[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 12661-12699]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator Warner 
and Senator Reed have worked out an arrangement whereby the missile 
defense amendment will not be offered, but the end strength amendment 
will be offered at this time.
  The chairman has arrived. What I have said is that the chairman and 
Senator Reed have agreed that his missile defense amendment will be 
offered at a subsequent time and that now the end strength amendment 
that has been around for several days would be debated at this time and 
voted upon.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that was a suggestion I made to the 
Senator from Rhode Island. I think he will perhaps reflect on the need 
to go forward with his second missile defense amendment, and he had 
asked for that need to be reconsidered. Therefore, in its place we can 
put the end strength amendment, which would be a matter of convenience 
and great interest to our membership on this side, given it is a 
bipartisan amendment.
  Mr. REID. Following that, the amendment of Senator Sessions will be 
offered, and following that the amendment of Senator Biden will be 
offered.
  Mr. WARNER. Could we put time agreements on this now?
  Mr. REID. We certainly should be able to.
  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. WARNER. 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the quorum call be rescinded.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. WARNER. Mr. President, the distinguished leadership on the other 
side and myself and the leadership on this side have worked out the 
following time agreements: On the amendment from the Senator from Rhode 
Island, which has a second degree from the Senator from Virginia, Mr. 
Warner--
  Mr. REID. No. 3352.
  Mr. WARNER. Correct--we would need 40 minutes equally divided on 
those amendments.
  Mr. REID. A total of 40 minutes?
  Mr. WARNER. A total of 40 minutes equally divided. We would then 
proceed to lay that aside and proceed to an amendment by the Senator 
from Alabama.
  Mr. REID. No. 3371.
  Mr. WARNER. Correct. That will take 20 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Twenty minutes equally divided?
  Mr. WARNER. Fifteen on this side, and I think the other side only 
needed 5 on that amendment.
  Mr. REID. We will take the 15 and probably would not use it.
  Mr. WARNER. Then 30 minutes equally divided. That amendment will not 
require other than a voice vote which we will do. We will then 
immediately proceed to the Biden amendment.
  Mr. REID. No. 3379.
  Mr. WARNER. Correct. At the moment, that would require 2 hours 
equally divided, with the expectation that can be reduced in time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent, as the chairman has indicated, 
that on amendment No. 3352 there be 40 minutes equally divided, with no 
second-degree amendments in order except for the one that Senator 
Warner has indicated that he will offer, and Senator Reed knows about 
that; No. 3371, there be no second-degree amendments in order; and No. 
3379, there be no second-degree amendments in order, with the time as 
stated previously. There would be no second-degree amendments then 
prior to the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. As indicated, 40 minutes, 30 minutes, and 2 hours.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WARNER. I concur in the request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.


                Amendment No. 3450 To Amendment No. 3352

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask for regular order for No. 3352.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That amendment is now pending.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I understand that Senator Warner has a 
second-degree amendment which I will accept.
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct, and I seek now to modify it, and I will 
send a modification to the desk and add to the modified amendment.
  It is a very minor modification. I simply strike one word, and it is 
the word ``the.'' I send the modification to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 3450), as modified, is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide for funding the increased number of Army active-
      duty personnel out of fiscal year 2005 supplemental funding)

       Strike line 2 and insert the following:
     ``502,400, subject to the condition that costs of active duty 
     personnel of the Army in excess of 482,400 shall be paid out 
     of funds authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2005 
     for a contingent emergency reserve fund or as an emergency 
     supplemental appropriation''.

  Mr. WARNER. I am ready to indicate to my colleague we have worked on 
this amendment in the second degree. It is my understanding that the 
Senator from Rhode Island is prepared to take the Warner amendment as 
modified.
  Mr. REED. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. Fine.
  Mr. REED. I want to thank the chairman for his instructive work on 
this amendment. He recognizes, as I recognize, along with my colleagues 
and principal cosponsors Senators Hagel, McCain, Corzine, Akaka, and 
Biden, that our Army is stretched very thin across the globe with 
numerous missions, and in order to fulfill these missions we have to 
raise the end strength of the Army.
  The amendment before us today would put within the authorized end 
strength a 20,000 increase in the number of soldiers in the U.S. Army. 
These are the number of troops the Army has indicated that they can 
absorb this year, and that they can train and utilize this year. It 
represents the recognition that we cannot simply depend upon emergency 
powers through supplementals to increase the end strength of the Army. 
We have to, as we do in this amendment, put in the actual end strength 
number to reflect a larger Army and also to reflect the fact that this 
is not a temporary occurrence.
  Our commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the globe are going 
to require a substantially larger Army for an indefinite period of 
time.
  As a result, working together with the chairman, we have placed in 
the Defense authorization bill the precise number of soldiers, this 
precise increase of 20,000 troops.
  What the chairman has added, though, is the fact that these troops 
have to be paid for. There is a strong argument that we should pay for 
them in terms of regular budget authority, but he has suggested that we 
again go the emergency supplemental route to pay for these troops, 
which are now

[[Page 12662]]

fully authorized in law. What I wanted to accomplish in the amendment 
first is to make sure we do incorporate a suitable end strength number. 
That has been accomplished.
  Second, I wanted to avoid a situation where the Army had to go within 
its existing programs to search high and low for dollars to pay for 
these extra troops. That has been accomplished by the chairman's 
suggestion that we move some funds already identified in the emergency 
supplemental and designate those to pay for these additional troops.
  So we have avoided a situation where the Army this year is going to 
be forced to come up with funds by going through and ransacking their 
existing programs, and we have set it in the authorization bill, the 
appropriate forum for such a decision. We have set in the precise 
number of end strength that is appropriate this year for the U.S. Army.
  The question still arises, What happens in succeeding years? The 
argument myself, Senator McCain, Senator Hagel, and others have made is 
we cannot continue to depend upon supplemental and emergency funding. 
This is not an emergency. This is a fact of life in the world today. We 
need a larger Army.
  We are accomplishing our objectives today for this fiscal year in 
this authorization, but I think the chairman and we all recognize we 
will eventually confront a situation where we have to raise the bottom 
line of the Army in terms of the funds they have. We do not want to see 
a situation a year from now or 2 years from now when the supplementals 
are inadequate but the needs of these troops are still persistent.
  Senator Levin has language in this authorization bill that indicates 
in succeeding years, after this fiscal year and after this 
authorization bill, any increase in end strength will have to be put in 
the Army budget. I think that is an appropriate response. I think the 
Reed amendment as modified by Senator Warner will, in effect, 
accomplish that.
  This is the thrust of the amendment. I have had an opportunity to 
explain it. At this point I reserve the remainder of my time to allow 
the Senator from Virginia to comment.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. This is one of those situations. 
Senator Reed is a very valued member of the committee and the amendment 
has strong cosponsorship; namely, Senators McCain and Hagel and others 
on our side. I think all along the committee has recognized the need to 
work with the Department of Defense, most specifically the Department 
of Army, to resolve this situation. I thought it necessary to second 
degree the amendment which would authorize the Department of Defense to 
pay the cost of the additional Active-Duty soldiers for fiscal year 
2005 from supplemental or contingent emergency reserve funds because 
the sponsors of the amendment had not identified the considerable sum, 
some $2 billion plus, that their amendment would generate in the need 
for the Army budget.
  The Army needs this Active-Duty strength. I think we are in agreement 
on this point.
  Senator, I indicate now I am going to urge my colleagues to accept 
the amendment.
  I note that in the bill we are considering there is a specific 
authorization which the committee worked out in section 402 for 
temporary increases of up to 30,000 active duty soldiers above the 
currently authorized level. This goes 10,000 active-duty soldiers 
beyond the end strength level proposed in Senators Reed and Hagel's 
amendment.
  My second degree amendment, however, addresses the real issue 
stemming from these increases--how to pay for them. The Reed/Hagel 
amendment provides no offsets for the $2.4 billion cost of these extra 
troops. I submit that this is not a cost for the Department to take 
``out of hide,'' or that the Department of the Army should absorb out 
of the FY 2005 budget.
  The approach in my second degree amendment reflects the 
recommendation of the Army Chief of Staff, General Schoomaker, who 
testified that using supplemental appropriations gives necessary 
flexibility and is, in fact, essential to preserve the Army's ability 
to plan for operational readiness in the present and modernization for 
the future.
  The Reed/Hagel amendment would have the effect of directing the Army 
to increase its end strength by 20,000 in FY 2005 at a cost of $2.4 
billion. The amendment identifies no offset, it identifies no means to 
pay for these additional troops. Consider the potential effect of that 
proposal on the Army. The $2.4 billion represents a 15 percent 
reduction of funding for direct costs of operating forces for home 
station training, exercises and operations; in other words--fuel, spare 
parts, maintenance, food, and other consumables. Alternatively, this 
reduction would eliminate almost all funding for Army individual and 
unit training--such as basic training, flight training, and combat 
training center rotations. The $2.4 billion represents a 42 percent 
reduction of funding for Army command and control, logistics, weapons 
and ammunition transportation and storage. It could reduce resources to 
key readiness and modernization accounts, as indicated above, and 
divert money needed to train and retain more experienced personnel 
because of the imperative to satisfy an end strength number.
  My amendment would afford the Army the opportunity to flexibly 
execute its budget while increasing its manpower. I would ask you to 
keep this in mind and also keep in mind that the conferees will have 
the task of finding $2.4 billion in offsets if this amendment becomes a 
law.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague Senator 
Jack Reed in introducing an amendment to the fiscal year 2005 Defense 
authorization bill to increase the size of the United States Army by 
20,000 additional troops.
  Over the last year the Congress has expressed grave concern that our 
Armed Forces are too small to meet the extraordinary demands being 
placed on them today. These demands will be with us well into the 
future.
  Senator Reed and I are proposing this amendment to formally increase 
the size of the United States Army by 20,000 troops in the coming year.
  The additional troops are urgently required to give the Chief of 
Staff of the U.S. Army the tools he needs to fight the war on 
terrorism, stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan, and meet the global demands 
being placed on the total force today.
  Under emergency authority, the U.S. Army has already exceeded its 
authorized end strength by around 15,000 soldiers. This amendment 
provides straightforward congressional approval for these additional 
troops. It also puts the future funding of these troops on the record, 
not masked in the emergency supplemental appropriations process.
  The size and cost of the Army must be transparent to the American 
people, our allies, and to those that would oppose us in the war on 
terrorism.
  This amendment gives General Schoomaker, the Chief of Staff of the 
United States Army, the additional manpower he has told us he needs to 
transform the total force . . . the active duty Army, the Army Reserve, 
and the Army National Guard.
  The amendment recognizes the fact that the Army needs 20,000 more 
troops now. In the future the Army must also be authorized to add 
10,000 more soldiers.
  The amendment increases the approved Army end strength personnel 
floor from 482,400 to 502,400 troops. It tells the soldiers in the Army 
that we strongly support increasing the size of the Army to meet the 
increased demands being placed on the service.
  I commend Chairman Warner and ranking member Levin for their 
outstanding work on this Defense authorization bill. Members of our 
Armed Forces are currently engaged in combat operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  Hundreds of thousands of American men and women in uniform are 
serving around the world defending the freedoms we hold dear.
  Chairman Warner and ranking member Levin are tireless supporters of 
our men and women in these dangerous

[[Page 12663]]

times. Our Nation owes them both, and their staffs, a debt of gratitude 
for their service.
  I also appreciate the Chairman's contribution to this effort with his 
second degree amendment.
  And finally, I wish the U.S. Army a happy 229th birthday.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be a cosponsor of this 
amendment with Senators Reed, McCain, Hagel, Corzine, and Akaka.
  I understand that we have accepted the Senator from Virginia's 
amendment paying for these additional 20,000 soldiers in the 
supplemental.
  While I think the Army would be better served by an end strength 
increase that is not subject to repeated supplementals, I am pleased 
that we are all in agreement that we need more troops today.
  I think it is very simple. Soldiers provide stability. Without 
adequate numbers of boots on the ground, you can't get security and 
stability.
  That is true in Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, and the Balkans.
  As Senator McCain and I have both said repeatedly, we need more 
troops in Iraq to achieve stability. If we had put more troops into 
Iraq after major combat operations, the situation might be very 
different. I don't believe it is too late. I still think that 
additional troops are needed.
  I also believe that it is my obligation to back that up with some 
relief for those soldiers serving today. We shouldn't have to keep 
issuing ``stop-loss'' orders, forcing soldiers to stay in the Army.
  Let's give the Army what it needs.
  What my colleagues and I hoped to accomplish was to reassure today's 
soldiers and their families that they will not have to keep looking at 
extended deployments and stop-loss orders. Instead, we want them to 
know that we are committed to making the Army large enough to do the 
missions America is asking it to do.
  Some of our colleagues believe that the need for additional soldiers 
is temporary. I disagree.
  It is true that the Army is planning a major restructuring. This may 
mean future efficiencies, but we don't know that yet. Like any other 
major change, more resources are needed during the change. In this 
case, more soldiers are needed as the Army moves to a more capable 
brigade structure.
  I would rather plan for the clear needs of the next decade in the 
regular budget. I don't think we should be relying on supplementals to 
provide the right sized Army.
  If I and my colleagues are wrong, then we can revisit these numbers 
and cut end strength like we did in the beginning of the last decade. I 
would rather take the cautious approach and err on the side of our 
soldiers and their families.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment which takes us closer to 
that goal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, with the series of votes that we have, first 
on Reed and then on Biden--we have received word there may be a couple 
of other Senators who may want to speak on this amendment. I ask 
unanimous consent of the Chair, in the form of a unanimous consent 
request, that prior to the Reed amendment being voted on, as amended by 
Warner, there be 10 minutes set aside to talk about that prior to this 
vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I think that is an accommodating gesture. In fact, the 
amount of time I reserved on this side, portions of it perhaps could be 
yielded back, and then absorbed by the proposal of the distinguished 
leader.
  Mr. REID. The time may not be necessary.
  Mr. WARNER. It may not be necessary. But so many of our colleagues 
are doing a lot of work all over the system right now. They didn't 
recognize that this would be brought up at this time. We want to 
accommodate them.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that prior to the 
vote on the Reed amendment, Senator Reed control 10 minutes, Senator 
Reed of Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield such time as remained.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, would the distinguished Democratic leader 
allow the time to be managed on this side by either Senators Hagel or 
McCain, the time we have on this side? That would sort of divide it 
between yourself and the two colleagues on this side?
  Mr. REID. That would be appropriate because those were the two 
Senators we were worried about.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. I thank the chairman for his constructive participation in 
this process and also to emphasize what he has emphasized and that is 
the extraordinary stress our Army is withstanding at this point. They 
are doing it magnificently, performing with great skill and 
professionalism.
  We have 126,000 soldiers in Iraq; we have 13,000 soldiers in 
Afghanistan; we have soldiers still in the Balkans, 2,500; we have 
forces in Kuwait, about 17,000; we still have our mission in the Sinai; 
we have 1,700 soldiers in Guantanamo maintaining the detention 
facilities there; we have 16,000 soldiers, Noble Eagle, which is the 
heart of our defense of our homeland; we have soldiers in the 
Philippines; 31,600 soldiers in South Korea. We have them all over the 
world doing an extraordinary task and job for our company. Frankly, 
they need more help and that is the heart of the Reed amendment.
  In addition to that, we have seen troubling signs that this 
operational tempo is putting great stress and duress on our soldiers. 
Recently, there was a stop-loss order announced by the G-1 of the U.S. 
Army that said essentially any soldier who is scheduled to depart 
within 90 days for deployment cannot leave the service, even if that 
soldier's time in service has expired. Essentially what they have said 
is: You can't get out of the service. The Volunteer Army is no longer 
completely volunteer. That is just one example.
  We are withdrawing troops from Korea at a time when there is a huge 
crisis on the peninsula. The North Koreans indicated they have 
plutonium; they are intending to process it. They may have already 
constructed eight nuclear devices. We don't know for sure. Yet at this 
time when we need maximum military force to complement our diplomacy, 
we are withdrawing troops, which is perhaps sending a signal to the 
North Koreans that they can wait us out or that we are not able or 
ready to match our diplomacy appropriately with military force.
  That is another prime example, I believe. In fact, frankly, I think 
that if North Korea 2 or 3 years ago brazenly declared they had nuclear 
weapons, our response would not have been to withdraw troops. The calls 
in this Chamber would have been for more troops in Korea. But now 
because of Iraq that is difficult; we are pulling them out to send them 
to Iraq.
  Then we have a situation in our training centers, the infrastructure 
of the Army. This is one of the major reasons why we have such 
extraordinarily skilled soldiers.
  First, they are men and women of courage and character, but second 
they received the greatest, most realistic training in the world. They 
are individuals who can and will do any job, but they do that so well 
because they are the best trained.
  We are taking soldiers from our training centers--those trainers who 
are preparing the troops to go overseas--and we are deploying them.
  As a result, these are indications that we have a military force 
which is significantly stretched. That is why it is so important to 
raise the number of troops that we have entering the Army.
  Today, the Army has 495,374 soldiers serving on active duty. The end 
strength has to increase. The Reed amendment increases it by 20,000 
troops.
  There are those who have predicted we would get in this predicament. 
General Shalikashvili's predictions and other predictions are coming 
true. Our responsibility is now to give the military, particularly the 
Army, sufficient

[[Page 12664]]

resources and sufficient personnel to do the job which we are asking 
them to do.
  Last December, in 2003, the Army's Strategic Studies Institute 
published a report which stated that the ground force requirements in 
Iraq have forced the U.S. Army to the breaking point.
  We have to prevent that breaking point from being reached, and that 
means putting more troops into the force structure.
  Last year, during the appropriations debate, Senator Hagel and I 
sponsored an amendment that would have raised the end strength by 
10,000 in the supplemental appropriations. It passed the Senate. I 
thank my colleagues on both sides who were very supportive of that. 
But, unfortunately, at that point the administration thought it was 
unnecessary and they were able to successfully defeat that proposal in 
conference. At least now they recognize the need for additional troops. 
But what they are still adhering to is this notion that the emergency 
is temporary.
  I hope by putting the actual number of the end strength increase in 
this bill we are sending a signal to everyone that we will, in fact, 
stay the course--not just rhetorically but with actual resources and 
actual troops.
  Senator Warner explained the funding mechanism was one where some of 
us would have preferred, frankly, if we could have, to increase just 
the bottom line of the Army. But given these other demands on resources 
and this authorization bill, it was his suggestion that we, once again, 
use emergency funding to fund this now authorized end strength. That 
gets us through this year. But the concern I have and the concern 
others have is that we will reach a point within a year or two where 
the Army is going to have these troops in uniform but their baseline is 
not going to be sufficient if a supplemental or emergency funding is 
not made readily available. That is a real crisis and we have to start 
thinking about that now.
  Senator Levin has been very thoughtful on this topic. He has language 
in the bill that says any increases in the next fiscal year of the end 
strength have to be budgeted through regular budget processes. Again, I 
hope that takes place. But that means giving more resources to our 
Army, and we will work--I think I can speak for Senator Warner--to make 
sure the Army has those resources.
  I am very pleased we are able to make this adjustment--overdue 
adjustment--in the end strength of the U.S. Army.
  I retain the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  If no one yields time, time will be charged equally to both sides.
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, in regard to the Reed amendment--and 
that discussion has been had so far--I am pleased that the chairman and 
Senator Reed have worked out an agreement. I hope that will be 
satisfactory.
  I haven't had time to fully study the details of it, but I expect to 
be supportive of the agreement which they have reached. We know the 
Army is stretched today. We definitely need to consider what we can do 
to alleviate that.
  I would like to add a few thoughts in general on the subject of the 
Army, its restructuring which is ongoing, and how we best can deal with 
it and what our policy about it should be.
  We are in the process of a major restructuring within all of the 
Department of Defense, but particularly the Army. In dealing with that, 
they are in the middle of it right now.
  General Schoomaker, who spent his career as a combat officer and a 
special forces officer, is a man of decisive leadership skills. He is 
working very hard to determine how to get the Army in the posture we 
want it to be.
  With Guard and Reserve, we have over 2 million personnel in uniform, 
but we are finding it extremely difficult to maintain 150,000 or less 
soldiers in Iraq.
  General Schoomaker has a story which he tells. It is about a rain 
barrel. He says the way he sees the military, the Army's rain barrel 
has a spigot and the spigot is about two-thirds of the way up. Whenever 
we have a demand, we draw down the water, but we are only drawing the 
top third of the barrel. In large part, the barrel is not accessible 
and readily deployable for purposes that we are likely to face in the 
future. He believes we can work on that.
  He knows something we all know--that we have a finite defense budget. 
I am as strong a person as there is in this Senate on expanding 
spending for defense and making our defense capabilities second to 
none. We are that today. We have the greatest army the world has ever 
known. The professional soldiers who serve us so well are doing 
incredible things. We are proud of them. People just say that. I say to 
you that every military in the world knows the American military is 
unsurpassed. They respect us. That is why they want to train with us. 
They want to learn our tactics. They want to see what equipment we are 
using. It is something in which we should take pride. He is working 
with that and how to better utilize our resources.
  There was an article recently which a radio reporter in Alabama asked 
me about. People are transferring from the Air Force to the Army. I 
said I didn't know that. I did some checking on it.
  The Air Force has concluded they are 17,000 above their needs, that 
these 17,000 soldiers are excess for the mission they have. So they are 
giving an opportunity to change their MOS, or transfer to the Army, 
which needs more.
  The Navy has discovered it has 7,000 excess.
  I chaired an Armed Services Committee, the Sea Powers Subcommittee, 
and all the new ships that we are building today are using half--maybe 
less than half--the number of sailors to operate them as we used to use 
because of technology, better equipment, and science. We can operate a 
combat warship with half the people he used to have.
  So the Navy is downsizing. They do not want to spend any more money 
than they have to for personnel who aren't critical for their mission 
because they have technological advances they would like, and new ships 
they need to bring on. The Air Force is thinking the same way.
  The Army, of course, is more personnel driven. Although it is quite 
technologically advanced today, all of our soldiers have to be highly 
trained to be able to utilize the technology they have.
  We are already at an increased end strength posture for the Army. The 
numbers I have are around 19,000 above the authorized end strength, but 
that is flexible.
  General Schoomaker says he is not asking for legislation that 
mandates a permanent increase in his end strength. He stated in 
committee, in answers to questions as part of his formal testimony, he 
would prefer not to be mandated to have this end strength increase, but 
because we are in combat today he has done it and can maintain it. He 
would like to be able to utilize funding from the supplemental to 
maintain that strength. He has said he would prefer we allow him to 
continue to work on his restructuring and see if we cannot create more 
combat brigades that are ready to be deployed, fully equipped, and 
highly trained.
  Frankly, in years past, we have had more soldiers than we have had 
equipment and training. The Europeans are being criticized by the 
United States, and in their own self-evaluations, for bringing on large 
numbers of draftees and others who stay just for a short period of 
time. They are not highly trained and not highly equipped and are 
spending a lot of money, but the soldiers are not deployable to serious 
combat situations. Their ability to deploy and actively participate in 
combat is far less than it should be.
  If we think about the rain barrel analogy of General Schoomaker, we 
think about the ability to move personnel numbers from the other 
services, which can be an important part of our restructuring and 
improvement in our defense forces, we may find that we can make more 
progress than we think. That is certainly my goal.

[[Page 12665]]

  Our Guard and Reserve are performing exceedingly well. I visited them 
in Iraq. I know some military police and the Guard unit have been 
criticized for unacceptable behavior in the Abu Ghraib prison. I 
visited an Alabama National Guard MP unit in Baghdad. Every day our 
soldiers were going to a local MP unit. They were working with the 
local Iraqis. They told me they bonded with them. They walked out on 
patrol with them. They taught them how to investigate crimes. They 
taught them all they knew about law enforcement. Forty percent of those 
guardsmen--many of them 40 years of age--were State troopers and police 
officers in Alabama. They are well trained in how to handle people, how 
to deal with crowds, how to maintain order, how to handle traffic 
tickets, and investigate crimes.
  Our Guard and Reserve are important. They can absolutely supplement 
our Active-Duty forces, and should. We should not create a system or 
expect we have to do all our work with only Active-Duty soldiers. They 
certainly can do that. I don't think anyone is suggesting to the 
contrary.
  So we have one national defense system. We have one Army, Guard, and 
Reserve today. We need to continue to transform and restructure that 
entity so we have a structure that is sufficient to meet the demands. 
But we also are lean and well paid and well trained. It does no good to 
add a bunch of soldiers to the military if we are not going to add 
training capability, if we are not going to add equipment, if they are 
not trained on the best helicopters, if they are not trained with the 
best missiles, or trained with the best computer systems and do not 
know how to access our global hawk and other satellite systems that 
provide intelligence. If we do not do that, we are not as successful as 
we should be.
  At a NATO conference not long ago, a year or so ago after the Iraq 
war, a French rapporteur reported on it. He said the conclusion that 
one would draw from the war in Iraq is that a smaller, technologically 
advanced, well-trained military can defeat a much larger military not 
well-trained and not technologically advanced.
  As we work to make sure we do everything possible for our Army, 
everything possible for our Guard and Reserve, we must make sure they 
have the best pay possible, make sure they have the best benefits 
possible. I will offer an amendment in a few minutes on that. We must 
make sure they are trained with the best equipment possible, so when 
they are on the battlefield, they have the ability to inflict the 
greatest military force on the enemy and be as protected as is 
possible.
  That is where we are. Hopefully, on this amendment, we have reached 
an accord we can all live with. Many people want to do something for 
our Army because they are so proud of them and they know how tough the 
duty is in Iraq. They have seen their neighbors go off in the Guard and 
Reserve to serve in Iraq or Afghanistan. They want to do something for 
them. It does sound like maybe one of the best things we could do is 
increase the numbers. I am not sure we ought to rush too fast. We need 
to be thoughtful and cautious as we go that way. We need to listen to 
General Schoomaker. He has not asked for permanent increases in end 
strength, although he is up now pushing 20,000, as I understand it, 
above the authorized end strength.
  If we do all that is necessary to bring efficiency to bear and we 
reward our soldiers for their terrific performance, we will have met 
our challenge.
  I see Senator Reed, a West Point graduate. He understands the 
military. It is a pleasure to serve with him on the Armed Services 
Committee.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. I thank the Senator from Alabama for his kind words also.
  We are all in agreement that there is tremendous stress on our Army. 
Let me suggest this chart shows the deployments in Operations Iraqi 
Freedom and Enduring Freedom projected not just over the next several 
months but actually into 2007. The dark green demonstrates the actual 
planned deployment today, the projection of February 2004. On July 19, 
2003, last year, these are the force projected, brigades equivalents.
  It was projected for July of 2004 we would be roughly at about 8 
brigade equivalents. Today in Iraq and Afghanistan there are 18 
brigades, more than twice as many soldiers, or about 130,000-plus 
soldiers in these two operations.
  This is not just a spike. This is, as you can see on the chart, a 
plateau. We are expected, under the projections today, to have 17 
brigades all the way out to the end of 2005, the beginning of January 
of 2006. They come down a little bit if things stabilize a bit in March 
of 2006, to around 13 or 14 brigades.
  This is a long way out to project. So far, if we look at the 
projections, we have ended up with more troops needed than what we 
thought we could entertain.
  My point is that this is not a temporary spike in requirements for 
soldiers in the U.S. Army. This stretches out to 2007, 3 years from 
now. It is entirely appropriate we put this number into the Defense 
bill, that we do not simply give some emergency powers to the Secretary 
of Defense.
  The challenge we have going forward--we have met the challenge this 
year by tapping into that emergency fund, but the challenge going 
forward is giving the Army the resources in succeeding budgets in their 
own bottom line so they can continue to field these forces. That is 
what we are projecting today. It is not as if in 6 months we will be 
fine, Iraq will be resolved, Afghanistan will be resolved, we will be 
back to a low level of participation.
  Our planners' best thoughts today are for 17 brigades for a long 
time. So that is what is at the heart of the amendment I have proposed, 
along with Senator McCain, Senator Hagel, Senator Corzine, Senator 
Akaka, and Senator Biden. I believe we are taking a very important step 
by putting the end strength number in our authorization bill, not as an 
emergency but as a reality, as a near- and medium-term reality. That is 
what this chart says. Three years from now we are going to have to 
still find troops to put in about 14 or 15 brigades in these 2 
operations.
  But the issue that is still outstanding--not this year because we 
have bridged it with the emergency funding--is, how do we build up the 
resources within the Army budget to carry these soldiers forward 2 and 
3 years hence? We will be working on that, obviously, over the next few 
weeks into conference and beyond.
  I know there are other colleagues--Senator McCain, Senator Hagel, and 
others--who might want to talk. We have made arrangements prior to the 
vote for 10 minutes, which I would gladly offer to them for their 
comments.
  Mr. President, may I inquire how much time I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes 38 seconds.
  Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President. I reserve the remainder of my 
time and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, how much time remains on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes 40 seconds.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Three minutes.
  Mr. President, I would just share for our colleagues some other 
things that are happening. There is a serious effort to restructure our 
forces that also includes looking at our troop strength deployed abroad 
in a number of different areas. I think we have 37,000 soldiers in 
South Korea. I believe that number is larger than it needs to be. The 
military is looking at what they can do to reorganize those forces 
there and bring some of them home.
  I believe, having visited 12 military installations in Europe just 
within the last 2 months, we can bring home substantial numbers of our 
troops from there. In fact, I think it would be a mistake if we do not 
bring home two divisions. Probably 40,000 Army soldiers and their 
dependents could be brought home from Europe. It is not necessary to 
maintain that kind of strength abroad.

[[Page 12666]]

  So there are a lot of things we can do to make life easier for our 
soldiers. General Schoomaker would like to see a soldier be able to go 
to a military base with his family and stay there 7 years, and be 
promoted and stay with a unit and improve his technical skills and his 
unit cohesion before being moved again. Those are goals we need to seek 
so we will be even better in capability, and it will also be good for 
the soldiers and their families.
  I reserve the remainder of the time and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Reed 
amendment. Yesterday, in USA Today: ``Army division sees its war tour 
extended and its casualties rise,'' a very interesting front-page story 
in USA Today, entitled: ``13 months on the ground in Iraq.'' It says: 
``After more than a year of combat, soldiers of the 1st Armored 
Division wonder when they'll go home.''
  There are some interesting comments in this article from individuals:

       ``The option left to the nation, the Army, was to keep 1st 
     Armored here or pretty much concede defeat,'' says Lt. Col. 
     T.C. Williams, the battalion commander. Soldiers were 
     disappointed, he says, but they also knew that after a year 
     in Iraq, they were prepared for anything. ``Nobody does this 
     better than we do,'' he says.

  I am sure he is correct.
  There are other quotes:

       ``We still have a mission we have to accomplish, for the 
     good of the Iraqi people and the future,'' says Staff Sgt. 
     Brad Watson. . . .
       But these soldiers don't hide their concern that their 
     extension has been violent, hard on their families, and left 
     them wondering how things could have been.
       ``Gosh, we could have got out of here in 12 months with 
     little or no casualties, and all of a sudden 17 people in 
     your platoon become a casualty?'' Watson says, ``It's 
     something I never dreamed could happen.''

  The point of the story is there are some very brave young Americans 
who have had to remain in Iraq. There are also stories about the so-
called stop-loss rule, which has been imposed, which prohibits people 
from leaving the military at the time when they are supposed to, which 
I think some could argue is some form of conscription, of a draft.
  What we are doing is we are stopping men and women in the Army and in 
the Marine Corps from leaving the service at the time of the expiration 
of their contract. So we are involuntarily keeping people in the 
military. And instead of the draft applying to all Americans--
conscription--we are basically penalizing those people who volunteered 
to serve, which, in my view, is the worst of all worlds.
  The reason why we are in trouble in Iraq and in as much trouble as we 
are in today and having the difficulties we are having today is because 
after the conclusion of the combat phase of the war we had too few 
boots on the ground in Iraq. Anyone outside of the Pentagon, with rare 
exception--any retired general will tell you that we did not have 
enough people on the ground to pacify the situation, stop the looting, 
stop the resurrection of the Baathists, stop the beginning of an 
insurgency. We had a window of opportunity to do so. We did not have 
enough people on the ground. And now we are paying a very heavy price 
for that incredible mistake on the part of the civilian leadership in 
the Pentagon.
  And why were they so reluctant to send additional troops? The dirty 
little secret is, they did not have them. Do you think we are taking 
troops out of Korea to deploy to Iraq because the situation has gotten 
better in Korea? The last time I checked, the North Koreans posed an 
even greater threat and are acting in a more intransigent fashion than 
ever before. But we are having to take thousands of people out of 
deployment in Korea and move them to Iraq.
  Meanwhile, we see people who are guardsmen and reservists who are 
going back and back and back. Now, I have had the opportunity of 
meeting and talking to many. In fact, 40 percent or 55,000 of the 
soldiers currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are guardsmen and 
reservists. They are wonderful. They are magnificent people. But they 
did not join the Guard and Reserves to be deployed every other year to 
Afghanistan or Iraq.
  When we look at the training of the soldiers who were assigned to the 
prison in Abu Ghraib, they were people who were involuntarily extended 
and had no real training in carrying out the functions they were 
supposed to at that prison--again, a very heavy price, a very heavy 
price.
  Mistakes happen in conflicts. That is why we try to avoid them. But a 
fundamental error that is still not corrected--still not corrected--is 
the shortage of the military on the ground with the kinds of 
specialties and skills that are so badly needed: special forces, 
military police, linguists, civil affairs, and others who simply are 
not there today. And we see in some cases a chaotic situation in some 
parts around Baghdad and in the Sunni Triangle.
  So I regret that we are here on the floor of the Senate having to 
force an increase in the size of the Army on the Department of Defense. 
As I say, literally every retired military officer I have talked to has 
said--and every military expert says--you do not have a large enough 
Army. I recently talked to one retired general who said: I have a fear 
of not enough people in Iraq and that we are not able to do the job.
  But my far greater fear and nightmare is that we have something in 
Korea, something between China and Taiwan, something in our own 
hemisphere like significant unrest in Venezuela or a significant 
commitment we might have to make on the continent of Africa. We don't 
have the people to do it.
  I hope we will support the Reed amendment. I hope the Pentagon and 
the civilian leadership there will come to their senses and recognize 
that there are not enough men and women in the military today. They are 
magnificent, but there are not enough of them. They are stretched too 
thin. They are badly overworked, and we have paid a very heavy price 
for these failings from the beginning of the Iraqi conflict.
  I still believe we can win and must win, but long ago we should have 
repaired this deficiency in the size of the Army and the Marine Corps.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). All time has expired.
  Mr. WARNER. Have we pretty well resolved this? The Senator from 
Arizona and the Senator from Alabama, have we taken adequate time over 
here for our colleagues who have been in strong support? I think we 
have reached a conclusion on this matter. We will not need that extra 
tranche of time.
  Mr. REED. If the Senator will yield, I believe we were waiting for 
Senator Hagel, another cosponsor.
  Mr. WARNER. I think we should allow some time for Senator Hagel. We 
will make that time available.
  Mr. REED. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 10 minutes available prior to the 
vote.
  Mr. WARNER. Then let's hope Mr. Hagel can make it.
  Mr. REID. Under the order, the Sessions amendment is now in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. BIDEN. May I have 10 seconds on the Reed amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I can't think of a more important amendment 
we are going to vote on than the Reed amendment. I am a principal 
cosponsor. I believe it is overdue. I hope to the Lord we go ahead and 
do the right thing here and support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order the Senator from 
Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, after the amendment is reported, I wonder if 
I could speak first. I am going to use 15 minutes on another subject. 
It will take a few minutes. I would like to go do something else.
  Mr. WARNER. Absolutely, Mr. President.
  Mr. REID. Is that OK with Senator Sessions?
  Mr. SESSIONS. It is all right with me. I know Senator Chambliss 
wanted to speak also.

[[Page 12667]]


  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think this might be an appropriate time 
that I would like to urge adoption of my amendment in the second degree 
to the Reed amendment.
  Mr. REID. I think that is totally appropriate.
  Mr. WARNER. Let's have that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the second-
degree amendment No. 3450, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 3450) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. 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. WARNER. This amendment has the strong support of the Senator from 
Virginia.
  I thank the Chair.


                           Amendment No. 3371

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, does the Senator from Nevada want 15 
minutes right now?
  Mr. REID. I am going to use 15 minutes. It has nothing to do with 
your amendment. We have 15 minutes, but we weren't going to oppose your 
amendment anyway. I would like to take my few minutes now.
  Mr. SESSIONS. All right. So you want the full 15 minutes?
  Mr. REID. I don't know how much time I will use. I don't think I will 
use near that amount.
  Mr. WARNER. If the Senator will yield, I am advised by the 
parliamentarians that we may need to put in on the Reed amendment now 
that there are no further amendments, second degree or otherwise, in 
order on that amendment. The desk asked me to check that.
  Mr. REID. That was part of the original order. Would the Chair ask 
that the Sessions amendment be called up now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3371.

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

  (Purpose: To provide for increased support of survivors of deceased 
                   members of the uniformed services)

       On page 130, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:

     SEC. 642. DEATH BENEFITS ENHANCEMENT.

       (a) Final Actions on Fiscal Year 2004 Death Benefits 
     Study.--(1) Congress finds that the study of the Federal 
     death benefits for survivors of deceased members of the Armed 
     Forces under section 647 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 has given Congress 
     sufficient insight to initiate action to provide for the 
     enhancement of the current set of death benefits that are 
     provided under law for the survivors.
       (2) The Secretary of Defense shall expedite the completion 
     and submission of the final report, which was due on March 1, 
     2004, under section 647 of the National Defense Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 2004.
       (3) It is the sense of Congress that the President should 
     promptly submit to Congress any recommendation for 
     legislation, together with a request for appropriations, that 
     the President determines necessary to implement the death 
     benefits enhancements that are recommended in the final 
     report under section 647 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004.
       (b) Fiscal Year 2005 Actions.--At the same time that the 
     President submits to Congress the budget for fiscal year 2006 
     under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, the 
     President, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, 
     shall submit to Congress a draft of legislation to provide 
     enhanced death benefits for survivors of deceased members of 
     the uniformed services. The draft legislation shall include 
     provisions for the following:
       (1) Revision of the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance 
     program to provide for--
       (A) an increase of the maximum benefit provided under 
     Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance to $350,000, together 
     with an increase, each fiscal year, by the same overall 
     average percentage increase that takes effect during such 
     fiscal year in the rates of basic pay under section 204 of 
     title 37, United States Code; and
       (B) a minimum benefit of $100,000 at no cost to the insured 
     members of the uniformed services who elect the maximum 
     coverage, together with an increase in such minimum benefit 
     each fiscal year by the same percentage increase as is 
     described in subparagraph (A).
       (2) An increase, each fiscal year, of the amount of the 
     death gratuity provided under section 1478 of title 10, 
     United States Code, by the same overall average percentage 
     increase that takes effect during such fiscal year in the 
     rates of basic pay under section 204 of title 37, United 
     States Code.
       (3) An additional set of death benefits for each member of 
     the uniformed services who dies in the line of duty while on 
     active duty that includes, at a minimum, an additional death 
     gratuity in the amount that--
       (A) in the case of a member not described in subparagraph 
     (B), is equal to the sum of--
       (i) the total amount of the basic pay to which the deceased 
     member would have been entitled under section 204 of title 
     37, United States Code, if the member had not died and had 
     continued to serve on active duty for an additional year; and
       (ii) the total amount of all allowances and special pays 
     that the member would have been entitled to receive under 
     title 37, United States Code, over the one-year period 
     beginning on the member's date of death if the member had not 
     died and had continued to serve on active duty for an 
     additional year with the unit to which the member was 
     assigned or detailed on such date; and
       (B) in the case of a member who dies as a result of an 
     injury caused by or incurred while exposed to hostile action 
     (including any hostile fire or explosion and any hostile 
     action from a terrorist source), is equal to twice the amount 
     calculated under subparagraph (A).
       (4) Any other new death benefits or enhancement of existing 
     death benefits that the President recommends.
       (5) Retroactive applicability of the benefits referred to 
     in paragraphs (1) through (4) so as to provide the benefits--
       (A) for members of the uniformed services who die in line 
     of duty on or after October 7, 2001, of a cause incurred or 
     aggravated while deployed in support of Operation Enduring 
     Freedom; and
       (B) for members of the uniformed services who die in line 
     of duty on or after March 19, 2003, of a cause incurred or 
     aggravated while deployed in support of Operation Iraqi 
     Freedom.
       (c) Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Submission.--The budget for 
     fiscal year 2006 that is submitted to Congress under section 
     1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, shall include the 
     following:
       (1) The amounts that would be necessary for funding the 
     benefits covered by the draft legislation required to be 
     submitted under subsection (b).
       (2) The amounts that would be necessary for funding the 
     organizational and administrative enhancements, including 
     increased personnel, that are necessary to ensure efficient 
     and effective administration and timely payment of the 
     benefits provided for in the draft legislation.
       (d) Early Submission of Proposal for Additional Death 
     Benefits.--Congress urges the President to submit the draft 
     of legislation for the additional set of death benefits under 
     paragraph (3) of subsection (b) before the time for 
     submission required under that subsection and as soon as is 
     practicable after the date of the enactment of this Act.


                             Enron Deja Vu

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of my two friends. 
I have been here all day, and I have to leave the floor for a few 
minutes.
  ``You have seen that before.'' That is what deja vu means, so I am 
told. We have seen it before. We in Nevada have the second highest gas 
prices in the whole country. They have soared to record levels. The oil 
companies say these price increases are a matter of supply and demand. 
I have heard that before. I remember now that is the same excuse we 
heard 4 years ago during the western electricity crisis when Nevada 
consumers were being ripped off by one of the most ravenous corporate 
swindlers in history--Enron.
  While Enron reaped windfall profits, it told consumers the record 
high prices were the result of supply and demand. But it turned out 
Enron was rigging the market to rob consumers. Over the last few weeks, 
bit by bit, audiotape recordings of Enron traders have come to light in 
various ways, chiefly through CBS News.
  I am reminded of Senator Jesse Helms. I was a new Senator, and Jesse 
Helms sat back here. He stood and said: I don't want to be here. It was 
the pornography issue. He said: I hate to talk about this kind of 
stuff, but I have to. And the stuff he proceeded to talk about was 
pretty gross, to be honest with you.
  Well, I hate to point to this chart, this audiotape today that CBS 
played

[[Page 12668]]

last night on the news, but I am going to because it fully outlines 
what Enron did to the people of the State of Nevada and people in other 
parts of the Western United States.
  Here is a direct quote from one of the Enron traders, one of the 
people who caused these prices to go up. He worked for Enron:

       I want to see what pain and heartache this is going to 
     cause Nevada Power Company.

  This Enron trader goes on to say:

       I want to . . .

  Everyone can see as well as I can the next word. I am not going to 
repeat it. It starts with ``f'' and ends with a ``k.''

       I want to . . . with Nevada for a while.

  Second trader says:

       What do you mean?

  And the first trader says:

       I just, I'm still in the mood to screw with people, OK?

  Enron traders had all kinds of ways to cheat customers. They shipped 
power from California to Oregon, masked the original source of the 
power, and then sold it back to California at inflated rates. This 
little scheme, this one right here, made Enron a profit of $222,678 in 
3 hours. Enron traders also boast on the tapes that Enron CEO Ken Lay 
will wield a lot of influence in the Bush administration. They were 
right about that.
  A few weeks ago the Washington Post reported on the influence of the 
people who raised large amounts of money for the President's campaign. 
One of those big fundraisers was Ken Lay--the President gave him a 
nickname of Kenny Boy--who served on the administration's Energy 
Department transition team, if you can believe that, and recommended 
two of the members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, known 
as FERC.
  After Enron gouged western consumers, utilities in Nevada and other 
States turned to FERC for help. Remember, two of them came from Kenny 
Boy. But FERC ruled in favor of Enron and against providing relief to 
Nevada utilities and taxpayers.
  Adding injury to insult, last fall the bankruptcy court ruled that 
Nevada taxpayers owe Enron an additional $330 million for power Enron 
never even delivered. Our utilities have asked FERC to hear the case. 
Senator Ensign and I have submitted a brief in support of their 
complaint. Now I am also joining with western Senators and requesting 
that FERC vacate the exorbitant contracts that were signed during the 
manipulated energy crisis.
  The parallel between the western electricity crisis and today's 
gasoline market is troubling, to say the least. The big oil companies 
are making record profits of up to 75 cents a gallon for a fill-up of a 
car in Nevada. For 10 gallons, that is a profit of $7.50. The big oil 
companies are making these record profits, which come out of the 
pockets of working families in Nevada.
  I am afraid I am not the only one feeling, as we stated earlier, that 
I have seen this before, deja vu. Nevada consumers know they are 
getting gouged again and it is not a good feeling.
  I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Georgia and the Senator 
from Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I yield time to the Senator from 
Georgia, who chairs the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Armed Services 
Committee, on which the Presiding Officer also serves. I value his 
judgment on this issue and appreciate his support for this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from our 
neighboring State of Alabama for his terrific interest in our brave men 
and women who serve in every branch of our military. At this time, when 
we have so many men and women in harm's way, it is very appropriate 
that leadership come from this body. Senator Sessions has provided the 
kind of leadership that our men and women have come to expect.
  Today, I rise in support of the amendment Senator Sessions has 
proposed. This amendment will provide a much needed revision of the 
Department of Defense's current policies related to providing benefits 
to the families of service members who make the ultimate sacrifice for 
their country.
  The DOD's current death benefit policies have been in place, without 
any substantial revision, for some time now. These benefits have not 
kept pace with the times and, in particular, the needs of military 
families in the event the primary provider dies in the line of duty.
  Obviously, these events are extremely difficult for any family. They 
are painful times for military families. I agree that we need to expand 
the benefits these families receive under those circumstances.
  Specifically, this amendment directs the administration to expedite 
the final death benefits study that is currently working its way 
through the DOD. This study was due to Congress on March 1 of this year 
but has still not been delivered.
  The amendment also indexes increases in the current death gratuity 
benefit of $12,000 to the same rate as the basic pay increase, which is 
3.5 percent, beginning in fiscal year 2005. Beginning in fiscal year 
2006, the amendment increases the maximum coverage under the 
Serviceman's Group Life Insurance program by $100,000, from $250,000 to 
$350,000, and indexing future indexes in the SGLI at the same rate as 
the basic pay increase; and it provides that the Government shall pay 
the premium on the first $100,000 of this life insurance.
  The amendment creates two new benefits, which I believe are much 
deserved. First, it allows for the payment of one year's salary and 
benefits to soldiers who die while on active duty, 2 year's pay in 
salary and benefits to soldiers killed in action or in a hostile or 
terrorist event.
  The amendment, as drafted, does not violate any budget points of 
order and allows the Department of Defense necessary time to 
incorporate the costs and implementation of this program in the fiscal 
year 2006 budget.
  We have just had a thorough discussion by Senator Reed and Senator 
Sessions regarding the increase of troop strength. I am so respectful 
to folks such as Senator Reed, Senator McCain, as well as Senator 
Sessions on that particular issue. I agree with them on that issue. We 
do need to increase the size of the force structure. We need to be able 
to continue to do that under the current all-volunteer system that we 
have. If we are going to have that all-volunteer system compete with 
forces in the outside world, we are going to have to continue to look 
at the benefits we provide to our brave men and women. This amendment 
does that.
  It adds an additional benefit to our men and women that they don't 
have today, and it certainly will be of help to our recruiters from the 
standpoint of continuing to allow them to recruit our finest men and 
women in America into the military.
  Secondly, we will be able to retain the men and women that we invest 
so much money in, from the standpoint of making sure they have the 
equipment and training necessary to continue to defend freedom and 
democracy around the world.
  So I commend very highly my friend from Alabama, and I thank him for 
his great leadership. I am pleased to join in this amendment. I ask my 
colleagues to support it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia and 
also my cosponsors, Senators Joe Lieberman and Jim Inhofe.
  When we ask American soldiers to leave our shores to go abroad in a 
combat environment to execute the policies of the people of the United 
States of America, we need them to know, and Americans want them to 
know, that if their life is lost in that effort, their families are 
going to be well taken care of. We have a lot of private groups that 
work at this, but it is most important that the Federal Government have 
in place policies that would allow their loved ones to be fully and 
adequately compensated.

[[Page 12669]]

  Last year we increased the basic death gratuity from $6,000 to 
$12,000. That was an improvement. It doubled. It is important that we 
have indexed that to inflation, and it is still not nearly enough for a 
family today. So we looked at the Serviceman's Group Life Insurance 
policy, which is somewhat subsidized by the Government, but it is paid 
for by the soldiers. They take out up to $250,000 in life insurance. 
Many young soldiers don't like that $16 a month or so that comes out of 
their paycheck. They sometimes don't choose to take it out. We want to 
encourage more people to take on that benefit--take out the maximum 
life insurance so the military will now, under this amendment, if 
approved, have an additional $100,000 in life insurance fully paid for 
by the Government, if the soldier takes out his life insurance part. I 
think that will encourage more people to sign up and provide a much 
larger benefit package for them. Those are some of the issues that we 
were concerned about.
  Years ago, soldiers got a year's salary if they lost their life. That 
was changed as part of the life insurance package a number of years 
ago. I think the Senate believed that we needed to guarantee a person's 
salary for the year they worked if they are hurt during an Active-Duty 
accident--not in combat. For 1 year, they will get their salary and 
benefits paid. Those killed in combat, because they were serving their 
country in a hostile environment, would have 2 years of salary paid for 
them.
  Those are the kinds of things that can make a real difference in the 
life of a family. Families will not need to worry about where their 
next meal is going to come from if they have enough money to take on 
new housing and move, and maybe for expenses in putting children in 
school, and all those things that go with the tragic loss of a loved 
one. We need to make sure they are fully taken care of in that regard, 
and this amendment would do that.
  I cannot say again how strongly I believe we should do the right 
thing by those soldiers who give their lives for their country. In my 
State of Alabama, I have talked to over 20 families who have lost a 
loved one since the war on terrorism began. I have talked to husbands, 
wives, fathers, and mothers. We have talked to them about the loved 
ones they have lost--their children. I have been to funerals. Those are 
things that are very meaningful to anybody who has had that experience.
  I feel a special responsibility, as I think every Senator does, to 
those soldiers who went because we voted to send them there; we asked 
them to go for us.
  I think this is a good first step toward achieving the compensation 
that families need. There are other compensation benefits they receive, 
such as benefits for children, income for spouses that are in law, but 
this is a lump sum that can help a family adjust and establish a life 
under new and different circumstances and help them get through the 
tragic period of pain and loss they inevitably will have to go through.
  We asked that the Defense Department do a study for us on their ideas 
and evaluate the current system for fairness and workability. They did 
not complete that report. We have seen a draft of that report. It was 
supposed to have come in March. It has not officially been completed.
  I will say this: I think it is quite likely that after we evaluate 
that report, we may want to come back again next year to do some other 
things to bring more fairness and more support to the families who lost 
a loved one in the service of their country. There is no higher service 
that one can render than to give their life for their country.
  We have lost a good number of soldiers. We have lost them in the 
past, and we are losing them in this war on terrorism. I feel strongly 
that our obligation includes making sure those families left behind are 
well taken care of.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? If no one yields time, time 
will be charged equally to both sides.
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, there is one point I want to make clear. 
The act provides for retroactivity of the salary benefits. With regard 
to soldiers who lost their life in combat since the beginning of the 
Afghan war or in terrorist acts, their families will receive 2-year's 
salary and benefits retroactive to the loss, as well as being a part of 
future benefits for those soldiers who lose their lives in the future.
  To reiterate, I ask my colleagues in the Senate to consider that we 
have before us an opportunity to correct what has been for many a 
longstanding inequity for our military, the paucity of our death 
benefits programs for our soldiers killed in combat.
  We began to make a difference when in the fiscal year 2004 Defense 
Authorization Act, this Senate offered and the Congress passed the 
provision to improve the death gratuity from $6,000 to $12,000. This 
was an important improvement, but more can be and needs to be done. To 
that end, I offer this amendment that begins the process of enhancing 
our death benefits program to bring it more in line with the 
significance I believe we all attach to the sacrifices made by our 
military and their families.
  This amendment asks the President and the Secretary of Defense, 
working with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to submit enhanced 
death benefits for our military and their families as part of the 
fiscal year 2006 budget request. We expect the next budget in just 8 
months. This will give the Department time to deliver the final report 
on the death benefits from the study we directed in the fiscal year 
2004 Authorization Act.
  There are specific areas where the death benefits provisions are in 
need of improvement. The Veterans Administration reached similar 
conclusions in a 2001 study, and I am confident that the compensation 
teams working on these issues in the Defense Department are equally 
convinced that we need changes.
  Among the changes is an increase to the Servicemen's Group Life 
Insurance maximum benefit to $350,000. The Department of Defense would 
also provide a minimum floor of Servicemen's Group Life Insurance of 
$100,000 for every servicemember at no cost provided that members 
selected the maximum amount of $350,000.
  I felt great anguish that some of our troops were not selecting the 
insurance due to the cost or perhaps a lack of understanding about the 
risks of serving in our military and or the benefits of this program. 
It may seem hard to believe, but saving $16.25 per month, the current 
fee to receive the current maximum $250,000 benefit, may appear to be 
an important financial decision for some, especially our more junior 
troops. This change makes the insurance a more attractive option.
  The amendment will direct in fiscal year 2005 indexing the current 
death gratuity to the same rate as the basic pay increase. It further 
asks the Defense Department, beginning in fiscal year 2006, to index 
Servicemen's Group Life Insurance to the same percentages to which 
basic pay increases. This is important to ensuring that the benefit 
does not erode over time like the death gratuity benefit clearly did.
  Further, this amendment makes possible for the first time a benefit 
to ease the transition as well as to clearly recognize the sacrifice of 
military members killed due to hostile or terrorist actions. For the 
family left behind, there is no greater tragedy than loved ones lost in 
combat.
  It is clear that service aboard our ships, in our aircraft and around 
our mechanized equipment is a hazardous vocation. Our troops work with 
live ammunition and in environments so very different and inherently 
dangerous when compared to many other occupations. When troops are lost 
in training accidents or in service-connected events, we should 
recognize that risk and provide benefits accordingly. The amendment 
would authorize one full year of salary and benefits to those lost in 
the service of their country to recognize the hazardous nature of the 
work performed by the military.
  Similar in intent to procedures in other militaries, such as Canada 
and

[[Page 12670]]

the UK, and in many U.S. States and cities, this amendment provides an 
increased benefit for members killed in hostile acts. I have 
recommended 2 years salary and allowances for those lost in hostile 
situations. The Defense Department, by a DoD instruction, already makes 
a determination if a casualty resulted from hostile actions for every 
member of the military who is lost on active duty.
  By comparison, the surviving dependents of a police officer or 
firefighter killed in the line of duty receive $267,494 under the 
Public Safety Officers Benefits Act. This benefit has been indexed to 
correct for inflation and sends a clear signal to our Nation about the 
value of these leaders of our citizenry. The military is no less valued 
and this benefit, along with the other provisions in existence and the 
enhancements in this amendment reflect our Nation's appreciation.
  These provisions are similar in intent to the Public Safety Officers 
Benefits Act of 1976 which acknowledges the risks faced by our police 
officers and firemen. This amendment acknowledges the risks of military 
service and helps those left behind with transition assistance.
  Anyone who witnessed the bravery of our police and fire personnel on 
9/11 and who saw the memorable pictures from that day was profoundly 
struck by how wonderful these heroes were and how willing they were to 
go into harm's way. Our soldiers are no less brave. I have visited our 
wounded heroes at Walter Reed Hospital recently and, like our police 
and fire personnel, our military is extraordinary for their bravery. 
This is especially the case for those who pay the ultimate price and 
die in the service of their country.
  I would add that in 1908, the 60th Congress saw fit to authorize 6 
months of pay as a death gratuity, and in 1917, the 65th Congress 
repealed this law in favor of a Government life insurance program. In 
retrospect, I think the 60th Congress had it correct.
  A key feature of this amendment is that the recognition benefits--the 
one year or two year salary compensation--are to be retroactive for 
those who were lost in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation Enduring 
Freedom. We owe this recognition to those troops who went abroad to 
defend our freedoms.
  This amendment also provides an opportunity for the President to 
recommend any other benefits he deems appropriate. The amendment does 
not impact the plan for fiscal year 2005, except for beginning to index 
the $12,000 death gratuity. This will, I believe, give the Defense 
Department some time to finalize its approach to these changes. The 
intent of this legislation is to ensure that as part of the fiscal year 
2006 budget request, which is due to us in 8 months, that the budget 
request we receive will incorporate these measures. This gives the 
administration time to expedite the final report, gather the 
appropriate accounts together, and to provide to the Congress the 
legislative initiatives and supporting regulations to substantially 
improve our death benefits programs. We owe our brave men and women no 
less.
  I yield the floor. Mr. President, I believe no one else is seeking to 
speak on this subject, so I yield back all the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3371.
  The amendment (No. 3371) was agreed to.
  Mr. SESSIONS. 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. BIDEN. 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. BIDEN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. Is the Biden 
amendment in order at this moment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is.
  Mr. BIDEN. Further parliamentary inquiry: Is there a copy of the 
amendment at the desk?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is.


                           Amendment No. 3379

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask that we proceed to amendment No. 
3379.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden] for himself, Mrs. 
     Clinton, Mr. Carper, Mr. Corzine, and Mrs. Feinstein, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3379.

  Mr. BIDEN. 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 funds for the security and stabilization of Iraq 
by suspending a portion of the reduction in the highest income tax rate 
                       for individual taxpayers)

       At the end of subtitle A of title X, add the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Provision of Funds for Security and 
     Stabilization of Iraq Through Partial Suspension of Reduction 
     in Highest Income Tax Rate for Individual Taxpayers.--The 
     table contained in paragraph (2) of section 1(i) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to (relating to 
     reductions in rates after June 30, 2001) is amended to read 
     as follows:
     
___________________________________________________________________________________________

``In the case of  taxable years                      The  corresponding percentages
beginning during calendar year:                        shall be  substituted for
                                                       the following percentages:
                                                      _____________________________________

                                               28%          31%          36%         39.6%
___________________________________________________________________________________________

2001 .......................................   27.5%        30.5%        35.5%       39.1%
2002 .......................................   27.0%        30.0%        35.0%       38.6%
2003 and 2004 ..............................   25.0%        28.0%        33.0%       35.0%
2005 and thereafter .........................  25.0%        28.0%        33.0%       36.0%''.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
     

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2004.
       (c) Application of EGTRRA Sunset to This Section.--The 
     amendment made by this section shall be subject to title IX 
     of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 
     2001 to the same extent and in the same manner as the 
     provision of such Act to which such amendment relates.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, with regard to amendment No. 3379, I ask 
unanimous consent that Senators Carper, Clinton, Corzine, and Feinstein 
be listed as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, my amendment is quite simple and 
straightforward. It is no different in its intent than the amendment I 
offered when the President some months ago requested $87 billion for 
the reconstruction of Iraq, as well as the support of American forces.
  The bottom line is it says we should stop borrowing to cover the cost 
of our mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. If this mission is as important 
as the President says it is--and I believe it is--then we should pay 
for it. We should not make my kids pay for it. We should not make my 
grandchildren pay for it. We should pay for it.
  Before I get into the details of the amendment, because it relates to 
my finding the money to pay for the $25 billion asked for in this 
authorization by the President, let me remind people what the state of 
the Tax Code is now relative to the highest bracket.
  In the year 2001, the highest bracket of individual taxpayers was 
39.6 percent.

[[Page 12671]]

  With President Bush's tax cut that was passed, that bracket, along 
with others, was reduced from 39.6 percent to what it will be and what 
it is in 2004, 35 percent. So it has come down from 39.6 percent to 35 
percent.
  The way the Bush tax cut proposal works, when it became law--and I 
see the chairman of the Finance Committee here who, as the old joke 
goes, has forgotten more about the Tax Code than I am going to know--is 
that top bracket will stay at 35 percent in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 
2009, and 2010. In the taxable year of 2011, under the present status 
of the Tax Code, it will go back to 39.6 percent.
  I realize there is a move in the House and among many here to ``make 
the tax cut permanent'' so the 35-percent tax bracket would remain in 
2011, 2012, 2015, 2018, and so on, but right now, unless it is made 
permanent in the taxable year 2011, it will go back to what it was in 
2001, 39.6 percent.
  One other statistic, to be in this top tax bracket, the people in the 
35-percent tax bracket, which used to be 39.6, have on average a 
taxable income of a million dollars a year. Now, obviously, there are 
people in there making a billion dollars a year, but no one is in that 
bracket unless their taxable income is $319,000.
  That means after all of the deductions are taken, after all of the 
things one is able under the law to deduct, so one is likely to have an 
income of closer to $450,000 or $500,000, they end up with a taxable 
income of $319,000. OK? So it is taxable income.
  That is after one deducts for medical costs they are able to deduct, 
deduct for their children, for all the things one is entitled to 
deduct, and people in that category can deduct for a lot of things that 
average folks do not get to deduct.
  So what does my amendment do? How do we have $25 billion so that 
these bright young pages--and I am not being solicitous; I am not 
joking--sitting down at the base of the podium there, whose average age 
is probably 16 or 17 years old, how do we act responsibly enough to say 
that they should not be paying for this war, that those of us who voted 
for it, my generation, those who are paying taxes now, should pay for 
it?
  What happens with this $25 billion? It is essentially paid for by the 
deficit. This all goes to the deficit. This is going to be paid for. It 
is going to be added. I predict before the year is over--and I do not 
claim to be an expert on our budget, but I have been around long enough 
that I think I am pretty knowledgeable--this year's deficit will end up 
being closer to $600 billion than $500 billion. Everybody knows it is 
going to be over $500 billion. So why are we going to ask them, why are 
we going to ask my granddaughters, who range from age 3 to 10, to pay 
for this war, when we are fully capable of doing it?
  One might say: OK, Biden, how are you going to pay for this war? Are 
you going to take money away from education? Are you going to take 
money away from things that affect these kids? No.
  I am going to ask my colleagues shortly to do what I think every 
patriotic American is fully prepared to do. At the United Way they talk 
about, this guy gave at the office, but what do we give at the office 
in this war? What are any of you people, and what am I, giving at the 
office?
  None of us are in Iraq. We are not in the military. We are not 
getting shot at. We are not away from our families. We are not that 
National Guardsman or Guardswoman who is taking a pay cut of 30, 40, 
sometimes 50 percent to serve their country right now.
  I mean, this is never a healthy thing for a nation. We are in the 
midst of a war when the bulk of America is not asked to do anything 
about it. There are very few people sacrificing for this war. Like our 
grandparents or our parents, no one has asked us to put tape over our 
headlights when we drive at night or use ration cards or have to pay 
higher taxes to support the war. There is no draft.
  So what happens? Well, there are a lot of patriotic, young women and 
men--and some not so young, meaning in their thirties and forties--who 
are over in Iraq right now. What are we doing?
  The idea that if we ask the wealthiest Americans among us to 
contribute to the war effort, that they are unwilling to do that is 
preposterous.
  I sometimes get mad at some in my party--not those on the Senate 
floor but some in my party--and some liberal commentators. What 
frustrates me sometimes is they assume that only poor, middle-class 
people are patriotic; that they are the only ones willing to make 
sacrifices for their country. I am here to say that wealthy Americans, 
the wealthiest among us, the wealthiest 1 percent, are as patriotic as 
the lowest 1 percent.
  In the last time out, when I tried to do this--and I will get to the 
detail in a minute--to pay for the $87 million, I happened to be with a 
group at an exclusive country club in Wilmington, DE. We are a wealthy 
little State. We have some very wealthy people in our State. All States 
do, but as a percentage we have some very wealthy people. I happened to 
be with a group of them for an outing. We got to the time that we had 
the buffet, and it was outside. A couple started asking me about the 
war. The next thing I know, as every Senator knows and as every staffer 
has observed their Senators being engaged, all of a sudden it was like 
a roving press conference. It went from 1 press person to 2, to 5 to 10 
to 15, and all of a sudden there was a group of people standing around. 
Before I knew it, literally, standing outside on this beautiful 
evening, on this patio of this magnificent club, there were no fewer 
than 40, mostly men, who are among the wealthiest--not literally the 
wealthiest, but some were probably in the top 20 or so in my State--
some of the wealthiest people in my State, and they are asking about 
the war.
  I said: Let me ask you all a question--and in fairness I want to 
acknowledge, maybe they were intimidated because no one wanted to be 
the one to say, no, do not count me in, but I said I am going to go 
down to the Senate, and I am going to offer an amendment that would 
require you people right here on this outside patio to give up 1 year 
of the 10 years of your tax cut to pay for this war. Does anybody here 
think that is unfair?
  I give my word, my honor as Biden, not one person raised their hand. 
Then people started to chime in. They said, no, it is fair. They 
started talking about what other people are doing.
  When have we ever gone to war when we simultaneously have suggested, 
as we have gone, to say this is going to be a long, tortuous 
undertaking to fight terror, and at the same time any President in the 
past, some 200-plus years, has said: And by the way, as we go, I am 
going to give you the biggest tax cut in the history of the United 
States of America?
  Now, again, try to be objective about this. Let's assume--I do not, 
but let us assume for the sake of argument that we badly needed this 
tax cut in order to spur on the economy. Let me accept that as a given 
for the sake of this debate.
  I asked these people: Does anyone here think if the top 1 percent of 
the people paying taxes in America were to forego 1 year of the tax cut 
that, in fact, that would slow the economy? The economy would stall? 
Sputter? Assuming they were the reason it was growing. I didn't hear 
anybody tell me that. I have not heard any reputable economists tell me 
that.
  So here I am, back on the floor again, finding it fascinating, 
absolutely fascinating--and I expect this will be voted on party lines 
again--why the overwhelming number of my colleagues, for whom most of 
these wealthy people likely vote, are unwilling to do what the 
wealthiest among us are fully willing to do.
  This time around what I am suggesting is even less ``painful.'' In 
order to come up with $25 billion to pay for this piece of the war in 
Iraq and in Afghanistan, you know the only thing you have to do? You 
have to say: In the year 2005, the tax cut for the wealthiest 1 percent 
of Americans, who in fact cannot have a taxable income less than 
$319,000, will go back up from 35 percent to 36 percent. The 1-percent 
solution.
  I can't fathom any wealthy person in America, even at the low end--
and, by

[[Page 12672]]

the way, the average income of this top 1 percent is over $1 million. I 
can't fathom a single one of these people not having enough patriotic 
instinct to say: No, no, no, no, I am unwilling. I am unwilling to pay, 
in the year 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010, 1 percent more than 
I would otherwise have to pay.
  What does that mean? Does it mean 1 percent less investment in their 
portfolio? Does it mean they buy a Lexus instead of a Mercedes? What 
does it mean? What does it mean?
  While we are now saying, as I think the President probably has no 
choice, to the people who signed up volunteering in the military: No, 
no, you are staying another year because your patriotic responsibility 
is we need you. The President is probably right about that.
  Or he is saying to what will be approaching 40 percent of the forces 
on the ground being shot at or subjected to car bombs in Iraq and 
Afghanistan who are reservists and National Guard: You have to go 
twice.
  He is saying to the physician who is in the Guard, whose income may 
have been $150,000 or $200,000 whose pay as a colonel may be $80,000 
but he still has the same mortgage payment, the same tuition payment, 
the same ``nut'' to pay, as they say: It's your patriotic 
responsibility.
  How can we in this country at this moment say we can ask that of 
those people and we can't say to people whose average income is $1 
million: Do us a favor, pay 1 percent more to pay for this installment 
on the war?
  What have we become? Can you imagine that being said in 1943? No, no, 
no, no, don't ask it of them.
  Can you imagine that being said if the income tax had been in place 
in 1915 or 1916?
  Can you imagine that being the case in the Korean war? Can you 
imagine that?
  What is the second logical argument as to why this is a bad idea? If 
you all agree with me that these Americans are as patriotic as anyone 
else and that it could not possibly hurt them in any material way, then 
you have to say: Here is the deal. This will slow economic recovery. 
This is bad for the economy.
  I got a letter from the Chamber of Commerce saying this is going to 
hurt small business.
  My friend from Iowa is here, the chairman of the committee. As the 
old thing goes--in this case, it is true--he is my friend.
  The Chamber of Commerce says it is going to hurt small business. What 
they mean by that is there are some small businesses that pay their 
taxes as if they were individual taxpayers. Do you know how many of 
them pay at the top 1 percent? Of all the small businesses in America? 
For every 100 small businesspersons in America who claim and pay as 
individuals, 2 percent--t-w-o percent--of them are in this category 
where they would be affected.
  I am sure the Senator will be able to tell me--I suspect he is here 
to engage in debate--how taking 1 percent of the American individual 
taxpayers and asking them to pay 1 percent more in the next 5 years, 
and taking 2 percent of the small businesspersons in America and asking 
them to pay 1 percent more for the next 5 years, when each of them fall 
in a category where they have a taxable income of at least $319,000 a 
year--how this is going to slow the economy.
  I have said this to the President and I have said it publicly--
Senator McCain was on the floor earlier--what I am about to say. 
Senator McCain was on the floor earlier talking about the end strength 
amendment of Senator Reed. He said we need this. He said mistakes 
happen in war. That is why--and he went on from there.
  I believe, and I am confident, this President has made some very 
serious mistakes in the conduct of this war. I am also confident were I 
President I would have made mistakes. I am confident, had it been 
President Gore, he would have made mistakes. I am confident that 
Senator Kerry will make some mistakes if he is President. I don't think 
this President will be judged harshly for the mistakes he has made.
  But I do think history will judge him fairly harshly for the 
opportunities he has squandered. One of the opportunities squandered 
here is the ability to have united this Nation in common purpose after 
9/11.
  Let me ask a rhetorical question. