[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 140 (Thursday, October 1, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10009-S10054]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 3326, which the clerk will 
report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3326) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Defense for fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for 
     other purposes.

  Pending:

       McCain amendment No. 2575, to provide for testimony before 
     Congress on the additional forces and resources required to 
     meet United States objectives with respect to Afghanistan and 
     Pakistan.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I believe that the McCain amendment is 
the pending amendment. We will be offering or suggesting that a 
unanimous consent agreement be entered into where an amendment of mine 
could be voted upon side by side with the amendment, with the vote on 
mine occurring first, under the traditions of the Senate. We are trying 
to see if we can enter into a time agreement.
  I believe our staff is working on a unanimous consent agreement that 
would allow for that to happen pending the offering and acceptance of 
that, hopefully.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, may I say through the Chair to my 
friend, the distinguished chairman, I understand there will be side-by-
side amendments. I would be glad to enter into a time agreement that is 
agreeable to the chairman, and not an extended length of time--it is 
not a complicated issue--and then votes on both side-by-sides. I hope 
we could announce that agreement shortly, and I thank the chairman for 
his courtesy.
  We are discussing now two amendments, as I understand it, and both of 
them call for testimony before Congress on meeting the United States 
objectives on Afghanistan and Pakistan. Many of us have been very 
concerned about the fact that we have not heard from General McChrystal 
and General Petraeus on this issue of our strategic policy in 
Afghanistan, and of course most importantly the disposition or 
dispatch, I might say, of American troops, and increasing American 
troops to Afghanistan to implement the strategy that, according to 
Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was agreed 
upon last March.
  I must say, without mentioning any classified information, the 
briefing that I attended yesterday with General Jones doesn't seem to 
corroborate that statement by Admiral Mullen. But the point is we need 
to hear from the architects and the commanders.
  If the President does not want to talk to the commander in the field, 
General McChrystal very often--in fact, it was reported in a ``60 
Minutes'' interview that he gave he said he had spoken to the President 
once in 70 days, although the President talks to labor leaders almost 
on a daily basis pushing his health care agenda--the fact is we as 
Members of Congress, a coequal branch of government, also have a 
responsibility in this decisionmaking process.
  I respect the President's role as Commander in Chief. I respect the 
President of the United States making a decision. But I also cherish 
the role of the Senate and House of Representatives in being informed 
as to the views of our military commanders in whom we place the 
responsibility for the lives of our young men and women who are in 
harm's way.
  All we are seeking with this amendment is a date certain, not 
immediately--the date for this requirement of testimony by General 
McChrystal, General Petreaus, General Stavridis and perhaps others if 
necessary--by November 15. That is a month and a half from now. Should 
not we hear a month and a half from now, within a month and a half, as 
to what we are considering? I hope the decision would be made clear.
  Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, in testimony said:

       The President has given us a clear mission: disrupt, 
     dismantle and defeat al Qaida . . .

  But the President, in March, said of the situation--the President of 
the United States said the situation there was ``increasingly perilous 
and that the future of this troubled nation is inextricably linked to 
the future of its neighbor Pakistan.'' He also called it a ``war of 
necessity,'' and declared ``America must no longer deny resources to 
Afghanistan.''
  Obviously I agree with him. Time after time I have made my commitment 
of willingness and desire to work with him. But it is very difficult 
for members of the Armed Services Committee and Members of the Senate 
to work with him if we are not informed by the uniformed commanders in 
the field. Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
emphasized in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, 
time is not on our side. There are already somewhere between 62,000 and 
68,000 American troops in the field in danger. Tragically, casualties 
have gone up. We have a responsibility also. We have a responsibility 
to hear from our commanders in the field.
  Let me point out, General McChrystal was on ``60 Minutes'' talking 
about what we needed to do in Afghanistan. General McChrystal gave a 
speech in London just yesterday talking about what we needed to do. So 
it is OK with the administration for General McChrystal to go on ``60 
Minutes.'' It is OK for him to give a speech at the Institute for 
Strategic Studies in London. But the administration does not want 
General McChrystal and General Petreaus before the Senate Armed 
Services Committee. How does that work?
  I hope my colleagues will vote for my amendment, which calls for the 
same, basically, testimony by the commander of the United States 
Central Command, commander of the United States European Command, and 
Supreme Allied Commander--Europe, Commander of the United States 
Forces--Afghanistan, and of course we would like to hear from the 
United States Ambassador to Afghanistan, Ambassador Eikenberry.
  This is pretty clear. This is a very clear decision we have to make. 
We are asking that within a month and a half from now these individuals 
appear before the respective committees and testify as to what they 
believe the best strategy is to be employed in order to achieve 
victory. Why should not the Senate and the Congress and the people of 
the United States hear, directly in testimony before the Congress, what 
they believe is the best way to ensure victory in Afghanistan?
  I understand the debate that is going on within the White House and 
the deliberations that the President is undertaking as he considers the 
most heavy responsibility that any President has, and that is to send 
our young men and women into harm's way. I have some sympathy. But I 
would point out there are already close to 68,000 young Americans 
there, and casualties are going up.
  According to Admiral Mullen, according to every expert, the situation 
is deteriorating in Afghanistan, so this should not and must not be a 
leisurely exercise. Decisions have to be made and we--I speak for 
myself and I am sure all of my colleagues--we want to be part of that 
decisionmaking. We do not want to make that decision because that is 
the responsibility of the President of the United States, but it

[[Page S10010]]

is also the responsibility of the Congress of the United States to 
appropriate the money for it.
  When a President lost the confidence of the American people and the 
Congress of the United States in a war long ago and far away, the 
Congress of the United States did cut off the funding for further 
assistance in Vietnam.
  I hope the Senate will act in a positive fashion and act on what I 
think is a reasonable request, that within a month and a half we could 
have the testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
  I remind my colleagues, the chairman of the House Armed Services 
Committee, the distinguished Congressman Ike Skelton, and the ranking 
member of the House Armed Services Committee, also want this testimony 
to take place. The majority leader of the House of Representatives, 
Congressman Hoyer, has also called for testimony before the Congress of 
the United States. Why the administration should be reluctant to send 
these people before us so we can, in any way we can find possible, 
support the President of the United States as he makes these tough 
decisions--which we cannot do unless we are informed of the opinion of 
those we are sending to command and lead in battle--then it is 
difficult for us to show our support for the President in the form of 
appropriations bills and authorizations as to what is needed without 
hearing from the commanders in the field.
  There will be discussion about General Petreaus's testimony before 
the Congress of the United States. I remind my colleagues the decision 
was made by the President on the surge very rapidly; that the decision 
was made and General Petraeus was called before what--appeared before 
the Senate Armed Services Committee to give the reasons for that. I 
think it is very important. It is very important that the man the 
President of the United States fired, the previous commander--let's be 
clear, fired the previous commander because he had confidence in 
General McChrystal--that we should also be allowed the ability to hear 
about his vision and his strategy that would bring about a successful 
conclusion of a long, tragic, hard involvement in Afghanistan.
  I hope we can have the same luxury that the Institute for Strategic 
Studies in London received with General McChrystal giving a speech 
there and answering questions; that we would have the same courtesy 
that ``60 Minutes,'' the producers and commentators on ``60 Minutes'' 
just received. I hope the Senate would receive that same ability to 
directly question General McChrystal, General Petreaus, and others.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan is 
recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I don't know if the unanimous consent 
agreement has been cleared yet, so I will proceed to debate both the 
McCain amendment but also the amendment I will be offering as though it 
is currently pending, because I do expect both amendments will be voted 
on at the same time.
  First, to comment on the two statements that were just made by 
Senator McCain, one has to do with when did General Petraeus testify 
relative to the Iraq surge. This is a very critical point because 
indeed General Petreaus did testify relative to the Iraq surge, but he 
only testified after the decision was made relative to that surge by 
the President of the United States. The person who was the commander in 
Iraq at that time, while the deliberative process was underway in the 
White House as to whether a surge should take place, did not testify 
and was not asked to testify. There was no pressure placed on the 
President of the United States during those 3 months when he was 
deliberating on whether to surge troops into Iraq, to have his Iraq 
commander come up here and testify right in the middle of that 
deliberative process. There was no resolution, there was no request, 
there was no pressure being placed on the Bush White House to have his 
commander, who was then General Casey in Iraq, to come up and testify 
about whether additional troops should be sent to Iraq.
  I have no doubt as to what the response would have been by President 
Bush and his folks: We are in the middle of a deliberative process--
which took about 3 months. Secretary Gates has testified to this. He 
has spoken about this 3-month deliberative process and we have gone 
back and checked. It was about a 3-month deliberative process that the 
President then was engaged in.
  The first thing that happened was that President Bush announced this 
surge on January 10, 2007. Then and only then did Secretary Gates and 
General Pace, who was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, testify before 
the Armed Services Committee. And then and only then did General 
Petreaus testify before the committee on January 23. The commander in 
Iraq during those critical months--September, October, November, 
December of 2006--was General Casey.
  I think history records that he, as a matter of fact, opposed 
additional troops to go in to Iraq. But there was no effort made here 
to get General Casey to come before us and to testify as to why he was 
opposed to putting troops into Iraq at the same time that President 
Bush was considering whether to adopt a policy which would send 
additional troops into Iraq. We did not do that and we didn't do it for 
a good reason. We didn't think it was appropriate.
  So my first comment has to do with whether the kind of policy that we 
adopted relative to the President of the United States when President 
Bush was President, and undergoing the same kind of deliberative 
process as to whether additional troops should be sent into a country--
very similar to what President Obama is undergoing right now--whether 
the commander there now should be put in a position which we did not 
put General Casey in? We know what the response of the Bush White House 
would have been. There was no doubt as to what the response would be. 
While the President of the United States is thinking through whether to 
surge troops into Iraq, his commanding general, General Casey, was not 
called before us. We did not have resolutions here saying call General 
Casey in. Those of us who opposed additional troops going into Iraq 
probably had an ally in General Casey, as history has written; in 
opposition to sending in additional troops.
  But there was no effort to put pressure on President Bush by having 
his commander in the field come before us at a public hearing and say 
he was opposed to the very thing the President of the United States was 
considering.
  The commander, General Casey, was not put in that position. No 
commander should be put in that position while the President is hearing 
from the commander as part of a deliberative process on the very 
critical issue of whether to send troops in.
  So a request was made of me by a number of my colleagues to have a 
hearing at which General McChrystal would be called. My answer was: We 
should not do that at this time. There will be an appropriate time. 
There will be an appropriate time.
  The appropriate time is the same time General Petraeus was called in 
and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was called in, which was after the 
decision and not in the middle of that deliberative process.
  So the White House is now undertaking a rigorous review of General 
McChrystal's assessment of the situation and approach in Afghanistan. 
By the way, before I go any further on this, I read the transcript of 
General McChrystal on ``60 Minutes.'' I have not seen the speech in 
London that my good friend, Senator McCain, made reference to, but I 
have read the ``60 Minutes'' transcript. There was no effort to obtain 
from General McChrystal what his advice was relative to the resource 
question, the troops question, which lies before the President.
  I know what his response would have been had he been asked, which is, 
that is between him and the President. But the very purpose of the 
hearing which is the subject of the McCain amendment, the very purpose, 
is a hearing on the resources needed or recommended for Afghanistan. 
That is the very subject which is now under consideration by the 
President of the United States.
  So we have now a President, with his security team, including General 
McChrystal, who I understand was on a TV monitor yesterday with his 
responses--we have a President of the United States undertaking a 
rigorous

[[Page S10011]]

review of General McChrystal's assessment. We have the assessment 
relative to the situation in Afghanistan that has already been provided 
and has now been made public.
  What is now under consideration is whether there ought to be a change 
in strategy from the March strategy, given the problems that have 
occurred in Afghanistan since the election, and given the other changes 
that have taken place, including in neighboring Pakistan, which has an 
effect on Afghanistan.
  According to General McChrystal himself, a policy debate is 
warranted. What he has said over and over again in his assessment is: 
Debate strategy before you debate resources. He said: Resources are 
going to be needed whatever the strategy is. That is General 
McChrystal's statement: There will be needed resources.
  General McChrystal: ``Additional resources are required.'' This is 
his assessment. But it is the second half of his sentence which is 
ignored too often, particularly in the media. After he said additional 
resources are required, without specifying what they are, that is left 
to this document which is now in the hands of the President, he said:

       Additional resources are required. But focusing on force or 
     resource requirements misses the point entirely. The key 
     takeaway--

  He said from his assessment, these are his words--

     is the urgent need for a significant change to our strategy 
     and the way that we think and operate.

  Yet it is a hearing on resources that could come in the middle of a 
deliberative process. We are not sure whether by November 15 that 
deliberative process will be completed. I have every reason to believe 
it will be by November 15, but we do not know. So the McCain amendment 
has an arbitrary date, whether this deliberative process is completed 
by November 15 or not under this resolution--and I will be offering an 
alternative to this. Under this McCain resolution, he must come before 
appropriate committees before November 15.
  That is an arbitrary date, whether the deliberative process of the 
President of the United States is completed or not. But it is on the 
very subject, on the very subject that is now under consideration by 
the President. That subject is resources, troops. But listen to what 
General McChrystal says. He said: Yes, there are going to be resources 
needed--without specifying what they are.
  As far as we know, he has not, at least in the assessment that is 
unclassified. But then he says:

       New resources are not the crux. To succeed, ISAF requires a 
     new approach with a significant magnitude of change, in 
     addition to a proper level of resource.

  So it is not the crux. He says strategy is the crux. But the McCain 
amendment says: We want to hear from McChrystal by a specific date, 
whether there has been a decision on the crux of the matter or not, 
which is the strategy. That is not me talking, that is General 
McChrystal who is saying: The crux of the matter is the strategy.
  So now we have the White House--by the way, I am happy to interrupt 
my comments at any time if there is a unanimous consent agreement that 
has been reached. So if either the ranking member or Senator McCain 
knows whether we are in a situation--I would tell you so everybody can 
know what the proceedings are here, that at any time there is a 
unanimous consent agreement that can be offered, I would be happy to 
interrupt.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to respond to my colleague on 
that issue.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I would say to my colleague, we are asking if there are 
any other speakers. We should know that in a few more minutes. Then we 
would agree to a time agreement.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend.
  So now General McChrystal himself talks about the value of a policy 
debate. Here is what he said in the article in the New York Times: He 
welcomes alternative proposals for how to stabilize Afghanistan and 
Pakistan. Then he says: ``This is the right kind of process.'' He says: 
``I have been given the opportunity to provide my input to the 
decision.''
  So we have this internal deliberation going on in the White House, 
which I think we would all agree is a matter of supreme importance; 
that is, whether we put troops in harm's way, and how many, what is the 
strategy they are following, what is their mission. That is the most 
important decision I believe a President of the United States can make. 
It should be a deliberative decision. It is going to be a deliberative 
decision. This President has made it clear.
  There was a March strategy, but there are a number of things that 
have changed since March, including an election where there are 
significant allegations of fraud. When such an election takes place, 
that lowers the support of the people of Afghanistan for a strategy 
which involves them. They must succeed. It is the people of Afghanistan 
who have to succeed. It is the Army of Afghanistan that has to succeed. 
It is the police in Afghanistan. It is the civil administration which 
must succeed in Afghanistan.
  If there is this question about an election which then might impact 
the support of the people for the very policies in Afghanistan, the 
institutions that need to be fought for, that could change things. 
There are events in Pakistan. The Pakistani Government is doing a lot 
better relative to some of the threats they face. That can make a 
change. But the President of the United States is committed to 
reviewing what has happened since March, to see whether that strategy 
still applies or whether he wishes to change that strategy. It is a 
debate General McChrystal himself has said is warranted. There are a 
number of differences between the amendment which I am going to be 
offering and the pending amendment of Senator McCain.
  Madam President, I think we now have a unanimous consent agreement 
which has been cleared. I ask unanimous consent that amendment numbers 
2593, which is the Levin amendment, and 2575, which is the McCain 
amendment, be debated concurrently for a period of 30 minutes, with the 
time equally divided and controlled between Senators Levin and McCain 
or their designees; that no amendments be in order to either amendment 
prior to a vote in relation thereto; that the vote sequence be as the 
amendments are listed above; further, that once this agreement is 
entered, Senator Levin be recognized to call up amendment 2593; and 
that prior to the second vote in the sequence, there be 2 minutes, 
equally divided and controlled, prior to each vote, with the second 
vote 10 minutes in duration; and that the votes in relation to the 
amendments be at 2 p.m. today; provided further that following this 
debate, the amendments be set aside until 2 p.m.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I 
ask the distinguished chairman, does that mean 30 minutes from now, 
equally divided, or the time that has already been consumed?
  Mr. LEVIN. I understand it means from now.
  Mr. McCAIN. From now. I do not object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2593

  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from Arizona. I now call up amendment 
No. 2593.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2593.

  Mr. LEVIN. 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:


                           Amendment No. 2593

  (Purpose: Relating to hearings on the strategy and resources of the 
        United States with respect to Afghanistan and Pakistan)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Hearings on Strategy and Resources With 
     Respect to Afghanistan and Pakistan.--Appropriate committees 
     of Congress shall hold hearings, in open and closed session, 
     relating to the strategy and resources of the United States 
     with respect

[[Page S10012]]

     to Afghanistan and Pakistan promptly after the decision by 
     the President on those matters is announced.
       (b) Testimony.--The hearings described in subsection (a) 
     should include testimony from senior civilian and military 
     officials of the United States, including, but not limited 
     to, the following:
       (1) The Secretary of Defense.
       (2) The Secretary of State
       (3) The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
       (4) The Commander of the United States Central Command.
       (5) The Commander of the United States European Command and 
     Supreme Allied Commander, Europe.
       (6) The Commander of United States Forces-Afghanistan.
       (7) The United States Ambassador to Afghanistan.
       (8) The United States Ambassador to Pakistan.

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I believe that the Congressional 
hearings, which are appropriate, should now be handled in the same way 
as was done when President Bush was deliberating on a surge strategy 
for Iraq. That is when the President has received his recommendations 
and has made a decision.
  We will, at that point, properly have administration officials come 
up to Congress, explain the President's decision. We will hear from our 
military chain of command at that time, including General McChrystal 
but not limited to General McChrystal. We have a Secretary of Defense 
whom we need to hear from. We have a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff whom we need to hear from, as well as our CENTCOM commander and 
our Afghanistan commander.
  First, we need to be clear on our strategy. I yield myself 5 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. We need to be clear on our strategy first, then address 
the question of the resources that are needed to be committed to that 
strategy.
  Under the amendment which I am offering, which will be voted on 
concurrently, or at the same time as the McCain amendment, we are going 
to have, if this amendment is adopted, a hearing not just on resources 
but on strategy and resources.
  We are going to have that hearing, if this amendment is adopted, at 
the appropriate time, not with an arbitrary deadline, which sets a very 
bad premise. I believe in this circumstance, similar to the Bush Iraq 
surge circumstance, where the President of the United States, be it 
President Bush or President Obama, has before him and is considering, 
in a very deliberative way, this kind of a life-and-death decision.
  Under the Levin amendment, there will be a hearing without an 
arbitrary deadline, but the hearing will take place and could take 
place long before November 15. The hearing under my amendment will take 
place promptly after the decision is made by the President.
  There is another difference between the two amendments. In addition 
to the Levin amendment including a hearing on strategy as well as 
resources, again, General McChrystal says the strategy is the crux of 
the matter, not just resources. So under the Levin amendment, the 
hearing will look at both the decision on strategy as well as on 
resources.

  Secondly, under the Levin amendment, the testimony will come after 
the decision of President Obama, just the way we had hearings after the 
decision by President Bush.
  Third, the hearings will include testimony not only from the Central 
Command commander and from General McChrystal, our Afghanistan 
commander, and the Ambassador to Afghanistan, under the Levin amendment 
the hearing will also take testimony from senior civilian officials and 
military officials not included in the McCain amendment, including the 
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, and the Ambassador to Pakistan. That is the third 
difference between the two amendments which we will be voting on at 2 
o'clock.
  Finally, in addition to outlining those three critical differences 
between the two amendments, I want to read from a letter received 
yesterday--or this morning from Secretary Gates by the majority leader.

       I am writing in response to your request for an update on 
     the . . . strategy and resource assessments prepared by 
     General Stanley McChrystal.

  He goes through a number of paragraphs describing pretty much what we 
all know, including that General McChrystal's initial assessment, which 
has been available to us, ``will serve as the prime focus'' of the 
review the President has undertaken, ``although other options and 
perspectives will also be included.'' So in addition to General 
McChrystal's initial assessment, he will also be looking at other 
options and considering other perspectives.
  Then Secretary Gates says the following in this letter to the 
majority leader:

       The decisions that the President faces may be some of the 
     most important on Afghanistan in his presidency, so it 
     behooves us to take the necessary time to make sure we get 
     this right. That said, there are a number of internal 
     meetings scheduled over the next few weeks on this topic. I 
     do not expect decisions on the overall strategy--or the 
     resources necessary to carry it out--to take an extended 
     period of time.

  He concludes as follows:

       Until the President makes his decision on the way forward 
     in Afghanistan, it would be inappropriate for me--or our 
     military commanders--to openly discuss the advice being 
     provided or the nature of the discussions being carried out 
     with the President. However, once the President acts, I will 
     be happy to testify before the appropriate committees of the 
     Congress and to facilitate similar testimony by commanders 
     and other senior Department leaders.

  I believe that is the right approach. It is the approach we took when 
President Bush was considering for 3 months whether to surge troops in 
Iraq. We did not try to bring his Iraq commander before the Congress 
for public hearings, a commander who history has indicated--at least it 
was fairly clear at the time--had a very different perspective than his 
Commander in Chief. We did not put him in that position. We didn't do 
that to the President of the United States, to have his commander in 
the field come before us and say what his opinions were that he was 
giving to the President at that time. We should not do that now.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). Who yields time?
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to point out what Admiral 
Mullen at the Joint Chiefs of Staff said: Time is not on our side. We 
cannot afford to leisurely address this issue. I believe the Congress 
needs to be involved. The Commander in Chief is the Commander in Chief. 
But the Congress has a role to play because only the Congress can 
provide needed funding and develop other policies as regards the 
responsibility we all have when our government decides to send young 
Americans into harm's way.
  I have watched a lot of decisions being made in my time. I have 
agreed with some and disagreed with others. One of the earliest 
decisions I was involved in was many years ago when Ronald Reagan 
decided to send marines to Beirut. At the time, I thought the mission 
was not sufficiently resourced and I thought it would unnecessarily put 
young marines in harm's way. I objected; I spoke against it. 
Unfortunately, I was correct.
  History does have a tendency to repeat itself. The fact is, unless 
this effort in Afghanistan is properly resourced, as recommended by 
General McChrystal, as recommended by Admiral Mullen and supported by 
history, we are doomed to failure. To think that a month and a half 
would elapse before that decision was made, because the strategy was 
decided on last March, and then to go through a bizarre sequence of 
events--I have never seen anything like it. First, General McChrystal 
was told not to send his troop request to Washington while these 
discussions were going on. After that was revealed to be the farce it 
was, now the Secretary of Defense is not going to forward the troop 
request to the White House as they make decisions on the number of 
troops needed. How does that work?
  Let's get this straight. The Secretary of Defense has said he is not 
sending over the number of troops requested by General McChrystal, 
which is known to everyone as 30,000 to 40,000 troops. Apparently, it 
will be known to everyone except the President, who is supposed to make 
the decision. We have legitimate questions about a process such as that 
to start with. No Commander in Chief can make a decision about how to 
conduct a conflict unless that Commander in Chief knows what resources

[[Page S10013]]

are required. Without having the recommendation for the number of 
troops being transmitted to the Commander in Chief, there is no way a 
rational decision can be made.
  What is going on here is pretty obvious. It is very obvious what is 
going on. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Petraeus, General 
McChrystal--all know we need additional troops in the range of 30,000 
to 40,000, and the administration is backing off of that or trying to 
find the exit sign. It is well known. It had been broadcast all over 
television that there are individuals--including the Vice President, 
now, unfortunately, the National Security Adviser, the chief political 
adviser to the President, Mr. Rahm Emanuel--who don't want to alienate 
the left base of the Democratic Party. That is what this is all about.
  The American people need to know what our military commanders, in 
their best judgment, think we need to defend this Nation. They need to 
know it within the next month and a half. Do I need to remind my 
colleagues we have 68,000 Americans there now? Just a few days ago, 
five brave young Americans died in 1 day. Admiral Mullen said in 
his testimony before the Armed Services Committee that the clock is 
ticking. We are running out of time. This is an urgent situation. This 
is not a decision as to whether to send troops into harm's way. Troops 
are already in harm's way. They are already there, and they are getting 
wounded and killed while, according to the President's National 
Security Adviser, we are considering all options. Shouldn't we consider 
seriously the option of the recommendations of military commanders? I 
am not saying they have the final say; I am saying they should be given 
great weight.

  Here we are asking for testimony from those people who, again--the 
President fired the commander in the field to replace him with General 
McChrystal, and yet we are not transmitting the fundamental and most 
difficult aspect of General McChrystal's recommendations as to how to 
implement a strategy that was agreed on last March.
  I fear that domestic political considerations are impacting a 
decision which has to do with the future security of the United States. 
Just recently, the former President of Pakistan, President Musharraf, 
said that American delay is being interpreted as a sign of weakness by 
countries in the region. We left Afghanistan once. We helped the brave 
Afghans drive out the Russians who were then trying to make Afghanistan 
part of the Soviet Union. We drove them out and we left. What happened? 
The Taliban took control. Al-Qaida cooperated with them, and the 
attacks on the United States of 9/11 took place by people who were 
trained in Afghanistan.
  Let's have no doubt what is at stake. The American people and their 
representatives at least need to hear within the next month and a half, 
45 days, as to what the recommendations and strategy of our military 
leaders are. I emphasize, they are not the last word. The Commander in 
Chief has the last word. But the Commander in Chief, whatever decision 
he makes, also has to come to Congress for the necessary assets and 
authorization to do whatever his strategy is. So we do play a 
significant role. The American people and their elected 
representatives, as the chairman of the House Armed Services has said, 
as the majority leader of the House of Representatives has said, need 
to hear from these military leaders.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  It is clear that a number of things are happening. One is, there is a 
deliberative process going on. There is not much doubt that the clock 
is ticking. That is clear. The question is--and this is what General 
McChrystal says--get your strategy straight. Take the time to get your 
strategy straight. He also recommends that there will be new resources, 
whatever the strategy. But he says the key here--these are his words--
take the time to get your strategy right. We can either spend the time 
that the President deserves and President Bush took to get the strategy 
right or we will be jeopardizing the lives of the men and women who put 
on the uniform of the United States, if there is a wrong strategy in 
place.
  The clock was ticking in Iraq. Back in September 2006, there was a 
recommendation that there be a change in strategy in Iraq, that there 
be a surge of troops. The recommendation was made by General Keane in 
September 2006, start a surge. For over 3 months, while the clock was 
ticking, President Bush considered whether to change the strategy in 
Iraq. He finally changed it in January of 2007, taking 3 or 4 months to 
make that decision.

  Do you know what. He got the strategy right, finally, in January of 
2007, because the surge had a positive effect. But he took the time to 
make a decision. We did not put pressure on him by calling a commander 
from the field, who apparently had a very different perspective, for 
hearings during that process. We respected that process. We did not try 
to put pressure on a President of the United States by calling the 
commander, General Casey, in to tell us: No, we do not need more 
troops, which is apparently what he would have told us, while the 
President of the United States was considering whether to send 
additional troops.
  The analogy is incredibly close to what is going on now. We should be 
treating the President of the United States, President Obama, with the 
same respect for the deliberative process that we provided to President 
Bush.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter which was sent 
by Secretary Gates to the majority leader, Senator Reid, be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     The Secretary of Defense,

                               Washington, DC, September 29, 2009.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Senate Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Majority Leader: I am writing in response to your 
     request for an update on the ongoing evaluation of the 
     strategy and resource assessments prepared by General Stanley 
     McChrystal, Commander, International Security Assistance 
     Force (ISAF).
       As we stay on the offense against Al-Qaeda, from here at 
     home to around the world, the President and his national-
     security team are in the midst of an ongoing evaluation of 
     the mission in Afghanistan in order to assess the overall 
     situation and our strategy following the Afghan elections. 
     Those elections, as well as the evolving situation in 
     Pakistan over the last number of months, require us to review 
     the U.S. approach in the region to ensure that, first, we 
     have the right strategy and, second, we have the necessary 
     resources in place to carry it out.
       You will recall that when the Administration announced the 
     results of the initial review of Afghanistan strategy in 
     March 2009, we also acknowledged the need to reassess our 
     approach following the national elections this fall. 
     Accordingly, the President has asked that we conduct a 
     careful and thorough assessment of these questions in order 
     to provide him with the considered best judgment of his 
     national security team and military leadership. General 
     McChrystal's initial assessment will serve as the prime focus 
     of this review, although other options and perspectives will 
     also be included.
       The decisions that the President faces may be some of the 
     most important on Afghanistan in his presidency, so it 
     behooves us to take the necessary time to make sure we get 
     this right. That said, there are a number of internal 
     meetings scheduled over the next few weeks on this topic. I 
     do not expect decisions on the overall strategy--or the 
     resources necessary to carry it out--to take an extended 
     period of time.
       Until the President makes his decision on the way forward 
     in Afghanistan, it would be inappropriate for me--or our 
     military commanders--to openly discuss the advice being 
     provided or the nature of the discussions being carried out 
     with the President. However, once the President acts, I will 
     be happy to testify before the appropriate committees of the 
     Congress and to facilitate similar testimony by commanders 
     and other senior Department leaders.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Robert M. Gates.

  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, again, unfortunately, a lot of the 
information we have to get is through the media rather than testimony 
before the Senate Armed Services Committee. I do think it is worthy of 
note that there is a story dated October 1, 2009, which says:

       The top military commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. 
     McChrystal, rejected calls for scaling down military 
     objectives

[[Page S10014]]

     there on Thursday and said Washington did not have unlimited 
     time to settle on a new strategy to pursue the eight-year-old 
     war.
       . . . General McChrystal said that the situation in 
     Afghanistan was serious and that ``neither success nor 
     failure can be taken for granted.'' . . .
       General McChrystal was asked by a member of an audience 
     that included retired military commanders and security 
     specialists whether he would support an idea put forward by 
     Mr. Biden to scale back the American military presence in 
     Afghanistan to focus on tracking down the leaders of Al 
     Qaeda, in place of the current broader effort now under way 
     to defeat the Taliban.
       ``The short answer is: no,'' he said. ``You have to 
     navigate from where you are, not where you wish to be. A 
     strategy that does not leave Afghanistan in a stable position 
     is probably a short-sighted strategy.''
       He did not mention Mr. Biden by name.

  All of us here have great affection and appreciation for the Vice 
President. We have all gotten to know him and like him over the years. 
But the fact is, the Vice President of the United States, in the first 
gulf war, after Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait, voted against the 
resolution, saying it would be another Vietnam war. He has voted 
consistently against U.S. involvement. And the latest, of course, was 
when his idea was to divide Iraq into three different countries. So the 
Vice President does have a clear record of being consistently wrong. I 
hope that is taken into consideration when he comes up with his ideas 
about Afghanistan.

       General McChrystal has been reported to be seeking as many 
     as 40,000 additional American troops for the war, a number 
     that has generated concern among other top American 
     commanders.

  But that number--which is known to everyone, and keeps being 
reported--that number is not going to be transmitted to the President 
by the Secretary of Defense. You can't make that up. Everybody knows 
it, but it is not going to be sent to the President by the Secretary of 
Defense.
  Anyway:

       In a confidential assessment of the war last month now 
     under consideration by the Obama administration, General 
     McChrystal said that he needs additional troops within the 
     next year or else the conflict ``will likely result in 
     failure.''

  Mr. President, we have a limited amount of time, but I do not have to 
tell most people and colleagues here what the consequences of failure 
in Afghanistan might be. So what we are asking is, sometime within the 
next month and a half--the next month and a half--that we get General 
McChrystal in particular but also the most brilliant general I have 
ever encountered in my life, General Petraeus, and others, to testify 
before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Maybe the House Armed 
Services Committee, whose chairman said they needed that testimony, 
will proceed without us. I would feel very badly if the U.S. Senate 
were not given the same opportunity to have General McChrystal and 
General Petraeus appear before them, as the House Armed Services 
Committee chairman has said they want.
  I want to emphasize to my colleagues, we are asking, sometime within 
the next 45 days, an appearance by the leaders we have put in charge of 
the lives of our young American men and women. We are just asking for 
them to come and testify before our committees of jurisdiction, to 
exercise our responsibilities as representatives of our States. That is 
all we are asking. That is all we are asking.
  There are already 68,000 there. They are being wounded and killed as 
we speak. And as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has said: 
Time is not on our side. The situation is deteriorating.
  Shouldn't the Senate Armed Services Committee and, through us, the 
American people and the Senate Appropriations Committee, which has its 
responsibilities, also hear from these great leaders who are in charge 
of the lives and safety and well-being of our men and women in uniform 
and are charged with achieving victory and not defeat, achieving 
success and not failure in Afghanistan?
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the stakes here are truly huge. We 
obviously share one goal; that is, to succeed in Afghanistan. What 
General McChrystal has pointed out repeatedly in his assessment is that 
the way to succeed is not just with resources. He says the crux of the 
matter is to get a new strategy. His words: get a new strategy.
  The question is, are we going to allow this President the same 
opportunity to put a strategy in place or to change it, as President 
Bush did in Iraq, as we have afforded to other Presidents, including 
President Bush?
  The right strategy here is key, as well as the resources. And to set 
an artificial date is a terrible precedent. To put a commander in the 
field at a public hearing to try to pressure a Commander in Chief to 
reach a certain result is unacceptable, inappropriate. The Secretary of 
Defense is not going to allow it, nor should he, and we are not going 
to ask it, as chairman of the Armed Services Committee. I hope the 
Senate does not ask for that to happen either. We did not do that to 
President Bush. We should not do that to President Obama.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Each Senator has 2 minutes remaining.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Well, Mr. President, let me say, if I could--I will use 
my remaining 2 minutes--I appreciate very much the relationship I have 
developed over more than 20 years with the chairman of the committee. 
From time to time, we have had differences and vigorous debate. I want 
to emphasis, I respect the opinions and views and authority of the 
chairman of the committee. We just simply have an open and honest 
disagreement.
  I hope my colleagues will understand the urgency of this situation 
and agree to my amendment that does not in any way diminish my respect 
and appreciation of the way the Senator from Michigan chairs the 
committee and acts on a bipartisan basis, which is a long tradition of 
the Armed Services Committee. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of 
my amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield my remaining 2 minutes to Senator 
Kaufman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I cannot think of two better people to be 
involved in a discussion about what we should be doing in Afghanistan 
than Senator McCain and Senator Levin.
  Where I come down on this issue is with Senator Levin because I 
believe it is very important we give the President time to discuss this 
issue in detail. There are a lot of different pieces to this puzzle. It 
is not just General McChrystal's report. It is a report by Ambassador 
Eikenberry. It is a report by Ambassador Holbrooke. I think he would 
have a report from Ambassador Patterson from Pakistan. I think we need 
a report from the DOD in terms of force structure and what additional 
troops we would have beyond that.
  There are a number of issues that have to be dealt with here. I think 
as in the past with President Bush, where there was a 3-month process 
before the surge--during that time, people were able to talk to the 
President, and to work their way up the chain of command in the 
military, and the civilians to work their way up in the Department of 
Defense, to talk to the President so the President could have their 
counsel before the President made his decision.
  I think that is what we need here. I think one of the most important 
things President Obama said in his speech the other night to the joint 
session was: I am going to be here for a long time, so I want to get it 
right.
  We have to get it right in Afghanistan. I think this is the obvious 
time to proceed. Clearly, the present election and the flaws in the 
election, in addition to General McChrystal's report which points out 
the rise of the Taliban, demonstrates it is time for us to sit down and 
take a hard look at what our strategy in Afghanistan is. I think the 
President is going to do that. He is going to go through a process. 
Many people have to be involved. Many

[[Page S10015]]

different issues have to be done. And then the President will come with 
his plan for Afghanistan.
  At that time, after that happens, I think then--Chairman Levin is 
correct--we should have hearings, we should have people come and 
testify, and that will be the time to do it. In the meantime, I think 
we owe it to the military chain of command that everyone involved in 
that chain of command be allowed to come and talk to the President so 
he can make the best decision he can possibly make before the Senate 
gets an opportunity to deal with everyone who is going to be involved 
with the President.
  So, again, I support Senator Levin's amendment. I think it is 
essential we have a process that allows it to go forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak for 10 additional seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator McCain for his warm 
comments. I feel very strongly about our relationship. It is a great 
relationship. It could not be possibly affected by differences over 
policies. I have great respect for the Senator and the huge 
contributions he makes to this body and to the Nation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, what is the order of business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Levin amendment is the pending amendment.


