in a bipartisan fashion to
craft the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. This
bill provides our troops with the resources, training and equipment
they need to fulfill their mission. It takes care of our troops and
their families, including a 3.4-percent across-the-board pay raise.
Additionally, it authorizes fiscal year 2010 end strengths to allow for
the expansion of our Armed Forces and provide a greater time period
between deployments, which will ease some of the burden placed on our
troops and their families.
This bill includes important language to ensure that the Iraqi and
Afghan governments take more responsibility for ensuring their own
security and stability. It provides nearly $7.5 billion to train and
equip the Afghan National Army and National Police Force; extends for
one year the authority for the Department of Defense--DOD--to support
State Department programs for security and stabilization assistance;
emphasizes the need to establish comprehensive measures of progress for
the administration's strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan and report
regularly to Congress on progress in the region; and provides funding
for the Commanders' Emergency Response program in Iraq and Afghanistan
to enable Commanders to quickly fund humanitarian relief and
reconstruction projects and authorizes funds to promote Afghan-led
local development.
I am pleased that this bill provides our brave men and women in
uniform the equipment, training and support they require. The bill
fully funds readiness and depot maintenance programs to ensure that
forces are trained and their equipment deployment ready. This bill
provides $6.7 billion for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle
Fund to protect our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill also
provides full funding for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat
Organization. This is very timely as there have been reports of stepped
up use of Improvised Explosive Devices--IED--in Afghanistan. In light
of the recent missile tests conducted by North Korea, the authorization
to convert six additional Aegis ships for missile defense capabilities
and field additional Terminal High Altitude Air Defense--THAAD--and
Standard Missile 3--SM-3--missile defense capabilities is very timely.
As a long time proponent of corrosion control for DOD systems, I am
happy to note that this bill provides for corrosion protection to keep
equipment working effectively for a longer period of time. This is
especially important in light of our current budget situation. If we
can protect our systems from the detrimental effects of corrosion and
make them last longer, it will save valuable resources.
As stewards of taxpayer dollars, we must ensure that there is
thorough oversight of the Department of Defense's programs and
activities. This bill takes important steps to accomplish this
including, enhancing the ability of the DOD IG to conduct audits by
authorizing the IG to subpoena witnesses; requiring DOD to justify all
sole-source contract awards in excess of $20 million; and improving DOD
financial management by requiring the Department to engage in business
process reengineering before it approves a new business system
modernization program.
One of my priorities as a member of the Senate Armed Services
Committee and chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee is to
ensure our servicemembers and veterans receive the health care services
they need, including treatment for invisible wounds of war such as
post-traumatic stress disorder. I am pleased that this bill

[[Page S8020]]

takes some important steps in caring for our troops. For example, it:
Requires the Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a plan to
increase the number of military and civilian behavioral health
personnel and to consider the feasibility of additional officers and
enlisted specialties as behavioral health counselors; authorizes the
service secretaries to detail up to 25 officers each year as students
to study for doctorate degrees in clinical psychology; requires person-
to-person mental health assessments at designated intervals for
servicemembers deployed in connection with contingency operations;
requires an assessment of case management services for behavioral
health care under TRICARE; authorizes travel and transportation
allowances for up to three individuals to travel with seriously injured
or wounded individuals during their inpatient stay; authorizes
compensation to caregivers for the assistance they provide to
servicemembers with combat-related catastrophic injuries or illnesses
requiring assistance in daily living; and, requires the Department of
Defense to initiate a process of reform and improvement of the TRICARE
system. It extends eligibility for TRICARE Standard to gray area
retirees.
I have also worked to improve the collaboration and cooperation
between the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans
Affairs to help smooth the transition from military to civilian life. I
applaud the inclusion of language in this bill that requires the
Secretary of Defense to report on the exchange of medical data between
the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, an
issue I have worked on with Chairman Levin. In addition, the bill
authorizes the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans
Affairs to jointly operate a Federal Health Care Center to showcase its
ability to work in unison to serve current and former servicemembers.
This bill exemplifies what can be achieved when we put aside our
party differences and work together to support our military. Moreover,
it demonstrates our commitment to provide our troops and their families
with the support that they require and deserve.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Senator Kit Bond and I have worked for many
years together as cochairs of the Senate National Guard Caucus. With
the assistance of Chairman Levin, we were able to enact landmark
legislation in the fiscal year 2008 Defense authorization bill that
among other actions elevated the chief of the National Guard from
three-star general to full general. That so-called National Guard
Empowerment Act was designed to ensure that the Guard has a seat at the
table in major budget and policy decisions.
There were some important lessons learned as the Department of
Defense moved forward with executing the important changes for the
Guard implemented in the fiscal year 2008 Defense bill. One glaring
omission in the reorganization of the Guard Bureau was the absence of a
vice chief.
This evening, Senator Bond and I have again worked closely with
Chairman Levin and the Armed Services Committee to address this
situation. We have proposed and the Senate has adopted an amendment to
create the position of vice chief at the National Guard Bureau. This
position is critical to the National Guard Bureau and will further
improve the day-to-day operations of the National Guard organizing,
training and equipping over 460,000 soldiers, airman and civilian
forces serving in the United States and overseas.
Since the elevation of the chief of the National Guard Bureau to a
full general, the roles and responsibilities of the chief have greatly
expanded. Much as there is a vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, it became apparent that the National Guard chief needs a senior
general officer serving as a vice chief to adequately assist the chief
with the demands of that new elevated role.
In its new capacity as a joint activity, the National Guard bureau
has a greater number of joint and interagency responsibilities assigned
to it. The vice chief will provide essential support to the chief to
execute these responsibilities.
I join with Senator Bond in thanking Chairman Levin, the Armed
Services Committee and all of our Senate colleagues for adopting this
amendment to create a vice chief at the National Guard Bureau. Over the
past 10 years, our nation has called on our Guard forces at home and
abroad like never before. The Senate is again recognizing the role the
Guard serves in our national defense by passing this important
amendment.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, in 2005, the Base Realignment and Closure--
the so-called BRAC--Commission released a final report recommending the
closure of 33 military installations and the realignment of 29 other
bases. While many of us in Congress and communities across the country
fought against these closures, the report was approved in September
2005--an approval that resulted in dozens of cities and towns
nationwide facing a new overwhelming, onerous burden in redeveloping
these shuttered bases. According to the data contained in the 2005
base-closing round, nearly 33,000 civilian jobs will be lost in base
closures and realignments, 6,500 of which are projected to occur at the
Brunswick Naval Air Station, BNAS, in my home State of Maine.
These communities must be equipped with tools--not hamstrung by
obstacles--to recover from such a dramatic event as a base closing. And
so, I rise today to advocate that when this bill goes to conference,
the conferees should retain language included in the House Armed
Services Committee's, HASC, version of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 which would encourage the use of
no-cost economic development conveyances, EDCs, when disposing of
excess military property, in order to assist these communities with the
difficult process of base closures. This language was based on a
provision I originally authored in the Defense Communities Assistance
Act of 2009, which was cosponsored by Senators Pryor, Collins, Cochran,
and Cornyn.
Undeniably, base closures have a devastating impact on local
economies. In the wake of a closure, communities that have invested so
much over the years to integrate servicemembers and their families
invariably confront a sudden and sharp reduction in the number of
townspeople. The children who have gone to their schools leave,
threatening to lower the amount of funding their districts are eligible
for and, in some cases, leading to layoffs of teachers who would no
longer be required. Friends who have attended the same church, banked
at the same financial institutions, and shopped at the same grocery
store are gone. Tax revenues decrease and community programs suffer.
The consequences of these changes are dramatic enough in even the best
of economic times.
No-cost EDCs mitigate this harm by providing land in the hands of
communities faster--and by transferring property at no cost to the
community. By accelerating the transfer process, the Department of
Defense--DOD--will be turning property over to communities faster,
allowing them to redevelop and create jobs more quickly. This approach
benefits everyone involved. The DOD saves both time and money that
would otherwise be spent maintaining these facilities during protracted
negotiations; communities receive the property at no cost to them and
can begin the critical work of economic development and job creation in
less time; the taxpayers spend less because the land does not remain in
Federal ownership for a period of years--even a decade; and economic
redevelopment helps diminish the number of unemployed.
Indeed, in 1999, with the help of the Clinton administration, we
added no-cost EDCs to the DOD's property disposal toolbox. A January
2005 Government Accountability Office, GAO, report indicated that the
change in policy to no-cost EDCs had yielded successful gains. The
report stated that, according to Department of Defense and community
officials, the use of economic development conveyances ``. . . had
gained in popularity with the adoption of the no-cost provision, which,
in addition to saving money for the new user, virtually eliminated the
delays resulting from prolonged negotiations over the fair market value
of the property and accelerated economic development and job
creation.'' In other words, the change in policy garnered the desired
effect. In fact, the rate of property transfer increased nearly 200
percent during the years following the no-cost provision.

[[Page S8021]]

Yet regrettably, in 2001, some in this body added a requirement to
the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act that stipulated that the
Department of Defense, when using an EDC, should seek ``fair market
value'' in return for the land being transferred. In the past four
base-closure rounds, we have had 97 major base closures, along with 235
smaller closures and 55 major realignments, and we never asked for fair
market value. Why we took steps backward to this requirement of ``fair
market value'' when we succeeded in clearing the logjam makes no sense
to me.
It is unfair to now begin placing such a high premium on fair market
value for EDCs after four rounds that have spurred significant savings
to the Department of Defense. Recognizing this problem, I introduced an
amendment in 2005 to the Defense authorization bill that was far more
stringent than the current House language. It would have essentially
required all excess real and personal property to be transferred to
communities at no-cost, with exceptions for national security reasons.
That amendment received 36 votes then--even in its rather rigid form.
In fact, then-Senator Obama voted for my amendment--an amendment that
would have gone much farther in its scope than the language in the HASC
bill.
Earlier this year, to once again stand up for these base communities,
I introduced the Defense Communities Assistance Act of 2009. As I
mentioned before, this vital legislation includes a provision to strike
existing language stating that the DOD shall seek fair market value
when disposing excess military property, and encourage the transfer of
closed military installations to communities quickly by placing the no-
cost economic development conveyance on a level playing field with
other methods of disposal. I am pleased a modified version of my
provision was included in the House Armed Services Committee's bill.
The Senate Armed Services Committee, SASC, meanwhile, has included
language in its version of the DOD authorization bill reiterating the
Department's ability to use a range of property transfer options,
including the no-cost EDC. Regrettably, the Sense of the Senate
language, even as improved by the amendment Senator Pryor and I have
introduced, does not go far enough. That is why, moving forward, I urge
my colleagues to support the House provision in conference.
Redeveloping base properties today and in the near future, our
defense communities must address an economic landscape that is unlike
any other we have witnessed in decades. The unemployment rate stands at
9.5 percent--the highest level in nearly 26 years. The economy shed
467,000 jobs in June alone. More than 14.7 million Americans are
presently without jobs, and 6.5 million payroll jobs have been lost
since the beginning of this recession in December 2007. We are in the
worst economy since the Great Depression, one that contracted 5.5
percent in the first quarter of 2009.
As such, there is much concern--particularly among those communities
enduring impending base closures--that without increased use of no-cost
EDCs, communities will not be able to quickly bring back the jobs that
will be lost and acres upon acres of property will sit fallow, more a
hazard to the community than a benefit. They fear that time-consuming,
costly delays will hamper their effective and meaningful redevelopment
efforts as the DOD attempts to play realtor. As former DOD Deputy Under
Secretary for Installations, Randall Yim, summarized in 1999, ``The No-
Cost EDC authority provides an opportunity for a collaborative
relationship by assisting communities with creating new jobs on the
former installation and relieving the Department of needless caretaker
expenses.'' And that is what the crux of the matter is--working with
communities affected by the closure of a military installation to
mitigate devastating economic consequences, and doing so in a timely
manner that curbs the waste of taxpayer dollars.
I also would like to add that the House Armed Services Committee's
provision would not eliminate the Department's ability to use other
methods of disposal presently available in the toolbox--such as public
auctions, public benefit conveyances, disposal for use by the homeless,
negotiated sales, transfers to other Federal agencies, and leases of
land. Instead, it would put the no-cost EDC on a level playing field
with these other essential disposal mechanisms, so that communities may
begin the urgent process of creating good, high-paying jobs while
simultaneously saving the Defense Department from needless costs and
waste of taxpayer dollars.
The No. 1 complaint I have heard over and over again from communities
with BRAC-closed bases is the time-consuming, lengthy, and inefficient
process with regard to property transfer. The House provision would
take a giant step toward reversing these trends and help get
communities back on their feet faster, particularly during the economic
conditions our Nation presently faces. I hope we would respect the
interests of the community that is directly affected. After all, they
are the ones who are disproportionately bearing the costs of the base
closure.
In closing, I want to again cite Secretary Yim, who, in reference to
the job losses facing communities with base closures, eloquently wrote
that, ``. . . these jobs were an economic engine . . . of enormous
power for these communities, and these communities contributed in many
ways to our mission, from building roads, schools, utility systems, to
making educational and business and consumer and recreational
opportunities readily available for our military. Some communities even
went so far as to give us the property for free. We have an obligation
to help mitigate the impacts caused by our base closure decisions.'' He
continued by saying that, ``We view it as an investment, not a give-
away, and a continuation of the tradition of taking care of our people
before, during, and after our time of need.'' And, frankly, isn't that
how we should view our defense communities that have time and again
sacrificed so much for the good of the Nation? I certainly believe it
is.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I wish to speak in support of
the Levin-McCain amendment, Senate amendment No. 1469, to the 2010
National Defense Authorization Act. Ending production of the F-22 and
support for the Levin-McCain amendment reflects the best judgment of
the President, Secretary of Defense Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff Mullen, the unanimous Joint Staff including the Chief of Staff
of the Air Force Schwartz and Secretary of Air Force Donley. These
individuals have carefully considered and weighed the current and
likely threats to the nation. They have considered the Nation's
national security priorities, policies, and budget, including the
defense budget, and have reached the unanimous conclusion to end
production at 187 aircraft.
On July 16, Secretary Gates said in Chicago that ``the grim reality
is that with regard to the defense budget, we have entered a zero-sum
game. Every defense dollar devoted to--diverted to fund excess or
unneeded capacity, whether for more F-22s or anything else, is a dollar
that will be unavailable to take care of our people, to win the wars we
are in, to deter potential adversaries, and to improve capabilities in
areas where America is underinvested and potentially vulnerable. That
is a risk I cannot accept and one that I will not take.''
I agree with Secretary Gates; therefore, I voted to strike the $1.75
billion to fund just seven more F-22 aircraft--not even a full
squadron.
Not only do I support the administration's budget request in this
regard, but I also support the excellent work of the Armed Services
Committee. Under the leadership of Chairman Levin and Senator McCain,
the committee funded the urgent research and development priorities of
the Air Force's Joint Strike Fighter Program; the high but unfunded
priorities of the Navy; and the all-important operations and
maintenance needs of the Army. As Secretary Gates said, ``we have
entered a zero-sum game'' and every defense dollar counts.
If the $1.75 billion F-22 funding stayed in the bill it would cut
$850 million from operations and maintenance--O&M--accounts--this is
money that would be used to perform depot maintenance on our Navy
aircraft and ships at Navy and industry locations

[[Page S8022]]

around the country including facilities located in Jacksonville, FL.
The Chief of Naval Operations identified these funding priorities in
the fiscal year 2010 unfunded programs list, UPL. Mr. President, I will
ask to have printed in the Record the Chief of Naval Operations and the
Navy's UPL. If we authorize and fund continued procurement of F-22,
then these critical shortages will not be addressed.
Other accounts reduced to pay for the $1.75 billion unwanted F-22
procurement include funding for aircraft maintenance for the Air Force
and mission support and training activities for Special Operations
Command. Furthermore, $400 million would be cut from military personnel
accounts. Reductions in military personnel funding will affect unit
readiness by hindering the Services' ability to meet manning goals for
end strength and operational units prior to deployment.
It has indeed become a zero-sum game; thus, I support the effort of
Chairman Levin and Senator McCain to restore funding for these vital
accounts for readiness, support, and personnel. I support the military
and professional judgments of the President, the Secretary of Defense,
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Joint Staff to end
the F-22 program at 187 aircraft.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the Chief of Naval Operations and the Navy's UPL to which I referred.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Department of the Navy,

Chief of Naval Operations,

Washington, DC, May 19, 2009.
Hon. John M. McHugh,
Ranking Member, Committee on Armed Services, House of
Representatives, Washington. DC.
Dear Mr. McHugh; Thank you for your letter of April 21.
2009. concerning the Navy's Fiscal Year 2010 Unfunded
Programs. Our unfunded list includes both aviation and ship
depot maintenance actions totaling $395M. A brief summary of
details are provided on the enclosed list. Nothing in these
Unfunded Requirements is of a higher priority than anything
contained in Navy's Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Submissions.
Thank your for your Committee's interest in addressing the
Navy's needs. If I may be of further assistance. please let
me know.
Sincerely.
G. Roughead,
Admiral, U.S. Navy.
Enclosure: 1. Fiscal Year 2010 Unfunded Programs List.

FY 10 UNFUNDED PROGRAMS LIST
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title (program/issue) FY10 Justification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aviation Depot Maintenance........... $195M Program funded 87% of
goal. Accepted risk to
goal in order to
balance across
portfolio. Funds 86
deferred airframes/314
deferred engines.
Ship Depot Maintenance............... 200M Program funded 96% of
goal. Accepted risk to
goal in order to
balance across
portfolio. Funds 20
surface ship
availabilities.
Total Unfunded Programs List:.... 395M ........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the
Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act. Let me begin by
thanking the committee's distinguished chairman, Senator Levin, and
ranking member, Senator McCain, for their leadership in crafting this
bill and for their strong commitment to our Nation's Armed Forces.
This legislation will provide essential training, equipment, and
support to our troops as they engage in combat overseas and in
exercises at home. The legislation will provide critical force
protection to our men and women in uniform; help restore our military's
readiness; and continue the development of technologies to counter
existing and emerging threats. This is a critical time in our nation's
history and the committee has, once again, demonstrated its strong
support of our soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines and their
families.
It also offers an important opportunity for continued debate as to
our Nation's strategy in Afghanistan. The legislation we are now
debating contains an amendment that Senator Ben Nelson and I offered
during committee markup to express the sense of Congress that the
administration should review any previously established measures of
progress and establish further measures of progress for both
Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Our proposal was approved unanimously by the Senate Armed Services
Committee. It represents a significant bipartisan call for the
administration to establish clearly defined policy objectives for
Afghanistan as our nation sends more troops and billions of additional
dollars to the region.
Time and again, I have expressed serious reservations about sending
more troops to Afghanistan without clear, specific benchmarks. The
President needs to provide clear, measurable goals for Afghanistan and
the region. I have raised my concerns with top Pentagon officials,
including Commander of U.S. Central Command General David Petreaus and
Commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal
about the risks in sending additional troops to Afghanistan. I have no
doubts at all about the courage and skill of our men and women in
uniform. They are simply the best in the world. I have considerable
doubts about whether the President's strategy can succeed.
The legislation before us also includes a strong commitment to
strengthening Navy shipbuilding. A robust Navy budget is of critical
importance. Our nation needs a strong and modern naval fleet in order
to counter existing and emerging threats.
For several years, military leaders have documented a minimum
national requirement for 313 ships to support our Navy and Marine
Corps. Unfortunately, however, the Navy's fleet has declined to 283
ships. I am deeply concerned by the decreasing size of the Navy fleet
and have worked to increase the funding allocated to shipbuilding. This
legislation is an important step toward reversing that troubling
decline.
As the threats from around the world continue to grow, it is vitally
important that the Navy have the best fleet available to counter those
threats, keep the sealanes open, and to defend our Nation. Bath Iron
Works and the shipyards of this country are ready to build whatever
ships the Navy needs. It is vitally important that there not be a gap
in shipbuilding that jeopardizes our industrial base. That is what this
legislation works to accomplish.
The instability and inadequacy of previous naval shipbuilding budgets
have had a troubling impact on our shipbuilding industrial base and has
contributed to significant cost growth in the Navy's shipbuilding
programs. The 313-ship plan, combined with more robust funding by
Congress, will begin to reverse the decline in Navy shipbuilding.
This bill authorizes $1 billion in funding for construction of the
third DDG-1000 and honors the agreement the Navy negotiated to build
all three ships at Bath Iron Works, BIW. The Pentagon's preference to
have BIW build all three of the DDG-1000s demonstrates confidence in
BIW, should ensure stable work for the shipyard, and should also help
to stabilize production costs for the Navy.
That same confidence was also demonstrated this May when Defense
Secretary Robert Gates toured BIW, the first official tour of our
shipyard by a Defense Secretary since the 1950s. Secretary Gates said
that what impressed him most during his tour was BIW's ability to
innovate and the pride and professionalism of its workforce. Maine has
a long and proud history of innovation and creativity, and BIW
represents Maine ingenuity at its best. Secretary Gates's statement
that the men and women of BIW will have consistent work for years into
the future was a very welcome acknowledgement of the yard's
accomplishments.
In addition, this legislation authorizes $2.2 billion for continued
DDG-51 procurement and nearly $150 million for the DDG-51 modernization
program.
Our bill also includes a provision that repeals a requirement enacted
in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 that
would require all future surface combatants to have nuclear propulsion
systems. The provision allows the Navy to conduct analyses of
requirements capabilities for new ship classes without biasing the
analyses in favor of one propulsion option or another. Continuing this
requirement would dramatically increase the costs of large surface
combatants, reduce the overall number of ships that could be built at a
time when the Navy is seeking to revitalize and modernize its fleet,
and would undermine the Chief of Naval Operations 313-ship plan.
Our Senate bill also includes funding for additional littoral combat
ships.

[[Page S8023]]

While this program has suffered a number of setbacks, the Navy, with
the help of Congress, has taken significant steps in order to better
oversee this program. These ships are important for the Navy in order
to counter new, asymmetric threats, and the Navy needs to get these
ships to the fleet soon.
The Senate's fiscal 2010 Defense authorization bill also includes
funding for other defense-related projects that benefit Maine and our
national security.
The bill authorizes $28 million for a new aircraft hangar at the
Bangor Air National Guard base in Bangor, ME. This new hangar is
essential for the Maine Air National Guard and will replace the 55-
year-old building the guard now uses. With the construction of a new
hangar, the Maine Air Guard will be able to better maintain its
aircraft.
The bill also authorizes $7.1 million for Portsmouth Naval Shipyard
to be used for security improvements at Gate No. 2. The money will be
used to install new antiterrorism and protection measures at the guard
house that will improve security.
Funding also is provided for machine guns and grenade launchers, both
of which are manufactured by the highly skilled workers at Saco Defense
in Saco, ME.
In addition, the legislation authorizes $10.5 million for the
University of Maine. This funding would support continued research and
development of light weight modular ballistic tent insert panels
designed by the University of Maine's Army Center of Excellence in
Orono. These panels provide crucial protection to servicemembers in
temporary dining and housing facilities in mobile forward operating
bases in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The funding would also support continued research and development of
high temperature sensors for health monitoring of aerospace components.
These sensors are capable of sensing physical properties such as
temperature, pressure, corrosion and vibration in critical aerospace
components.
And, the bill would also support continued research and development
of cellulose nanocomposites panels for enhanced blast and ballistic
protection as well as provide for woody biomass conversion to JP-8
Fuel.
Finally, I am pleased that this bipartisan Defense bill also
authorizes a 3.4- percent across-the-board pay increase for
servicemembers, half a percent above the President's budget request.
This bill provides the vital resources to our troops and our nation
and recognizes the enormous contributions made by the State of Maine to
our national security. The bill provides the necessary funding for our
troops, and I offer it my full support.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no further
amendments be in order other than the pending amendments; that upon
disposition of the pending amendments and managers' amendments as noted
below, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate then proceed to
vote on passage of S. 1390, as amended; further, that upon passage of
S. 1390, it be in order, en bloc, for the Senate to consider the
following Calendar items: 90, 91, and 92; that all after the enacting
clause of each bill be stricken and the following divisions of S. 1390,
as passed by the Senate, be inserted as follows: Division A, S. 1391;
Division B, S. 1392; Division C, S. 1393; that these bill be read a
third time, passed, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the
table, en bloc; further, that the consideration of these items appear
separately in the Record; further, that the Senate then proceed to the
consideration of Calendar No. 96, H.R. 2647, the House companion; that
all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 1390, as
amended, and passed by the Senate be inserted in lieu thereof, the bill
be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon
the table; that upon passage of H.R. 2647, as amended, 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 Armed Services
Committee appointed as conferees; that notwithstanding passage of S.
1390, it still be in order for managers' amendments to be considered
and agreed to if they have been agreed upon by the managers and the
leaders; and that no points of order be considered waived by virtue of
this agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we will be in session tomorrow. We have some
work to do. There will be no votes tomorrow. We received permission
from everyone to move to the Energy and Water appropriations bill. We
will do that sometime late Monday afternoon. We have to make sure the
managers are available.
We have accomplished a great deal with this massive bill that is now
before this body. We had a few rocky roads to begin with--hate crimes
and gun legislation--but we were able to arrive at this point with the
skill of the two managers, frankly. I appreciate very much Senator
Levin and Senator McCain for their brilliant work on this bill. We have
2 weeks after we come back. We have two appropriations bill to do. We
have the Supreme Court nomination. We have to make sure we take action
so the highway fund doesn't go dry. We have some FHA stuff that is
important. We have some unemployment stuff. It appears at this time the
House is going to send us a single package for that. We have travel
promotion. All of these things I have spoken about in some detail with
the Republican leader. Now that we have a pathway forward, I think we
can have a very productive work period.
The Finance Committee is still working on a markup as it relates to
health care, but that is a different issue, and I don't think we need
to involve that tonight.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

Amendment No. 1657, as Further Modified

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No.
1657, Senator Sessions amendment, be further modified and that we agree
to it by voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is further
modified.
The amendment (No. 1657), as further modified, is as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. NO MIRANDA WARNINGS FOR AL QAEDA TERRORISTS.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
1657, as further modified.
Without objection, the amendment, as further modified, is agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

[[Page S8024]]

There is a sufficient second.
The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the
bill pass?
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Byrd), the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski),
and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Utah (Mr. Bennett).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 87, nays 7, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 242 Leg.]

YEAS--87

Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden

NAYS--7

Barrasso
Coburn
DeMint
Enzi
Feingold
Sanders
Vitter

NOT VOTING--6

Bennett
Byrd
Feinstein
Kennedy
Mikulski
Rockefeller
The bill (S. 1390), as amended, was passed.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider that vote.
Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion upon the table.
The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, S. 1390, as amended,
is inserted in lieu of the language of H.R. 2647.
Without objection, the bill is considered read the third time and the
bill is passed, as amended.
The bill (H.R. 2647), as amended, was passed.
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)

____________________