                           Amendment No. 2569

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and amendment No. 2569 be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2569.

  Mr. COBURN. 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 restore $294,000,000 for the Armed Forces to prepare for 
    and conduct combat operations by accounting for the August 2009 
   Congressional Budget Office economic assumptions and by reducing 
 funding for congressionally directed spending items for low-priority 
                   research and development projects)

       On page 239, beginning on line 21, strike ``the total 
     amount'' and all that follows through ``$236,000,000'' and 
     insert ``the total amount appropriated in title III of this 
     Act is hereby reduced by $322,000,000, the total amount 
     appropriated in title IV of this Act is hereby reduced by 
     $530,000,000''.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have several amendments that go along 
this line, but my question to the Appropriations Committee is one of 
trying to clarify for the American people the numbers that were used to 
downsize the operation and maintenance account based on what the 
expected inflation rate was.
  It is important to know. The O&M account is what runs everything. 
What came out of the bill was $294 million because you chose to use an 
inflation rate that was less than what CBO and OMB had stated it would 
be. You did use the one that was the one prior. But the one presently 
would, in fact, add another $294 million to the operation and 
maintenance account. I would be glad to hear the reasoning why we chose 
to use it. I think I know why the reasoning--because it allows more 
ability to do other things Members would like to do.

  What this amendment is trying to do is to restore that money to truly 
reflect the inflation rate that OMB and CBO have said it would be. 
Three-tenths of 1 percent makes a big difference when you are talking 
about taking something from our military. I would remind my colleagues 
that last year the Navy ran out of O&M money and we needed an emergency 
supplemental to supply it. So by undershooting what the real inflation 
factor is for their costs, both in fuel and maintenance and operations, 
if we undervalue that account, what it means is we are going to take 
away from readiness. I know that is not the intent of this committee. 
The intent of this committee is to make sure our military has the needs 
and the means with which to carry out their requirements.
  Let me get a little more detailed on it. When the committee set the 
O&M number, they used a GDP index inflation rate from the Congressional 
Budget Office that was 3 months old, and they ignored the updated one 
for August, which was three-tenths of a percent higher. That means that 
if--and I agree, they are estimates; they may not be correct. What I 
would like to know is, what if you are wrong with the lower number you 
put in? Are we going to be coming back with a supplemental to be able 
to drive the O&M? For the American people what that means is, when we 
do a supplemental, it is outside the budget rules, which means we 
borrow it. We borrow the money.
  This amendment says let's realistically predict what the inflation 
rate is going to be in the operation and maintenance account. Let's 
truly put the money there that should be there. What this amendment 
does is simply restore it.
  We know, by history, that O&M has been rising faster than inflation 
for the past 9 years. We have not gotten it right once, in terms of the 
actual amounts. How this amendment technically works is it restores 
$294 million by striking part of section 8091 of the bill that reduces 
that funding.
  I will not spend any more time on it. I will discuss it again later.


                           Amendment No. 2563

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this pending amendment be 
set aside and amendment No. 2563 be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2563.

  Mr. COBURN. 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 public disclosure of certain reports)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. ___. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act and except as provided in subsection (b), any report 
     required to be submitted by a Federal agency or department to 
     the Committee on Appropriations of either the Senate or the 
     House of Representatives in this Act shall be posted on the 
     public website of that agency upon receipt by the committee.
       (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to a report if--
       (1) the public posting of the report compromises national 
     security; or
       (2) the report contains proprietary information.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this is a straightforward amendment, and 
the Appropriations Committees heretofore have agreed with it. This 
says, other than in terms of national security or something that should 
not be released for general circulation, the reports that are 
authorized and paid for in this bill, which are going directly only to 
the Senators on the Appropriations Committee, be made available to the 
rest of the Senators in the body as well as the rest of the American 
public. If there is a good national security reason not to do so, fine, 
there is no problem with that, but all the rest of the American people 
ought to see it. It is called transparency. The American people are 
paying for them. The American people have a right and an obligation to 
see them if they are going to be involved in the governance of our 
country. In fact, they are supposed to be in charge of the governance 
of our country.
  So what it will do is allow the American citizens to see how their 
money is actually being spent and allow them to get to see the results 
of those reports. It is very simple.
  My hope is the chairman and ranking member would be inclined to 
support this amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
set aside.

[[Page S10016]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2565

  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 2565 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 Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2565.

  Mr. COBURN. 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 ensure transparency and accountability by providing that 
each member of Congress and the Secretary of Defense has the ability to 
review $1,500,000,000 in taxpayer funds allocated to the National Guard 
              and Reserve components of the Armed Forces)

       On page 177, line 23, strike ``the modernization'' and all 
     that follows through line 25 and insert the following: ``and 
     the Secretary of Defense, who upon completion of a thorough 
     review, shall provide to each standing committee of Congress 
     a modernization priority assessment for their respective 
     Reserve or National Guard component.''.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, in this bill we are attempting to address 
what I agree is a very serious problem, the funding of our National 
Guard and Reserve. I do have some concerns, though, about how we are 
going about doing that.
  I would love to be corrected by either the chairman or the ranking 
member. As I understand the bill, the $1.5 billion in upgrades for the 
National Guard and Reserve actually bypasses the Department of Defense, 
bypasses the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and goes directly to the committee 
in terms of the approval of how they do that. I would inquire of the 
chairman if that is accurate.
  Mr. INOUYE. If I may, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. This matter has been requested by two Members of the 
caucus, the National Guard caucus. They would like to say a few words 
about it. If I may, can we set this aside?
  Mr. COBURN. Absolutely. I am happy to do that.
  I ask unanimous consent to set this amendment aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. 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. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Health Care Reform

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have listened with great interest to the 
conversation coming from the other side of the aisle this morning. A 
couple of things I have been watching make it very clear to me, and it 
is probably very clear to the American people: One side stands for 
changing the health care delivery system and the other side stands for 
keeping things the way they are.
  We need to do something to keep our broken health care system from 
running off the tracks completely. It is already headed off the tracks. 
There is a wide range of ideas out there--a range as diverse as the 
people of this Nation--and that is the way it should be. I am confident 
those details will be worked out in the legislative process, and we are 
in the midst of that.
  We Democrats fundamentally agree on one bottom line: We must act and 
we must act now to make it easier for people in America to live a 
healthy life.
  I can't blame the American people for feeling somewhat frustrated 
because we have all these fake controversies, such as death panels--a 
way to divert attention from what we are trying to do. There are no 
death panels. The only thing that has been suggested is that people 
have an examination every year and sit down with their physician and 
find out what the future holds in the way of treatment. Death panels is 
a diversion.
  The abortion issue is a diversion. We want to keep things the same 
way they have been in this country for a long time: Use the so-called 
Hyde amendment, which is now the so-called Capps amendment, which, in 
effect, just carries that over.
  One of their real diversions in this is a bill to help undocumented, 
illegal aliens. All these are diversions. They have nothing to do with 
what we are trying to do: to improve the health care delivery system.
  There are so many examples. A woman from Las Vegas came to see me 
yesterday. She was raised in Reno, now from Las Vegas, living a 
wonderful life. She gets sick. She has breast cancer at age 29. It 
changed her life dramatically. Because why? Her health insurance was so 
terribly inadequate. I am from Searchlight, NV. A woman whom I have 
known for many years, she is the assistant postmistress. She helps me 
at my home. I give her a few dollars every month. Her husband is 
retired. They have a 23-year-old son. Of course, he goes off their 
insurance when he is 23. He is young. He is healthy. Within 6 weeks of 
turning 23, he no longer has health insurance, he is diagnosed as 
having testicular cancer. He has no insurance. What does that do to 
that family?
  What we are doing is we are trying to change that so that 29-year-old 
woman with breast cancer, the 23-year-old with testicular cancer has 
some coverage, insurance coverage. That is what we are trying to do.
  We were here yesterday talking about four States: Oregon, Rhode 
Island, Michigan, and Nevada, four States that have been hit so hard by 
this recession--I mean, so hard. Nevada has led the Nation in 
foreclosures for 31 months in a row. People on the other side of the 
aisle are complaining because, in the Finance Committee, they are 
trying to help Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Michigan. Does that 
mean those are the only States they are going to try to help? Of course 
not.
  Every day in Nevada, 220 people lose their health insurance. People 
woke up this morning with insurance and they will go to bed tonight 
without it. That is 7 days a week they are losing their insurance in 
Nevada. Do we want to change that? Of course, we want to change that.
  Thirteen percent of Nevadans are employed. More than 18 percent are 
uninsured. A lot of people have insurance that is inadequate. They are 
underinsured. It is not good insurance. We have had some come from the 
other side of the aisle over the last few days saying they don't care 
about Nevadans hurting. They think the status quo is just fine, and 
they refuse to help their fellow citizens who are suffering. They seem 
to want me to apologize for helping my constituents who are struggling. 
I am never going to apologize for trying to help the people of Nevada. 
I was born there. I am going to do everything I can to help the people 
in the State of Nevada.
  Let me tell everyone within the sound of my voice something else. I 
was talking to one of my Republican colleagues recently. He is from the 
State of Georgia, a wonderful man, Johnny Isakson. I said: How about 
those rains? He said: Well, I have a rain gauge in my home. In 24 
hours, it rained 18 inches. I can't comprehend that. In Las Vegas, the 
average rain fall per year is 4 inches, but he got 18 inches in 24 
hours, and the next day I think he told me they got 8 inches. That 
torrential rain they had in Georgia has created problems the State 
can't handle, and they are asking for Federal emergency help. I want to 
help them. I am a Senator of the United States. I am not a Nevada 
Senator; I am a Senator of the United States. My first obligation is to 
help my people in Nevada, but if there is a problem in Georgia because 
of the rains or the fires in California, I am going to do everything I 
can to help them, just as I am going to do everything I can to help the 
people of Michigan, Oregon, and Rhode Island, as I spoke yesterday.
  So we have to look out for each other. We have mutual 
responsibilities. I am disappointed that people would complain about 
the fact that we have situations in our States that we need help for. 
We have a lot of poor people and a lot of people getting poorer real 
quick.
  It is becoming increasingly clear that Republicans simply don't have 
any ideas for helping the American people as it relates to health care, 
even people in their own States who are suffering

[[Page S10017]]

so desperately. It is another excuse. It is more of the same. It is 
more evidence that some on the other side think it will never be a good 
time--never be a good time--to reform the health care system.
  For the latest episode on that, look what is going on in the Finance 
Committee. Are there constructive amendments offered? No. Just 
nitpicking, just a way to slow things down. It is more proof they want 
to defend the status quo, refuse to take care of their suffering and 
struggling constituents, and ignore the will of the American people--at 
any cost. We know that cost is great.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, while the majority leader is on the Senate 
floor and talking so eloquently about the inadequacy of health 
insurance and specific examples, one of the statistics--and I know it 
is just a statistic, not a specific example--which has moved me so 
dramatically in the direction the majority leader described is, if I 
understand this correctly, the majority of people in this country go 
into personal bankruptcy because they cannot pay their health care 
costs. That is bad enough; nobody should go bankrupt because they 
cannot pay for health care. That is unacceptable in this country.
  But what compounds that is that a majority of them do have health 
insurance. The American people focus on that statistic, and I know 
statistics are difficult to put our arms around. But the majority of 
people who go bankrupt because of not being able to pay health care 
bills have health insurance. This isn't just a matter of trying to get 
people covered who are not covered; it is a matter of also trying to 
fill in for the inadequacy of the uncertainty that exists, the 
instability that exists for people to have health insurance.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I may respond to my friend, President 
Obama told me on a telephone call 6 weeks ago to make sure when we 
finish this health care legislation it is not a program for only the 
poor but that it is a program for the American people; that in the 
process the poor and middle class will be taken care of. I agree with 
the President.
  What the Senator has said is true. The majority of the people who 
file bankruptcy do so because of health care costs. That says it all.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the leader. We are not going to be able to get to 
the needed health care reform without his leadership. He also pointed 
out a particular circumstance that a number of our States are in. I am 
grateful for this situation.
  In Michigan, we are losing 27,000 jobs a month. I believe we have the 
highest unemployment rate in the country, which is 15.2 percent. It is 
growing, and it will continue to grow, apparently. People are losing 
their health care. The number of people eligible for Medicaid is 
increasing.
  The bill before the Finance Committee has a provision in it that we 
will have more people eligible for Medicaid. That is critically 
important. That is one way to get more people eligible for health care. 
But what the Finance Committee does in its current mark is also say 
that certain States--including Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, and 
Michigan--are suffering particularly, and in particular ways, and we 
are a long way from economic recovery. So the additional Medicaid 
support for those States is highly appropriate. There are reasons for 
that.
  The majority leader talks about the flooding in Georgia or the 
disaster we had in Louisiana a few years ago or the fires in 
California. We have an economic fire taking place in my home State of 
Michigan. I thank the majority leader for his willingness not just to 
grapple with the entire issue of health care reform but to also 
recognize not just the situation in his own State, with all the 
foreclosures they have been facing, but the situation we face in a 
number of other States economically. We are very grateful.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I join the majority leader and the 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee to express my appreciation to 
colleagues who will support the provisions for Federal assistance for 
high-need States. Rhode Island is one of those high-need States.
  One of the key targets to being a high-need State is a high 
unemployment rate. Right now, ours in Rhode Island is about 12.8 
percent--nearly 13 percent. Since the beginning of this crisis, we have 
either been the second or third highest unemployment State in the 
Nation, only behind Senator Levin's State of Michigan. It is the 
highest level of unemployment Rhode Island has seen since World War II, 
in a generation. It amounts to, in our very small State with a 
population of fewer than 1 million people, 73,000 people who are 
unemployed. That is only counting the ones who qualify as unemployed 
under the labor standards; for people out too long, they are even more. 
After a while, they don't count them any longer in the statistics. It 
is actually more than 73,000 people unemployed in a State of less than 
1 million; 73,000 families are facing unemployment and are worrying 
about how to care for their loved ones.
  We know this is a national problem, and we know many States are 
suffering. To be in this category of these four States that are high-
need States and that are getting a little extra attention in the 
Finance bill is not something we want. I would love for Rhode Island to 
have a 7- or 8-percent unemployment rate. I would be delighted. This is 
a real trial for the people of Rhode Island, and I appreciate that 
there are people, including our distinguished majority leader, who are 
reaching out to try to help Rhode Island while we are in this period of 
intense economic suffering.
  From my perspective, I have supported others when we went to help the 
States that depended on the auto industry. I have watched billions of 
dollars flow across this floor to support those big auto States. I have 
watched and supported billions of dollars flowing across this floor to 
support the big finance industry States--Wall Street--and to protect 
our banking industry. I have supported it when billions of dollars 
flowed across this floor to support coastal States that were hit hard 
by storms and hurricanes. I watched billions of dollars flow through 
here for the States hit by flooding recently with the terrible floods 
in the South and a little while ago when the terrible floods hit the 
upper Northwest. I have watched enormous support go to States when they 
experienced wildfires, and when our distinguished leader on the Budget 
Committee, Senator Conrad, argued so effectively for the States 
affected by drought.
  I am on the Environment and Public Works Committee. The coal States 
are getting taken care of in amazing ways. Over and over again, when we 
have seen our fellow States in trouble, we have been willing to help 
them out. All I am asking is, from Rhode Island's perspective, we have 
watched all of these things go by, and there is yet to be anything for 
Rhode Island.
  I hope very much that my colleagues will not take this opportunity to 
turn what has been a very collegial atmosphere about helping each 
other's States when they are in trouble and, for purposes of politics, 
pile onto little Rhode Island. This is something that we need. This is 
something that is important to us.
  Do we depend on coal? No. Do we depend on the auto insurance 
industry? No. Do we depend on Wall Street? No. Have we had a big 
hurricane? No. Nor have we had flooding, wildfires, or drought. But the 
condition of our people, economically, is just as bad as if those 
things had occurred.
  Rhode Island is at nearly 13 percent unemployment. I urge my 
colleagues to stand with the leader and with the tradition of kindness 
and collegiality that has always characterized this body when a State 
is experiencing particular distress and difficulty.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I listened to my leader with great 
admiration. I wish him to know that I support his action in support of 
the health reform measures before us.
  The leader touched upon two problems. One was that each day in the 
State of Nevada, 221 men, women, and children will go to bed and the 
next morning find themselves without health insurance coverage. I 
believe it should be noted that, as we speak, over 15,000 men, women, 
and children of the United States will wake up in the morning finding 
that they have no insurance coverage--15,000 a day. That

[[Page S10018]]

means close to half a million every month. This is not acceptable. I 
don't think we should tolerate this and set it aside.
  Mr. President, my leader, the very distinguished Senator from Nevada, 
brought up the matter of the death panel. It is the responsibility of 
physicians throughout this land, when confronted with terminal cases, 
to tell their patients of the condition. They should also notify the 
patients that as long as they want care and life-sustaining medicine, 
it will be done. But I believe it is the right of the patients to 
suggest that they would like to rest.
  Three years ago, I lost a wife. We were married for 57 years. It 
wasn't an easy moment, believe me. One evening--and I have never 
discussed this publicly before--as I sat near her, she said, ``I have 
something I would like to discuss with you that is very important.'' 
She looked at me and said, ``I will be dead in 10 days.'' I said, 
``Now, you must be kidding.'' She said, ``No, I have discussed this 
matter with the doctor. We all know it is terminal. This cancer is 
beyond control, and I don't wish to continue this agony. I hope you 
will support me.'' She said, ``I will be OK for a week, but on the 
seventh day I will go into a coma. During those 7 days, I would like to 
discuss with you certain things, such as where my funeral services 
should be held.''
  She kept all these details. There was no death panel. What the doctor 
did was to provide her with comfort--comfort of her emotions, her 
senses. She passed away happy. She knew that things were going to be 
done.
  I am sorry to see--and it hurts me to see--fellow Americans distort a 
good aspect of health care and turn it into something murderous. They 
should be ashamed of themselves.
  Mr. President, our leader is a good man.
  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. MERKLEY. 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. MERKLEY. Mr. President, it has become clear that our health care 
debate is entering the twilight zone. We have such a challenge in this 
Nation of individuals who have no health care, small businesses 
struggling to provide health care, and large businesses that are having 
a difficult time competing and producing products in America for the 
world because of the accelerating price of health care.
  So often, over the last couple of months, I have heard colleagues 
come and attack this effort to repair our broken system. Those repairs 
are essential to our family members. They are essential to our workers, 
to our small businesses, and to our big businesses. We have had very 
strange stories shared in this Chamber--stories, as my colleague from 
Hawaii mentioned, about death panels, a creation in the mind of the 
former Governor from Alaska, having nothing to do with anything that 
happens to be in any bill before this body. We have had strange stories 
about benefits provided to individuals who are here undocumented, in 
direct opposition to the straightforward language that is in the House 
bills and the Senate bills.
  We have had strange stories about a murky government takeover, when 
the heart of this plan is to create the same sort of marketplace that 
gives 8 million Federal workers access to multiple private plans, to 
create that same marketplace and access for every single American. Now, 
in the last day, there is something even more strange: an attack on 
States that are having the most difficult time in this recession.
  We are deep in the twilight zone when Members come to this body to 
attack efforts to assist the States most severely damaged by this 
recession--the States of Michigan, Rhode Island, Nevada, and my home 
State of Oregon.
  Oregon is having a difficult time for a host of reasons. We are a 
State that does a lot of trading, and a lot of the countries we trade 
with have had year-over-year recessions even worse than our own. For 
example, South Korea, 20-percent year-over-year drop in gross domestic 
product.
  We have a timber industry that provides a lot of dimensional lumber 
to build houses and build commercial buildings around this Nation. The 
collapse of building has damaged it severely.
  We have a wonderful section of our economy involving growing fruits 
and growing Christmas trees, and the Mexican tariffs have hit that very 
hard. Add it all up and Oregon is one of the four States worst hit.
  I read a few weeks ago that if we include the underemployed as well 
as the unemployed, Oregon is the single worst hit State in our Nation.
  I applaud the efforts of Members of this Chamber to say we have a 
broken health care system and we are going to repair it. They are 
absolutely right. I am pleased to be a member of that team working to 
make those repairs.
  I applaud the Members of this Chamber who said we must help those 
States worst hit by this recession, continuing a great American 
tradition. When a State is hard hit by drought, we reach out and 
assist. When a State is hard hit by a hurricane, we reach out as a 
nation to gather and assist. When a State is hard hit by a flood, there 
is a natural disaster called, and we as a nation respond. When an 
earthquake strikes, as a nation we are there.
  Now we have another disaster, an economic disaster, that is hitting 
particularly hard in four States. I applaud the efforts to reach out 
and assist those States together as a nation, as we have so many other 
States in so many other circumstances.
  Let's pull this conversation out of the ``Twilight Zone.'' Let's come 
together, as we have so many times before, to take on the challenge of 
a broken health care system, to take on assistance to the worst hit 
States and help them adjust to providing Medicaid that is so urgently 
needed by their populations.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The Senator from 
Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I commend Senator Merkley, Senator 
Whitehouse, and Senator Reid of Nevada for their eloquent and accurate 
description of the situation that faces several States.
  Throughout this country, there is a crisis in unemployment. But in 
States such as Michigan, Oregon, Nevada, and Rhode Island, it is a 
catastrophe--over 12 percent unemployment.
  As my colleague pointed out, that is just the official number. That 
number does not include those who have lost their job, but not filed 
their official employment status. That number does not include those 
people who are looking for work and not finding employment. It is a 
situation that is extremely difficult on the individuals and families 
of Rhode Island.
  We are engaged in a very serious debate about health care reform. 
There seems to be a consensus that the status quo will not work. Yet 
our proposals to change it are dismissed without appropriate response 
in terms of alternatives. Our colleagues in the minority are simply 
saying the status quo is bad, but it is good for us.
  We have to make changes, and we have to make those changes that 
recognize not only the inefficiencies in our medical care system but 
also the overall economic system.
  One of the impetuses for this reform is not just access and 
affordability of health care, it is the economic future of the country. 
Again, in States such as Rhode Island, Michigan, Oregon, and Nevada, 
this is an issue that is incredibly important.
  We understand that some States have taken a much more aggressive 
approach to their Medicaid populations. In recognition of our costly 
health care system, they have tried to enroll as many people as they 
could. They recognize a higher level of poverty, one that I think is 
going to be recognized in federal reform initiatives. But effectively, 
these States, unless they are given some help, will be punished for 
being ahead of their colleagues, for trying to extend health care 
coverage before the Nation was ready to do that. In that sense, we have 
to also recognize the need to support the Medicaid Program and also 
support particularly those States that are in this economic 
catastrophe.
  As Senator Whitehouse pointed out, we routinely come together and 
recognize the special needs of regions and States--wildfires in 
California, agricultural disasters throughout the middle

[[Page S10019]]

of the country and elsewhere, the great crisis of Katrina. To say now 
that we cannot recognize something as extraordinarily important, such 
as health care, to several States, including my own of Rhode Island, 
is, I think, neglecting what we do here on a relative routine basis.
  The other fact is that some of the criticism directed at proposals 
that have been made in the Finance Committee have been made by 
Governors who simply say you cannot shift the burden to us, and that is 
particularly the case in Rhode Island. We are facing a significant 
crisis in State funding. If we give them a responsibility without 
resources at a time of this great unemployment crisis, it would add a 
further burden. We would be, I think, not only disadvantaged by the 
economic situation but, as I suggested before, punished for a good 
deed, which is to try and incorporate more people into our Medicaid 
system.
  We have to support the Finance Committee's approach. In fact, I thank 
the Finance Committee and Senator Baucus for considering this issue. 
This is critical. Again, we all wish we would be in a situation where 
unemployment could confidently be seen in the future as not a factor to 
support the States, but we know it is going to be.
  The support the chairman and the members of the Finance Committee 
have given is appropriate. I strongly support it and urge my colleagues 
to do so, as well.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2578

  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 2578.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Kaufman], for himself, Mr. 
     Lugar, Mr. Bayh, and Mr. Reed, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2578.

  Mr. KAUFMAN. 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 provide for continuing support of certain civilian-
       military training for civilians deploying to Afghanistan)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __.  The Secretary of Defense shall, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of State and the Administrator of the 
     United States Agency for International Development, continue 
     to support requirements for monthly integrated civilian-
     military training for civilians deploying to Afghanistan at 
     Camp Atterbury, Indiana, including through the allocation of 
     military and civilian personnel, trainers, and other 
     resources for that purpose.

  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I am grateful to the Senator from the 
State of Hawaii and the Senator from the State of Mississippi for their 
work on this very important bill. I also thank Senator Jack Reed from 
Rhode Island, Senator Lugar, and Senator Bayh for their support of this 
amendment, which instructs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation 
with the Department of State and USAID, to continue to support the 
integrated civilian-military training for all civilians deploying to 
Afghanistan, occurring once a month in Indiana at Camp Atterbury.
  The civilian role in Afghanistan is absolutely critical to achieving 
the broader goals of counterinsurgency. As we discuss the way forward 
in Afghanistan, it is essential to remember that troop levels are only 
one part of that strategy.
  In order to cultivate support among the population and implement an 
effective counterinsurgency, civilians from across government agencies 
must continue to partner and work in tandem with the military.
  In May, I offered an amendment to the supplemental which aimed to 
ensure that civilians deploying to Afghanistan receive training that 
cultivates greater civilian-military unity of mission and which 
emphasized the importance of counterinsurgency and stability 
operations.
  Prior to passage of this amendment, joint civil-military training was 
only occurring once every 9 months to coincide with scheduled military 
deployments. Since then, officials throughout the government--and 
especially the State Department--realized this was insufficient to meet 
the increased needs presented by the civilian surge in Afghanistan.
  As such, the joint training schedule was increased to once a month, 
and Ambassadors Eikenberry and Holbrooke recently mandated that all 
civilians working in the field in Afghanistan must receive this 
training prior to deployment.
  On Monday, I visited Camp Atterbury to observe and express my support 
for the training, to thank these brave men and women for their service, 
and to emphasize the key role of our civilians in Afghanistan.
  Civilians from across the interagency process--including the 
Department of State, U.S. Agency for International Development, and the 
Department of Agriculture--have come together in Camp Atterbury for a 
1-week intensive course with the military, where they simulate real 
life experiences in Afghanistan.
  This includes participating in vignettes with role players and the 
military to brainstorm ways to help their Afghan partners deliver 
essential services, security, and economic opportunity.
  This essential skill set and level of familiarity with the military 
would take weeks to achieve once in theater. But the integrated 
training at Camp Atterbury allows our civilians heading to Afghanistan 
to hit the ground running.
  Given the increased demand for this training, I am offering an 
amendment to ensure that training at Camp Atterbury continues to 
receive the support it needs in terms of military and civilian 
personnel, trainers, and other resources.
  With a new mandate from Ambassadors Holbrooke and Eikenberry, the 
class size for this training has obviously increased. As we continue 
with the civilian surge, I hope the training at Camp Atterbury will 
receive a commensurate level of increased funding and support which it 
needs.
  We owe it to our brave men and women in Afghanistan to get this 
right. It is critical to remember that our strategy in Afghanistan is 
not just about the troops; it is also about the civilians.
  Just as we seek to ensure our troops headed to the field have the 
proper preparation and equipment, it is critical our civilians have the 
same level of training to ensure their effectiveness and security.
  As the number of civilians in Afghanistan continues to grow--up to 
nearly 1,000 by the end of the year--our support for this mandatory 
training must also increase.
  Integrated civilian-military training is a great example of steps 
being taken to improve our counterinsurgency strategy. In order to 
succeed in Afghanistan, civilians must successfully partner with the 
Afghans to help provide essential services, to promote economic 
development, and to improve systems of governance.
  I am especially grateful to the Indiana National Guard. General 
Umbarger, adjutant general of the Indiana National Guard, and General 
Touley are so involved in this and doing such a wonderful job. They are 
to be commended. I also am grateful to the staff at Camp Atterbury and 
the broader training support team from the Departments of State, 
Defense, and USAID.
  Most important, I am extremely grateful to the thousands of our brave 
men and women--civilian and military--who are serving in Afghanistan.
  I believe this amendment is noncontroversial, and with support of the 
bill managers, I will be more than happy to adopt it by voice vote at 
the appropriate time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2592

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about an 
amendment, one we are going to be spending more time on in the next 
couple hours--amendment No. 2592. I will not call it up at this time, 
but I will speak about it.
  First, I am very honored that our assistant majority leader, Senator 
Durbin, has worked with me and our staffs have worked together on this 
amendment. I ask unanimous consent that Majority Leader Reid, Senator 
Kerry

[[Page S10020]]

of Massachusetts, and Senator Bill Nelson of Florida be added as 
cosponsors of amendments Nos. 2591 and 2592, which I filed for 
consideration during the debate on H.R. 3326, the Defense 
Appropriations Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. President, the first amendment I will speak about is 2592.
  This amendment has three major goals:
  First, this amendment will make sure the shoddy electrical work on 
American military bases gets fixed immediately. When I say shoddy 
electrical work, in some of the circumstances I will describe, that is 
an understatement.
  Second, it would also ensure that the brave men and women serving in 
war zones have clean water. It is kind of hard to believe we have to 
have an amendment to deal with that. We should have that anyway. But 
once again, it is something we have to correct and fix.
  Third, the amendment would establish and enforce strict standards for 
preventing and prosecuting sexual assault on Army bases.
  These are the three goals and objectives of this amendment. These 
simple, commonsense reforms are long overdue. These problems should 
have been corrected a long time ago, but they haven't, so we have to 
take action.
  For the moment, I would like to focus on the first provision of the 
amendment, which requires immediate correction of substandard 
electrical work.
  Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, 10 brave servicemembers and civilian 
contractors in Iraq have died--have died--as a result of electrocutions 
that could have been prevented. This includes SSG Ryan Maseth of 
Shaler, PA, which is in the southwestern corner of our State.
  Ryan died on January 2, 2008, when he was electrocuted while 
showering in his barracks in Iraq. It is hard to describe in a short 
presentation and a few number of words the horrific nightmare he had to 
live through and was killed by and the nightmare his family has lived 
through ever since. His mother Cheryl Harris is someone I have come to 
know. She has been a strong advocate not just for finding out what 
happened to her son but also making sure this doesn't happen to other 
sons and daughters serving in harm's way.
  Just imagine this: A brave soldier, willing to take on the enemy and 
trained to do that, willing to go into the battlefield and endure a 
firefight, is killed in a shower because someone didn't do their job in 
ensuring a shower was grounded or installed correctly to prevent shock 
or electrocution and death.
  Ryan was not killed in combat. He was killed by the mistakes of 
others in a place where he should have had a reasonable expectation of 
safety and security away from the battlefield. In one of those few 
moments when our soldiers can relax and get a breather, he was killed. 
So this amendment is necessary because Ryan's tragic death could have 
been prevented if the bad electrical work had been fixed in a timely 
manner.
  Ryan's case is not an isolated incident. Other incidents involve 
servicemembers and contractors from all over the country, including 
Georgia, Texas, California, Nevada, Oregon, Hawaii, Minnesota, and, as 
I mentioned, my home State of Pennsylvania. The risk continues to 
persist, and it has been going on since 2004.
  Ryan died in January of 2008, but the risk is still there for our 
soldiers. On September 1 of this year, the beginning of last month, a 
civilian contractor, Adam Hermanson, died as a result of being 
electrocuted--again, just like Ryan--while showering.
  Adam grew up in San Diego and Las Vegas. He served three tours in 
Iraq--three tours--with the Air Force before leaving at the rank of 
staff sergeant. Adam Hermanson was planning to move to Pennsylvania 
with his wife Janine. Janine is currently living in our State with her 
parents and searching for an explanation--an explanation as to why this 
happened to her husband. The Departments of Defense and State have an 
obligation to provide this explanation.
  We have had lots of investigations and lots of reviews but not enough 
in the way of answers. We have an obligation in the Senate as well to 
prevent any further electrocutions of our troops in these 
circumstances.
  This amendment attempts to right a wrong by ensuring that the Army 
reviews the language of a contract at the time of formation of that 
contract to ensure that it includes explicit language that clearly 
requires contractors to immediately correct deficiencies, such as 
improperly ground equipment or facilities which could cause the death 
or serious bodily harm of a soldier. This review should be happening 
already, but the facts make clear that it isn't. The Senate needs to 
take concrete steps now to reduce and ultimately eliminate this danger 
to our troops. No family should have to endure the pain suffered by 
Ryan's mother Cheryl Harris or Adam's wife Janine Hermanson or any 
other family members of the other eight fallen soldiers.
  Americans serving in this theater of war or any theater of war face 
challenges on the battlefield that most of us can't even imagine. I 
know Chairman Inouye understands what I am talking about. He served in 
combat and we know of his great heroic story. He can understand it, but 
I am not sure I can, not having faced those challenges myself. But the 
risk of death should not follow these brave men and women into the 
barracks, where they should have a reasonable expectation of safety and 
security away from the battlefield.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the names of the 10 servicemembers and contractors who have died in 
Iraq as a result of electrocutions.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      Electrocution Deaths in Iraq

       Since the March 2003 invasion, 19 people have died from 
     electrocution, including 10 from the Army, 5 from the Marine 
     Corps, 1 from the Navy, 2 military contractors and 1 State 
     Department contractor.
       According to the Inspector General of the United States 
     Department of Defense, nine of the 19 electrocutions involved 
     accidental deaths that resulted from the victims touching or 
     coming into contact with live electrical power lines. The 
     Inspector General's report on these incidents concluded that 
     ``[w]hether equipment maintenance complied with proper 
     electrical standards or grounding requirements were not 
     issues in these nine electrocutions, and the investigations 
     conducted in the cases sufficiently established 
     responsibility for the deaths.''
       The remaining ten electrocutions involved equipment 
     malfunctions that could have related to whether equipment 
     maintenance complied with proper electrical standards or 
     whether the respective chain of command acted responsibly in 
     protecting Service members.
       1. Army Spc. Marvin A. Camposiles, 25, of Austell, Georgia: 
     Army Spc. Composiles died in Samarra, Iraq, when he was 
     electrocuted while performing routine generator maintenance. 
     He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment, 2nd 
     Brigade, 1st Infantry Division, Schweinfurt, Germany. Died on 
     April 17, 2004.
       2. Marine Pfc. Brian K. Cutter, 19, of Riverside, 
     California: Marine Pfc. Cutter died in Al Asad, Iraq, after 
     being electrocuted while working on a cooling system for a 
     tent, only two days after arriving in Iraq. He was assigned 
     to 3rd Assault Amphibian Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I 
     Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, California. Died 
     on May 13, 2004.
       3. Spc. Marcus ``O.'' Nolasco, 34, of Chino, California: 
     Spc. Marcus Nolasco died in Baji, Iraq, when he was 
     electrocuted while showering. He was assigned to Battery B, 
     1st Battalion, 33rd Field Artillery, 1st Infantry Division, 
     Bamberg, Germany. Died on May 18, 2004.
       4. Navy Petty Officer 3rd Class David A. Cedergren, 25, 
     South St. Paul, Minnesota: Petty Officer 3rd Class Cedergren 
     died near Iskandariayah, Iraq, died as a result of being 
     electrocuted. He was assigned to the 2nd Marine Division 
     Fleet Marine Forces Atlantic. Died on September 11, 2004.
       5. Spc. Chase R. Whitham, 21, of Harrisburg, Oregon: Spc. 
     Whitham died in Mosul, Iraq when an electrical current surged 
     through a swimming pool in which he was swimming. Died on May 
     8, 2005.
       6. Sohan Singh, Civilian Contractor Employee: Mr. Sohan 
     Singh was electrocuted while attempting to enter his quarters 
     at Fallujah Surgical, Camp Fallujah, Iraq, on July 19, 2005. 
     Mr. Singh was a third country national from India.
       7. Staff Sgt. Christopher L. Everett, 23, of Huntsville, 
     Texas: Staff Sgt. Everett died in Al Taqqadum, Iraq, when he 
     was electrocuted while power washing sand from a Humvee. He 
     was assigned to the Army National Guard's 2nd Battalion, 
     112th Armor Regiment, 56th Brigade Combat Team, Arlington, 
     Texas. Died on September 7, 2005.
       8. Army Sgt. Michael J. Montpetit, 31, of Honolulu, Hawaii: 
     Army Sgt. Montpetit died when he was electrocuted while 
     working on a

[[Page S10021]]

     generator outside of Baghdad. He was assigned to the 15th 
     Forward Support Battalion, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st 
     Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas. Died on June 22, 2007.
       9. Staff Sgt. Ryan Douglas Maseth, 24, of Shaler, 
     Pennsylvania: Staff Sgt. Maseth was electrocuted while 
     showering in his barracks in Baghdad in January 2, 2008.
       10. Adam Hermanson, 25, of Las Vegas, Nevada: While working 
     as a State Department contractor, Adam was electrocuted on 
     September 1, 2009 while showering in Baghdad. According to 
     press reports, military medical examiner told her that 
     preliminary findings indicate that Adam died from low voltage 
     electrocution. Adam served three tours in Iraq with the Air 
     Force before leaving at the rank of staff sergeant. Died on 
     September 1, 2009.

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, let me conclude with a couple of remarks.
  The Associated Press published a story written by Kimberly Hefling on 
September 8, 2009, and I ask unanimous consent to have this article 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Associated Press, Sept. 8, 2009]

                State Department Contractor Electrocuted

                         (By Kimberly Hefling)

       Washington.--A State Department contractor apparently has 
     been electrocuted while showering in Baghdad even as U.S. 
     authorities in Iraq try to remedy wiring problems that have 
     led to the deaths of American troops there.
       The contractor, Adam Hermanson, 25, died Sept. 1, his wife, 
     Janine, said Tuesday. She added that a military medical 
     examiner told her that preliminary findings indicate her 
     husband died from low voltage electrocution.
       Electrical wiring has been an ongoing problem in Iraq. At 
     least three troops have been electrocuted in the shower since 
     the start of the Iraq War, while others have been 
     electrocuted under other circumstances such as while 
     operating a power washer. Inspections and repairs are under 
     way at 90,000 U.S.-maintained structures there.
       Hermanson grew up in San Diego and Las Vegas. He joined the 
     military at age 17, and did three tours in Iraq with the Air 
     Force before leaving at the rank of staff sergeant. He 
     returned to Iraq as an employee of the Herndon, Va.-based 
     private contractor Triple Canopy.
       Jayanti Menches, a spokeswoman for Triple Canopy, said in 
     an e-mail that the company was saddened by his death but 
     would not be commenting further until an investigation was 
     complete.
       State Department spokesman Robert Wood also offered 
     condolences to the family, but would not elaborate further on 
     the cause of death, pending an investigation.
       Janine Hermanson said her husband took the contracting job 
     so they would have money to buy a house in Muncy, Pa., where 
     they were planning to live. She said she'd already moved 
     there and was living with her parents.
       The two would have celebrated their fourth wedding 
     anniversary on Sunday.
       ``He was supposed to come back and we had a lot of plans,'' 
     said his wife, who also served in Iraq with the Air Force.
       Besides three Iraq tours, Adam Hermanson served in 
     Uzbekistan with the Air Force. His mother, Patricia 
     Hermanson, 53, of Las Vegas, said everyone in her family was 
     struggling to understand how he could survive four war tours, 
     then die suddenly in a seemingly safe place.
       ``We all know that Adam was as strong as a tank,'' his 
     mother said. ``He was in good health.''
       In July, the Defense Department's inspector general said 
     that of the 18 electrocution deaths of U.S. soldiers and 
     contractors in Iraq, eight involved possible equipment faults 
     or malfunctioning that caused or contributed to the 
     electrocutions. The accidental touching of live wires was 
     blamed in about half the deaths.

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I won't read all of this Associated Press 
story but will just make note of two statements by two people who loved 
Adam Hermanson very much.
  There is a statement in this story about his wife and his mother. His 
wife said, when reflecting upon what had happened to her husband and 
the circumstances: He was supposed to come back, and we had a lot of 
plans. So after serving three tours as a soldier and then going back as 
a contractor, he would have hoped to have come back to be with his 
wife, and she says in the story that they had a lot of plans. And then 
Adam's mother, Patricia Hermanson of Las Vegas, said everyone in her 
family was struggling to understand how he could survive so many tours 
of duty and then die suddenly in a seemingly safe place. That is a 
question all of us should ask and have answered--those who are family 
members who have lived through this nightmare and those who are 
Senators trying to do something about it.
  I know there are many people here in this Chamber who want to do 
something about this, so I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. President, I hope someone can tell me whether we can call it up 
at this time.
  Mr. INOUYE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CASEY. I will.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. I commend the Senator from Pennsylvania for his 
amendment. I support the intent and the purpose of that amendment. 
However, I have been advised there are certain technical changes that 
have been recommended for better acceptance by this body. So if I may 
ask that the Senator's staff and the staff of the committee get 
together, I think we can work it out.
  Mr. CASEY. I thank the chairman for his comments, and we will 
certainly act in accordance with his statement.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and 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. KAUFMAN. 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. 2578, as Modified

  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment 
No. 2578 be modified with the changes at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __.  The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of State and the Administrator of the 
     United States Agency for International Development, continue 
     to support requirements for monthly integrated civilian-
     military training for civilians deploying to Afghanistan at 
     Camp Atterbury, Indiana, including through the allocation of 
     military and civilian personnel, trainers, and other 
     resources for that purpose.

  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment at 
this time?
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and 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. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would like to advise the Senate that the 
committee has no objection to the Kaufman amendment and we accept it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2578), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, 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. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2567

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for the Center on Climate Change 
       and National Security of the Central Intelligence Agency)

  Mr. BARRASSO. I ask the pending business be set aside and I be 
allowed to call up my amendment, No. 2567, and make it pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Barrasso] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2567.

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

[[Page S10022]]

       Sec. __. No amounts appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be available for the Center on 
     Climate Change and National Security of the Central 
     Intelligence Agency.

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, on September 25 the Central Intelligence 
Agency announced the creation of the CIA Center on Climate Change and 
National Security. I am proposing an amendment today to the fiscal year 
2010 Defense appropriations bill that would prevent funds in this bill 
from going to that center. The CIA is responsible for gathering foreign 
intelligence information for the United States. We have threats from 
around the world. The most immediate of these threats is the prevention 
of future terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. I do not believe that 
creating a Center on Climate Change is going to prevent one terrorist 
attack.
  Why is this administration having our intelligence officials, the men 
and the women who protect this country, have these men and women staff 
and operate a climate change center? The creation of this center 
appears to elevate the issue of climate change to the level of 
terrorism and foreign espionage.
  To me, this raises a number of questions. The CIA always claims to 
have scarce resources and competing priorities. What are the costs 
going to be of creating this new climate center? Isn't there a more 
efficient way to achieve the same results using existing resources? Why 
can't the CIA get this information through traditional channels, such 
as the State Department officials in the field, the EPA, the National 
Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, and other Federal agencies?
  How does the CIA get information about other issues--world hunger, 
disease, financial markets--to make their decisions? Do they have 
centers for all of these issues as well? Is this center going to make 
demands on the current CIA bureaucracy? Will they use existing 
personnel? Will they hire new people? Will necessary personnel have 
tasking authority?
  Tasking authority means the ability to take satellites off of 
watching terrorists and having them instead watching arctic ice sheets. 
Will someone sitting in a dark room watching satellite video of 
northern Afghanistan now be sitting in a dark room watching polar ice 
caps?
  The priorities seem to be out of focus. I believe the Senate should 
support this amendment and bring the focus back in line with America's 
national security interests. The CIA has an important job to do. It 
must not be distracted by being forced to deal with climate change.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOND. 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. BOND. Mr. President, I have two things to do. First, there is an 
amendment from the Senator from Oklahoma on the National Guard REA 
accounts. I think the amendment would miss the point and make a faulty 
assumption that the National Guard/Reserve equipment accounts do not go 
through a process.
  The Secretary of Defense and service chiefs already review the 
unfunded list that the NGREA funds are put toward. The Air National 
Guard and Army National Guard, working closely with their major command 
counterparts, have been able to use these funds on critical capability 
requirements by leading with funding for integration and procurement of 
various weapons systems capabilities.
  The Army and the Air Force are responsible for equipping their 
Reserve components, and they do so within budgetary constraints.
  We know historically that the Air National Guard has been equipped at 
a level significantly lower than the Active components and, 
constitutionally, the Congress has the explicit power to provide for 
equipping the militia. Even in recent history the Air National Guard's 
equipment requirements are placed in the supplemental or in the 
outyears, which often do not survive.
  Congress has traditionally understood that the Army cannot meet the 
Reserve component's equipment requirements. The National Guard has a 
Federal ``wartime'' mission as an operational Reserve and, in order to 
ensure that the Reserve component, specifically the Guard, can meet 
both its Federal and domestic missions, Congress provides the NGREA.
  After Katrina, the Guard had only 33 percent of the homeland 
equipment needed to respond to its State emergency response mission. 
The Guard primarily focuses its NGREA procurements on critical dual-use 
items that support both the Chief and the National Guard Bureaus' 
``Essential 10'' capabilities--their overseas military responsibility--
and the Governors.
  The funding provides for the modernization, unfunded MTOE equipment 
requirements, and items of equipment that are not managed by the Army 
G4 or G8.
  With all that said, I hope my colleagues will continue to recognize 
that investments in our citizen soldiers and airmen provide the best 
bang for the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars and, further, that the 
funds in the National Guard and Reserve equipment account are subject 
to an internal process review by the Secretary of Defense and 
respective Guard Chiefs.
  Mr. President, I also will ask to call up another amendment that I 
have. I believe it is at the desk. This is an amendment on behalf of 
the citizen airmen in the Air National Guard.
  At present, the Air Force possesses sufficient numbers of fighter 
aircraft to accomplish its national military strategy objective which, 
as its first priority, is the defense of the homeland. However, even 
with an aggressive strategy to reflow legacy aircraft to Air Guard 
units, the Air Guard will experience a significant drawdown of fighters 
as existing fighters reach the end of their service life.
  Unfortunately, this is the result of year after year of failing to 
recapitalize our fighter fleet. This is due to cost growth and 
production delays of the so-called fifth generation aircraft that have 
resulted in reduced purchases of aircraft and chronic delivery delays 
which threaten to put a tremendous bathtub in the available craft 
needed by the Air Guard for its mission.
  Most of us all know what happens when the pot shrinks in the 
Pentagon. The Guard gets the short end of the stick. The Air Force must 
recapitalize its older fighter force, the F-15s and F-16s. Fifth 
generation aircraft investment, proposed investment, is crowding out 
other Air Force priorities with limited resources when we have to have 
the resources now for work that the Guard is continuing to do.
  Of the F-16s in the Air National Guard, 80 percent will begin to 
reach the end of their service life in less than 8 years. The net 
result is the Air Guard is facing a major gap between when the jets are 
retired and when aircraft to replace them are available.
  That is the fighter gap. The result is units would not be capable of 
supporting the Air Sovereignty Alert; that means defending the skies of 
the Homeland.
  Currently, the Guard covers series 16 of 18 sites where units stand 
alert 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. Recapitalizing 
the Air National Guard and modernizing must occur proportionally and in 
parallel with the total Air Force; otherwise, mission gaps, such as the 
all-important Air Sovereignty Alert, will come down and the absence of 
necessary aircraft will leave many units eviscerated.
  There is no program or plan that prevents the fighter gap from 
occurring. I was very pleased to hear the Air Force Chief of Staff, GEN 
Norton Schwartz, announce at the National Guard Association his intent 
to work with the Guard to develop a preservation strategy.
  The strategy is being developed. At the time, it will be presented to 
the Air Force, the Guard, and the Adjutant Generals in November. 
Senator Leahy and I have continued to endorse the procurement of 4.5-
generation aircraft to address the shortfall.
  I believe we will have to consider purchasing more F-16s, F-15s or F/
A-18s that are relevant to the current and foreseeable war on terror, 
are cost-effective, and are available to bridge the Guard through the 
fifth generation.
  The Air Guard absolutely needs to be a part of the fifth-generation 
missions but not at the expense of the vast majority of units it would 
lose due to a

[[Page S10023]]

lack or delay in follow on. We do not need to accept a smaller Air 
Force, particularly when it is not based on thoughtful analysis but 
based on the need to cut budgets and cost growth in the procurement of 
the new planes that are so far behind schedule, underperformance, and 
overbudget.
  We will see too many units shut down. That is why Senator Leahy and I 
have offered an amendment to restrict the retirement of the current 
generation aircraft until the Secretary reports to the Congressional 
Defense Committees a detailed plan on how the Secretary of the Air 
Force will fill the force structure, a description of the follow-on 
missions, an explanation of the criteria for selecting the bases, a 
plan for the reassignment of regular and Reserve Air Force personnel, 
and an estimate of the cost avoidance to be achieved by the retirement 
of such tactical air.
  Many of the efforts we have had to wage over the last few years have 
been the result of the Guard getting shut out of key decisions on 
resources and equipment. America's oldest fighting force is now more 
relevant than ever. In today's world, the need for a National Guard is 
greater than ever before. The Guard has experienced and capable 
fighting units. There is no program or plan that prevents this fighter 
gap from occurring. Unless we pass this amendment, the issue remains 
unresolved. This amendment will prevent the loss of any additional 
force structure until we get the information needed.
  I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call 
up this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. INHOFE. I reserve the right to object. Let me inquire as to what 
is pending now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Barrasso 
amendment No. 2567. Five other amendments are also pending.
  Mr. INHOFE. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BOND. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as we consider the Defense Department 
Appropriations bill, the most important question we face concerns our 
military operations in Afghanistan. That is why I have filed an 
amendment which commends the President for focusing on Afghanistan and 
Pakistan and for developing a comprehensive, interagency strategy for 
the region. It also expresses the sense of the Senate that the 
President should provide Congress and the American people with some 
basic information before he authorizes any potential increase in troop 
levels in Afghanistan. In particular, it urges the President to inform 
Congress how much such an increase would cost, how long he expects it 
to last, the likelihood that it will have any impact on our ability to 
confront the al-Qaida safe haven in Pakistan, and the likelihood that 
it will actually destabilize one or both countries. I realize that we 
cannot know these things with absolute certainty, but we should have 
some idea of the expected costs, duration, and likelihood of success or 
failure before embarking on such a significant undertaking. The 
President should not send tens of thousands of brave young men and 
women into harm's way, if he so decides, without first answering these 
questions, and Congress should not support such a decision without 
first obtaining this information.
  My amendment, which is nonbinding, does not attempt to pressure the 
President to make a decision about troop levels. I, for one, am pleased 
to see that this administration is apparently asking some very tough 
questions about our Afghan strategy. I think it is unfortunate that 
some, including in this body, have suggested that any delay in 
responding to General McChrystal's request is unacceptable. The stakes 
are too high for a rushed decision, and not only for the troops who 
could be deployed. After 8 long years of war, we need to question all 
our assumptions and rethink our approach from top to bottom. What was 
possible and desirable 5 or even 2 years ago may now be neither. 
Getting Afghanistan right has serious implications for our national 
security, and the answers to the questions I raise in my amendment will 
help us, and the people we represent, to know whether we have done so.
  Eight years ago, I voted in favor of the authorization to use 
military force against those who planned and carried out the 9/11 
attacks. Since then, I have remained focused on that goal and have 
noted with alarm the resiliency of al-Qaida's leadership in Pakistan 
and its growing footholds in Yemen, Somalia, North Africa and 
elsewhere. The decision to go to war in Iraq was a tragic mistake that 
undermined our ability to go after al-Qaida. That initial mistake was 
compounded by flawed thinking as too many people focused narrowly on 
``getting Iraq right'' without realizing that the key to getting Iraq 
right was to place it in the context of a comprehensive, global 
strategy to defeat al-Qaida. So, too, we cannot simply focus on getting 
Afghanistan right, we need to make sure that our Afghan approach is 
part of, and contributes to, that broader strategy I just mentioned.
  This administration sees that bigger picture, which is why it has 
begun to redeploy troops from Iraq, though not as quickly as I would 
prefer. And President Obama has brought needed focus and attention to 
the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, but I am concerned that our current 
and proposed military strategy Afghanistan may play into al-Qaida's 
hands. Our current approach has mobilized a tribal network in the 
Afghan-Pakistan border region that does not share al-Qaida's 
international terrorist agenda but nonetheless opposes our massive 
military presence in the region. It has driven people into the arms of 
the Taliban even while Taliban and al-Qaida leadership remains out of 
reach in Pakistan. And it risks further destabilizing Pakistan, a 
nuclear-armed country where al-Qaida is now based. Rather than continue 
down this road, we need a smart, targeted strategy to pursue al-Qaida 
and Taliban leadership without provoking further militancy in both 
countries.
  Our enemy is agile. It has a network that spans the globe, receives 
financing from individuals around the world and has a presence in even 
the most developed nations. We have expanded our ability to go after 
these networks, working with allies and cutting off the flow of funds. 
Chasing after elusive Taliban foot soldiers in Afghanistan will not 
defeat al-Qaida; rather, we must use all elements of our national power 
to target al-Qaida without getting bogged down in massive military 
operations with unrealistic goals and potentially dangerous unintended 
consequences.
  Armed nation-building in a country hostile to foreign interventions 
and with a feckless, corrupt central government is at best an 
experiment and at worst a dangerous distraction. Rather than looking 
desperately for a quick fix to the problems that plague that country, 
we must acknowledge the limits of our ability to radically remake 
Afghan society no matter how many billions of dollars and tens of 
thousands of troops we may commit to the cause. Instead, we should 
pursue a sustainable, civilian-focused strategy to support the 
emergence of legitimate governance. This is the surest way to defeat 
the Taliban in the long term.
  Unfortunately, while the decision to go to war in Afghanistan was the 
right one, the exigencies of our military operations are now 
undermining our ability to help promote such legitimate governance. We 
have looked the other way when our supposed allies committed human 
rights abuses, sold drugs or embraced corruption. As General McChrystal 
stated in his assessment, we have embraced 
``problematic'' relationships with ``polarizing and predatory'' power 
brokers, including in the Afghan National Security Forces, who ``have 
been major agents of corruption.'' He reported that ``extortion 
associated with large-scale development projects undermines the economy 
in Afghanistan.'' Additionally, he notes, the Afghan public ``perceives 
that ISAF is complicit in'' the abuse of power and corruption.

  Some who want to persist with our current strategy are calling for a 
rapid increase in the size of the Afghan security forces. But without a 
legitimate, functioning national government, a rapid expansion of these 
forces is likely to provoke further instability.
  Currently, the only face of the Afghan government in many parts of 
the country is the Afghan police force which is itself beset by 
corruption.

[[Page S10024]]

  While our current strategy depends upon our ability to address the 
corruption that plagues the Afghan government, no one has explained how 
we can achieve this goal. With the input of millions of dollars, 
international pressure and additional U.S. troops, we did not even have 
the ability to prevent wide-scale fraud in the recent presidential 
election. In the absence of a legitimate local partner, our 
counterinsurgency goals, while perhaps laudable, appear unrealistic.
  Rather than further aligning ourselves with this badly flawed 
government, we should focus on targeting our aid to those actually 
working to promote good governance and the rule of law. This does not 
require a massive military presence. Indeed, attempting to accelerate 
this process with an increase in U.S. troop levels may well be 
counterproductive. Countries are typically built by their own people, 
over time, through a process of building a national consensus. This 
cannot be imposed by foreigners, especially when they are active 
participants in an ongoing war in a country that is highly resistant to 
foreign occupation. And we cannot afford to link this lengthy and 
unpredictable process to an open-ended and unsustainable military 
escalation.
  General McChrystal has argued that we should significantly increase 
our military resources in Afghanistan for the purpose of ``protecting'' 
the Afghan population. However, he acknowledges that, if we endorse his 
proposal, it ``is realistic to expect that Afghan and coalition 
casualties will increase.'' This does not make sense. Occupying the 
population centers of southern Afghanistan is likely to provoke greater 
resentment and increase the danger to our troops and to the Afghan 
public. The majority of Afghans oppose an increase in foreign troops 
and want to see foreign troops leave the country within 2 years. 
Without giving the American and Afghan people a sense that our military 
operations will not go on indefinitely, we are unlikely to gain the 
support needed to accomplish our goals, particularly if we know going 
in that civilian casualties will only increase in the short term. That 
is why I have called for a flexible timetable to draw down our troop 
presence in Afghanistan.
  Rather than risking more American lives and spending more American 
dollars in support of an illegitimate partner in Afghanistan, we must 
find a way to relentlessly pursue al-Qaida without further 
destabilizing Afghanistan and its nuclear-armed neighbor. Our massive, 
open-ended military footprint is not only unnecessary and unlikely to 
accomplish this goal, it may well be counterproductive.
  Now, some will argue that anything short of a troop escalation means 
``abandoning'' Afghanistan. That same argument was made about Iraq, and 
it is just as phony now as it was then. The question is not about 
abandoning Afghanistan, it is about correctly defining and achieving 
our goals there. Unlike Iraq, we also hear arguments pointing out that 
the 9/11 attacks were launched from Afghanistan, which is absolutely 
true.
  But the leaders of al-Qaida and the leaders of the Taliban are in 
Pakistan, they are not in Afghanistan. We should be concerned about al-
Qaida potentially re-establishing a safe haven in Afghanistan, but we 
should be even more concerned about al-Qaida's current a safe haven in 
Pakistan. Pakistan is home to a witches' brew of militancy, radicalism, 
terrorism, nuclear weapons and weak civilian leadership, and getting 
this country right will be even more challenging, and more important, 
than Afghanistan.
  Our primary goal should be to help support the emergence of a 
civilian government in Pakistan that is effective, democratic and a 
reliable partner. It has been widely reported that elements of the 
Pakistani security services continue to provide support to militants. 
Our ability to pressure the Pakistani security forces to hold those 
elements accountable is undermined by our focus on military operations 
in Afghanistan, specifically our dependence upon our supply line 
running through Pakistan. Some have suggested that if we redeploy 
troops from Afghanistan, the Pakistanis will decide we are not 
committed to the region, and we will lose what leverage we have over 
them. In fact, we should consider whether drawing down our troops in 
Afghanistan would help enable us to deal with Pakistan from a position 
of strength.
  The Director of National Intelligence summarized the depth of the 
problem earlier this year during his testimony before the Senate Select 
Committee on Intelligence. He stated that:

       No improvement in the security in Afghanistan is possible 
     without . . . Pakistan taking control of its border areas and 
     improving governance, creating economic and educational 
     opportunities throughout the country. . . . [M]ounting 
     economic hardships and frustration over poor governance have 
     given rise to greater radicalization. . . . Islamabad needs 
     to make painful reforms to improve overall macroeconomic 
     stability. . . .

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
be given 3 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD.

       Among the needed reforms are measures to improve the 
     transparency of government expenditures and impose taxes on 
     wealthy landowners. Such reforms would reduce the 
     opportunities for corruption among Pakistani political 
     leaders, help to establish a more level political playing 
     field, and help build the confidence of average Pakistanis in 
     their government.

  As Admiral Blair's testimony illustrates, militancy in the region 
stems from an incredibly complicated set of problems, few of which are 
amenable to a military solution. Now that the United States is focused 
on its relationship with the civilian government in Pakistan after too 
many years in which we placed all our chips on an unreliable, unpopular 
and undemocratic strongman, we are finally on the right track, trying 
to support the emergence of a legitimate government that, in the long 
run, is more likely to support our counterterrorism goals and provide 
the stability that country needs.
  Progress on this front, however, may well be compromised by our 
massive presence in Afghanistan. During a recent Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee hearing, former British foreign service officer, 
Rory Stewart testified that ``U.S. operations in Afghanistan may, in 
fact, contribute to the destabilization of Pakistan.'' Special Envoy 
Holbrooke and Admiral Mullen have also acknowledged to me in 
appearances before the Foreign Relations Committee that there is a 
danger that our operations in Afghanistan will further destabilize 
Pakistan by pushing militants into that country. We must carefully 
consider the alternatives before we pursue a significant escalation in 
Afghanistan that is not likely to fix the governance problems in that 
country or to address the al-Qaida presence in Pakistan, and that could 
further destabilize the entire region.
  Over the last 8 years, we have committed tremendous resources in an 
effort to dramatically rework Afghan society. We have doubled our troop 
levels over the past year and, this year alone, we will spend over $50 
billion in that country. This has already become the deadliest year for 
U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Rather than doubling down on a strategy 
with objectives that may well be unachievable, we should focus on 
relentlessly pursuing al-Qaida's network in Pakistan and around the 
world, and set realistic goals for providing civilian assistance to 
legitimate actors within the Afghan and Pakistani governments. My 
amendment asks tough questions about any potential military escalation 
to ensure that we carefully consider the costs of the proposed 
strategy, its likelihood of achieving our counterterrorism goals, the 
potential pitfalls and the alternatives. I hope my colleagues will ask 
themselves these questions as they consider whether to support the 
underlying bill, which funds a military approach in Afghanistan that is 
badly in need of rethinking.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending 
amendment and call up my amendment at the desk, No. 2588.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COBURN. Reserving the right to object, I have no objection to the 
Senator from Minnesota offering his amendment. I wanted to get two 
other amendments pending. I ask that I be included in the request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to modifying the request?

[[Page S10025]]

  Mr. FRANKEN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. FRANKEN. I would like to get my amendment in.
  Mr. COBURN. If the Senator objects for me, then I will object to him 
getting his.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.


                           Amendment No. 2593

  Under the previous order, there will now be 2 minutes of debate 
equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment 2593 offered 
by the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there are two amendments that we will be 
voting on next to each other, side by side, relating to the appearance 
of not only General McChrystal but, if my amendment is passed, the 
Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the 
Commander in CENTCOM and General McChrystal, both. That was the 
approach we used when President Bush, for 3 months, had under 
consideration an Iraqi surge. Nobody tried to have a hearing at that 
time to bring in his commander while the President was deliberating to 
give us the commander's views that he was sharing with his Commander in 
Chief. As a matter of fact, that commander, General Casey, had views 
which ran very contrary to his Commander in Chief. But we should follow 
that same pattern here. We should allow this deliberative process to 
take place. We should not try to intrude upon it or to put the 
commander in the field in a position where he is testifying in public 
relative to what he is advising his Commander in Chief.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I hope everybody had a chance to read the wording of this 
amendment that says ``appropriate committees of Congress shall hold 
hearings,'' et cetera, ``promptly after the decision by the President 
on those matters is announced.'' In other words, we don't have any 
input into the decisionmaking process. We don't get to hear from the 
Secretary of Defense on down while the decision is being made by the 
President as a coequal branch of government. This is bizarre. I have 
never seen a requirement that we can't call witnesses and won't call 
witnesses on an issue about sending young Americans into harm's way. 
This is a remarkable statement that we are not going to be in on the 
takeoff and so therefore we will not be in on the landing. We aren't 
going to have a hearing on one of the most pressing and incredible 
emergencies of our time? We aren't going to have any witnesses before 
the appropriate committees until after the decision is made? I am not 
ready to abrogate those responsibilities that I have to the citizens of 
Arizona who are in harm's way. I urgently ask colleagues to vote 
against this bizarre amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The question is on agreeing to 
amendment No. 2593.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 304 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--39

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

      
     Dodd
      
  The amendment (No. 2593) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.


                  Senator Orrin Hatch's 12,000th Vote

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise to honor our colleague and good 
friend, the senior Senator from Utah, who is about to cast his 12,000th 
vote. Today, Senator Hatch becomes part of a small group. He is now one 
of fewer than 15 Senators in history, and the only Senator in the 
history of Utah, to have cast 12,000 votes in the well of the Senate.
  The people of Utah have elected Orrin Hatch to this body six times, 
and I am sure they couldn't be more proud to see him reach this 
milestone. For more than 32 years, he has been a phenomenal 
representative of the Beehive State. He has made sure no one in 
Washington, as he likes to put it, has been able to push Utah around. 
He has also made a lot of sacrifices in the process. A few years ago, 
when Senator Hatch was deciding whether to run for reelection, his wife 
Elaine asked him if maybe it was time to leave Washington so they could 
have a life. Orrin responded with the words of a public servant: ``This 
is our life,'' he said. ``My life is a life of service.''
  It actually started out early. As a young man growing up in 
Pittsburg, Orrin was elected to the student Senate and then as student 
body president at Baldwin High School. Later, at Brigham Young 
University, thanks to an alphabetical seating chart, he met Elaine 
Hansen. It was probably the only thing he ever got in his life simply 
by way of good luck.
  Orrin was always a hard worker. As a boy, he sold eggs from his 
family's chickens. He worked as a janitor in college. He left Brigham 
Young with a degree in history and went on to make some history 
himself, becoming the longest serving Senator in the history of Utah 
and one of the most influential and well-known Senators of our time.
  Politics came naturally and quickly. Before winning a Senate seat, he 
had never held elected office. A tireless campaigner, Orrin set out 
across his State to meet the people of Utah and to tell them how he 
could help them in Washington. His message and his work ethic earned 
him their respect and it earned him 54 percent of the vote.
  From the moment he was sworn in, Orrin kept his early pledge. He has 
helped the people of Utah and all Americans keep more of their hard-
earned money by sponsoring tax relief legislation. He has been a 
champion of health care reform, particularly children's health, through 
his work on the Finance and Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committees.
  Senator Hatch is also known to millions of Americans as a veteran 
member of the Judiciary Committee. He has been involved in the debate 
over eight--eight--sitting Supreme Court Justices.
  He has been a major player in recent debates over national security, 
energy, labor, the second amendment, and the current debate over health 
care, and he has done it all in the spirit of bipartisanship, earning 
the friendship and respect of every Senator in this Chamber. No one who 
has ever met Orrin Hatch isn't struck by his courtesy and the dignity 
with which he carries out his duties. For Republicans, he is a good 
friend, a constant ally, and one of the best advocates we have. To 
Americans, he is the very picture of a Senator.
  Incidentally, he is also one of the most prolific songwriters ever to 
serve in Congress. He wrote all 13 songs from one of his albums over 
the course of one weekend, and well-known musicians such as Gladys 
Knight have sung his songs. But he will never be accused of false 
modesty when it comes to his

[[Page S10026]]

talents as a songwriter. Orrin once told a reporter: Everybody loves my 
music.
  In everything else, though, Orrin is happy to share the credit. He 
will be the first to tell you that his success wouldn't be possible 
without his family. So today we also honor Elaine, their 6 children, 
and their 23 grandchildren on this very historic occasion.
  These milestones are important because they testify to hard work and 
commitment. But they also give us an opportunity to recognize 
colleagues whom we admire and respect, colleagues such as the senior 
Senator from Utah.
  (Applause, Senators rising.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have looked forward for the last half-hour 
or so to this occasion, recognizing that Orrin was going to be making 
his 12,000th vote the next vote.
  The people of Utah are proud of Senator Hatch for a lot of reasons. 
His name is synonymous with Utah. Even though he spent a lot of his 
growing up in Pennsylvania, the name ``Hatch'' is a prominent name 
throughout Utah. They even have a town named Hatch. His great-
grandfather, Jeremiah Hatch, helped found the town of Vernal. Orrin, I 
have to say this: My staff preparing this said the beautiful town of 
Vernal. I had to change it to say the interesting town of Vernal. But 
it is an indication of the roots of the Hatch family in Utah. That town 
of Vernal, UT, was founded more than 130 years ago by Jeremiah, and the 
heart of every Hatch since then was been part of the State of Utah.
  Senator Hatch has chaired the Judiciary Committee on more than one 
occasion. He spent 7 years at the helm of that panel during some of the 
most difficult times we have had in the Senate dealing with judicial 
appointments. He served as chairman of the HELP Committee. In that 
post, he sat alongside his friend, Ted Kennedy, for almost two decades. 
Senator Hatch has a lot to be proud of in his legislative record. One 
of the things that is a hallmark of Senator Hatch: He is the reason we 
have a Surgeon General's warning on cigarette packages and 
advertisements. That is because of Senator Hatch.
  He has not only been a good Senator, he is also a terrific lawyer. He 
excelled in his younger days as a basketball player, has fought in the 
ring, and as we have heard from the Republican leader, he is an 
accomplished musician, and he really is. He recently wrote a song in 
honor of Senator Kennedy. It is not the first song he has written about 
his friend.
  Orrin Hatch has dedicated his life to people, period. As a young man, 
he took 2 years out of his life to serve as a Mormon missionary in the 
States of Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan. That is, as some say, similar to 
going into the Army and not having a gun to carry. It is a very strict 
2 years. They have very strict assignments and a routine they go 
through, and it prepared him well for what we do in the Senate. But 
during his heavy load in the Senate, he has rarely not been a Sunday 
school teacher or doing other things with the church.
  I think we on this side would agree that Orrin Hatch on occasion can 
be fairly partisan, but I would also say that is not always the case. 
He has almost, nearly alone on a number of occasions, broken away and 
been responsible for important legislation in recent years, including 
the Children's Health Insurance Program. Many educational issues, 
including Leave No Child Behind, have been as a result of his stepping 
out.
  Orrin and I are not political soulmates, but we are soulmates. He is 
a wonderful man and a good friend. As we have heard, he is the father 
of 6, the grandfather of 23, and a great-grandfather. He is one of the 
most senior Members of this body and one of the most respected.
  I think truly the reason that Orrin is the person he is is because of 
Elaine. He has an angelic wife, a woman who is at his side, supportive 
of him through good times and bad. She is a wonderful woman.
  I am happy to have as one of my neighbors from the State above ours, 
Utah, Orrin Hatch, who will truly go down as one of Utah's outstanding, 
great Senators, and that is the way it should be.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I will not prolong this a great deal, but 
I need to stand as Orrin's junior colleague and acknowledge not only 
all the things the two leaders have acknowledged, but the great 
friendship I have experienced coming here as a Senator.
  Orrin, we shall now reveal, was somewhat enamored of my opponent when 
I ran the first time. He, at the same time, in great fairness, reached 
out to me to become acquainted with me, and after we had a particular 
problem arise in that campaign, Orrin reached out to my opponent and 
settled that problem with the kind of diplomacy and capacity he always 
has. From that time forward, I could not have had and could not have 
wished for a more reliable or more supportive senior colleague than 
Orrin Hatch.
  I am senior to him when it comes to age. You wouldn't think that, but 
it happens to be true. But never at any time has he treated me as 
anything but a complete equal. He has acted as a mentor.
  I am grateful to the two leaders for their setting aside this time. I 
wish to join with them in congratulating Orrin on his 12,000th vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Well, thank you so much to the two leaders. This is 
embarrassing, but it is very moving to have all my friends and 
colleagues here. This means so much to me. I didn't realize it was such 
a big deal, to cast 12,000 votes, but I am grateful the people of Utah 
have given me this privilege and this opportunity to serve in the 
greatest legislative body on Earth today, with the most wonderful 
people I know on both sides of the floor. I appreciate each and every 
one of you, and as long as I am here, I am going to try to do the very 
best job I can.
  I am very grateful to Bob Bennett as well. He is a wonderful 
colleague and a wonderful companion here in the Senate. He has been a 
wonderful guide, and he has helped me as well.
  This body means a great deal to me. We all saw what it meant to Ted 
Kennedy and the great accolades he received throughout his lifetime. It 
was a real privilege to be close to him, as I am to almost all of you 
and will be to all of you. This is a tremendous body. I just wish we 
could get rid of some of the partisanship as well as work together a 
little bit better than we have. To the extent that I can, I will 
certainly try to do that.
  I wish to thank my friends on the Democratic side for their patience 
and their tolerance and kindness and my friends on the Republican side 
for putting up with me all these years. I am very grateful to you.
  By the way, I have three great-grandchildren as well, so I have 26 
grandchildren, and I think probably more on the way by now.
  When I was a missionary in Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan, they once 
called me to start the congregation in Sandusky, OH.
  We had four members there who hadn't been to church in less than 10 
years. Within a month we had 30, all women, of course, and children. I 
became the first branch president, pastor of that congregation. We have 
the longest serving woman's organization in the world in the Mormon 
church, and it is called the Relief Society, which is presided over by 
women. I don't want you to misconstrue this, but I was also a part of 
and the president of the Relief Society as well in that small branch of 
the church.
  From those humble beginnings, I have to say I received some of the 
greatest experiences of my life. That mission was important to me. This 
is important to me. I love each and every one of you. I think I have 
expressed that to you in various ways, even at times when I am sure you 
wondered about it. I am sorry I took so long, but I am moved by this 
nice care that you have all shown to me. Thank you so much.
  (Applause, Senators rising.)


                           Amendment No. 2575

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 2575, offered by the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain.

[[Page S10027]]

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment says within 45 days that we 
should have testimony from our military leaders, whom we have given the 
responsibility for combat operations in Afghanistan.
  We have just abrogated the Senate's obligations and constitutional 
authority for advice and consent, because now, thanks to the passage of 
the Levin amendment, we will not have testimony from those commanders 
in the field. I take special exception to it, and so should most people 
who have their young citizens over there in harm's way today fighting 
and dying.
  What we are going to do is say we cannot have any hearing as regards 
to strategy concerning how we are going to succeed in Afghanistan. So 
we are not in on the takeoff, and a lot of us may have trouble being in 
on the landing. This is an issue regarding which the Senate should have 
a role--at least of being informed.
  I guess maybe we will be restricted to interviews with General 
McChrystal on ``60 Minutes.'' I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of 
the amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I very much oppose the amendment. Secretary 
Gates opposes it. It would be totally inappropriate, in the middle of a 
deliberative process, to pit a commander of our troops in the field 
against the Commander in Chief. We did not do this when President Bush 
was President and General Casey was the commander. Apparently, he had 
very different views about the surge. Three months went by while 
President Bush deliberated on whether to surge troops. We never put 
General Casey at a hearing to tell us what he was advising President 
Bush, asking why we heard he might be advising a very different course 
of action. We never did that to President Bush. We should extend the 
same courtesy to President Obama during this deliberative process.
  There are good reasons why Secretary Gates opposes bringing his 
commander in front of a public hearing at this time. We should show the 
same respect for the President of the United States now as we did when 
President Bush was President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh), is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 40, nays 59, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 305 Leg.]

                                YEAS--40

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                                NAYS--59

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Bayh
       
  The amendment (No. 2575) was rejected.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Minnesota is 
recognized.


          Amendments Nos. 2588, 2596, 2585, and 2566, En Bloc

  Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be set aside, and on behalf of myself and Senators 
Bond and Coburn, I call up the following amendments en bloc, and ask 
that once they have been reported by number, they be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRANKEN. I call up amendments Nos. 2588, 2596, 2585, and 2566.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Franken] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2588.
       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Franken], for Mr. Bond, for 
     himself and Mr. Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 2596.
       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Franken], for Mr. Coburn, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2585.
       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Franken], for Mr. Coburn, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2566.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 2588

 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for any Federal contract with 
     Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., any of their subsidiaries or 
  affiliates, or any other contracting party if such contractor or a 
 subcontractor at any tier under such contract requires that employees 
or independent contractors sign mandatory arbitration clauses regarding 
                            certain claims)

       On page 245, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
       Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act may be used for any existing or 
     new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at 
     any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, 
     as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates 
     that the employee or independent contractor performing work 
     under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration 
     any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or 
     any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or 
     harassment, including assault and battery, intentional 
     infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or 
     negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.
       (b) The prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply with 
     respect to employment contracts that may not be enforced in a 
     court of the United States.


                           amendment no. 2596

     (Purpose: To limit the early retirement of tactical aircraft)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Limitation on Early Retirement of Tactical 
     Aircraft.--The Secretary of the Air Force may not retire any 
     tactical aircraft as announced in the Combat Air Forces 
     structuring plan announced on May 18, 2009, until the 
     Secretary submits to the congressional defense committees the 
     report described in subsection (b).
       (b) Report.--The report described in this subsection is a 
     report that sets forth the following:
       (1) A detailed plan for how the Secretary of the Air Force 
     will fill the force structure and capability gaps resulting 
     from the retirement of tactical aircraft under the 
     structuring plan described in subsection (a).
       (2) A description of the follow-on missions for each base 
     affected by the structuring plan.
       (3) An explanation of the criteria used for selecting the 
     bases referred to in paragraph (2) and for the selection of 
     tactical aircraft for retirement under the structuring plan.
       (4) A plan for the reassignment of the regular and reserve 
     Air Force personnel affected by the retirement of tactical 
     aircraft under the structuring plan.
       (5) An estimate of the cost avoidance to be achieved by the 
     retirement of such tactical aircraft, and a description how 
     such funds would be invested under the period covered by the 
     most current future-years defense program.


                           amendment no. 2585

(Purpose: To restore certain funds for the Armed Forces to prepare for 
    and conduct combat operations by accounting for the August 2009 
   Congressional Budget Office economic assumptions and by reducing 
 funding for congressionally directed spending items for low-priority 
                   research and development projects)

       On page 239, beginning on line 22, strike ``$294,000,000'' 
     and all that follows through ``$236,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$194,000,000, the total amount appropriated in title III of 
     this Act is hereby reduced by $322,000,000, the total amount 
     appropriated in title IV of this Act is hereby reduced by 
     $336,000,000''.

[[Page S10028]]

                           amendment no. 2566

 (Purpose: To restore $166,000,000 for the Armed Forces to prepare for 
      and conduct combat operations, by eliminating low-priority 
     congressionally directed spending items for all operation and 
                         maintenance accounts)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __.  No amounts appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be obligated or expended to fund 
     any congressionally directed spending item included in the 
     report of the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate 
     (Senate Report 111-74) with respect to any account as 
     follows:
       (1) Operation and Maintenance, Army.
       (2) Operation and Maintenance, Navy.
       (3) Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps.
       (4) Operation and Maintenance, Air Force.
       (5) Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide.
       (6) Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve.
       (7) Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve.
       (8) Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve.
       (9) Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve.
       (10) Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard
       (11) Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                           Amendment No. 2588

  Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, the amendment I offer today is inspired 
by the courageous story of a young woman who has dedicated 4 years of 
her life to making sure no other woman lives through her nightmare.
  Four years ago at the age of 19, Ms. Jamie Leigh Jones signed a 
contract to become an employee of KBR, then a Halliburton subsidiary. 
That contract contained a clause which required her to arbitrate any 
future dispute against her employer--this means to force her to give up 
her right to seek redress in court if she was wronged. At the time, Ms. 
Jones had no idea what implications this seemingly innocuous fine-print 
clause would have.
  Ms. Jones arrived in Iraq in July of 2005. Immediately, she 
complained to supervisors about the hostile conditions imposed by KBR. 
She was constantly being harassed by her male colleagues and was housed 
in barracks with 400 men and only a few women. Her pleas for safer 
housing were ignored.
  Four days after her arrival, Ms. Jones was drugged and gang-raped. 
She requested medical attention, and a doctor administered a rape kit. 
Parts of that rape kit have since mysteriously disappeared.
  After Ms. Jones reported the rape to her supervisors, she was locked 
in a shipping container with an armed guard and prohibited any contact 
with the outside world. They locked her in a container. It was only 
after she convinced one of the guards to lend her a cell phone that she 
was able to talk to her father, who enlisted the help of Representative 
Ted Poe, a Republican Congressman from Texas, to arrange for her safe 
return to the United States.
  But Ms. Jones' horrific plight did not end there. Having survived 
this ordeal, most of us would expect that she would have had her day in 
court to seek justice for the actions and inactions of her employer. 
Instead, KBR sought to enforce the arbitration clause in Ms. Jones' 
contract and tried to force her into arbitration. So over the past 3 
years, Ms. Jones has been fighting for her right to bring a lawsuit, 
and KBR has been fighting her every step along the way. This is simply 
too long for a rape victim to wait, just to have her day in court.

  The only thing more outrageous than KBR's actions is that Ms. Jones' 
story is not an isolated one. Since Ms. Jones courageously shared her 
story, many more women have come out of the shadows saying the same 
thing happened to them. And, yes, some of these women are still waiting 
for their day in court too. Others were forced into arbitration, and 
their outcome remains secret due to the nondisclosure clauses in the 
arbitration agreement.
  Arbitration has its place in our justice system. For two companies 
haggling over the price of goods, arbitration is an efficient forum, 
and the arbitrator will undoubtedly have the appropriate expertise. The 
privacy that arbitration offers can protect their proprietary business 
information. But arbitration has its limits. Arbitration is conducted 
behind closed doors and doesn't bring persistent, recurring, and 
egregious problems to the attention of the public. Arbitration doesn't 
ever allow a jury of your peers. Arbitration doesn't establish 
important precedent that can be used in later cases.
  Many of our Nation's most cherished civil rights were established by 
individuals bringing claims in court, the court ruling in their favor, 
and then extending the protection of those rights to anyone in a 
similar situation. Arbitration does have a place in our system, but 
handling claims of sexual assault and egregious violations of civil 
rights is not its place.
  Ms. Jones won a small but important victory just a few weeks ago. The 
conservative Fifth Circuit Court, encompassing Texas, Louisiana, and 
Mississippi, ruled that most of Ms. Jones' claims do not belong in 
arbitration, and she is entitled to her day in court. The Fifth Circuit 
ruled that even when you sign an employment contract requiring 
arbitration, there are some rights to sue your employer that can't be 
signed away. These include assault and battery, infliction of emotional 
distress, false imprisonment, and negligent hiring, retention, and 
supervision. But the Fifth Circuit's ruling only applies to the Fifth 
Circuit's jurisdiction, so it is not settled law throughout the United 
States. Who can say what might happen to claims filed in other 
circuits?
  My amendment seeks to extend much of the Fifth Circuit's reasoning to 
government contractors who continually subject workers to these so-
called mandatory arbitration clauses. The government shouldn't be doing 
business with defense contractors such as KBR as long as they continue 
this practice.
  The amendment I am offering today seeks to narrowly target the most 
egregious violations. The amendment applies to defense contracts, many 
of which are administered abroad, where women are the most vulnerable 
and least likely to have support resources. The amendment will apply to 
many contractors that have already demonstrated their incompetence in 
efficiently carrying out defense contracts and have further 
demonstrated their unwillingness and their inability to protect women 
from sexual assault.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, it is my understanding the Senator from 
Louisiana is going to be the next speaker, but I ask unanimous consent 
at the conclusion of her remarks that the Senator from Georgia be 
recognized, and that I be recognized after him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I understand there are several 
colleagues wishing to speak on the underlying bill. I am going to speak 
for a minute on an event that happened last night to honor many of our 
constituents who were here in Washington for a special event. But 
before I do, and before the Senator from Minnesota leaves the floor, I 
want to thank him for bringing the amendment he just brought to the 
bill and to ask that my name be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I sincerely appreciate the work that 
has gone into that amendment and hope it will see a significant vote on 
the Senate floor and that it will help not only the individual he spoke 
of but perhaps hundreds, if not thousands, of other people who might 
find themselves in similar situations.


                  Congressional Coalition on Adoption

  Madam President, I see my good friend, Senator Inhofe, on the Senate 
floor today. He and I have the privilege and honor of cochairing the 
adoption caucus, and I wanted to speak briefly and to thank the 43 
Senators who participated in this annual event by honoring individuals 
in their States--and, Madam President, you participated as well--for 
something special they had done on behalf of adoption or foster care in 
the United States or abroad.
  This event is in its eleventh year. Collectively, the Members of 
Congress--Democrats and Republicans--have honored over 1,500 
Americans--

[[Page S10029]]

some judges, some social workers, parents, advocates, lawyers in the 
system--who are helping to find permanent homes for orphans in America 
and around the world. We have approximately 500,000 children in foster 
care. That is a large number, but actually a small percentage if you 
think about all the children in our country--about 100 million. This 
represents less than one-half of 1 percent. But these children are in 
the custody of the government. Governments don't, by their nature, love 
children, human beings do, and parents particularly. So our job as 
Senators and Congressmen is to try to break down barriers, legal and 
otherwise, so we can find these orphans permanent homes.
  In the last 20 seconds that I have, I want to submit for the Record 
the names of the 43 Senators and their angels from a variety of States 
in the Union. I want to acknowledge the three national angels: Judge 
Michael Nash of California, nominated by the Senators from that State 
and from all of us who started National Adoption Day, where judges such 
as Judge Nash took the liberty to hold adoptions on Saturdays so we 
could move a backlog of children. Because of his action, 350 
communities now hold adoptions on Saturday.
  Al Roker, who greets most Americans in the morning, an adoptive 
father, is now using his position of power to advocate on behalf of 
orphans.
  And Sean and Leanne Toohey, who adopted a young man at 16 years old, 
are a couple who had raised two biological children, then adopted a 
young man who was going nowhere, on a dead-end street. Because of their 
love and because of their mutual support, he now is the No. 1 draft 
choice and is going to play for the Baltimore Ravens--a young man with 
a great deal of potential who just simply didn't have any parents who 
believed in him. Now he does.
  That is the work we do. We honor all of our angels who were here for 
many days, understanding they are not alone in this fight to find homes 
for orphans.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record the 2009 Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute Angels in 
Adoption.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 2009 Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute Angels in Adoption


                                Alabama

       Linnie and Debbie Dickson; AGAPE of North Alabama, Inc.


                                 Alaska

       Elaine Cordova; Mechele and Ricky Adams.


                                Arizona

       James and Virginia Avelar.


                                Arkansas

       Christie Erwin; Keith Morrison.


                               California

       Dan and Brook Meehan; Wanda Bonnell; Christine Devine; Mark 
     D. Widelock; Kimberly Felder; Olive Crest; Knotts Family 
     Agency; Mimi Katz; John and Kathy Prosser; Patrick and Judy 
     Dahlson; Kathy Van Osten.


                              Connecticut

       Haley Dunning.


                                Florida

       Ione and Don Hemby; Michael and Patricia Iania; Sarah and 
     Johnnie James; George and Barbara Kadzis; Dean and Debbie 
     Heaton; Frances P. Allegra; Sarah Franco; Jodi Sue Rutstein, 
     MSW, Esq.; Gia Tutalo-Mote; Shirley Dunlap; Children's Home 
     Society of Florida; Karen and John Burns.


                                Georgia

       Rachel Ewald; Mr. Everett Expose'.


                                 Idaho

       Al Barrus.


                                Illinois

       David and Christine McCarty; Lloyd and Gloria Otterson; Jim 
     and Andrea Thome and Paul and Jennifer Konerko; CASA Kane 
     County.


                                Indiana

       Ben and Debbie Evans; Theresa and Michael Teders; Stacy 
     Lynn Taylor; The Villages.


                                  Iowa

       Gary and Sandy Launderville; Ray and Joanne Walton;


                                 Kansas

       Brandon and Melissa Hoffman; Dr. Kimberlee Murphy.


                                Kentucky

       Lea Ann Gollihue; Terry Winterberg.


                               Louisiana

       Lisa Gould; Edith H. Morris; Barbara Thompson; Irene 
     Williams; Ada Burson.


                                 Maine

       Jaimie and Belinda Erskine.


                                Maryland

       Samuel and Mildred Stewart; Lori Weinstein.


                             Massachusetts

       Etta Lappen Davis; Mary Gambon.


                                Michigan

       Kimberly Roberson and Carroll Baker; Robert and Caroline 
     Deppe; Steve and Sarah Rosinski; Belinda Geertsma; Addie D. 
     Williams; Christ Child House.


                               Minnesota

       Dean and Teresa Julkowski; Heidi Reitz; Kari Fletcher.


                              Mississippi

       Patricia Digby.


                                Missouri

       John and Christie Hancock; Anthony and Jennifer Dattoli; 
     Keith and Tami Hoskins; Mike and Holly Hyde; Mary Beck; Fran 
     Albrecht.


                                Nebraska

       Sara and Junior Heredia; Steven and Shelley Brune; Boys 
     Town.


                                 Nevada

       Roberta and Merrill Simon; Deanna Workman and Denise 
     Gernant.


                               New Jersey

       Ted and Marsha Burke; Alice Nadelman; Victoria Howard; 
     Brenda Mirly.


                               New Mexico

       Ginni Jones.


                                New York

       David and Eileen Shifter; Caren Sue Peet; Archbishop Voni 
     Johyn; Frederick J. Magovern; Claudette and Jean Adrien.


                             New Hampshire

       Gail DeGoosh.


                             North Carolina

       Ross and Diane Moreton; Dawn Davenport; Walter Johnson; Ken 
     Tutterow.


                              North Dakota

       Robert and Vicki Thu; Leanne Johnson.


                                  Ohio

       Peter and Angela Schoepflin; Larry and Vicki Palur; Carole 
     Adlard.


                                Oklahoma

       Duane and Cathy Shipman.


                                 Oregon

       Zak and Alexa Knight; Rose McBride.


                              Pennsylvania

       Thomas and Theresa Stacy; Charles and Shannon Eder; Mary 
     Ann Petrillo; Tom and Patti Long.


                              Rhode Island

       Adoption Rhode Island.


                             South Carolina

       Bob Porterfield.


                              South Dakota

       Bob and Donna Burke; Dan and Becky Foster.


                               Tennessee

       Mark, Janet, and Nathan Carlton; Josh and Katrina 
     Hildabrand; Smoky Mountain Children's Home; Michael McDonald.


                                 Texas

       Holli and Eric Kounce; Jenny L. Womack; A World For 
     Children; Dell and Gladys LeFever.


                                Vermont

       Lund Family Center.


                                Virginia

       Linda and Vic Sisson; Loren M. Walck, Sr.; Captain Sean 
     Welch.


                               Washington

       Randy S. Perin; Antioch Adoptions.


                             West Virginia

       David and Dawn Heatwole.


                               Wisconsin

       Marshall and Marjorie Barlow; Aaron and Laura Maki.


                             Washington, DC

       Michele Zavos.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I thank my colleagues for the 
opportunity to speak briefly and to take the time from this important 
bill.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I would first like to commend the 
Senator from Louisiana for her great work on this issue of adoption. 
She has been very diligent over the years in promoting the issue of 
adoption of needy children across America, and I am very pleased to be 
a part of that caucus and commend her and thank her for her great work 
there.
  Madam President, what is the status of the business before the 
Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The last offered amendment is the Coburn 
amendment, No. 2566.


                           Amendment No. 2608

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be set aside and that I be allowed to call up 
amendment No. 2608.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:


[[Page S10030]]


       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss], for Mr. Kyl, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2608.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To appropriate an additional $900,000,000 for the Afghanistan 
                         Security Forces Fund)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __.  The amount appropriated by title IX under the 
     heading ``Afghanistan Security Forces Fund'' is hereby 
     increased by $900,000,000.

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, very quickly, this amendment restores 
the amount of money for the training of the Afghan security police and 
military back to the level that was requested both by the President in 
his budget submitted to this body, as well as restores the number that 
was approved in the Defense authorization bill that has previously been 
voted on by this body and is now in conference with the House.
  The fiscal year 2010 Defense appropriations bill takes $900 million 
from the President's request for Afghan security forces at a point in 
time when our troops are in the trenches fighting and defending us, 
defending the Afghan people from both the Taliban and al-Qaida, and 
there is no more critical issue out there right now than training both 
the Afghan military as well as the Afghan security police.
  We have just received General McChrystal's assessment, and let me 
quote a portion of that assessment where he states as follows:

       Failure to provide adequate resources also risks a longer 
     conflict, greater casualties, higher overall cost, and 
     ultimately a critical loss of political support. Any of these 
     risks, in turn, are likely to result in mission failure.

  General McChrystal's No. 1 issue is the training of the Afghan 
military and the Afghan security police because of the fact, if we are 
ever going to achieve success over there, we have to know that once we 
root out the bad guys, once we take out the Taliban and al-Qaida, that 
we can turn that country over to the Afghans, as we are doing in Iraq 
today, and we can remove our troops with the confidence that the Afghan 
military and the Afghan security police will be able to maintain 
security within that country as well as to protect the Afghan people 
from external sources. But the only way we will be able to do that is 
to train the military as well as to train the security police.
  The President's budget that came over for this particular issue 
requested $7.5 billion. That is a lot of money--a lot of money for any 
issue--but certainly a lot of money for training. But it is obviously 
absolutely necessary if we are going to complete the job.
  We are at a very critical crossroads in Afghanistan right now. The 
President has under consideration the issue of whether to call for 
additional troops to be sent into Afghanistan. He is obviously weighing 
that very heavily. While he should, I would hope he is going to make a 
very quick decision on that particular issue. But whatever the decision 
is, and whenever he makes it, we know for a fact that the Afghan 
military and the Afghan security police have to continue to receive the 
training our troops are providing for them today.
  Let me just quote a couple of other statements from other very high-
profile individuals who are very knowledgeable and very thorough in 
their assessment of the situation with respect to the Afghan military 
and the Afghan security police. First of all, Admiral Mullen, during 
testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on September 15, 
said the following in response to Chairman Levin:

       I share your view that larger and more capable Afghan 
     national security forces remain vital to that nation's 
     viability. We must rapidly build the Afghan army and police.

  Senator Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, at 
that same hearing stated:

       We basically need a much larger Afghan army, much quicker. 
     That is the bottom line. That is the winning strategy.

  Senator Lieberman said in July that the commitment to the expansion 
of Afghan forces ``is a decision that we have avoided making for far 
too long. Every day we continue to drag our feet and fail to commit to 
the indigenous security forces hinders the fight against the extremists 
and delays the pullout of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.''
  Lastly, the outgoing Supreme Allied Commander for Europe--the 
SACEUR--GEN John Craddock, said during his testimony this summer:

       I don't think the intent there is to ever occupy and stay. 
     The key, as has been pointed out, is the enabling of 
     development of the Afghan national security forces. As the 
     SACEUR for the last 2\1/2\ years, I repeatedly told NATO 
     nations the very first thing we need are more trainers for 
     the army and the police, particularly the police.

  Madam President, what this amendment does is add $900 million 
basically back to the top line. The reason we can do that is that under 
the appropriations bill, as has been passed, and as compared to the 
President's budget and the budget passed here, this bill is about $3.5 
billion under the budget. So there is room to add this $900 million 
back in to make sure we are giving the Afghan people the ability to 
protect themselves from external forces as well as the ability to 
protect themselves from dangers within their own country.
  Last, let me say the President has been very critical of the 
reduction of this $900 million. In the statement of administration 
policy, or the SAP that was put out on the 25th of September, here is 
what the President said:

       The administration opposes the reduction of $900 million 
     for ANSF sustainment. Accelerating the growth in size and 
     capability of the Afghanistan National Security Forces is a 
     key component of the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan. The 
     President's full request reflects his commanders' plan for 
     Afghan forces to assume a greater share of responsibility for 
     security as quickly as possible.

  Simply stated, it is critically important that this training proceed 
at a very rapid pace. In order to do that, we have to resource the 
training that our troops are doing today and we will need to continue 
to do over the next fiscal year.
  I ask this amendment be called up at the appropriate time for a vote 
by this body and that our colleagues will support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, let me first comment on the comments 
made by the Senator from Georgia, because I was privileged to be in 
Afghanistan several years ago with the Oklahoma 45th, which actually 
took a great responsibility in the training over there and also turning 
over some of the training to the Afghans. They have done a good job, 
but as the Senator pointed out, this takes resources and it takes 
equipment and it takes money. I applaud him and join him in this effort 
to provide the resources necessary to make that happen.
  Let me make a couple of comments. We will have some amendments coming 
up concerning the C-17. I wish to share maybe an opposing view to some 
of the things we have heard. I was deeply distressed, I guess it was in 
April, when we got the defense portion of the President's budget and 
the termination of such programs as the F-22, next generation bombers, 
the Future Combat System, and particularly doing away with our 
commitment to Poland and the Czech Republic to have an opportunity 
there to knock down a missile, an ICBM coming to the United States from 
Iran, when we know they should be having that capability by around 
2015.
  Today I want to mention a couple of things about the C-17. The Air 
Force budget justification documents state:

       The C-17 can perform the entire spectrum of airlift 
     missions and is specifically designed to operate effectively 
     and efficiently in both strategic and theater environments.

  I can remember when the first C-17 came in. The training takes place 
actually in my State of Oklahoma at Altus Air Force Base, and in 1995, 
it was the spring of 1995, the first C-17 swept into Altus Air Force 
Base. At that time the chief was General Fogleman, and I was honored to 
accompany him and actually sit in the right seat and see what this new 
spectacular airplane was.
  We never dreamed at that time we would have the use of the C-17 to 
the extent we did in Bosnia and Kosovo, missions we did not dream at 
that time we would have to be confronted with.
  Every time you watch the news or see a disaster or emergency of some 
type anywhere in this Earth where our military is involved, you are 
going to see the C-17. The country and its military must be able to 
engage globally, and the C-17 enables that engagement.
  In my 22 years on the Hill, I have seen our airlift requirements 
increase, not decrease. I have had experience. Sometimes you talk about 
a system, a platform such as the C-17. Our dealing

[[Page S10031]]

with that doesn't happen in a vacuum. Right now we have other lift 
vehicles. We have the C-130s, better ones, the C-130Js and the C-130Es, 
which are getting old and outdated. I actually had two experiences on 
two of my trips coming into and out of Baghdad. One experience was when 
we actually lost not one engine but two engines. We are talking about 
some pretty old, beat-up E models that should not be flying right now.
  The very next trip, I remember, was the first trip of our recently 
retired Senator from Florida when we actually received some SAM 
activity. We had to fire the flares. The reason we did, it was 8 
minutes after taking off from Baghdad and the engines should have had 
us out of SAM's range. However, the E models are getting old and tired. 
So it is life threatening. I say that even though I am here to talk 
about C-17s.
  We can absorb a lot of deficiencies we have in other areas by 
increasing our number of C-17s. Currently it is the only aircraft 
capable of performing every airlift mission, whether ferrying troops 
and supplies to remote airfields overseas or returning wounded 
servicemembers back home.
  The Congressional Research Service has indicated that the C-17 was 
designed to fly 1,000 hours a year over 30 years. However, as our 
overseas commitments have grown since 2001, the fleet has averaged 
1,250 hours per year instead of 1,000 hours a year. Some aircraft have 
even reached as high as 2,400 hours in a single year.
  A November 2008 GAO study stated the C-17:

       --production line is currently scheduled to close in 
     September 2010 with the supplier base and portions of the 
     line closing sooner.

  The study concludes that:

       Analysis indicates that once closed it would not be 
     feasible or cost effective to restart the production due to 
     the costs for hiring and training a new workforce, 
     reinstalling tooling, and reestablishing the supply base.

  That is what the study concluded. The GAO estimates that restarting 
the line could cost up to $1 billion.
  This is something we are always concerned with when you talk about 
altering the life of a particular platform, but this is one I don't see 
how we can get along without. I know we have the C-5. I remember the 
old C-141--a lot of lift capacity--a lot of tired C-130s, but the prize 
of all these capabilities is the C-17. While the administration objects 
to funding 10 additional C-17s based on 205 C-17s and the existing 
fleet of C-5 aircraft, the Air Force has cut the number of C-5s it 
plans to fully modernize by more than half because of substantial cost 
increases in the modernization efforts. In testimony to the House Armed 
Services Committee in May of 2009, the Air Force said it will fully 
modernize only 52 of the 40-year-old C-5s.
  While we are upgrading some of these aircraft, some of these, 
specifically the C-5A, had to be retired. However, this Congress, by 
bill language, is preventing the Air Force from retiring any of the C-
5s. In terms of cost, the GAO calculated ``the DOE would need to fully 
modernize 7 C-5s to obtain the equivalent capability achieved from 
acquiring 1 C-17 and the costs would be 3 times more.''
  It found the unit cost of modernizing one C-5 is $132 million, while 
the unit cost of one new C-17 is $267 million.
  To put it another way, it would take seven modernized C-5s to provide 
the capability equivalent to one new C-17, or $924 million worth of 
work on modernizing the C-5 to provide the capability equivalent to 
procuring one additional new C-17 at $276 million. I am hoping when 
this issue does come up we will have a chance to think that through.
  I would say this: Even if we were inclined to do that, to go along 
with the smaller number, it would seem to me that we should not be 
doing that until we have the Quadrennial Defense Review and the 
upcoming Mobility Capability and Requirements Study. It is my 
understanding these would come sometime early in 2010. I suggest we at 
least wait until we have the benefit of that report before taking such 
drastic action.

  Let me mention one other thing that happened last night, for 
clarification. At midnight last night the highway program of the 
American people suffered a major loss because of a calculated decision 
that politics should trump common sense.
  I have often thought that congressional inaction is a good thing 
sometimes, but in this case we failed miserably to do our job. As a 
result, we are unable to pass the 3-month extension of the highway 
program that Senator Boxer and I were pushing. It is very interesting 
when you have a combination such as that. Senator Boxer is a very proud 
liberal Democrat, I am a very proud conservative Republican, and we 
both agree one of the major functions of government is infrastructure, 
and right now we have a crumbling infrastructure. So our failure to 
work together to fix the rescission, which was $8.7 billion of highway 
money, before midnight yesterday has resulted in the following: Up to 
17,000 jobs could be lost because States may be forced to cancel $500 
million worth of projects. We are now stuck with a 30-day extension 
that cuts highway spending by 25 percent compared to 2009. The 3-month 
extension would have funded the 2010 equal to 2009.
  The short length of this extension is now going to create uncertainty 
and erratic funding for States that are going to delay projects and 
gear down the letting of contracts.
  I have to say this, too. There will be contracts, due to this 25-
percent reduction, that are going to have to be defaulted. There are 
going to be lawsuits. There will be all kinds of problems that will 
result from this. It is not just my State of Oklahoma. I am sure the 
State of Alabama and other States have a crumbling infrastructure that 
needs to be addressed.
  I was on the phone with Gary Ridley, who was our highway director for 
many years, and I always said he was the best highway director in the 
country. He is now Oklahoma's transportation secretary. He gave me the 
impact of our failure to act, just on my State of Oklahoma. He said we 
would normally receive $53.6 million of Federal money but instead are 
likely only to receive $36 million. That is the 25-percent reduction. 
They have a $28 million bond obligation which leaves them only about $8 
million for letting projects, instead of $26 million. This means that 
they will likely only be able to let three or four projects in 
November, the first letting of the year, and probably none in December. 
That is my guess. That was his guess.
  Here is the real-world impact of what we do here. This will be 
devastating for construction workers in Oklahoma and will be repeated 
in every State. This may come as a surprise to those in the other body 
who have said that this will have no effect on States. They are the 
ones over there in the House who have made it impossible for us to send 
something over there and get it complied with. I have been trying to 
pass a long-term extension with rescission fix since July. At that time 
opposition from Congressmen and Senators from both sides of the aisle 
prevented taking care of the problem.
  Our attempts to set a prudent length for highway extension has been 
plagued by some people's unrealistic expectation that we can complete a 
6-year transformational highway bill and plug a $150 billion shortfall 
in the next 3 months if we ``keep the pressure'' on. We do not even 
have the 3 months now, as of midnight last night. We are looking at 30 
days, so it obviously cannot be done. We may have to repeat what we did 
a few years ago. Between the years of 2003 and 2005 we had a series of 
short-term extensions where you can't do any funding, planning in 
advance. That is kind of where we are today.
  I was proud to be the chairman of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee in 2005 when we had a very robust transportation 
reauthorization bill.
  Taking up an extension is always problematic. Unfortunately, some 
view this as an opportunity to make a point. There are those on my side 
of the aisle who will not hesitate to hold the entire highway program 
hostage in order to enumerate yet again their distaste for 
congressionally directed spending on highway projects. At the same 
time, the majority leadership has known for months this was coming but 
was unable to force the issue and take the time to have votes on this 
important issue. This could have been resolved weeks ago if they had 
been invested in it.
  Fixing the rescission would increase the deficit by just under $500 
million.

[[Page S10032]]

This is very significant. The other body wanted an offset for this, and 
they were right. So did I. I wanted an offset. I think the most 
reasonable offset is the unused stimulus funds. I have stated all along 
that there was not enough there in the stimulus bill to actually 
stimulate the economy. In fact, I had amendments during the debate on 
the stimulus bill that would almost triple the amount of money that 
would go into highway construction. Those are real jobs. That would be 
very meaningful. But according to CBO's most recent analysis that was 
done a month ago, only $85 billion of stimulus funds has actually been 
spent. Furthermore, less than 60 percent of the stimulus funds has even 
been obligated, leaving $150 billion in unobligated balances.
  Money being unobligated means they do not have a plan for how they 
are going to spend it and are now nowhere near doing so.
  This is clearly not stimulating the economy. It makes sense to move a 
fraction of this money to something that will actually save jobs--in 
this case, 17,000 jobs we can identify. It is something that would 
stimulate the economy and give us something at the end of the day for 
our money. It is a perfect source to pay for fixing the rescission.
  In fact, Senator Vitter's approach from last July was to actually 
give President Obama's OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, the 
discretion to pick which stimulus funds would be cut. So he did not 
care which ones were cut; just we need to put these stimulus funds to 
work to create jobs. So they couldn't cut the things that were not 
working or were just congressional pet programs. This is simply cutting 
the worst 1 percent of the stimulus--something everybody should be able 
to agree to whether or not you voted for the stimulus, which I did not. 
But the other side blocked this approach in a show of partisanship. So 
Senator Boxer and I brokered a bipartisan agreement to use TARP funds, 
the Troubled Asset Relief Program. To me, this made sense because this 
would have offset the amount of money that would be lost in the 
rescission fix, as a way of doing it, and it would have actually taken 
care of the problem.
  Some people thought this would have somehow affected the deficit, but 
it would not. It meant we would reduce TARP authority by $8.7 billion, 
which would reduce the deficit by $4.35 billion, according to CBO. 
Putting aside politics, penciling this out shows that $4.35 billion in 
deficit reduction, minus the cost of the rescission--$500 million--
means a deficit savings of just under $4 billion. I thought this was a 
good thing. We would preserve up to 17,000 jobs and reduce the 
deficit--clearly a win-win solution, I thought. I thought this up until 
late last night because I thought we were going to be able to do it. 
But there were objections.
  We reduced funding for a program that was a bad idea from the 
inception. I opposed it initially. We are talking about TARP. I voted 
against it. A lot of those people who are complaining about the amount 
of money being spent voted for a $700 billion bailout, as it has been 
referred to. But I did not. I opposed it. Some people supported it, 
thinking the government buying so-called toxic assets was necessary. 
But then, when this money was given to unaccountable bureaucrats, it 
was used for buying insurance companies, car companies, and bailing out 
banks.
  But some of my conservative colleagues opposed this approach because 
they want to use TARP money for debt reduction. I agree with that. As I 
pointed out, the compromise Senator Boxer and I were pushing would have 
resulted in a net reduction of the deficit of about $4 billion.
  Even as I say this, I honestly don't understand their opposition. 
Those who talk about using TARP funds were willing to stimulate the 
funds, but the Democrats refused to do that. So we came up with another 
idea: Let's go ahead and use stimulus funds. If we used stimulus funds, 
I tought that would have overcome the objections that were on the floor 
last night, and I thought that was a good idea. Unfortunately, the 
Democrats did not want to do that.
  So I think we have tried. I think it kind of demonstrates that it is 
a serious problem. We had a fix, and the Republicans and the Democrats 
were equally responsible for not getting it. Now we are going to pay 
the price. I don't know that the problem is worse in Oklahoma. It is 
probably not. It is about the same throughout the Nation. But speaking 
now as a conservative, one who is always ranked in the top two or three 
conservatives, I have always felt conservatives can be big spenders in 
some areas. One is defending America, as I talked about a few minutes 
ago, and the other is in our infrastructure. That is a function our 
government is supposed to perform.
  So I think we failed last night. Hopefully, we will find some way to 
overcome this problem and get back on track.
  I thank Senator Boxer and Secretary LaHood. They both tried very 
hard. We talked and worked for many hours. There are countless others 
on both sides of the aisle who worked together and tried to fix this 
problem. We didn't do it. Let's hope we can do it shortly.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment 2678 is the pending business.
  Mr. SHELBY. I ask unanimous consent that the current amendment be set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2594

  Mr. SHELBY. I call up my amendment No. 2594 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2594.

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


                           Amendment No. 2594

   (Purpose: To require reports on certain elements of the ballistic 
                        missile defense system)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Report on Ground-Based Interceptor Missiles.--
     Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Director of the Missile Defense Agency shall 
     submit to the congressional defense committees a report on 
     the utilization of funds to maintain the production line of 
     Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) missiles. The report shall 
     include a plan for the utilization of funds for Ground-Based 
     Interceptor missiles made available by this Act for the 
     Midcourse Defense Segment, including--
       (1) the number of Ground-based Interceptor missiles 
     proposed to be produced during fiscal year 2010; and
       (2) any plans for maintaining production of such missiles 
     and the subsystems and components of such missiles.
       (b) Report on Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System.--Not 
     later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the Director of the Missile Defense Agency shall submit 
     to the congressional defense committees a report setting 
     forth the acquisition strategy for the Ground-Based Midcourse 
     Defense (GMD) system during fiscal years 2011 through 2016. 
     The report shall include a description of the plans of the 
     Missile Defense Agency for each of the following:
       (1) To maintain the capability for production of Ground-
     Based Interceptor missiles.
       (2) To address modernization and obsolescence of the 
     Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system.
       (3) To conduct a robust test program for the Ground-Based 
     Midcourse Defense system

  Mr. SHELBY. Iran and North Korea continue to pose a threat to our 
Nation and our allies because of their intense efforts at ballistic and 
nuclear development. My amendment before the Senate now supplements the 
committee's additional $50 million for ground-based midcourse defense.
  The amendment before the Senate is simple. It requires the Missile 
Defense Agency to conduct two reports related to the ground-based 
midcourse defense. We need to know the agency's plan for the ground-
based interceptor funds in this bill before us. This report would 
provide further details into exactly what that plan is. I believe this 
is imperative. Congress and our Nation must fully understand how the 
Missile Defense Agency will utilize this critical capability for our 
Nation. The second report asks the Missile Defense Agency to outline 
the acquisition strategy for the ground-based midcourse defense system 
over the next 6 years from fiscal year 2011 to 2017.

[[Page S10033]]

  North Korea and Iran will continue their ballistic efforts, and I 
believe we must be able to counter those threats.
  In its budget request for the year 2010, the administration proposed 
several funding cuts and eliminations impacting our national missile 
defense, including a $700 million reduction to GMD. I appreciate 
Chairman Inouye and Ranking Member Cochran including an additional $50 
million in the bill before the Senate for GMD, which will hopefully 
keep our GBI production line from going cold.
  Yet the threat is not diminishing. We must have a plan for countering 
nations that threaten our security. We need to know the Missile Defense 
Agency's plan for this fiscal year as well as the next years. Our 
enemies are still our enemies, and now so more than ever we should be 
cognizant of the fact that Iran and North Korea are working hard at 
technological advancement designed to destroy us and our allies.
  Despite nearly unanimous opposition in the international community, 
Iran has pressed on with nuclear ambitions and has shown no intention 
that I have known of abandoning this reckless path. Every day, Iran 
continues to add to the thousands of centrifuges it already has to 
enrich its uranium. It continues to test its ballistic missiles. In 
fact, the International Atomic Energy Association recently released a 
report stating that Iran is now working to conjoin ballistic and 
nuclear capabilities. I believe we need an integrated, layered national 
missile defense to deter this threat, and we need it now.
  Moving forward, I hope that the Missile Defense Agency will ensure 
our Nation's production line for ground-based interceptors and that 
their subsystems and components will not die on the vine if we ever 
have to meet this threat.
  The ground-based midcourse defense system and the interceptors in 
particular are valuable national assets. And I will continue to work 
with Chairman Inouye, Senator Cochran, and others on the Appropriations 
Defense Subcommittee to ensure that we have here in the United States a 
robust national missile defense system.
  It is my understanding in talking to the chairman that this amendment 
has been agreed to by Senator Inouye and Senator Cochran. I hope they 
will adopt it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the 
amendment, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2594) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                          Amendment No. 2617.

  Mr. SANDERS. I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending 
amendment and call up my amendment No. 2617
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2617.

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


                           amendment no. 2617

      (Purpose: To require a report on Federal contracting fraud)

       On page 245, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
       Sec. 8104. (a) The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a 
     study on defense contracting fraud and submit a report 
     containing the findings of such study to the congressional 
     defense committees.
       (b) The report required under subsection (a) shall 
     include--
       (1) an assessment of the total value of Department of 
     Defense contracts entered into to with contractors that have 
     been indicted for, settled charges of, been fined by any 
     Federal department or agency for, or been convicted of fraud 
     in connection with any contract or other transaction entered 
     into with the Federal Government; and
       (2) recommendations by the Inspector General of the 
     Department of Defense or other appropriate Department of 
     Defense official regarding how to penalize contractors 
     repeatedly involved in fraud in connection with contracts or 
     other transactions entered into with the Federal Government.

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, in recent weeks there has been some 
discussion about what types of organizations might or might not receive 
Federal funding. I think that is a very appropriate discussion for this 
legislation which obviously expends many hundreds of billions of 
taxpayer dollars.
  One of the concerns I have is that a number of the largest defense 
contractors in this country, it turns out, over a period of years, 
have, time after time, been involved in illegal behavior. I think the 
American people and the taxpayers of this country want to know how it 
happened that year after year we continued to do business, to the tune 
of tens and tens of billions of dollars, with large corporate 
interests--in this case, defense contractors--that were then found 
guilty of defrauding the American people. How many times do you have to 
be found guilty before we say enough is enough? Let me give you a few 
examples--really, quite a few--of what I am talking about.
  According to the Project on Government Oversight, the three largest 
government contractors--Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman--
have a history riddled with fraud and other illegal behavior. Combined, 
these companies, these three companies, have engaged in 109 instances 
of misconduct since 1995 and have paid fees and settlements totaling 
over $2.9 billion. Despite this history, these organization received 
over $77 billion in government contracts in 2007 alone.
  Let me repeat. Three major defense contractors--Lockheed Martin, 
Boeing, and Northrop Grumman--have engaged, combined, in 109 instances 
of misconduct since 1995 and have paid fees and settlements totaling 
$2.9 billion. This is not a videotape on a TV show having some people 
say stupid things. These are people who have been found guilty of 
defrauding the taxpayers of this country and have paid fees and 
settlements totaling $2.9 billion.
  Let me give you some specificity here.
  The largest contractor, Lockheed Martin, has engaged in 50 instances 
of misconduct since 1995, paying fines and settlements totaling $577 
million. Yet in 2007 it still received $34 billion of government 
contracts.
  According to the U.S. Attorney's Office, in 2008 Lockheed Martin 
Space Systems Company paid $10.5 million to settle charges that it 
defrauded the government by submitting false invoices for payment on a 
multibillion-dollar contract connected to the Titan IV space launch 
vehicle program.
  According to the Department of Justice, in 2003 Lockheed Martin paid 
$38 million to resolve allegations that it fraudulently inflated the 
costs of performing several Air Force contracts for the purchase and 
navigation and targeting pods for military jets.
  In 2001, Lockheed Martin paid $8.5 million to settle criminal charges 
that it lied about its costs when negotiating contracts for the repair 
and restoration of radar pedestals installed in U.S. warships, costing 
the Navy millions of dollars, also according to the Department of 
Justice.
  But this behavior is not unique to Lockheed Martin. Boeing, the 
world's leading aerospace company and the largest manufacturer of 
commercial jetliners and military aircraft, has engaged in 31 instances 
of misconduct since 1995 and paid $1.5 billion in fines and 
settlements.
  I know people here have expressed concerns about what one group did 
in, clearly, stupid behavior. But what about a company such as Lockheed 
Martin which has paid $8.5 million to settle criminal charges? What 
about companies such as Boeing which has engaged in 31 instances of 
misconduct since 1995 and paid $1.5 billion in fines and settlements? 
In 2000, for example, according to the Department of Justice, Boeing 
agreed to pay $54 million to settle charges that it defrauded the Army 
by selling it more than 140 helicopters containing defective gears, 
putting the lives of the men and women in the Air Force in danger. 
These defective gears resulted in the deaths of at least five 
servicemen. We are not talking ACORN here. We are talking about $54 
million to settle charges and actions that may have resulted in the 
death of at least five servicemen. How many years does this have to go 
on before we begin to deal with it? In 2007, Boeing received $24 
billion in Federal contracts.
  Finally, Northrop Grumman, the third largest contractor, has a 
similar history, with 27 instances of fraud totaling $790 million over 
the past 15

[[Page S10034]]

years. In 2003, according to the Project on Government Oversight, 
Northrop Grumman paid $111.2 million to settle charges that a 
subsidiary overcharged the United States on government contracts; i.e, 
ripping off the taxpayers. According to the Department of Justice, the 
Northrop Grumman subsidiary engaged in five separate schemes that 
increased the cost the Government paid for space projects.
  Also in 2003, according to the Department of Justice, Northrop 
Grumman paid the United States $80 million to settle charges that it 
overcharged the government and knowingly installed substandard parts in 
target drones designed for the Navy.
  Over and over and over again, year after year after year, the largest 
defense contractors engage in illegal activity to rip off the taxpayers 
and, in some instances, put in danger the lives of the men and women in 
the Armed Forces.
  These are only a few snapshots of what appears to be a culture of 
fraud and entitlement within the military contracting community. We owe 
it to taxpayers to begin to get to the bottom of the situation. To 
reform the culture of greed, of illegal behavior, we have to expose it 
first. For that reason, I am offering an amendment under which the 
Secretary of Defense would calculate the total amount of money that 
goes to companies that have engaged in fraud against the United States 
and then make recommendations about how to penalize repeat offenders. 
We have an expression when we deal with criminal justice. We say: Three 
strikes, you are out.
  A lot of these guys are getting a lot more than three strikes. They 
keep striking out and they come back and get lucrative defense 
contracts. How many times do they have to strike out?
  I hope very much this study will be a first step in the process of 
cleaning up the world of defense contracting. I look forward to 
continuing to work to make absolutely sure the money we have set aside 
for our national defense is, in fact, spent on national defense, on 
protecting the men and women who bravely serve us in the Armed Forces 
and is not frittered away on fraudulent bids, illegal behavior, and 
wasteful projects.
  I hope very much that when the amendment comes up, we will have 
bipartisan support. I cannot understand why anybody would be opposed to 
having us finally address this outrage. I hope the Senate will pass it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Health Care Reform

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I support the Sanders amendment and thank 
him for his good work on these issues.
  I come to the floor pretty often to share letters from people in my 
State. As the Presiding Officer receives letters from New Hampshire, I 
get letters from people in Ohio who are increasingly dissatisfied not 
with their health care from the doctor and hospital but with the 
insurance system and what has happened to so many people who were 
generally satisfied with their insurance until they got sick and their 
insurance wasn't as good as the insurance company had promised. I would 
like to share four letters I have received today from people in my 
State.
  Alan from Logan County in northwest Ohio, northwest Columbus, writes:

       A few years ago, my 57-year-old diabetic sister was found 
     in a diabetic coma by co-workers. She had ``good'' insurance 
     and spent two weeks in the ICU and, thereafter, spent weeks 
     in the regular hospital unit for care and [rehabilitation]. 
     Her doctors indicated that she needed to remain in the 
     hospital for another month and then be transferred to a 
     nursing home for further rehab, even while she was unable to 
     walk. A few days after receiving her doctor's care plan, I 
     was notified by the hospital that my sister was being 
     released the next day because the insurance company denied 
     further payments to the hospital. I drove to the hospital, 
     wheeled her to my car, brought her home where she was 
     bedridden for the next several months. She eventually 
     recovered, but suffered nerve damage and is permanently 
     disabled and unable to walk again.

  Alan's sister is another victim of a health care system where someone 
thought she had good insurance and got a very expensive illness and, as 
a result, her insurance was taken away. What that did was cost her her 
health because she didn't get the rehabilitation her doctor knew she 
needed. That kind of tragedy should not happen in the richest country 
in the world. It should not happen when somebody such as Alan's sister 
plays by the rules, works hard, and has decent insurance but not as 
good insurance as she thought she had.
  One of the most important things our bill will do is enact insurance 
reform. No more denial of care for preexisting conditions, no more 
denial of care because it got too expensive when someone got sick and 
their policy was rescinded. ``Rescission'' is the technical term the 
insurance company uses. No more will someone be discriminated against 
because of gender or geography or disability. At the same time, we are 
introducing the public option in our legislation that will keep the 
insurance companies more honest, that will inject competition so people 
can choose the public option or they can choose CIGNA or Aetna or, in 
Ohio, Medical Mutual, any one of these, but the public option will keep 
the insurance companies a bit more honest.
  Becky from Cincinnati on the Ohio River writes:

       As a veteran, I get great health care through the VA 
     system. But my story is about my daughter. She works for a 
     small company who pays for her family's insurance. But their 
     plan doesn't cover emergency care and the yearly deductible 
     is so high they might as well not have health insurance at 
     all. They would like to have another child, but they don't 
     think they can afford the cost of pregnancy alone [because of 
     inadequate insurance]. I'm glad health care reform won't take 
     away my benefits [with the VA], but what about my daughter 
     and her family?

  Becky is exactly right. The VA system has the lowest rate of medical 
errors in the country of any major health care system. The VA buys its 
prescription drugs at a third or half the cost most of us have to pay 
because they use the size of the purchasing pool of government to get 
much better deals from the drug companies. We have VA clinics in Ohio--
in Zanesville and Mansfield and Parma and Lima and Findlay, all over 
the State--community-based outreach clinics that matter for people's 
care. At the same time, what our legislation will do is help small 
business. Becky's daughter's employer probably wants to cover her and 
give her better coverage: emergency care, maternity care, pregnancy 
care. It doesn't because it is a small business and can't afford it. 
Our bill will give a tax credit to small businesses and will allow 
small businesses to pool with other employers so one particularly sick 
patient or sick employee doesn't shoot up prices so much that the 
insurance company with the small business can't afford to provide 
insurance for their employees. That is why this legislation makes so 
much sense for small business.
  Kristin from Cuyahoga County writes:

       My mother has stage 4 cancer and my father is a diabetic. 
     They have a $6,000 deductible; co-pays are $30-$50 a visit. 
     Last December, my mother was pushing for more chemo before 
     the first of the year. They met their deductible and she 
     wanted to get any treatment she could get prior to the end of 
     the year. Instead of her enjoying her limited time with us, 
     she is constantly worrying about the high deductible and 
     funeral costs. I am a nurse and [I] see the stress of the 
     health care costs and the impact it makes in a family's 
     financial situation is astounding. We need reform, reform, 
     reform.

  Think about that. Kristin is a nurse. Kristin knows health care from 
the inside out. Kristin's mother has cancer. Her father is diabetic. A 
$6,000 deductible hardly counts as insurance. The mother wants to get 
all the expensive care in December before the end of the year because 
she has already paid the deductible, the $6,000 that year, but not have 
to get it at the beginning of the year because she can't afford another 
$6,000, not to mention the $30 to $50 out of pocket every visit.
  My mother recently died in February. She had good health insurance. 
She had a family who loved her and was with her during hospice home 
care. I am sure Kristin's family is the same, but I also know it was 
traumatic enough as a family for my 88-year-old mother who was sick to 
not have to worry about the funeral costs and a high deductible. It is 
outrageous that this health care system doesn't take care of people 
better than that.

[[Page S10035]]

  Denise from Ashland, a town not far from my hometown of Mansfield in 
north-central Ohio, writes:

       This past February, my husband was laid off from his job. 
     At the end of March our insurance through his employer was 
     canceled. In April we were forced to go onto COBRA which cost 
     us $800 a month. Thankfully, President Obama's plan helped 
     reduce that amount by nearly $300, but that won't last much 
     longer. It's been difficult to save money because since 
     April, I've had two major surgeries and now face higher co-
     pays and medications. My husband is a diabetic and his 
     medicines are very costly. We are fighting foreclosure, our 
     budget is stretched, and we are considering dropping coverage 
     in October. What happens then?

  Denise is in a situation that so many are in right now. Ohio's 
unemployment rate is over 10 percent. Denise's situation is similar to 
many. Her husband lost his job and his insurance was dropped, although 
he was able to keep the insurance through COBRA. But when you have 
COBRA, it is very expensive because you are paying your own part of the 
insurance that you paid as an employee and you are also paying the 
employer's part of the insurance. It is a good program, but not many 
people can afford it. President Obama and all of us together in the 
stimulus bill passed earlier in the year provided some subsidies for 
people who use COBRA, but that will not last forever, as Denise pointed 
out. Under our legislation, people would not see their insurance run 
out. People, depending on their income, at a certain price will be able 
to buy insurance and keep that insurance regardless of whether they 
lose their job. Life is traumatic enough for people when the major 
breadwinner loses his or her job. Losing your insurance at the same 
time, with all the other problems that come--potential foreclosure, the 
stretching of the budget, generally--is so unfair for those who have 
worked so hard, paid taxes, been good citizens, and lived by the rules.
  That is why I think our legislation is so important. I expect the 
bill will be voted out of the Finance Committee in the next week or 
so--maybe even this week. We will continue to fight for the public 
option, which certainly a majority of the Senate supports. A strong 
majority of the House of Representatives supports the public option. A 
survey of doctors recently showed 70 percent of them in the country 
support a public option. Two-thirds of the voters consistently all year 
have supported a public option.
  A public option will make the insurance companies more honest. It 
will inject competition into the system so people will have more 
choices, not fewer choices such as the Republican opponents of the 
public option want. They only want the insurance companies to be 
players in this, not any public agency that can compete in a Medicare-
like program that can compete with the private insurance companies. It 
will help keep costs down so the insurance companies do not continue to 
cause the problems they do.
  In addition, you are not going to see anybody denied who has a 
preexisting condition in the public option anymore than you are going 
to see somebody denied care because of a preexisting condition in 
Medicare. That is why this legislation is so important. That is why the 
version of this bill that passed out of the Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions Committee will serve the public. It will mean that people 
who are happy with their insurance can keep it. It will mean if you are 
uninsured, you will get some assistance. It will mean consumer 
protections so people will not be thrown off their insurance because of 
an expensive illness or because of discrimination. It will mean 
assistance for small business so employers can insure their employees, 
like most employers want to do.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, let me concur with the remarks of the 
Senator from Ohio. The letters he is receiving from Ohio are exactly 
the same types of letters I am receiving from Vermont. The time is long 
overdue for this Congress to pass real health care reform and join the 
rest of the industrialized world, which guarantees health care for all 
their people. I congratulate the Senator from Ohio for his leadership 
position on this issue.
  Mr. BROWN. I thank the Senator.


                     Amendments Nos. 2559 and 2601

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside 
the pending amendment and call up amendments Nos. 2559 and 2601.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments will be reported by number.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] proposes amendments 
     numbered 2559 and 2601.

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


                           amendment no. 2559

   (Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test, and 
  Evaluation, Army $12,000,000 for the peer-reviewed Gulf War Illness 
                     Research Program of the Army)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __.  Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by title IV under the heading ``Research, 
     Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army'', $12,000,000 shall 
     be available for the peer-reviewed Gulf War Illness Research 
     Program of the Army run by Congressionally Directed Medical 
     Research Programs.


                           amendment no. 2601

   (Purpose: To make available from Overseas Contingency Operations 
 $20,000,000 for outreach and reintegration services under the Yellow 
                     Ribbon Reintegration Program)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Funding for Outreach and Reintegration 
     Services Under Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program.--Of the 
     amounts appropriated or otherwise made available by title IX. 
     $20,000,000 shall be available for outreach and reintegration 
     services under the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program under 
     section 582(h) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 125; 10 
     U.S.C. 10101 note).
       (b) Supplement Not Supplant.--The amount made available by 
     subsection (a) for the services described in that subsection 
     is in addition to any other amounts available in this Act for 
     such services.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate for no more than 3 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Commending the Lake Erie Crushers

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I rise to honor the Lake Erie Crushers, 
the 2009 Frontier League Champions. While it looks like the Cleveland 
Indians will not be playing in October, the Lake Erie Crushers of Avon, 
OH, in which I live, will spend the month relishing their improbable 
run to the championship in just their first year in the Frontier 
League.
  The Crushers clinched the championship with a come-from-behind, 13-
to-10 victory over the home team River City Rascals of O'Fallon, MO.
  Despite being down two games to none in the best-of-five series, the 
Crushers demonstrated their resilience and composure to win three 
straight games.
  With clutch hitting from series MVP Andrew Davis, Arden McWilliams, 
Tyler Johnson, Todd Balduf, and Eddie Tisdale, the Crushers put 
together a seven-run fifth inning outburst to help pitchers Paul Fagan 
and Cardoza Tucker clinch the championship.
  During the celebration after the game, manager John Massareilli said 
that ``doing this in year one, building a championship [team] from 
scratch, that's what made this so special.''
  The Frontier League is made up of teams from across the heartland--in 
Kalamazoo, Waterford, and Traverse City, MI; Washington, PA; 
Evansville, IN, Florence, KY; and the team I mentioned in Missouri.
  Players in their early to mid twenties travel from town to town, 
chasing the dream of one day playing in the Major Leagues.
  My wife and I are season ticket holders of the Crushers, and we have 
enjoyed cheering on our hometown team during their inaugural season. We 
are proud our community is home to the Crushers, where fans from across 
northeast Ohio can travel down I-90 and Route 611 to root for a 
championship team.
  I commend the dedicated fans, the outstanding players and coaches, 
and owner Steve Edelson for their commitment to our city--both on and 
off the field.

[[Page S10036]]

  I am pleased to honor the 2009 Frontier League Champions, the Lake 
Erie Crushers from Avon, OH.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.


                           Amendment No. 2598

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, it is tough to follow that act, but I 
ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and call 
up amendment No. 2598 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  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 Kansas [Mr. Brownback] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2598.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. 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 as follows:

 (Purpose: To acknowledge a long history of official depredations and 
 all ill-conceived policies by the Federal Government regarding Indian 
  tribes and offer an apology to all Native Peoples on behalf of the 
                             United States)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. APOLOGY TO NATIVE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) Acknowledgment and Apology.--The United States, acting 
     through Congress--
       (1) recognizes the special legal and political relationship 
     Indian tribes have with the United States and the solemn 
     covenant with the land we share;
       (2) commends and honors Native Peoples for the thousands of 
     years that they have stewarded and protected this land;
       (3) recognizes that there have been years of official 
     depredations, ill-conceived policies, and the breaking of 
     covenants by the Federal Government regarding Indian tribes;
       (4) apologizes on behalf of the people of the United States 
     to all Native Peoples for the many instances of violence, 
     maltreatment, and neglect inflicted on Native Peoples by 
     citizens of the United States;
       (5) expresses its regret for the ramifications of former 
     wrongs and its commitment to build on the positive 
     relationships of the past and present to move toward a 
     brighter future where all the people of this land live 
     reconciled as brothers and sisters, and harmoniously steward 
     and protect this land together;
       (6) urges the President to acknowledge the wrongs of the 
     United States against Indian tribes in the history of the 
     United States in order to bring healing to this land; and
       (7) commends the State governments that have begun 
     reconciliation efforts with recognized Indian tribes located 
     in their boundaries and encourages all State governments 
     similarly to work toward reconciling relationships with 
     Indian tribes within their boundaries.
       (b) Disclaimer.--Nothing in this section--
       (1) authorizes or supports any claim against the United 
     States; or
       (2) serves as a settlement of any claim against the United 
     States.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, this is an amendment for which the 
cosponsors include the chairman of the committee and the chairman of 
the Indian Affairs Committee, Senator Dorgan, as well. It is an 
amendment that has been cleared through the authorizing committee a 
multiple of times and it has been cleared through this body previously 
and we have cleared it on both sides of the aisle.
  With the passage of this amendment, we officially apologize for the 
past ill-conceived policies by the U.S. Government toward the Native 
Peoples of this land and reaffirm our commitment toward healing our 
Nation's wounds and working toward establishing better relationships 
rooted in reconciliation.
  Apologies are often times difficult, but like treaties, go beyond 
mere words and usher in a true spirit of reconciling past difficulties 
and help to pave the way toward a united future. Perhaps Dr. King said 
it best when he stated, ``The end is reconciliation, the end is 
redemption, the end is the creation of the beloved community.'' This is 
our goal, with this resolution today.
  Native Americans have a vast and proud legacy on this continent. Long 
before 1776 and the establishment of the United States of America, 
Native peoples inhabited this land and maintained a powerful physical 
and spiritual connection to it. In service to the Creator, Native 
peoples sowed the land, journeyed it, and protected it. The people from 
my State of Kansas have a similar strong attachment to the land.
  Like many in my State, I was raised on the land. I grew up farming 
and caring for the land. I and many in my State established a 
connection to this land as well. We care for our Nation and the land of 
our forefathers so greatly that we too are willing to serve and protect 
it, as faithful stewards of the creation with which God has blessed us. 
I believe without a doubt citizens across this great Nation share this 
sentiment and know its unifying power. Americans have stood side by 
side for centuries to defend this land we love.
  Both the Founding Fathers of the United States and the indigenous 
tribes that lived here were attached to this land. Both sought to 
steward and protect it. There were several instances of collegiality 
and cooperation between our forbears--for example, in Jamestown, VA, 
Plymouth, MA, and in aid to explorers Lewis and Clark. Yet, sadly, 
since the formation of the American Republic, numerous conflicts have 
ensued between our Government, the Federal Government, and many of 
these tribes, conflicts in which warriors on all sides fought 
courageously and which all sides suffered. Even from the earliest days 
of our Republic there existed a sentiment that honorable dealings and a 
peaceful coexistence were clearly preferable to bloodshed. Indeed, our 
predecessors in Congress in 1787 stated in the Northwest Ordinance:

       ``The utmost good faith shall always be observed toward the 
     Indians.''

  Today we live up to this goal, today we right a wrong that has been 
committed in this nation.
  Many treaties were made between the U.S. Government and Native 
peoples, but treaties are far more than just words on a page. Treaties 
represent our word, and they represent our bond. Unfortunately, again, 
too often the United States did not uphold its responsibilities as 
stated in its covenants with Native tribes.
  I have read all of the treaties in my State between the tribes and 
the Federal Government that apply to Kansas. They generally came in 
tranches of three. First, there would be a big land grant to the tribe. 
Then there would be a much smaller one associated with some equipment 
and livestock, and then a much smaller one after that.
  Too often, our Government broke its solemn oath to Native Americans. 
For too long, relations between the United States and Native people of 
this land have been in disrepair. For too much of our history, Federal 
tribal relations have been marked by broken treaties, mistreatment, and 
dishonorable dealings.
  This amendment extends a formal apology from the United States to 
Tribal Governments and Native peoples nationwide--something we have 
never done; something we should have done years and years ago.
  Further, this resolution will not resolve the many challenges still 
facing Native Americans, nor will it authorize, support or settle any 
claims against the United States. It doesn't have anything to do with 
any property claims against the United States. That is specifically set 
aside and not in this bill. What this amendment does do is recognize 
and honor the importance of Native Americans to this land and to the 
United States in the past and today and offers an official apology for 
the poor and painful path the U.S. Government sometimes made in 
relation to our Native brothers and sisters by disregarding our solemn 
word to Native peoples. It recognizes the negative impact of numerous 
destructive Federal acts and policies on Native Americans and their 
culture, and it begins--begins--the effort of reconciliation.
  President Ronald Reagan spoke of the importance of reconciliation 
many times throughout his Presidency. In a 1984 speech to mark the 40th 
anniversary of the day when the Allied armies joined in battle to free 
the European Continent from the grip of the Axis powers, Reagan 
implored the United States and Europe to ``prepare to reach out in the 
spirit of reconciliation.''
  I do not pretend that this apology is a panacea, but perhaps it 
signals the beginning of the end of division and a faint first light 
and first fruits of reconciliation and the creation of beloved 
community Dr. King so eloquently described.
  This is an apology and a resolution of reconciliation. It is a step 
toward healing the wounds that have divided our country for so long--a 
potential foundation for a new era of positive relations between tribal 
governments and the Federal Government.
  It is time, as I have stated, for us to heal our land of division, 
all divisions,

[[Page S10037]]

and bring us together and I am proud that today we are closer to that 
goal.
  Madam President, I understand the amendment has been cleared, and I 
ask unanimous consent for its immediate adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. INOUYE. We support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the 
amendment, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2598) was agreed to.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you very much, Madam President.
  I wish to thank my colleagues for being willing to consider this 
amendment in an expedited fashion, but it is actually an issue for 
which there have been hearings held, research done, and has been voted 
on by this body over 5 years. So I am delighted we could move it on 
through.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.


                           Amendment No. 2571

  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Byrd, I call up 
amendment No. 2571 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for Mr. Byrd, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2571.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To require a report on the use by the Department of Defense 
    of live primates in training programs relating to chemical and 
                           biological agents)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Report on Use of Live Primates in Training 
     Relating to Chemical and Biological Agents.--Not later than 
     90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional 
     defense committees a report setting forth a detailed 
     description of the requirements for the use by the Department 
     of Defense of live primates at the United States Army Medical 
     Research Institute of Chemical Defense, and elsewhere, to 
     demonstrate the effects of chemical or biological agents or 
     chemical (such as physostigmine) or biological agent 
     simulants in training programs.
       (b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall 
     include, at a minimum, the following:
       (1) The number of live primates used in the training 
     described in subsection (a).
       (2) The average lifespan of primates from the point of 
     introduction into such training programs.
       (3) An explanation why the use of primates in such training 
     is more advantageous and realistic than the use of human 
     simulators or other alternatives.
       (4) An estimate of the cost of converting from the use of 
     primates to human simulators in such training.

  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, this amendment has been cleared by both 
sides, both leaders. It is a good amendment. I ask unanimous consent 
the amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without 
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2571) was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Thank you, Madam President.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2567

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise to oppose the Barrasso 
amendment No. 2567, which would ban funding to the CIA's new Center on 
Climate Change and National Security. I make these remarks as chairman 
of the Intelligence Committee and one who strongly supports the new 
Climate Change center at the CIA.
  The Center on Climate Change and National Security that the CIA 
recently established is fully consistent with the intelligence 
community's mission of protecting the United States.
  It is important to note what the Center will not do. It will not do 
the science of climate change. It will not make judgments about how or 
whether the climate is changing. It will not make judgments about why 
the climate is changing. That work will be done where it belongs, with 
the scientific community.
  The Center will have three tasks. One, it will continue the decade-
long program of declassifying imagery for passage to climate change 
scientists.
  Let me give you an example of some of that imagery. It is here on my 
right, as shown in these photographs. This is Barrow, AK. This is 
Barrow. This is the Chukchi Sea. As shown here, this is July of 2006. 
In this picture, this is that same area in July of 2007. You see the 
decomposition of the ice. They point out its variation by time and, 
therefore, you can track the impact of the change brought about by 
global warming from our satellites. So our satellites are used to 
measure and predict change.
  Here is another one. This is the Beaufort Sea in August of 2001. You 
see the melt ponds in the center, and you see the ice. You see it 
here--winter in August of 2007. This is from a satellite.
  The third one is much more difficult to see, but it is the Bering 
Glacier in Alaska. Here it is in May of 2005. Here are the big chunks 
that have broken off. Here they are there. As shown here, this is 
another satellite photo of the Bering Glacier in Alaska.
  The second task of the CIA Center on Climate Change and National 
Security will be to assess the plans and intentions of other countries, 
and it will help the administration design verification regimes for any 
climate change treaties so policymakers can negotiate from a position 
of strength. This is, in fact, a traditional role for the intelligence 
community on a wide range of foreign policy issues.
  Thirdly, the Center on Climate Change and National Security will 
assess the national security implications of climate change, which many 
experts believe will be significant. This will include assessing the 
national security implications of increased competition for resources, 
population shifts, water shortages, changes in crop yields, and the 
spread of climate-sensitive diseases such as malaria.
  This is the work that the IC is better positioned than anyone else in 
the government to do and where CIA's contacts in the academic and think 
tank communities will pay big dividends.
  On September 25, the CIA announced it was going to launch this new 
center and tackle the devastating long-term challenges that climate 
change might present to our Nation's security. In other words, this 
will give the intelligence community the opportunity to collect 
information and predict how change is going to affect certain 
countries--the movement of populations, the devastation of crops, the 
disappearance of water supplies--to be able to anticipate what impact 
that will have on the Nation's policy and on our national security.
  I have no doubt climate changes are going to have an impact on our 
Nation's security. I also have no doubt our satellites can give us a 
very positive--meaning in the sense of crisp and delineated--view of 
these changes as our satellites track climate change across the years.
  I believe very strongly the Center on Climate Change is warranted. I 
believe it will produce intelligence dividends for the Nation, and I 
believe it is entirely appropriate. Therefore, I would oppose the 
Barrasso amendment, which would effectively eliminate this new center.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I join the distinguished Senator from 
California in opposing the Barrasso amendment.
  The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency recently created the 
Center for Climate Change and National Security. The mission of this 
center is fully consistent with the mission of the intelligence 
community.
  The center has three main tasks. As pointed out by the Senator from 
California, the first is to continue the decades-long program of 
declassifying imagery for use by the scientific community. Second, the 
center will assess the plans and intentions of other countries and 
assist the administration to design verification regimes for any 
climate change treaties so that policymakers can negotiate from a 
position of strength. Third, as noted by the Senator from California, 
this center will assess the national security implications of climate 
change, which many

[[Page S10038]]

believe will be very significant. This will include assessing the 
national security implications of increased competition for resources, 
population shifts, water shortages, changes in crop yields, and the 
spread of climate-sensitive diseases such as malaria.
  This center will not work on the science of climate change. That work 
will be done where it belongs--with the scientific community. This 
center will continue in the traditional role of the intelligence 
community to support policymakers on a wide range of foreign policy 
issues.
  Therefore, I join my colleague from California in urging my 
colleagues to oppose the Barrasso amendment.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I would like to say a few words on a few 
of the contentious issues before us.
  The administration requested $7.4 billion for the Afghanistan 
security forces fund in fiscal year 2010. This is an increase of $1.8 
billion over fiscal year 2009 levels. This is to continue to train and 
equip the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police.
  The committee was informed by officials of the Department of Defense 
that $1.8 billion of this request would not be spent until fiscal year 
2011. I would like to repeat that. This amount will not be spent until 
2011. And there was $1.9 billion remaining from the fiscal year 2009 
appropriations.
  At the same time, the committee was also aware of a validated urgent 
but unfunded requirement from the Department of Defense for additional 
all-terrain MRAP vehicles for our troops in Afghanistan, something that 
the military has been asking for with great urgency.
  Recognizing that these funds would not be obligated until fiscal year 
2011--the funds I mentioned earlier--and were not required for long 
lead equipment of infrastructure projects, the committee transferred 
$900 million from the Afghan security forces fund to the MRAP fund to 
pay for this urgent requirement.
  The redirecting of funds was not an attempt to curtail our efforts to 
train and equip the Afghan security forces. It was solely based on the 
Department's ability to execute the required resources during fiscal 
year 2010 and the urgent unfunded and validated requirement to procure 
additional all-terrain MRAPs for our troops in Afghanistan.
  There is a tremendous amount of debate in both the Halls of Congress 
and the Pentagon over the size of the Afghan security forces--how fast 
they can be trained, equipped, and executing missions independent of 
coalition forces.
  While many would like to grow the Afghan security forces beyond the 
current plan, the Department of Defense has not been able to say that 
they can absorb additional resources in fiscal year 2010 or that they 
can source additional trainers to reach these new levels. This is a 
situation where, yes, we need the money, but we cannot spend it. We 
want you to appropriate it so we can leave it in the bank. That is a 
hell of a way to run the government.
  Since 2005, Congress has appropriated nearly $19 billion for the 
training and equipping of the Afghan security forces. These funds have 
greatly increased over the years, starting from $1.3 billion in fiscal 
year 2005 to $5.6 billion in fiscal year 2009 to $7.4 billion in fiscal 
year 2010.
  Of the $5.6 billion appropriated in the last fiscal year, nearly $1.9 
billion remains unobligated, and the Department of Defense does not 
anticipate obligating these funds until July of 2010.
  The $7.4 billion fiscal year 2010 request for the Afghan security 
forces fund is projected to obligate $5.6 billion in fiscal year 2010 
and $1.8 billion in the next fiscal year, 2011.
  The Afghan security forces fund is a 2-year funding account to enable 
long lead equipment procurement and infrastructure projects that 
obligate over a 2-year period. The funds transferred from the Afghan 
security forces trust fund to meet the urgent operational requirement 
of additional all-terrain MRAPs for Afghanistan were taken from 
sustainment requirements of the Afghan National Army and the Afghan 
National Police which would have been obligated in fiscal year 2011 and 
do not require long lead appropriations. We took money they did not 
need or can use.
  Areas funded through the sustainment program include fuels, salary, 
incentive pay, clothing, individual equipment, rental equipment--all of 
which do not require long lead time. Therefore, the fiscal year 2010 
sustainment request for the Afghan National Army is a 45-percent 
increase over 2009 and a 108-percent increase over fiscal year 2009 for 
the Afghan National Police.
  Even with the decrease in this fund, there is substantial flexibility 
and resources in the Afghan security forces fund to meet unanticipated 
requirements of the security forces and to expedite the growth of the 
Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police.
  Madam President, I decided to share these numbers with my colleagues 
to make certain they know the committee has acted on this very 
carefully. When we were convinced that the Department of Defense could 
not use that money, we decided to use it for some other more urgent 
purpose.
  I should point out once again this bill was passed by the committee, 
made up of Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, by a 
vote of 30 to 0. Unanimous.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
McCaskill and DeMint be added as cosponsors to amendment No. 2560 to 
H.R. 3326, the 2010 Department of Defense Appropriations Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. BURRIS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Youth Violence Pandemic

  Mr. BURRIS. Madam President, last Thursday, just outside of a Chicago 
community center, a 16-year-old honor student was beaten to death. His 
name was Derrion Albert. There had been a shooting at the school 
earlier in the day. Afterwards, two rival groups of teens confronted 
each other in the street. Derrion was not a part of either group. He 
just happened to be passing in the area on his way home from school.
  In the violent chaos of that confrontation, as other teenagers 
punched and kicked each other, young Derrion got caught in the middle. 
He was beaten to death with railroad ties.
  The shocking murder was caught on video. It is extremely difficult, 
Madam President, if you have watched that film clip. But when you see 
this terrible scene unfold, you are struck by several things. No. 1, 
this did not happen in some distant country; it happened in our 
backyard, right outside of a community center on a populated street. It 
did not even happen at night. Derrion was murdered in broad daylight 
with people all around to witness the scene. And it did not happen to 
them. It did not happen to people unlike ourselves. It happened to us. 
Derrion Albert could have been anybody's son, grandson, nephew, 
brother, or friend.
  Just the other night, in a different Chicago neighborhood, another 
young boy was beaten within inches of his life. This violence is not 
confined to a single area or group of people. The problem is pervasive 
and it touches all of us.

  It is tearing apart families, communities, and our own sense of 
security. These acts are committed against our community by our 
community. In the last school year alone, 36 Chicago students were shot 
to death. This number does not include those who survived shootings in 
other violence. That statistic would be far higher.
  In the wake of last year's murders, the local government and Chicago 
police tried to put a stop to the terrible cycle of violence. But now, 
only a few weeks into the new school year, another young boy has been 
taken from us.

[[Page S10039]]

  I am thankful the suspects in Derrion's murder have already been 
arrested and charged with the crime. I am proud of the job our local 
law enforcement officers have done to make sure justice is served. But 
that is not enough. That is just not enough. It will never be enough.
  This problem is not unique to Chicago or Illinois. A national 
pandemic of violence has taken hold in every major city across the 
country. We can no longer stand by as an entire generation of young men 
and women fall victim to these senseless crimes.
  Government cannot do it all. Law enforcement can only do so much. 
That is why it is time for us to stand together as a community and as a 
nation to end youth violence.
  The old saying, ``It takes a village to raise a child,'' is very 
true. It takes a community to protect them. Our communities must take 
responsibility for our youngsters. We cannot tolerate violence any 
longer. Our parents must take ownership of their children and shoulder 
the responsibility of steering them away from gangs and violence. We 
cannot stand by and hope this problem resolves itself. We cannot expect 
someone else to find a solution. It is time to join with one voice and 
say: Enough is enough. This cannot stand. This cannot continue.
  It is time to take back our streets, our schools, our community 
centers, and our children. It is time for parents, teachers, neighbors, 
and friends to join with community leaders to put an end to the 
violence. It means afterschool programs to keep kids involved and off 
the streets. It means seeking opportunities for youth who are at risk. 
It means being present in young peoples' lives. Ask if your son's 
homework is done. See which school subject your daughter enjoys the 
most. Encourage kids to continue their education, to play a sport, or 
to go out and get a part-time job if they can find it. Be a good role 
model for your children and your neighbor's children. Be involved, but 
do not settle for the status quo. Do not let the young people of 
America continue to cut each other down in the streets.
  This will not go away on its own, and it is not someone else's 
problem. This youth violence that has gone on in our country is our 
problem, our future, and we must work together to solve it. The only 
way we are going to solve it is working together and recognizing that 
across this country there is a problem with our young people, and we 
can no longer tolerate that.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, at this moment--and I repeat, at this 
moment--there are 10 amendments ready for voting--10. I have been 
advised that most of them will require rollcall votes. So may I advise 
my colleagues to prepare themselves for a long evening.

  In addition to that, there are 10 other amendments that we are in the 
process of discussing and negotiating which may require rollcall votes. 
So this may be a long night.
  The leadership has advised me that voting should begin in about 15 
minutes, at 5:30. Since we have some time, and in anticipation that one 
of the amendments would be the one from the Senator from Oklahoma, I 
wish to say a few words about that.


                           Amendment No. 2569

  Madam President, I rise to oppose the amendment of the Senator from 
Oklahoma which seeks to increase the operation and maintenance funding 
by $294 million in the Department of Defense bill by reducing the funds 
available for research and development activities by that same amount. 
I understand the Senator incorrectly assumes that the operation and 
maintenance account is underfunded due to a change in current year 
inflation.
  Economic recovery means that projected inflation is now higher than 
anticipated a few months ago. My colleague is correct that inflation 
assumptions have changed. However, the budget adjustment the Senator 
finds objectionable does not only correct for the current year 
inflation; in fact, the committee reviews the historical price growth 
embedded in the budget baseline. Due to the recession, inflation in 
fiscal years 2008 and 2009 was below the levels built into the budget. 
Therefore, the fiscal year 2010 budget base was inflated over actual 
experience. The bill before us adjusts for that baseline error.
  The operation and maintenance title is fully funded to meet the 
Department's needs. There is no shortage. Let me repeat that: The O&M 
account--or the operation and maintenance account--is fully funded. The 
committee is deeply concerned that the critical operational needs of 
our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are financed. We want to be 
certain that every member has the equipment, gear, training and support 
they need. The bill meets these needs. And we fully fund family support 
programs, base operations, and major equipment maintenance.
  The proposed amendment would add $294 million in unneeded funds, an 
action that could promote waste and expenditures on low priority 
programs. I note the amendment does not specify what program is 
underfunded or would benefit from this transfer. This amendment would 
move funds for unidentified purposes, which undermines the careful 
program-by-program review which the committee accomplished.
  On the other hand, it unduly penalizes the resource and development 
activities of the Department. The R&D title is already below the 
President's requested funding level. Research and development is the 
seed corn for the future. It is the basis of all the technological 
improvements that have proved invaluable in making our fighting forces 
the most capable in the world. This blunt axe approach to cut funds and 
undermine the future is uninformed, unexplained, and untargeted. 
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure.
  I yield the floor.
  Madam President, I have been advised that the statement I made that 
we may begin voting at 5:30 has slightly changed. We will now begin 
voting about 6 o'clock.
  So may 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. COBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I think the leadership has been working 
on some amendments and agreements. I don't think any of our amendments 
are going to come up for votes tonight, but I did want to take a couple 
of moments talking about several of them.


                           Amendment No. 2560

  One is a McCain amendment I am a cosponsor on, amendment No. 2560, on 
competitive bidding.
  Every time we bring this amendment to the floor we get a side-by-side 
amendment so everybody on the other side who does not want us to 
competitively bid earmarks can have cover to say they voted for 
competitive bidding. The fact is, in this bill are directed earmarks 
that are not competitively bid to individuals and companies out there, 
for specialization of what one Senator may want in their home State.
  There is nothing wrong with wanting to help your home State. What is 
wrong is to not competitively bid. If it is something we need, why 
shouldn't we use a competitive bidding process to get the best quality 
and the best value for all this money we are going to spend?
  We are going to see again on the McCain amendment the competitive 
bidding amendment--I have offered this on many of the appropriations 
bills we have--a side by side. America should not be fooled. If you do 
not vote for the McCain amendment and you vote for the side by side, 
what you are saying is you still want your earmarks protected and not 
competitively bid. That is what it says.
  I have another amendment that addresses earmarks. The problem with 
earmarks is it takes our eye off the ball. It is not they are not good 
ideas, but we vote on bills on the basis of having an earmark in the 
bill rather than on the total bill and what is in the best interest of 
the country, not our particular parochial State.
  The competitive bidding amendment, when it has the side by side, what 
you are going to see is you are going to see the true competitive 
bidding amendment defeated and the false competitive bidding amendment 
win. That is

[[Page S10040]]

because if you count the number of Senators who actually have earmarks 
that are not competitively bid, you get the majority of the Chamber. 
That is true on every appropriations bill. So we will not ever pass it 
until the Members start thinking about the long term and what is best 
for the country, rather than what is best for them. I thought that 
explanation needed to be made.


                           Amendment No. 2565

  I also want to discuss for a moment an amendment, Amendment No. 2565, 
a very simple amendment. We know the National Guard has gotten 
shortchanged a lot of times in terms of equipment. I don't think there 
is anything wrong with setting aside money for the National Guard. But 
the way the bill is written is the chain of command in the U.S. 
Government, in terms of our military, will be excluded from the 
decisions made on how to spend this $1.5 billion.
  The Secretary of Defense, who is ultimately responsible for the 
defense of the Nation--even though we use National Guard, and part of 
this money is going to be used for our Army Reserve, a very small 
amount--is not going to be able to have any input. The only people who 
are going to have input is the Appropriations Committee.
  What that says is the American people are not going to get to know, 
we are not going to have the judgment of the people with the best 
experience to comment on it. I am not even saying they have to veto it. 
What we are saying is they have to be aware of it, they have to be part 
of the process. Yet they are not. So the more concern I have with our 
amendment the more concern I have about what is happening with this 
$1.5 billion. My hope is we will eventually find out. We may not find 
out until after the $1.5 billion will have been spent. But the problem 
is will it be spent efficiently and properly for the National Guard and 
the Reserve? The secrecy that shrouds this process is somewhat 
concerning, and also the reaction that we would offer an amendment that 
says we want somebody in the chain of command to be involved in this, 
outside just the Appropriations Committee and the individual guard 
units.


                           Amendment No. 2562

  On another amendment, amendment No. 2562, other than national 
security issues, why should not every report in this bill be made 
available to every American? It is a real straightforward amendment. If 
we want transparency in our Government, then the reports that do not 
have anything to do with anything that would be a national security 
risk, for example, ought to be made available to the other Senators in 
the Chamber and the body as well as the American people. That is a 
pretty hard amendment to say ``No, you don't,'' because there is not a 
good defense to that if it is not related to a national security 
concern, and, Americans--43 cents out of every dollar we are spending 
we are borrowing from our grandkids. We ought to be proud to let them 
see what we are doing with the money.


                           Amendment No. 2569

  Finally, I have an amendment that is a prohibition. We have this 
operation and maintenance account that has been robbed heartily for 
earmarks. I know I will never win the battle on earmarks. But should 
not we say it comes from somewhere else, other than to fund the actual 
day-to-day operation and maintenance of our military? We have already 
cut into the amount of money that is in the O&M account because we are 
using a false inflation number, to the tune of about $300 some odd 
million--$294 million. Shouldn't we say, if we are going to take that, 
let's take it from somewhere else in the military rather than 
operations and maintenance? What is a greater priority than making sure 
the troops on the ground have what they need on a timely basis?
  It was just last year that the Navy ran out of O&M money. They 
restricted flight training. They restricted training on the ships. We 
had to pass an emergency supplemental because we did not authorize them 
enough, we didn't appropriate them enough money to adequately operate 
and maintain their force structure. Yet we have all this money, 
including other money that is related to other amendments, that comes 
out of their operation and maintenance account. If we want to do 
something that is outside the scope and outside what the military wants 
to have done, let's not make two wrongs. Let's not take the money from 
O&M. What this amendment would do is simply prohibit any directed 
earmark from coming from O&M funds.
  Our military needs us to be efficient. I think overall on this bill 
the appropriators have done a good job. I think there is tons of waste 
we could get out of the Defense Department. I think it is about $50 
billion a year that we could actually squeeze, which would make plenty 
of money for earmarks, it wouldn't hurt operation and maintenance, yet 
we will not have the oversight, we will not do the things that are 
necessary to lessen the waste that is in the military. My hope is, as 
we come back next week--I notice we are going to have a couple of votes 
here in a little while; not on these amendments. No. 1, my hope is the 
American people will let us know about priorities and what we ought to 
be doing. I think these are straightforward amendments.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2621, As Modified

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I ask the pending amendment be set 
aside and that my amendment No. 2621, as modified, at the desk, be 
called up, please.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2621, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To express the Sense of the Senate on Joint STARS re-
                               engining)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  (A) FINDINGS.--THE SENATE MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS.

       (1) Real time intelligence, surveillance, and 
     reconnaissance (ISR) is critical to our warfighters in 
     fighting the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
       (2) Secretary of Defense Gates and the military leadership 
     of the United States have highlighted the importance of 
     collecting and disseminating critical intelligence and 
     battlefield information to our troops on the ground in Iraq 
     and Afghanistan.
       (3) The Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Norton 
     Schwartz, has stated that the Air Force is ``all-in'' for the 
     joint fight.
       (4) One of the most effective and heavily tasked 
     intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets 
     operating today is the Air Force's E-8C Joint Surveillance 
     Target Attack Radar System, also known as Joint STARS.
       (5) Commanders in the field rely on Joint STARS to give 
     them a long range view of the battlefield and detect moving 
     targets in all weather conditions as well as tactical support 
     to Brigade Combat Teams, Joint Tactical Air Controllers and 
     Special Operations Forces convoy overwatch.
       (6) Joint STARS is a joint platform, flown by a mix of 
     active duty Air Force and Air National Guard personnel and 
     operated by a joint Army, Air Force, and Marine crew, 
     supporting missions for all the Armed Forces.
       (7) With a limited number of airframes, Joint STARS has 
     flown over 55,000 combat hours and 900 sorties over Iraq and 
     Afghanistan and directly contributed to the discovery of 
     hundreds of Improvised Explosive Devices.
       (8) The current engines greatly limit the performance of 
     Joint STARS aircraft and are the highest cause of maintenance 
     problems and mission aborts.
       (9) There is no other current or programmed aircraft or 
     weapon system that can provide the detailed, broad-area 
     ground moving target indicator (GMTI) and airborne battle 
     management support for the warfighter that Joint STARS 
     provides.
       (10) With the significant operational savings that new 
     engines will bring to the Joint STARS, re-engining Joint 
     STARS will pay for itself by 2017 due to reduced operations, 
     sustainment, and fuel costs.
       (11) In December 2002, a JSTARS re-engining study 
     determined that re-engining provided significant benefits and 
     cost savings. However, delays in executing the re-engining 
     program continue to result in increased costs for the re-
     engining effort.
       (12) The budget request for the Department of Defense for 
     fiscal year 2010 included $205,000,000 in Aircraft 
     Procurement, Air Force, and $16,000,000 in Research, 
     Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force for Joint STARS 
     re-engining.

[[Page S10041]]

       (13) On September 22, 2009, the Department of Defense 
     reaffirmed their support for the President's Budget request 
     for Joint STARS re-engining.
       (14) On September 30, 2009, The Undersecretary of Defense 
     (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) signed an 
     Acquisition Decision Memorandum directing that the Air Force 
     proceed with the Joint STARS re-engining effort, to include 
     expenditure of procurement and research, development, test, 
     and evaluation funds.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
     --
       (1) Funds for re-engining of the E-8C Joint Surveillance 
     Target Attack Radar System (Joint STARS) should be 
     appropriated in the correct appropriations accounts and in 
     the amounts required in fiscal year 2010 to execute the Joint 
     STARS re-engining system design and development program; and
       (2) the Air Force should proceed with currently planned 
     efforts to re-engine Joint STARS aircraft, to include 
     expending both procurement and research, development, test, 
     and evaluation funds.

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Bill Nelson, Inhofe, Dodd, Isakson, and Lieberman be added as 
cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, this amendment is a sense-of-the-
Senate amendment on a weapons system that is critical to the U.S. Air 
Force from an intelligence gathering standpoint. It has to do with the 
re-engining of the Joint STARS weapons system. Real-time intelligence 
is critical to our warfighters in fighting the ongoing wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, just as in all other military conflicts. Secretary Gates 
and our military leadership have consistently highlighted to us the 
importance of collecting and disseminating critical intelligence and 
battlefield information to our troops on the ground and theaters of 
conflict, such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
  One of the most effective ISR assets operating today is the Air 
Force's E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System, also known 
as Joint STARS, or more succinctly, JSTARS.
  I ask unanimous consent a memorandum signed yesterday from Ashton 
Carter, Under Secretary of Defense, addressing JSTARS be printed in the 
Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING officer. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. JSTARS has proven itself to be a critical asset to our 
military since deploying to Iraq in 1991. It is one of the most highly 
tasked systems in our fleet today. Our commanders in the field are 
constantly asking for JSTARS so they can access its tremendous ISR 
capability to give them a long-range view of the battlefield and detect 
moving targets in all weather conditions. There is no other current or 
programmed aircraft or weapons system that can provide the detailed, 
broad-area ground-moving target indicator and airborne battle 
management support for the warfighter than JSTARS provides.
  The Chief of Staff of the Air Force, GEN Norton Schwartz, has stated 
that the Air Force is ``all-in'' for the joint fight. JSTARS is truly a 
joint platform. Flown by a mixed active-duty Air Force/Air Guard unit, 
it operates with an Army and Air Force mission crew and, in 
Afghanistan, also with a Marine. It also supports missions of all the 
military services.
  With over 55,000 combat hours and 900 sorties flown by only a handful 
of airplanes over Iraq and Afghanistan, JSTARS has directly contributed 
to the discovery of hundreds of IEDs.
  Having flown with the 116th Air Control Wing out of Robins Air Force 
Base in Warner Robins, GA, I have seen firsthand the remarkable 
capability that JSTARS can bring to the battlefield in support of our 
warfighters. Although developed and built to fight the Cold War for 
tracking Soviet troop movements, JSTARS is an integral part of today's 
battlefield and will be even more relevant in the near future.
  JSTARS needs to be modified with new engines to keep this critical 
asset available to better support our soldiers. Air Force studies show 
the airframe is sound and will be useful well beyond 2050. JSTARS faces 
limitations in operational restrictions because the engines are the 
original 1960s-era engines. They have never been replaced. They are old 
and expensive to operate and maintain. Replacing them is a safety issue 
as well as an operational necessity.
  What this sense-of-the-Senate resolution does is to emphasize the 
importance of funding the re-engining of the JSTARS weapons system.
  And it is my hope that in conference, the chairman and the ranking 
member will do what they can to make sure this funding is available. I 
have talked with Senator Inouye as well as Senator Cochran about this. 
They are well aware of the value of this weapons system. It has been 
funded in the House appropriations bill. By adopting this sense-of-the-
Senate amendment, it sends a strong message for the conferees to do 
everything possible to make sure the appropriate funding will be 
available when this conference report returns to the Senate.

                               Exhibit 1

         The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
           Technology and Logistics,
                               Washington, DC, September 30, 2009.


               MEMORANDUM FOR SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE

     SUBJECT: E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System 
         (JSTARS) Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM)
       I designate JSTARS as a special interest program.
       I direct the Air Force to continue the JSTARS re-engining 
     System Design and Development phase, including the 
     development, flight testing, and production of the initial 
     increment of re-engine shipsets. The Air Force should 
     immediately identify and obligate RDT&E and procurement 
     funding necessary to execute this direction. Report back to 
     me when this is accomplished with the amounts and timing of 
     RDT&E and procurement funding obligations.
       My point of contact for this ADM is Mr. David Ahern, 
     Director, Portfolio Systems Acquisition (OUSD (AT&L)).
                                                 Ashton B. Carter.

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Georgia for presenting his amendment. I am pleased to advise him that 
Senator Cochran and I have discussed this matter. We would like to see 
this passed. We agree with the Senator.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. At the appropriate time, I will ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2621), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, 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. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2592, as modified

  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up 
amendment No. 2592, which is at the desk and has modifications at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Casey], for himself and 
     Mr. Durbin, Mr. Reid, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Nelson of Florida, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2592, as modified.

  Mr. CASEY. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:


                    amendment no. 2592, as modified

(Purpose: To ensure that work under contracts under the Logistics Civil 
         Augmentation Program complies with certain standards)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Limitation on Availability of Funds for 
     Execution of Contracts Under LOGCAP.--No later than 90 days 
     after enactment of this Act none of the funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available by this Act may be obligated or 
     expended for the execution of a contract under the Logistics 
     Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) unless the Secretary of 
     the Army determines that the contract explicitly requires the 
     contractor--
       (1) to inspect and immediately correct deficiencies that 
     present an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury 
     so as to ensure compliance with generally accepted electrical 
     standards as determined by the Secretary of Defense in work 
     under the contract;

[[Page S10042]]

       (2) monitor and immediately correct deficiencies in the 
     quality of any potable or non-potable water provided under 
     the contract to ensure that safe and sanitary water is 
     provided; and
       (3) establish and enforce strict standards for preventing, 
     and immediately addressing and cooperating with the 
     prosecution of, any instances of sexual assault in all of its 
     operations and the operations of its subcontractors.
       (b) Waiver.--The Secretary of the Army may waive the 
     applicability of the limitation in subsection (a) to any 
     contract if the Secretary certifies in writing to Congress 
     that--
       (1) the waiver is necessary for the provision of essential 
     services or critical operating facilities for operational 
     missions; or
       (2) the work under such contract does not present an 
     imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

  Mr. CASEY. I rise to speak about an amendment Senator Durbin, the 
assistant majority leader, and I have worked on, as well as getting 
support and cosponsorship by the majority leader, Senator Reid, and by 
Senator Kerry and Senator Nelson of Florida. It has three fundamental 
goals. The first is to deal with the horrific situation our troops have 
faced where we have a number of troops who have died in Iraq, not as a 
result of enemy fire or in combat but in a circumstance in which they 
should have a reasonable expectation of safety. In the case of one of 
my constituents, SSG Ryan Maseth, Ryan was from the city of Shaler, PA, 
out in western Pennsylvania. He was taking a shower in Iraq, in his 
barracks, and was killed, was electrocuted because of shoddy electrical 
work. So the first part of this amendment speaks to that fundamental 
problem we still have today. The second part of the amendment ensures 
that our brave fighting men and women serving in war zones have clean 
water. Thirdly, this amendment would establish strict standards for 
preventing and prosecuting sexual assaults on Army bases.
  These are all commonsense reforms. I will focus principally in my 
remarks--I know we have limited time--on the issue of electrocution.
  As I mentioned, SSG Ryan Maseth died on January 2, 2008. He was 
electrocuted in his barracks in Iraq. Unfortunately for his family, who 
have been seeking answers to why he was killed in that way, the 
nightmare has not ended, nor for a lot of other families. Families from 
Georgia, Texas, California, Nevada, Oregon, Hawaii, Minnesota, and 
Pennsylvania, all of those States, have been affected by these deaths.
  It continues into last month. On September 1 of this year, Adam 
Hermanson, who grew up in San Diego and Las Vegas, served three tours 
of duty in Iraq with the Air Force and then went back to work for a 
contractor. He, too, lost his life in a horrific way, by electrocution. 
His wife Janine is waiting for answers. I spoke to her earlier today.
  Fundamentally, what this amendment does as it relates to the 
electrocution problem is attempt to right a wrong by ensuring that the 
Army reviews the language of the contract at the time of formation to 
ensure it includes explicit language that clearly requires contractors 
to immediately correct deficiencies such as improperly grounded 
equipment or facilities. We are talking about basic electrical work 
here being done in a way that would protect anyone's safety in a way 
that they should have a right to expect.
  So when I think of Ryan and his family and his mother Cheryl Harris 
and I think of Mr. Hermanson and his family, his wife Janine, we are 
not just thinking about some far-off concept here, we are talking about 
a real problem that is not yet corrected and still threatens our 
fighting men and women.
  Let me conclude my remarks by saying, in addition to urging my 
colleagues to support this amendment, which I think is so fundamental 
it does not require a lot of explanation, our troops ought to be able 
to take a shower or engage in other activities of daily life in Iraq or 
Afghanistan or anywhere around the world with that reasonable 
expectation of safety. We can't guarantee that right now, 
unfortunately. This amendment will take a step in that direction.
  Obviously, the other parts, the other two elements in the amendment 
are that our troops should have the ability to drink clean water and, 
finally, that no women serving in the military should ever fear the 
potential or the threat of sexual assault.
  All of these parts of this amendment are vitally important. I don't 
understand why anyone would not support it.
  I have already submitted for the Record earlier the Associated Press 
story about the death by electrocution of Adam Hermanson. I wanted to 
cite two statements, two reflections by Adam's wife and his mother. His 
wife said, when talking about their plans to move back to Pennsylvania:

       He was supposed to come back and we had a lot of plans.

  After three tours of duty in Iraq as a soldier and then another tour 
as a contractor, they were looking forward to his coming back to the 
United States and, in this case, coming back to Pennsylvania. They had 
a lot of plans. Those plans were completely destroyed. His life was 
ended because of a fundamental problem in our system of how we ground 
electrical outlets, how we install showers in Iraq and threaten troops 
in the process. We have to correct it for Adam in his memory and for 
Ryan and so many others, as well as for those they left behind; in this 
case, Adam's wife Janine.
  I will conclude with what his mother Patricia said, as she was 
reflecting on what happened to Adam. She said everyone in their family 
was struggling to understand how he could survive four war tours--three 
as a soldier, one as a contractor--and then die suddenly in a seemingly 
safe place.
  We should make sure, by way of this amendment and anything else we 
can do, that our troops are at least safe when taking a shower or in a 
barracks or living in a situation where they are away from the 
battlefield, away from a fire fight, away from the threat of enemy 
fire. That is the least we can do as legislators. I urge my colleagues 
to support the amendment, hoping we can deal with this amendment in the 
next hour or so.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, it is time to address some serious 
problems that have plagued the LOGCAP contract that the Army uses to 
supply our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  For years, this work has been managed by the former subsidiary of 
Halliburton, KBR.
  The controversies surrounding these two companies are many. Senator 
Casey and I have offered an amendment to help deal with some of the 
worst failures and protect the safety of our troops and others.
  The amendment would prevent the Army from spending funds on a LOGCAP 
contract unless the Army Secretary determines that the contract 
explicitly requires the contractor to ensure safe electrical work, 
ensure safe and sanitary water, and establish and enforce strict sexual 
assault prevention policies.
  It also allows the Secretary an opportunity to waive the restriction, 
if that is necessary to the provision of essential services.
  In 2001, the Army awarded a sole-source contract to Halliburton-KBR 
to provide housing, meals, water, trash collection, and other support 
services for American troops abroad.
  By the start of this year, the Army had paid KBR more than $31 
billion under the contract, known as LOGCAP.
  KBR has had tremendous difficulty executing government contracts 
properly. One of the many failures of this company has led to the death 
of U.S. troops.
  With our constituents' taxes, our Nation has paid billions of dollars 
to KBR to provide support to our troops deployed in harm's way. Some of 
the funds were designated to provide a safe place for our troops as 
they go about their daily business--to provide them the safe food and 
shelter they need as they put their lives on the line for us.
  We, and all taxpayers, have a right to expect that this company would 
use those hard-earned tax dollars for the safest and best support we 
can provide.
  What we didn't expect is for KBR, through its negligence, to provide 
conditions that would injure or kill our troops in their showers. But 
that is what has happened.
  Since March 2003, at least 16 service members and 3 contractors have 
been killed by electrocution in our own facilities in Iraq.
  It wasn't a problem that was hidden for years and then suddenly 
emerged as a surprise. As early as 2004, Army experts warned that 
negligent electrical work created potentially hazardous conditions for 
American personnel.

[[Page S10043]]

  While we don't whether every single one of those deaths was the fault 
of KBR, we do know that KBR has been given major contracts involving 
wiring facilities for our troops in Iraq.
  We know that in 2008, 94 troops stationed in Iraq, Afghanistan or 
other Central Command countries sought medical treatment for electric 
shock, according to Defense Department health data.
  And we know from military records that KBR's database lists 231 
electric shock incidents in the facilities the company runs in Iraq.
  So we know that our soldiers are being injured and sometimes killed 
as a direct result of KBR's shoddy electrical work in our facilities.
  This is clearly a problem that needs some tough questions answered. 
How does it come to pass that we put our personnel in unnecessary 
harm's way so often?
  The DOD inspector general sought to answer this question and looked 
at a particular case I would like to share with my colleagues. The case 
is that of SSG Ryan Maseth, and it demonstrates the level of KBR's 
negligence.
  In January 2008, Sergeant Maseth was killed in Iraq. This decorated 
service member was not killed by the bullets or bombs of Iraqi 
insurgents. He became another victim of contractor negligence when he 
was electrocuted in a shower at a U.S. base in Baghdad that once was 
one of Saddam Hussein's palaces.
  On July 24 of this year, the DOD inspector general released a 
scathing report describing the negligence of KBR that contributed to 
Sergeant Maseth's senseless death. The IG catalogued a distressing 
litany of KBR negligence and malfeasance. It found that ``KBR did not 
ground equipment during installation or report improperly grounded 
equipment identified during routine maintenance''; ``KBR did not have 
standard operating procedures for the technical inspection of 
facilities''; KBR personnel ``had inadequate electrical training and 
expertise''; and ``Operations and maintenance contractor facility 
maintenance records were incomplete and lacked specificity, precluding 
the identification and correction of systemic maintenance problems.''
  We have paid KBR billions and billions of dollars, and this is what 
they have given us in return.
  It is tragic. It is wrong. And it has to stop.
  In March of this year, DOD launched an emergency effort to examine 
every facility in Iraq to determine the scope of the problem.
  The results of those inspections are disturbing. According to Task 
Force Safety Actions for Fire and Electricity, SAFE, of the 20,340 
facilities maintained by KBR and inspected immediately, 6,935 failed 
the government inspection and required major electrical repairs.
  Think about that for a moment. For years, KBR has been making money 
hand over fist in Iraq, providing maintenance and support for what grew 
to a portfolio of almost 90,000 facilities. Yet nearly one-third of the 
facilities included in this emergency inspection failed the inspection.
  So for years our brave service members have used these facilities, 
expecting that they were safe, expecting that the billions of dollars 
we were spending on war support was devoted to their safety. Little did 
they know that--thanks to KBR's callous carelessness--what they were 
really doing was playing ``Russian roulette'' every time they stepped 
into a shower.
  You don't have to take my word for the level of incompetence 
demonstrated by KBR. Listen to the experts.
  Listen to Jim Childs, a master electrician hired by the Army to 
review KBR's electrical work with Task Force SAFE. He called KBR's work 
``the most hazardous, worst quality work'' he'd ever seen.
  Mr. Childs found that even when KBR tried to fix problems, they 
couldn't--that the rewiring work done in buildings that were previously 
safe resulted in the electrical system becoming unsafe.
  Or listen to Eric Peters, a master electrician who worked for KBR in 
Iraq as recently as this year. Mr. Peters testified that 50 percent of 
the KBR-managed buildings he saw were not properly wired. Mr. Peters 
estimated that at least half the electricians hired by KBR would not 
have been hired to work in the United States because they were not 
trained to meet U.S. or U.K. electrical standards.
  He characterized KBR managers as ``completely unqualified.''
  American soldiers--and their loved ones back home--placed 
themselves--placed their loved ones--in the hands of what was then a 
subsidiary of Halliburton known by the acronym KBR, and this is what 
they received.
  Shock. Electrocution. And in some cases death.
  Why? Because of a careless disregard for the safety of our troops.
  We must stop the negligence and ensure that U.S. contracts keep our 
soldiers safe.
  The story is not much better when it comes to the water KBR has 
provided to our troops.
  Here in America, we tend to take clean water for granted. We turn on 
the tap and, with rare exceptions, clean water flows out.
  It is not that simple in a war zone.
  The Federal Government entrusted to Halliburton subsidiary KBR the 
job of providing our troops with clean, safe drinking water.
  What the company supplied to our troops, instead, was unsafe, 
unhealthy, and potentially dangerous water.
  A basic necessity of life, a critical commodity in the desert heat of 
the Middle East, and KBR failed to get it right, even though we were 
paying them top dollar for the privilege of serving our troops in 
harm's way.
  According to a Department of Defense inspector general report, dozens 
of soldiers fell sick between January 2004 and February 2006 due to 
``unmonitored and potentially unsafe'' water supplied by Halliburton-
KBR to fulfill its contract with the Department of Defense.
  Water used for washing, bathing, shaving, and cleaning did not meet 
minimum safety standards set forth in military regulations.
  KBR reportedly failed to perform quality control tests, resulting in 
the use of unsafe water by our troops.
  DOD noted that KBR's failure to do its job may have resulted in 
soldiers suffering skin abscesses, cellulitis, skin infections, 
diarrhea, and other illnesses.
  I do not understand how a company could demonstrate such a callous 
disregard for the health and welfare of our troops in Iraq. But that is 
what they did, time and time again.
  If it weren't for a whistleblower, we might not know about 
Halliburton-KBR's mishandling of the water contract. But Ben Carter, a 
former Halliburton employee and water purification specialist, blew the 
whistle on KBR's malfeasance.
  In January 2006, Mr. Carter testified about his experiences working 
at Camp Ar Ramdi, home to 5,000 to 7,000 U.S. troops.
  Mr. Carter was appalled by what he found there. According to Mr. 
Carter's testimony:

       KBR [had] exposed the entire camp to water twice as 
     contaminated as raw water from the Euphrates River. KBR was 
     apparently taking the waste water . . . which should have 
     been dumped back in to the river, and using that as the non-
     potable water supply. Such problems had been happening for 
     more than a year . . . No trained specialist could claim that 
     the water was fit for human consumption.

  KBR's response to Mr. Carter's discovery of this substandard, 
potentially life-threatening situation? Employees of KBR instructed Mr. 
Carter to keep it quiet. Thank goodness he didn't.
  This dirty water problem was not limited to Camp Ar Ramdi. Another 
whistleblower, Wil Granger, KBR's overall water quality manager for 
Iraq, reported that there were deficiencies in providing safe water in 
camps across Iraq.
  For example, Granger reported that water used for showering was not 
being disinfected. According to Mr. Granger, ``This caused an unknown 
population to be exposed to potentially harmful water for an 
undetermined amount of time.''
  Mr. Carter says it best:

       Our men and women overseas deserve the best our taxpayer 
     dollars can buy, and it saddens me to report that we're 
     falling short on something as simple and essential as 
     providing them with clean, safe water.

  If only KBR had seen it that way. But our troops did not receive the 
clean water supplies they deserved, even though KBR made its profits.
  Rape has long been outlawed as an instrument of warfare. But for 
Halliburton subsidiary KBR, it has become

[[Page S10044]]

an all too common occurrence. Too often, KBR employees have been the 
accused perpetrators, while the victims have been pressured to keep 
silent.
  Dawn Leamon is one of my constituents. She is a 42-year-old paramedic 
who hails from Lena, IL. She has two sons who have served as soldiers 
in war zones.
  On February 3, 2008, she was working for Service Employees 
International, Inc., a foreign subsidiary of KBR. She was assigned to 
Camp Harper, a remote military base near Basra, Iraq. That night she 
was brutally raped and sodomized by a U.S. soldier and a KBR colleague.
  After she reported the attack to KBR employees, she was discouraged 
from reporting it to the authorities. She was told to keep quiet.
  Later, when she spoke out, KBR asked her to sign a nondisclosure 
agreement.
  She bravely testified at a Senate hearing in April of last year, 
telling the story of this awful incident and the terrible treatment she 
suffered at the hands of KBR after the attack.
  Dawn testified at the hearing:

       I hope that by telling my story here today, I can keep what 
     happened to me from happening to anyone else.

  Mary Beth Keniston testified at that same hearing in April 2008. Ms. 
Keniston worked as a truck driver for KBR, also in Iraq. She testified 
about being raped in the cab of her truck by a coworker who was the 
driver of a vehicle that was parked behind her tanker as they waited 
one night to fill up with water from the Tigris River.
  Ms. Keniston reported the attack immediately. But no one at KBR 
suggested an investigation, referred her for medical treatment, or even 
offered to escort her back through the dark to her quarters that night.
  As Ms. Keniston testified at the hearing:

       I am in a war zone--and, I have to worry about being 
     attacked by my coworkers.

  When Jamie Leigh Jones went to Iraq in 2005, she surely did not 
expect that the most serious threat she would face would come from 
Halliburton-KBR coworkers. But that is exactly the threat she faced in 
Iraq in July 2005.
  This young woman from Texas was drugged and then brutally gang raped 
by KBR employees while she was unconscious.
  Rather than support her after she reported the attack, KBR put her 
under guard in a shipping container with a bed, and warned her that if 
she left Iraq for medical treatment, she would be out of a job.
  Ms. Jones has formed a nonprofit organization to support the many 
other women with similar stories. She reports that she has spoken to 
more than 40 women like herself, like Mary Beth Keniston, like Dawn 
Leamon. She says:

       Part of the reason I am going forward with this case is to 
     change the system. Who knows how many of us rape victims are 
     out there?

  Certainly the perpetrators of these violent crimes should be held 
accountable for their criminal actions. These women deserve justice.
  But KBR should not escape accountability for its actions. These women 
were brutally violated by KBR employees--by people whom KBR placed in 
their orbit.
  Rather than taking some measure of responsibility to help prosecute 
the crimes and comfort the women who had been attacked, it looks like 
KBR attempted to hide the offenses and punish the women for wanting to 
report them. Instead of being a champion for its employees, KBR 
perpetuated the nightmare for each one of these women.
  It is time to hold this contractor accountable and demand reforms to 
ensure employees are protected.
  That is why Senator Casey and I offered this amendment. I urge the 
Senate to adopt it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). The Senator from Vermont.


                           Amendment No. 2617

  Mr. SANDERS. Let me congratulate Senator Casey for that very good 
amendment. I look forward to supporting it.
  Mr. President, I wish to say a few words on amendment No. 2617, which 
is pending, and talk about why I offered it.
  This is a very important amendment. Everybody in the country is 
concerned that we have today a $12 trillion national debt. Everybody is 
concerned that this year we will run up the largest deficit in the 
history of the country. What that means is the taxpayers rightfully and 
absolutely want to know that the money we expend, whether it is for 
defense, which is what we are discussing this evening, whether it is 
for housing, education, any other purpose, they want to know that every 
nickel of Federal dollars spent is expended as wisely and as cost-
effectively as possible. They also want to know that the corporations 
and the institutions and the individuals who receive that Federal 
funding are honest and trustworthy in terms of how they can expend 
those Federal dollars. That is what the people want, and they certainly 
have every right to those expectations.
  Several weeks ago, the Senate voted to prohibit any funding going to 
an organization called ACORN. That decision was largely motivated by a 
videotape which showed employees of ACORN involved in an outrageous and 
absurd discussion with actors who were posing as a prostitute and a 
pimp. Those employees, appropriately enough, were fired for their 
outrageous behavior. My understanding is that over a period of 15 
years, ACORN received about $53 million to promote affordable housing, 
encourage voter registration, and other things. I voted against the 
ACORN resolution, not because I condoned the behavior of these 
employees or other problems associated with the organization over the 
years. I don't. I opposed it because we need a process to determine 
what the criteria are in terms of defunding an organization engaged in 
improper or illegal behavior.
  Frankly, I don't think a videotape on TV is good enough 
justification. We need a process, and that is what this amendment is 
about.
  The sad truth is, virtually every major defense contractor has, for 
many years, been engaged in systemic illegal and fraudulent behavior 
while receiving hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars of 
taxpayer money. We are not talking here about the $53 million that 
ACORN received over 15 years. We are talking about defense contractors 
that have received many billions of dollars in defense contracts and, 
year after year, time after time, have violated the law, ripping off 
the taxpayers big time.
  In some instances, these contractors have done more than steal money 
from taxpayers. In some instances, they have actually endangered the 
lives and well-being of the men and women who serve our country in the 
Armed Forces.
  Let me cite a few examples. According to the Project on Government 
Oversight, a nonpartisan, widely respected organization focusing on 
government waste, the three largest government defense contractors, 
Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman, all have a history 
riddled with fraud and other illegal behavior. Combined, these 
companies have engaged in 109 instances of misconduct since 1995. This 
is going back to 1995, 109 instances of misconduct, and have paid fees 
and settlements for this misconduct totaling $2.9 billion.
  Let me repeat that. These three companies--Lockheed Martin, Boeing, 
and Northrop Grumman--have engaged in 109 instances of misconduct since 
1995 and have paid fees and settlements for this misconduct totaling 
$2.9 billion. Here is the kicker: Despite violating the law time after 
time after time, despite being fined time after time after time, guess 
what the penalty has been.
  Here is what the penalty is. It is a pretty harsh penalty. In 2007, 
their punishment was $77 billion in government contracts. That is a 
pretty steep penalty, I have to admit, $77 billion. This is not ACORN. 
They were defunded immediately because of a 2-minute videotape. These 
are guys who time after time violated the law, ripped off the 
taxpayers, and their punishment was in 2007, 1 year alone, not $53 
million over 15 years but $77 billion in 1 year.
  Based on a video on TV, we took away funding for ACORN. What are we 
going to do with the major defense contractors who have been found 
guilty in courts of law, not on a videotape, time after time?
  Let me give a few specifics so we know what we are talking about. 
Lockheed Martin, the largest defense contractor in the country, has 
engaged in

[[Page S10045]]

50 instances of misconduct since 1995, paying fines and settlements 
totaling $577 million. Yet it received $34 billion in government 
contracts in 2007. That is telling them who is boss. That is sticking 
it to them for violating the law.
  Here is the type of behavior we are talking about. According to the 
U.S. Attorney's Office, in 2008, Lockheed Martin's Space Systems 
Company paid $10.5 million to settle charges that it defrauded the 
government by submitting false invoices for payment on a multibillion-
dollar contract connected to the Titan IV space launch vehicle program. 
According to the Department of Justice, in 2003, Lockheed Martin paid 
$38 million to resolve allegations that it fraudulently inflated the 
cost of performing several Air Force contracts for the purchase of 
navigation and targeting pads for military jets.
  In 2001, Lockheed Martin paid $8.5 million to settle criminal charges 
that it lied about its costs when negotiating contracts for the repair 
and restoration of radar pedestals installed in U.S. warships.
  But in fairness to Lockheed Martin, we should be clear that they are 
not the only defense contractors involved in fraud. Frankly, it is 
endemic in the industry. Boeing is the world's largest aerospace 
company and the largest manufacturer of commercial jet liners and 
military aircraft. Since 1995, Boeing has either been found guilty, 
liable, or reached settlements in 31 instances of misconduct and, as a 
result, paid $1.5 billion in fines, judgments, and settlements. I am 
talking about real money.
  In 2000, according to the Department of Justice, Boeing agreed to pay 
$54 million to settle charges that it placed defective gears in more 
than 140 CH-47D Chinook helicopters and then sold the defective 
helicopters to the U.S. Army. When one of the gears failed in flight, 
it caused an Army Chinook helicopter to crash and burn while on a 
mission in Honduras, and five servicemen aboard were killed. We are not 
just talking about fraud; we are talking about activities which 
resulted in the death of U.S. servicemen.
  In a report made public this past Tuesday, the DOD inspector reported 
that Boeing may have recovered $271 million in ``unallowable costs'' 
from the government. That is this last Tuesday. Still, Boeing received 
$24 billion in Federal contracts in 2007.
  Finally, Northrop Grumman, the third largest contractor, has a 
similar history, with 27 instances of misconduct totaling $790 million 
over the past 15 years. It is not just the big three. On June 9, 2004, 
KBR overbilled for dining facilities by at least 19 percent, according 
to KBR's own studies, and it could be as high as 36 percent. As 
reported in its 2005 10-K, the government eventually agreed to withhold 
$55 million from KBR.
  United Technologies reached a settlement amounting to over $50 
million.
  A few weeks ago the Senate voted to strip funding from an 
organization called ACORN which received $53 million in Federal funds 
for a period of 15 years. What do we do with some of the largest 
defense contractors that have time after time after time been involved 
with fraud?
  I think one has to be pretty obtuse not to perceive that this type of 
behavior, this recurrent behavior, is systemic in the industry and it 
is part of the overall business model. Let me add, what I describe now 
is what these companies have been caught doing. We do not know what 
they have done in which they have not been caught.
  The time is long overdue for us to get to the bottom of this 
situation. We owe that not only to the taxpayers of the country but to 
the men and women in our Armed Forces.
  For that reason, I am proposing an amendment today under which the 
Secretary of Defense would calculate the total amount of money that 
goes to companies that have engaged in fraud against the United States, 
and then make recommendations about how to penalize repeat offenders. 
In other words, they have to be held accountable. It is absurd that 
year after year these companies continue doing the same things--illegal 
behavior, fraudulent activities--and year after year they keep getting 
away with it, and year after year they come back and they get hundreds 
of billions of dollars in Federal funds.
  I hope very much this study will receive strong bipartisan support 
and will be a first step in moving us forward to cleaning up the world 
of defense contracting.
  Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                Honduras

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments in the middle 
of the debate on the Defense appropriations bill to talk about a 
situation in Honduras and, maybe equally important, a situation here in 
the Senate.
  Honduras has come to the attention of many Americans because of the 
change in government there and the questions about whether this was 
done constitutionally. I had arranged a trip, along with a few House 
Members, to go to Honduras and meet with officials and find out more 
about the situation. Unfortunately, I found out this afternoon that the 
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee was blocking my trip, along 
with the State Department.
  It is very concerning since no Member of the Senate has taken the 
time to go to Honduras, which is a very close ally to this country, 
where we have a military base. And they certainly depend on our 
support. I have a growing concern of what appears to be intimidation 
and bullying from our administration, and I wanted to have a fact-
finding trip. This body normally accords fellow Members the courtesy, 
and this was very disturbing that we would use politics to block a trip 
such as this.
  But I wish to give a little bit of background on Honduras. Since so 
many other things are going on, not many people here in the Senate seem 
to even be aware of the situation.
  On June 28, then-President Manuel Zelaya was removed from office and 
arrested by the Honduran military, on orders from the Honduran Supreme 
Court, and in accordance with the Honduran Constitution.
  Charged with crimes of both public corruption and abuse of power, 
President Zelaya was attempting to subvert the Honduran Constitution 
and install himself as a dictator in the mold of his close friend Hugo 
Chavez.
  Within hours, the Obama administration made an uninformed decision to 
call this constitutional process a ``coup,'' despite no one at the 
State Department or the White House having made a thorough review of 
the facts and the law.
  Instead, we simply follow the lead of the Western Hemisphere's most 
corrupt and anti-American tyrants: Fidel Castro of Cuba, Daniel Ortega 
of Nicaragua, and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. The President sided with 
these thugs and against Honduras--a poor, loyal, and democratic friend 
of the United States.
  To date, I am unaware of any provision in the Honduran Constitution 
that was violated in Zelaya's removal from office, except perhaps 
removing him from the country instead of putting him in jail.
  The Congress, of Zelaya's party, the Supreme Court, the Attorney 
General, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, and the vast majority of the 
Honduran people support Zelaya's removal.
  The Honduran military has remained at all times under civilian 
control. The November 29 elections remain on schedule. Interim 
President Roberto Micheletti is not on the ballot. The nominees for the 
major political parties are campaigning, and the country's citizens are 
preparing for a free, fair, and transparent election.
  If that does not sound like a coup to you, you are not alone. Last 
month, a thorough report--and I have it here--by the Congressional 
Research Service found that the removal of Zelaya and the actions of 
the Congress and Supreme Court were both legal and constitutional--a 
very detailed evaluation which apparently the administration has not 
taken the time to see. There was no coup. But the Obama administration, 
nevertheless, has cut off Honduras from millions of dollars of badly 
needed United States aid.
  The trip I planned--which is tomorrow--along with three Members of 
the House of Representatives was to get to the bottom of this so we 
could report back to the Senate and the House as to what was going on.

[[Page S10046]]

  Our trip met every necessary criteria. I have scheduled meetings with 
President Micheletti, the Supreme Court, and the leading candidates in 
next month's Presidential election. I was going to meet with the 
business and civic leaders.
  This afternoon, I was informed that the Senator from Massachusetts, 
Senator Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, was 
blocking the trip. No reason was given, except that there were concerns 
at the State Department. If I were the Obama State Department, I would 
have concerns too, concerns the American people might find out the 
truth about what we are doing to the Honduran people.
  To date, not a single Member of the Senate has assessed the situation 
in Honduras firsthand, and the Obama administration refuses to allow 
Honduran leaders and even private citizens to come here to talk to us. 
What are they afraid of? Are they afraid of the world discovering that 
their policy is based on a lie concocted by Hugo Chavez and the Castro 
brothers? That we are backing a corrupt would-be tyrant?
  This administration is only too eager--or at least seems to be too 
eager--to talk to any anti-American tyrant on Earth, but not even 
Members of Congress may visit a loyal ally 3 hours away.
  I want to take this opportunity to thank the Republican leader, 
Senator Mitch McConnell, for stepping in and authorizing the trip. He 
would like to get to the bottom of this as well.
  The trip is back on, and I look forward to reporting back to the 
Senate next week after my return. But this is an outrage, if not a 
surprise. For 8 months, President Obama has circled the globe, 
apologizing for America, appeasing our enemies, and insulting our 
friends. Meanwhile, the President has spent more time lobbying for the 
Olympics and appearing on late-night comedy shows than meeting with his 
advisers about the troop surge in Afghanistan.
  Apparently, the administration is upset with me because I am asking 
for a debate and vote on two nominations they want for the State 
Department. Indeed, I was told today if I lifted my holds, the trip 
would be authorized by the Foreign Relations Committee.
  The two nominees are Thomas Shannon, currently Assistant Secretary of 
State for Latin America, President Obama's nominee to be Ambassador to 
Brazil, and Arturo Valenzuela, currently an academic nominated to 
replace Shannon at the Latin American desk.
  I am asking for debate and a vote on Mr. Shannon's nomination because 
he has supposedly been behind our policy in Latin America in recent 
years. Our mistakes in Honduras occurred on his watch, and with his 
advice. He was a Bush appointee, but I have a lot of questions about 
what is going on in Honduras. He supports the Obama aid cutoff and the 
``coup'' classification. He hardly deserves now to represent America in 
the largest country in Latin America, at least without a debate and a 
vote.
  Mr. Valenzuela shares these positions, even though he admitted at his 
confirmation hearing he was not up to date on the facts.
  Unless and until the Obama administration reverses its ill-informed 
and baseless claim that Zelaya's removal was a coup and also restores 
American aid, I will continue to ask for a debate and vote on these 
nominees so we can discuss the issue openly on the floor of the Senate.
  This country also needs to recognize the upcoming election, which has 
been going on. The campaign is open and transparent, but the Obama 
administration is threatening not to recognize the election, which is 
destabilizing the country and threatening to do more harm not only in 
Honduras but throughout Latin America. This policy is confirming Hugo 
Chavez. It certainly is not confirming a constitutional form of 
government.
  I look forward to reporting back to my fellow Members what I find in 
Honduras. I again thank Mitch McConnell for taking the initiative to 
make sure the trip is authorized.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield back.
  Mr. INOUYE. 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. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I was concerned to learn on September 17 
of the President's decision to forgo the deployment of 10 long-range, 
ground-based interceptors in Poland and a radar site in the Czech 
Republic which was designed for the defense of Europe and the United 
States against long-range Iranian ballistic missiles.
  Just a few days ago, the Iranians demonstrated their determination, 
even after they agreed to meet with the United States, to deploy such a 
system by launching their top mid-range missile. That is not long from, 
of course, a long-range missile.
  The Senate Armed Services Committee held a full committee hearing on 
the subject last week, and it did little to quell my initial concerns 
and has, in fact, added apprehension about the lack of specifics in the 
plan we are hearing will now be employed. More important, the 
geopolitical implications of reneging on prior U.S. commitments to key 
allies should not be underestimated.
  With respect to the so-called ``Phased Adaptive'' approach, President 
Obama would have us believe that ``this new approach will provide 
capabilities sooner, build on proven systems, and offer greater 
defenses against the threat of missile attack than the 2007 European 
Missile Defense Program.''
  I will add, parenthetically that the Europeans did agree and NATO did 
agree to the deployment of ground-based interceptors in Poland and the 
radar in the Czech Republic.
  The reality is more complicated than the President indicates. I have 
to say, frankly, first, it is not clear this new approach will provide 
capabilities sooner. In fact, it does not appear to.
  Under the first phase of this new plan, which is essentially 
underway, the United States would defend our allies against short-range 
threats by providing ``SM-3 Block 1A capable warships when necessary 
for the protection of parts of Southern Europe.'' That would mean we 
would deploy an Aegis cruiser armed with SM-3 missiles. But this is no 
different from what the previous plan called for. To suggest that is 
some new plan is inaccurate. To be sure, even today, we have AEGIS 
ships with SM-3 missiles plying the waters of the Mediterranean, and 
Patriot units deployed in and around Europe for our defense against 
short-range missiles.

  In phase 2 of this new plan, which is, we are told, going to be 
completed by 2015, a more advanced version of the theater SM-3, the IB, 
would be deployed at sea and on land. Likewise, under the old plan, the 
IB missile would be deployed and fielded by 2015, though perhaps not on 
land. But it had been discussed. In fact, the last budget prepared by 
the previous administration called for an increase in the inventory of 
THAAD and SM-3 missiles to over 440 missiles in the European area by 
2015, 2016.
  I have not seen any inventory projection for this new plan, but I 
would be surprised to learn their numbers are significantly greater 
than what was previously planned. In fact, the administration has not 
gotten off to a good start in this respect, as the fiscal year 2010 
budget request includes no funding for a new SM-3 or THAAD purchases. 
This is the only budget year request we have been presented by the 
administration, and they are not requesting any new THAAD and any new 
SM-3 missiles.
  The administration's request funds previous purchases of missiles but 
requests not a single new interceptor that would be deployed. By 2018, 
in the third phase of the new plan--2018, over 8 years from now--a 
newly developed SM-3 block IIA missile would be added to the inventory 
to protect all of Europe against intermediate-range Iranian missiles--
the kind of intermediate range the Iranians just tested Monday. This is 
by 2018.
  Under the old plan, the plan we have been working on for quite a 
number of years, this SM-3 IIA capability was meant to complement the 
deployment of 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland, which would have 
provided protection for most of Europe and the United States against 
long-range Iranian missiles in the 2015 timeframe. In

[[Page S10047]]

other words, these 10 interceptors would have been capable of 
protecting all of Europe and the United States. If a missile were 
launched from Iran aimed at hitting the United States, it would fly 
basically over Poland and Central Europe. As a result, this would be a 
prime place to deploy a defensive missile system. The ground-based 
interceptor that would have been used would have essentially been the 
same missile we currently have deployed in Alaska. Our Presiding 
Officer, Senator Begich, has been very engaged in that, and I know we 
both are concerned to see the number of interceptors planned for that 
site being reduced. The key difference in the missiles is that our 
interceptors in Alaska and California are three-stage missiles, while 
two-stage missiles would be used to fit our needs in Europe.
  Finally, the new plan would call for the development of IIB missiles 
by 2020, which would ``further augment the defense of the U.S. homeland 
from potential ICBM threats.'' That is what they are telling us would 
happen. But I have been around here a while, and we don't have this SM-
3 IIB missile even on the drawing board. They just conjured up this 
idea a few days ago--at least that is the first I have heard about it. 
So we have to build this new missile--not build on the one we have 
already emplaced in Alaska and are building now, but build a whole new 
missile. That will take 10 years. And who is to say the Congress will 
be faithful to this 10-year plan? I will tell you one thing: President 
Obama will not spend a dime of his money on it. This is in the distant 
future. That worries me because my experience is that plans like this 
don't always come to fruition. When you abandon a proven technology, 
that we are almost ready to deploy now, after some hope in the future, 
this makes me nervous.
  The two-stage GBI intended for Poland in the old plan would have been 
fielded by 2015, 5 years earlier than this vision of a IIB, if the 
ratification of all the agreements had occurred and we pushed for that. 
The 2015 date is important because Iran may have, by then, long-range 
missiles capable of reaching all of Europe and the United States.
  In March of this year, General Craddock, then-commander of U.S. 
European Command, testified before Congress,

       By 2015, Iran may also deploy an intercontinental ballistic 
     missile capable of reaching all of Europe and parts of the 
     United States.

  That was his testimony, given under oath.
  In May of this year, 2009, an unclassified intelligence report issued 
by the National Air and Space Intelligence Center stated:

       With sufficient foreign assistance, Iran could develop and 
     test an ICBM capable of reaching the United States by 2015.

  In the final analysis, it is not clear that the new plan will field 
capabilities any sooner--and indeed it appears later than the previous 
plan--which may leave us with a gap in coverage in Europe for at least 
5 years if we were to move forward with the plan to develop this 
missile. So forgive me if I am not buying into this. This plan sounds 
like an excuse for giving up on the European site for the GBI.
  The President also claims that his approach is based on proven 
technology--the assumption being, perhaps, that the previous plan was 
fraught with technological risk. Again, that claim is not correct.
  The administration argues that its approach to providing defense of 
Europe with SM-3 block IIA, and ultimately augmented with this IIB 
system in 2020, is based on proven technology of the currently deployed 
SM-3 IA missile. Well, that is just not accurate. The SM-3 that would 
be effective against an ICBM is much larger in diameter. It is an 
entirely new missile. Just because the SM-3 is performing very well for 
theater defense doesn't mean they can build an entirely new SM-3 and it 
is going to be as effective. I assume they could, and move forward with 
it, but it is not a sure thing.
  While I have confidence in the ability of the SM-3 missile to 
eventually evolve into an ICBM interceptor, I would note that the two-
stage GBI intended for Poland is also based on proven technology of the 
three-stage GBI now deployed in Alaska and California, which, according 
to General Cartwright, has a 90-percent probability of intercepting a 
rogue missile--presumably coming in from North Korea.
  This is a great system. We have invested decades of effort in it, 
over 20 years. Thirty-plus years have gone into developing an 
antimissile system. We have finally got it so that we have a 90-percent 
chance of having one of these interceptors--knockdown, hit-to-kill 
technology--in space over the Pacific Ocean to obliterate an incoming 
missile. We have the radar system designed to pick up these missiles on 
launch, to track them, and to guide the missile into that kill system.
  It is certainly questionable to me whether the SM-3 block II variant, 
which requires new boosters and a new kill vehicle, is less 
technologically risky than a two-stage GBI, which is scheduled for 
flight testing in the coming years.
  Finally, the President contends that his approach would offer greater 
defense than the previous approach. Here he assumed the old approach 
included only 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland and that his new 
approach would provide more theater defense on land and on sea.
  I would just say that this bothers me because that has never been our 
plan. Our plan always has been to emplace ICBMs or theater missiles in 
Europe, as well as the 10 interceptors in Poland that would protect us 
from a rogue attack from a country like Iran, which seems determined to 
do this.
  So this is where we have been. And I am pleased to see my colleague, 
Senator Lieberman, who throughout his time in the Senate has maintained 
a superb understanding of national missile defense as part of his 
duties on the Senate Armed Services Committee. He is probably the most 
knowledgeable person in the Senate on that issue, and I think he shares 
some of my concerns.
  I thank the Senator for coming, and I would be pleased to join with 
him in an amendment that could improve our situation today. I will be 
glad to yield to my colleague. The only thing I see new in this plan is 
the abandonment of the Polish site, the ground-based interceptor, which 
indeed is capable of knocking down a missile from Iran.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I would be pleased to hear 
Senator Lieberman share some of his thoughts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair, and I thank Senator Sessions, my 
colleague from Alabama, for the statement he made and for his 
leadership on this issue. I am proud to join with him and a number of 
Senators--Senators Bayh, McCain, Inhofe, Vitter, Kyl, and Bennett--to 
introduce this amendment.
  Mr. President, has the amendment actually been called up?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has not.


                           Amendment No. 2616

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside 
the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 2616.
  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 Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman], for himself, 
     and Mr. Sessions, proposes an amendment numbered 2616.

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

 (Purpose: Relating to the two-stage ground-based interceptor missile)

     At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Funding for Two-Stage Ground-Based Interceptor 
     Missile.--Of the amounts appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act for a long-range missile defense system 
     in Europe, or appropriated or otherwise made available for 
     the Department of Defense for a long-range missile defense 
     system in Europe from the Consolidated Security Disaster 
     Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009 (Public 
     Law 110-329) and available for obligation, $151,000,000 shall 
     be available for research, development, test, and evaluation 
     of the two-stage ground-based interceptor missile.
       (b) Prohibition on Diversion of Funds.--Funds appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by this Act for the Missile 
     Defense Agency for the purpose of research, development, and 
     testing of the two-stage ground based interceptor missile 
     shall be utilized solely for that purpose, and may not be 
     reprogrammed or otherwise utilized for any other purpose.

[[Page S10048]]

       (c) Report.--Not later than February 1, 2010, the Director 
     of the Missile Defense Agency shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a report setting forth the 
     following:
       (1) A comprehensive plan for the continued development and 
     testing of the two-stage ground-based interceptor missile, 
     including a description how the Missile Defense Agency will 
     leverage the development and testing of such missile to 
     modernize the Ground-based Midcourse Defense component of the 
     ballistic missile defense system.
       (2) Options for deploying an additional Ground-based 
     Midcourse Defense site in Europe or the United States to 
     provide enhanced defense in response to future long-range 
     missile threats from Iran, and a description of how such a 
     site may be made interoperable with the planned missile 
     defense architecture for Europe and the United States.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this bipartisan amendment is both a 
response to the administration's decision to cancel the ground-based 
midcourse missile defense system that was going to be in Poland and the 
Czech Republic and the subsequent decision of our friends and 
colleagues on the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee to withdraw a 
significant amount of money that the administration has said it still 
wanted to be preserved for the ground-based interceptors; that is, the 
interceptors that would have been launched from Poland at a missile 
presumably from Iran headed toward Europe, the Middle East, or 
particularly toward the United States.
  Let me explain some background here as quickly as I can.
  I was disappointed by the administrations's decision to cancel the 
planned deployment of this missile defense system to Poland and the 
Czech Republic. This system would have provided our European allies and 
others with a first line of defense against short- and medium-range 
ballistic missiles that Iran already possesses and could fire at our 
allies in the region and in Europe. But the point I want to focus in on 
here is that the--I am going to call it the GMD--it is the ground-based 
midcourse missile defense system, the GMD for Poland and the Czech 
Republic would also have provided a layer of what the military missile 
experts call redundancy for the defense of the United States against an 
intercontinental ballistic missile fired from Iran at us. This is not 
just sort of pie-in-the-sky kind of hyperanxiety, imagination. We know 
that Iranians are developing long-range ballistic missiles and, as I 
will mention in a moment, experts predict they will have that capacity 
by the middle of the next decade, 2015.
  The Polish-Czech system would have provided, in addition to a defense 
of Europe, a redundant defense of the United States. What does 
redundancy mean in this case? It means we have more than one line of 
defense to protect us. Those of us who are privileged to serve on the 
Armed Services Committee or Appropriations Committee and others know 
our military tries to build redundancy into equipment, for instance. I 
was up at the Sikorsky helicopter manufacturing facility in Stratford, 
CT, a little while ago. They are building a new model of helicopter. 
There are three or four levels of redundancy in that system, in that 
single helicopter. Why? So if one element breaks down, there are two or 
three other elements that will keep it going for the protection of our 
American military inside that helicopter.
  In the same way, if an intercontinental ballistic missile is fired in 
2015 toward the United States of America, we have one line of defense.
  My friend from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, is here. I remember so 
well when he and I in the decade of the 1990s were trying to convince 
our colleagues to invest some money in developing a ballistic missile 
defense system. People said two things: No. 1, we were getting carried 
away with our fears and, No. 2, even if it was something to be 
concerned about, it was impossible to develop a ballistic missile 
defense system. I remember people said we are talking about trying to 
hit a bullet with a bullet.
  Well, by God, American military, American innovation, American 
enterprise, American manufacturing have done it. We now have two 
ground-based missile defense systems, one in Alaska, one in California, 
to protect the American homeland from ballistic missile attack.
  But we need redundancy. Just like the pilot and the crew in that 
Sikorsky helicopter need redundancy in that helicopter in case one of 
the lead systems goes, we want to know they have backup. If a missile 
is headed--well, probably with a nuclear weapon on it--toward the 
United States of America, I think we want some redundancy. We want more 
than one line of defense to protect our people and our country. Right 
now we just have that system in California and Alaska.
  The ideal here, according to the people who think about this, is to 
have what they call a ``shoot look and shoot'' defense. A missile is 
fired from Iran. We gauge that it is heading toward the United States. 
The plan for the ground-based system in Poland and Czechoslovakia is we 
have our first shot at that missile heading toward us from Poland. Then 
we look. If we missed it, we have a second opportunity to knock it down 
from California or Alaska.
  Unfortunately, the alternative system the administration has chosen, 
which has many positive aspects to it for the defense of Europe and the 
Middle East from Iranian short- and medium-range missiles, leaves most 
of the United States without that second shot at that incoming missile.
  I do not have pictures with me from a report that the Congressional 
Budget Office did, a diagram, but the eastern part of the United States 
would have a redundant defense but everything pretty much west of the 
Mississippi would not. That is serious stuff. That is why I am 
disappointed by the decision that was made.
  I want to explain a little more about how the administration has 
dealt with that concern about America's homeland and what I think we 
can do about it. They have proposed--there is a lot of technical 
language here; let's see if I can do it without confusing everybody--
that they would eventually develop--they have this SM-3 missile defense 
system that will be the basis of the alternative to the Polish-Czech 
defense, and that will be good for Europe and the Middle East. But the 
administration knows it leaves America without that second line of 
defense to a missile attack. So they are proposing to build block IIA 
and Block IIB interceptors as part of this so-called SM-3, advanced 
developments of that system which, they argue, could protect the United 
States of America from a long-range missile fired from Iran.
  The problem is the Block IIA and IIB of this SM-3 missile do not 
exist. They are on paper. General Cartwright acknowledged so much in 
testimony to us. The ground-based interceptor that was going to go into 
Poland exists. It has been manufactured. It was scheduled to go into 
testing this year. In the proposal the administration has made, they 
say the SM-3 Block IIA, the first one that could possibly defend the 
United States, will not be available until 2018, at the earliest. The 
Block IIB, even more sophisticated, will be available in 2020 at the 
earliest.
  Let me try to explain through a quote what worries me about that. 
Earlier this year, in testimony before the Armed Services Committee, 
the then-commander of our European Command, the Supreme Allied 
Commander in Europe, Bantz Craddock, stated this:

       By 2015 Iran may also deploy an intercontinental ballistic 
     missile capable of reaching all of Europe and parts of the 
     United States.

  I know that is not a hard prediction, but that is the range that most 
people in the intelligence community, the military community, give, 
that sometime in the middle of the next decade, maybe a little later, 
the Iranians will have a long-range ballistic missile that can hit the 
United States of America.
  Look, they can do better than that and may surprise us. We have been 
surprised before by the ballistic missile capabilities of our 
adversaries. The North Korean Taepodong test of 1998 comes to mind, of 
course, an unfortunate instance in which the North Korean Government 
tested a long-range missile 7 days after our intelligence community 
concluded that North Korea was another 3 years away from having that 
capability.
  One of the reasons the administration has given for this change to 
the SM-3 defense is that it provides a quicker, better defense for 
Europe and the Middle East to short- and medium-range missiles, and the 
administration concludes the Iranians are making more progress more 
quickly on those

[[Page S10049]]

two, short- and medium-range missiles, than we thought they would. If 
they are making progress on the short- and medium-range missiles more 
quickly than we thought they would, they might also make progress more 
quickly on the long-range missile that could hit the United States of 
America.
  Here is what I am worried about. I understand these are not exact 
numbers. By 2015, according to General Craddock, Iran may have a long-
range ballistic missile that could hit the United States of America. At 
the earliest the SM-3 Block IIA missile, to give some protection, 
second line of defense to that missile, will not be available until 
2018 at the earliest. Remember, this is now a paper missile. It has not 
been built, let alone tested. You have 3 years there, and probably 
more, where there will be a ballistic missile defense gap in which Iran 
could fire at us and only have to get by the ground-based missile 
defense systems in Alaska and California.
  I think the administration, as testimony went on, understood our 
concern about that. In fact, when the Secretary of Defense Gates and 
General Cartwright rolled out the administration's new architecture for 
missile defense, canceling the Polish-Czech program and going to the 
new system, one of the points General Cartwright emphasized was that 
the administration would continue to develop the two-stage ground-based 
interceptor, the one that was supposed to go in Poland. He continued:

       Those tests are funded, and will continue, so we will have 
     two ways to address this threat.

  The following week Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michele 
Flournoy testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee and she 
also expressed a commitment to continue to develop this two-stage 
ground-based interceptor. Presumably the thought is it could be located 
at another site in Europe or perhaps somewhere on the east coast of the 
United States of America, to give that second line of defense to our 
entire country.
  Secretary Flournoy said when they were discussing the canceling of 
the European missile defense program, Secretary Gates ``had to be 
convinced of a couple of things.'' Those are her words, namely that 
``we could still''--I am quoting Secretary Flournoy--Secretary Gates 
wanted to know that:

     we could still defend the United States homeland should an 
     Iranian ICBM threat develop earlier than what was predicted 
     [and] that we should have technical options should the 
     development of later Blocks . . . of SM-3 missile, either 
     fail or be delayed.

  That is exactly what we have been talking about.
  In response to these requirements, Secretary Gates told his staff--
again I quote Secretary Flournoy:

     we are going to continue the development of the 2-stage 
     ground-based interceptor as a technological hedge--

  against the failure to adequately develop these alternative long-
range systems, the missile defense systems against an Iranian threat.
  Here is the problem. Despite this administration's statements of 
support for continued development and testing of the two-stage ground-
based interceptor, the Defense appropriations bill before us has 
reduced funding for that program by $151 million.
  I gather the Department of Defense has already appealed this 
reduction, arguing that it would force the cancellation or postponement 
of a pair of two-stage GBI tests soon, and that losing this funding 
could render the entire ground-based mid-course defense system less 
effective.
  Now comes the amendment Senator Sessions and I and our cosponsors 
have offered, which would restore the funding by allowing the Missile 
Defense Agency to access no less than $50 million and up to the 
original $151 million of funds provided in fiscal year 2009-2010 
Defense Appropriations Act for a long-range missile defense system and 
use those funds to support the continued development and testing of the 
two-stage ground-based interceptor. The amendment would also fence 
funding for the two-stage program to protect it from being reprogrammed 
and require a report detailing specific options for how the two-stage 
GBI can be used to enhance the defense of the United States against the 
emerging threat of Iranian long-range missiles.
  Bottom line, this acknowledges on my part the disappointment at the 
decision the administration has made. It doesn't try to turn it around, 
but says OK, under the new administration program we are going to do at 
least as good, maybe a little better, at protecting Europe and the 
Middle East, but we are going to do worse at protecting the United 
States of America from a long-range missile, which the Iranians 
particularly are working so hard to develop. So let's at least keep 
testing this missile we have got, the ground-based interceptor, as a 
hedge so we are ready in case these other alternatives don't work, to 
put it in the ground in Europe or perhaps in the east coast of the 
United States to give the American people the two lines of defense they 
deserve against an Iranian long-range missile, and thereby to close 
what will now be a ballistic missile defense gap for the United States 
of America that will otherwise develop in the middle of the next decade 
and go on, in my opinion, for at least 3 years.

  Again, I thank Senator Sessions. It is always a pleasure to work with 
him. This is complicated stuff. But it is the heart of our national 
security in the next decade. I hope my colleagues will support our 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to say how much I have 
enjoyed the clarity and integrity with which Senator Lieberman has 
stated the situation in which we find ourselves. It comes from great 
experience over a number of years, both on the technical matters of 
missile defense and on the geopolitical threats this Nation faces. I 
certainly value his opinion.
  I would share one thought with my colleagues. I hope my colleagues 
will understand this. What happened in this year's budget request was a 
major shift from a very long lead plan to develop a very robust missile 
defense system.
  We can disagree about some of the details of this or that. But let me 
give some examples of what has occurred: In this year's budget request, 
the President canceled the Kinetic Energy Interceptor, the KEI. It was 
a high-speed missile that would be less expensive and have great 
capability, particularly in the ascent-phase of an attack against the 
United States. The president's budget zeroed that out. We have been 
working on that for quite a number of years.
  They also are working toward and doing research on an MKV, a Multi 
Kill Vehicle, in which you can put on a single ground-based interceptor 
booster three or more kill vehicles, that could knock down multiple 
missiles or decoys. The budget zeroed that out.
  We had a plan we have been developing for a number of years to 
develop an airborne laser, have a laser on an airplane that can fly in 
an area where you may expect a launch to occur. It does not have to be 
very close but in the region. They catch a missile in the boost phase. 
The laser can hit it and knock it out of the sky. It is a remarkable 
capability. That has been debated, I will admit, but it has been funded 
for a number of years. It will be tested this year.
  The Defense Department expects that test to be successful. We did 
have enough money, or there was enough money in the bill to at least 
test it. But after that, zeroed out. No funding for ABL.
  So what about our ground-based interceptors and GMD system that we 
have been working on for 30-plus years, spent over $20 billion on, that 
was planned to implant 44 interceptors in Alaska--most of them in 
Alaska and some in California? That has been cut from 44 to 30.
  What about the plan to deploy 10 in Poland and Europe to give us 
redundancy and protect Europe? Zeroed out.
  So this is not just a little nibbling away in missile defense. This 
is an erroneous policy that makes me nervous. Because we have a system 
that is ready to go forward. We stop it. We promise we are going to 
have a new system out here 10 years from now. There's many a slip twixt 
the cup and the lip. I am not sure whether we will ever get that done 
waiting on some new system to come along.
  As Senator Lieberman noted, the administration requested $151 million 
to be obligated for a long-range missile

[[Page S10050]]

defense system in Europe. They requested that that money be used for 
research and development and testing of this two-stage system.
  This amendment that Senator Lieberman and I have proposed would 
prohibit the diversion of that away from what the Obama administration 
initially requested and to require it to be spent on the two-stage GBI, 
including options for deployment in Europe and elsewhere. So why is it 
necessary? Well, the mark we are dealing with on the floor today cuts 
the $151 billion from the BMD test and targets program element, and, 
though the language itself does not expressly target this cut against 
testing for the two-stage GBI, the Missile Defense Agency understands 
this is what the Senate Appropriations Committee intends. Hence, they 
have submitted to us an appeal letter and asked us not to do it.
  MDA argues this cut will require cancellation of fiscal year 2010 
testing activities related to two planned two-stage GBI flight and 
intercept tests. We have proven the technology of the three-stage 
interceptor. Therefore, it is simpler to have a two-stage one. We have 
to test it and develop it.
  Such a cancellation, as occurs in this bill, will also impact data 
collection applicable to the three-stage GBI requiring further testing 
in the future at additional costs.
  Reduced funding would increase, risk, and delay the proving out of 
the two-stage GBI avionics capabilities required for the European 
component and future three-stage avionics capabilities. Slowing the 
development and testing of the two-stage GBI is inconsistent with the 
administration's intent to continue such development as a hedge against 
developmental problems for the SM3 Block IIa and IIB, the ones that are 
intended in the distant future for Europe.
  So General Cartwright, our commander in Europe, has indicated, by 
2015, this would be a potential threat against the United States. That 
is why we have offered this language. I believe it is the right thing 
to do, to keep this program at least ongoing and not to waste the 
effort we have expended so far and complete the testing of the GBI, 
which can also be used in the United States as part of a layered 
defense against incoming missiles also.
  In the appeal submitted to the committee from the Department of 
Defense, they note this language:

       Cancelling fiscal year 2010 activities for these tests 
     would have a major impact on the test program and on data 
     collection applicable to two-stage and three-stage ground-
     based interceptors and associated M&S.

  So they say it would have a major impact on the program and the 
administration has asked us to keep it. That is the purpose of this 
amendment. I was hoping we could reach some sort of accord that we 
could work on with the committee. I am not sure we have been able to do 
that at this stage. But the matter is important. I hate to have to come 
to the floor and offer this amendment. I like to respect our 
committees. It is important. However, the concerns Senator Lieberman 
and I have explained today are why we felt it necessary to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to say to my friend from 
Alabama that the leadership, the manager of the bill, Senator Inouye, 
has agreed, if we modify the amendment as we had agreed to modify it to 
say: Not less than $50 million, and up to the $151 million could be 
available for research, development, test, and evaluation of the two-
stage ground-based interceptor missile, that the committee would accept 
our amendment by voice vote--if that is OK with my friend from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank Senator Lieberman. I have confidence in the 
chairman and the ranking member on that committee. Of course, it is not 
much different than what the mark is today. It is below what President 
Obama requested. I think he has unwisely cut too much already from 
Defense. So I am uneasy about it.
  But I am being a practical person, and knowing my colleagues would 
like to go home, Senator Lieberman, I think that is maybe something I 
would agree to. Perhaps you and I could talk briefly if we have a 
quorum call.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I am glad to do that. But at the moment, I ask 
unanimous consent that we modify our amendment with the changes that I 
believe are at the desk at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 2616), as modified, is as follows:


                    Amendment No. 2616, as modified

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Funding for Two-Stage Ground-Based Interceptor 
     Missile.--Of the amounts appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act for a long-range missile defense system 
     in Europe, or appropriated or otherwise made available for 
     the Department of Defense for a long-range missile defense 
     system in Europe from the Consolidated Security Disaster 
     Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009 (Public 
     Law 110-329) and available for obligation, $151,000,000 shall 
     be available for research, development, test, and evaluation 
     of the two-stage ground-based interceptor missile.
       (b) Prohibition on Diversion of Funds.--Funds appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by this Act for the Missile 
     Defense Agency for the purpose of research, development, and 
     testing of the two-stage ground based interceptor missile 
     shall be utilized solely for that purpose, and may not be 
     reprogrammed or otherwise utilized for any other purpose.
       (c) Report.--Not later than February 1, 2010, the Director 
     of the Missile Defense Agency shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a report setting forth the 
     following:
       (1) A comprehensive plan for the continued development and 
     testing of the two-stage ground-based interceptor missile, 
     including a description how the Missile Defense Agency will 
     leverage the development and testing of such missile to 
     modernize the Ground-based Midcourse Defense component of the 
     ballistic missile defense system.
       (2) Options for deploying an additional Ground-based 
     Midcourse Defense site in Europe or the United States to 
     provide enhanced defense in response to future long-range 
     missile threats from Iran, and a description of how such a 
     site may be made interoperable with the planned missile 
     defense architecture for Europe and the United States.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Afghanistan and Pakistan

  Mr. CASEY. I rise tonight, as we continue work on this Defense 
appropriations bill, to talk about the challenges we face in 
Afghanistan and Pakistan and will be sharing some thoughts tonight 
which I know are consistent with a lot of the concerns that have been 
expressed over the last couple days and weeks and months about the 
policy going forward and what we confront as a country when it comes to 
both the strategy going forward with Afghanistan and Pakistan.
  As we do in any conflict, with any threat, we face the grave question 
of war and what will happen to our military strategy, what we will ask 
of our troops, what we will ask of the American people, both in terms 
of our blood and treasure, as well as what is the strategy going 
forward.
  I think when we confront the grave question of war, we have to get it 
right. I believe the stakes are higher with regard to Afghanistan and 
Pakistan than they were even in the conflict we waged in Iraq. I 
believe the stakes are higher for our national security. So we have no 
choice but to get it right. And when I say ``we,'' I think there is a 
lot of discussion, debate, and focus on President Obama and his 
administration. That is appropriate because he is the Commander in 
Chief.
  But there is probably not enough discussion about what the Congress 
is going to do, what this Congress should do or not do and, in this 
case, what the Senate should do or should not do. I think we would be 
better off spending our time focusing on a substantive and thorough 
debate in the Senate rather than just pointing a finger at the 
President, the administration, and saying: They have to do this or the 
President must do this.

[[Page S10051]]

  It is important, when we talk about getting this policy right, that 
the Senate gets it right. If the Senate puts the time in to debate and 
discuss these critical issues--and there is a lot to do in a rather 
short amount of time. I believe the President should be given a 
reasonable amount of time to review this policy.
  As we know, he set forward a strategy this past spring, in March, our 
policy with regard to both Afghanistan and Pakistan. If you remember 
how he articulated the mission, he talked about defeating al-Qaida, 
disabling and dismantling al-Qaida, and he talked a lot in his remarks 
about Pakistan, about what would happen with regard to our strategy in 
Pakistan.
  But I believe there has not been today in the Senate anything 
approaching a full and robust and thorough and substantive debate about 
what we are going to do going forward in Afghanistan or Pakistan. I 
hope people on both sides of the aisle, when we begin this debate--we 
have done some of it; we need to do a lot more--that we don't just dust 
off talking points from the war in Iraq, that we don't just dust off or 
employ sound bites. There is a time and place to use sound bites and 
discussions and debates. But if we are going to get this policy right, 
it is not going to be a Democratic solution or strategy only, and it 
will not be a Republican solution or strategy only. We have to get it 
right. That means we have to do a lot better than we did when it came 
to the debate before and during the war in Iraq, which is still a 
conflict that is ongoing, even as we draw down troops. We have to have 
a much better debate in the Senate on Afghanistan and Pakistan than 
took place here with regard to Iraq. That is an understatement. Sound 
bites will not do it. Political rhetoric and positioning will not do it 
because that is not a full debate.

  In short, what we have to do--the administration has to do it, but we 
have to do it as well--in the Senate is get the strategy right and 
debate the strategy before we have a long debate about resources. That 
is critically important. I know there are a lot of people in Washington 
who want to focus on one or two issues and make it simple--you are 
either for or against this or that. We have a long way to go. We have 
not had a debate about strategy. We have had a lot of discussion and 
coverage of resources, be they troops or other resources, military or 
nonmilitary. We have not had a discussion about the strategy. We have 
to do that first--strategy before resources.
  I had the opportunity, as many of our colleagues did in the summer, 
in August, to go to both Afghanistan and Pakistan for a limited period. 
But even in a short amount of time, one can learn a lot--2 days in 
Afghanistan, 1 day in Pakistan. One of the highlights of my visit to 
Afghanistan, after having been there in May of 2008, was the briefing 
from General McChrystal, a tremendous and thorough overview of what is 
happening on the ground, the threat to our national security as he sees 
it, also a review not only of the military strategy and the military 
challenges but the nonmilitary as well.
  Sitting at the same table with General McChrystal were distinguished 
Americans who are serving us in nonmilitary capacities--the Department 
of State, the USAID, the Department of Agriculture, all kinds of help 
from various Federal Government agencies that involve the other part of 
counterinsurgency, not only the military campaign.
  Obviously, we have to do more than that. General McChrystal, like 
many of his predecessors, is doing everything he can to get this right.
  I, like others, have reviewed his classified report. We have heard 
him give a summary of the strategy. It is very important that we weigh 
those considerations and weigh that assessment seriously going forward. 
General McChrystal's report is one of the things we have to weigh. We 
have to weigh a lot of other things as well. We have to listen to 
experts within our government and outside, experts within the 
administration, experts in the Congress. The Senate is made up of so 
many Senators who have long records on foreign policy as well as 
national security and making sure we get this right. Some are 
Democrats, some are Republicans, and some are Independents. I will draw 
upon, as we all should, that experience. I will talk more about that in 
a moment.
  One thing stressed by General McChrystal--and it has been stressed by 
President Obama and the administration and should be stressed by us--is 
this policy, this strategy going forward in Afghanistan has to involve 
a couple of basic elements. It obviously has to involve and be focused 
on security. That is essential, obviously. But in addition to security 
and the military challenge, we also have to be concerned about 
governance. And we are concerned about the results of the election. We 
are concerned about whether President Karzai is doing what he needs to 
do to govern his country, to have a strong judiciary, to deliver 
services to his people, to make sure the people of Afghanistan have 
confidence in his leadership.
  So we have to be concerned about security and governance but also, 
thirdly, development, what is going to happen on the ground. A lot of 
people working as part of provisional reconstruction terms, so-called 
PRTs, are doing great work on the ground. It is not in the newspaper 
very often. It is not heralded like a battle is or like a controversy 
might be, but that is part of building up communities throughout the 
country in Afghanistan so people can take control of their own lives, 
take control of their own communities, and take control of their own 
security and their own future.
  We also had a chance to talk at length about what is happening in 
Pakistan and the threats that come across the border from Pakistan into 
Afghanistan, threats that involve al-Qaida or other extremist or 
insurgent groups that have some loose confederation with or connection 
to al-Qaida and threaten our national security, threaten the security 
of the Afghan people, and even threaten the security of the Pakistani 
Government. These are very difficult challenges we face. They do 
involve our national security. We have to get it right with regard to 
what we do in Afghanistan as well as in Pakistan.
  I mentioned before there were a number of Senators in both parties 
who have been trying to begin and amplify the debate. I happen to be a 
member of the Foreign Relations Committee. Our chairman, Senator Kerry, 
has had a number of hearings on various aspects of this policy, not 
only going back the last 2 or 3 weeks but going back months. That 
informs this debate. Chairman Kerry has shown great leadership on these 
issues as well as broader national security issues.
  Chairman Levin gave a speech recently that laid out a thoughtful 
approach. He talked about building up the Afghan Army and the National 
Police prior to a serious consideration of additional troops. He wants 
to accelerate, as we all do, the building up of the Army and Police in 
Afghanistan and maybe in a much shorter timeframe. That is critically 
important. We have to spend a lot more time talking about and debating 
and informing ourselves about how best to accelerate the training of 
the Afghan Army and Police. Chairman Levin, as well, has shown, through 
his leadership of the Armed Services Committee, how important these 
issues are.
  On the other side of the aisle, I read a Wall Street Journal piece 
recently by John McCain, ranking member of the Armed Services 
Committee, Senator Lindsey Graham, and Senator Lieberman. We have to 
consider those points of view, not just in that op-ed but in other 
discussions and debates on the Senate floor.
  As I said before, there will not be one party that is going to solve 
this. There is not going to be one party to implement a 
counterinsurgency strategy because when it comes to war and when it 
comes to the nonmilitary challenges we have that are connected to a war 
or a campaign, there is not a Democratic or Republican way to fight a 
war. There is only an American way. We need an American solution. We 
need a kind of consensus that we may not need on some other issues, but 
on this one, to get it right, we are going to need both parties. And we 
will need the support of the American people to get it right.
  Finally, let me say one more word about why we are doing this, why we 
should have a thorough debate going forward, why it is important we 
spend a lot of hours here, not just on the floor of the Senate but in 
hearings and

[[Page S10052]]

discussions and briefings with various experts who come before us, and 
to thoroughly question and ask the tough questions of the 
administration.
  I was glad we voted today on a list of administration officials we 
want to come before the Senate after the President makes fundamental 
determinations about this policy. Once he has made a decision, then we 
should have a series of hearings where we can cross-examine not only 
General McChrystal and the underpinnings of his policy but so many 
others in the administration, a very strong administration, I would 
argue, on foreign policy and national security. I will not go through 
all the names tonight that would give evidence to that.
  Finally, if we are going to get this right for the fighting men and 
women we send out on the battlefield, if we are going to get this right 
for taxpayers who will be financing this effort, whether it is military 
or nonmilitary, we do have to get it right. One thing we have to bear 
in mind is, when we send troops out to fight a battle, we have to make 
sure the policy that undergirds their fight, that the strategy that 
leads to a discussion about what the resources are to give them all the 
resources they need to fight a battle, whether it is very wide or very 
narrow in focus, whatever it is, we have to make sure what we do here 
is worthy of their sacrifice; that what we do in the Senate on strategy 
or policy is worthy of what we are asking them to do on the 
battlefield. We haven't done that yet. We are a long way from doing it.
  I hope in the next couple of weeks, even as the President is asking 
tough questions and making determinations about policy, that we do our 
job in the Senate to ask those tough questions, to have that important 
debate, and make sure it is substantive and not political; make sure it 
is about strategy and not just the politics or the sound bites of the 
moment. To be worthy of their valor, those fighting men and women, and 
to be worthy of their sacrifice, we have to do our job in the Senate. 
That has not happened yet. We have to make sure we do that in short 
order.
  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. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


Amendments Nos. 2563; 2585; 2617; 2559; 2562, as Modified; 2568; 2614; 
                                and 2615

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to consider the following list of amendments that I will 
identify, if not pending, then once this agreement is entered, the 
amendment be considered called up for consideration; and that the 
amendments be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered 
made and laid upon the table en bloc; that no amendments be in order to 
the amendments included in this agreement; further, that if there are 
modifications to any of the listed amendments, then the amendment be 
modified and agreed to, as modified: Nos. 2563, 2585, 2617, 2559, 2562, 
2568, 2614, and 2615; and further that amendment No. 2569 be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 2563, 2585, 2617, and 2559) were agreed to.
  The amendments (Nos. 2562, as modified; 2568; 2614; and 2615) were 
agreed to, as follows:


                    amendment no. 2562, as modified

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress, and to require a report, on 
             expanding the mission of the Nevada Test Site)

       On page 245, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
       Sec. 8104. (a) It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) All of the National Nuclear Security Administration 
     Sites, including the Nevada Test Site, can play an effective 
     and essential role in developing and demonstrating--
       (A) innovative and effective methods for treaty 
     verification and the detection of nuclear weapons and other 
     materials; and
       (B) related threat reduction technologies; and
       (2) the Administrator for Nuclear Security should expand 
     the mission of the Nevada Test Site to carry out the role 
     described in paragraph (1), including by--
       (A) fully utilizing the inherent capabilities and uniquely 
     secure location of the Site;
       (B) continuing to support the Nation's nuclear weapons 
     program and other national security programs; and
       (C) renaming the Site to reflect the expanded mission of 
     the Site.
       (b) Not later than one year after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, the Administrator for Nuclear Security shall 
     submit to the congressional defense committees a plan for 
     improving the infrastructure of the Nevada Test Site of the 
     National Nuclear Security Administration and, if the 
     Administrator deems appropriate, all other Sites under the 
     jurisdiction of the National Nuclear Security 
     Administration--
       (1) to fulfill the expanded mission of the Site described 
     in subsection (a); and
       (2) to make the Site available to support the threat 
     reduction programs of the entire national security community, 
     including threat reduction programs of the National Nuclear 
     Security Administration, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, 
     the Department of Homeland Security, and other agencies as 
     appropriate.


                           amendment no. 2568

 (Purpose: To make available from amounts available for the Office of 
the Secretary of Defense $250,000 for the declassification of the 2001 
                        nuclear posture review)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __.  Of the amounts appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by title II under the heading ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' and available for the Office of 
     the Secretary of Defense, up to $250,000 may be available to 
     the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy for the 
     declassification of the nuclear posture review conducted 
     under section 1041 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (as enacted into law 
     by Public Law 106-398; 114 Stat. 1654A-262) upon the release 
     of the nuclear posture review to succeed such nuclear posture 
     review.


                           amendment no. 2614

  (Purpose: To make available from Operation and Maintenance, Defense-
Wide, $15,000,000 for implementation of the Military and Overseas Voter 
                            Empowerment Act)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __.  Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by title II under the heading ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', up to $15,000,000 may be 
     available for the implementation by the Department of Defense 
     of the responsibilities of the Department under the Military 
     and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act and the amendments made by 
     that Act.


                           amendment no. 2615

 (Purpose: To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
   made available by this Act may be used to dispose of claims filed 
 regarding water contamination at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, until 
  the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) fully 
   completes all current, ongoing epidemiological and water modeling 
                                studies)

       On page 245, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
       Sec. 8104.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act may be used to dispose of claims 
     filed regarding water contamination at Camp Lejeune, North 
     Carolina, until the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 
     Registry (ATSDR) fully completes all current, ongoing 
     epidemiological and water modeling studies pending as of the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. INOUYE. I thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I want to congratulate the chairman of 
the committee for helping work out this agreement. We appreciate the 
cooperation of all Senators.
  Mr. INOUYE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. 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.


                    Amendment No. 2592, as Modified

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, Senator Durbin and I have an amendment, 
amendment No. 2592, and I ask that it be made pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is now 
pending.
  Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2592) as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CASEY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                          SCAR PROGRAM FUNDING

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr President, I would like to engage in a brief colloquy 
with

[[Page S10053]]

the esteemed Senator from Hawaii, the chairman of the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Inouye.
  The bill before us includes a significant cut of $9 million from U.S. 
SOCOM's SCAR Program--special operations combat assault rifle. The SCAR 
was selected in a fair and open competition and has undergone some of 
the most rigorous testing of any small arms program in U.S. history. It 
is widely regarded as one of the best and most versatile weapons in the 
world. While this weapon has passed all tests, the only issue now is 
what mix of versatility--7.62mm models or 5.56mm models--they want to 
have at the ODA level operational detachment alpha--that is the Special 
Forces A team level which is as close to the ground level fight as you 
can get.
  I understand there are recent concerns regarding contracting delays 
and the ability to obligate these funds. I have been assured by SOCOM 
that they will be able to spend all funds requested within the 
appropriate timeframe. The Special Forces is intensely engaged in 
combat operations all over the world including Afghanistan and they 
need the versatility and capability offered by this unique weapon 
system. The President's Budget included $9.746 million for this 
program. The House-passed version of this bill fully funds the 
President's request. I would encourage the chairman to ensure this 
program is fully funded in the Senate as requested in the President's 
budget.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator from South Carolina for his comments. 
I assure him that the reductions to the program were taken without 
prejudice, and the committee supports providing this capable series of 
rifles to Special Operations Command. His points on the importance of 
this program will be fully and carefully considered when this issue is 
addressed in conference on this bill.


                    tactical wheeled vehicle funding

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. Chairman, I request to enter into a colloquy 
concerning appropriations for the Army's medium tactical vehicle fleet.
  Mr. INOUYE. I am pleased to engage the senior Senator from Texas in a 
colloquy.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. Chairman, the Army has recently announced its 
decision on the future contract for the family of medium tactical 
vehicles, a major acquisition program in the Army's tactical wheeled 
vehicle fleet. Several Senators--some who may join us in this 
colloquy--are deeply concerned about the Army's decision. However, 
since the Army's announcement came after the committee finished its 
work on this bill, Members of the committee had no opportunity to 
express their concern or to question the decision. Consequently, I have 
asked the Government Accountability Office to conduct a review of the 
Army's tactical wheeled vehicle strategy. I would therefore like the 
chairman's commitment to having the Defense Subcommittee focus on this 
issue at the earliest possible opportunity.
  Mr. INOUYE. I would say to the Senator from Texas that I know she is 
greatly interested in how the Army's tactical wheeled vehicle budget is 
spent. I hope that we will be informed by the GAO review that she has 
requested, and I can pledge that the subcommittee will review this 
issue thoroughly as we go forward.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chairman for his leadership on this 
important issue.
  Mr. KOHL. I appreciate the comments of the chairman and respect the 
work of the Senator from Texas on this issue. The Army's decision 
impacts both of our States, but it is imperative that GAO is allowed to 
conduct its investigation free of individual prejudices. The taxpayers 
and men and women of the Armed Forces deserve an objective review. I 
look forward to working with the Chairman and all my colleagues on this 
issue.


                    IN SUPPORT OF THE NCADE PROGRAM

  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the 
chairman and with my colleague Senator Baucus about funding in this 
bill for missile defense. It is my understanding that in testimony 
before the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this year, 
Lieutenant General O'Reilly told the committee that the Missile Defense 
Agency requested $3.5 million in fiscal year 2010 for the missile 
defense program known as Net Centric Airborne Defense Element, NCADE. 
It is my further understanding that the committee does not, at this 
point, have concerns with the allocation of funds to the NCADE program. 
Is that correct?
  Mr. INOUYE. The gentleman is correct. The bill before the Senate 
provides $104.8 million for research, development, testing and 
evaluation of ballistic missile defense technology, which is the 
appropriate account for NCADE funding.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, NCADE is a missile defense concept that 
uses a modified AIM-9X seeker launched from an aircraft to intercept a 
boosting missile target. I am aware that the Missile Defense Agency has 
conducted several tests of this system and it continues to show 
progress. I believe it is important that the Missile Defense Agency 
continue to develop this technology. Short- and medium-range ballistic 
missiles pose a significant threat to the United States, our Armed 
Forces, and our allies around the world. Could the chairman clarify 
that the Missile Defense Agency could use funds provided in this bill 
for the continued development of NCADE, consistent with the budget 
request?
  Mr. INOUYE. Under the Senate bill, the MDA could continue to work on 
this interesting technology.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the chairman. This is very important work for our 
national security and we are pleased that some of it is being done in 
Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. I want to echo the observations of my colleague. Work on 
the NCADE project is done in part in Montana and that work provides 
valuable employment opportunities in a part of the State where the 
unemployment rate is in double digits.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Fiscal 
Year 2010 National Defense Appropriations Act. Let me begin by thanking 
the committee's distinguished chairman, Senator Inouye, and ranking 
member, Senator Cochran, for their leadership in crafting this bill and 
for their strong commitment to our Nation's Armed Forces.
  This legislation will provide funding for essential training, 
equipment, and support to our troops as they bravely and skillfully 
engage in national security efforts at home and abroad. 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.
  This legislation also will fund critical force protection and health 
care initiatives for our troops, while continuing development of 
important technologies and acquisition programs to counter existing and 
emerging threats.
  The legislation before us includes a strong commitment to 
strengthening Navy shipbuilding. Our Nation needs a strong and modern 
naval fleet allowing us to project power globally and to respond to 
threats. This bill authorizes $1 billion in funding for construction of 
the third DDG-1000, a priority of mine. The Pentagon's decision to have 
Bath Iron Works, BIW, build all three of the DDG-1000s demonstrates 
well-deserved confidence in BIW and will help ensure a stable work load 
for the shipyard and more stable production costs for the Navy.
  In addition, this legislation authorizes $2.2 billion for continued 
DDG-51 procurement and nearly $150 million for the DDG-51 modernization 
program. The lessons and technology developed in the design of the DDG-
1000 can be incorporated into the DDG-51 program to reduce crew size 
and to improve capabilities.
  The legislation fully funds the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter request for 
both the Navy and the Air Force. This aircraft, powered by the superb 
engines made by Pratt & Whitney, will enable our service men and women 
to continue to maintain our air superiority.
  An additional $1.5 billion is included for the National Guard and 
Reserve equipment account, which should help sustain critical equipment 
such as combat vehicles, aircraft, and weapons. This funding should 
directly benefit the Maine National Guard's readiness posture as 
additional units prepare to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan in the 
upcoming year.
  At the request of Senator Snowe and myself, the committee provides 
$20 million for humvee maintenance to be performed at Maine Military

[[Page S10054]]

Authority's, MMA, Army National Guard Readiness Sustainment Site, RSMS, 
located in Limestone, ME. For nearly 13 years, the Army National Guard 
has relied on Maine Military Authority to provide a dependable service 
to our Nation's warfighters. The dedicated and talented professionals 
at MMA have demonstrated their value to the Army and to the Nation and 
consistently have performed humvee refurbishment at a lower cost than 
the Army's own depots. This funding would help to ensure that MMA's 
valued workforce and high quality product remain a national asset 
supporting the defense of our country.
  The bill also provides $240 million for cancer research through the 
Defense Health Programs with $150 for the Breast Cancer Research 
Program, $80 million for Prostate Cancer Research Program, and $10 
million for the Ovarian Cancer Research Program. I believe that there 
is simply no investment that promises greater returns for America than 
its investment in biomedical research. These research programs at the 
Department of Defense are important to our Nation's efforts to treat 
and prevent these devastating diseases that also affect our veterans 
and service members.
  The bill provides $307 million to address the Tricare private sector 
shortfall in fiscal year 2010 as identified by the Department of 
Defense. I know Tricare funding is vital to so many Maine veterans. We 
must continue to support robust funding for this important program and 
limit increases in Tricare premiums and copayments.
  I strongly support the additional $15.6 million to strengthen the 
Office of the Inspector General in order to keep pace with the growth 
in the size of the defense budget and the number of defense 
contractors. More vigorous oversight of defense contracts to prevent 
waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars will complement the 
procurement reforms we approved earlier this year.
  The Senate's fiscal 2010 Defense appropriations bill also includes 
funding for other defense-related projects that would benefit Maine and 
our national security. Funding is provided, for example, to Saco 
Defense in Saco, ME, to enable the company to continue manufacturing 
weapons that are vital to the Armed Forces.
  In addition, at my urging, the legislation appropriates $3.6 million 
for the University of Maine. This funding would support the development 
of LGX high temperature acoustic wave sensors and allow the University 
of Maine to continue to investigate fundamental sensor materials and 
design concepts as well as demonstrate functional prototypes of 
acoustic wave sensors that will be tested under extreme temperature 
environments. The funding for the university will also provide for 
woody biomass conversion to JP-8 fuel, which will provide affordable 
alternative sources for military aviation fuel.
  The appropriations bill provides the vital resources that our troops 
need and recognizes the enormous contributions made by the State of 
Maine to our national security. From the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in 
Kittery to the Pratt and Whitney engine plant in North Berwick to BIW's 
shipbuilders to the University of Maine's engineers to the Maine 
Military Authority in Aroostook, Mainers all over our State are leading 
the way to a stronger national defense.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, there has been a tremendous amount of work 
going into getting us to where we are now. It is long and tedious and 
one of the most complicated bills we do. It is the most complicated 
appropriations bill we do. So I very much appreciate the work done by 
Senators Cochran and Inouye. They are both experienced and terrific 
individuals and great Senators, their staffs, and all the floor staff.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes 
consideration of H.R. 3326 on Tuesday, October 6, the following list of 
first-degree amendments be the only amendments remaining in order to 
H.R. 3326, other than any other pending amendments, if not listed, and 
the committee substitute amendment; that no second-degree amendment or 
side-by-side amendment be in order to any of the listed amendments, 
except as provided below:
  Franken amendment No. 2588; Barrasso amendment No. 2567; Bond 
amendment No. 2596; Coburn amendment No. 2565; Coburn amendment No. 
2566; Kyl amendment No. 2608; that once agreement is entered into, it 
will be withdrawn; Sanders amendment No. 2601; Inhofe amendment No. 
2618; McCain amendment No. 2580; McCain amendment No. 2584; McCain 
amendment 2560, with an Inouye side-by-side amendment in order and 
would be voted prior to the vote in relation to amendment No. 2560; 
McCain amendment No. 2583; Lieberman-Sessions amendment No. 2616, as 
modified; that it be in order for the managers to offer managers' 
amendments, which have been cleared by managers and leaders, and that 
if offered, the amendments be considered and agreed to and the motion 
to reconsider laid on the table; that in the case in which the managers 
are agreeable with a modification of a listed amendment, then the 
amendment be so modified with the changes agreed upon; that upon 
disposition of the listed amendments, the committee-reported 
substitute, as amended, be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be 
laid on the table; that the bill, as amended, be read the third time, 
and the Senate then proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended; 
that upon passage, the Senate insist on its amendment, request a 
conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the 
Senate, with the subcommittee appointed as conferees; provided further 
that if a point of order is raised and sustained against the substitute 
amendment, then it be in order for a new substitute to be offered, 
minus the offending provision; that the new substitute be considered 
and agreed to, no further amendments be in order, with provisions in 
this agreement listed after adoption of the original substitute 
amendment remaining in effect; that the vote sequence with respect to 
the listed amendments be entered later and that the only debate time 
remaining be 2 minutes, equally divided in the usual form, prior to 
each vote; and that on any sequenced votes, the vote time be limited to 
10 minutes each after the first vote; further, that the cloture motions 
be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________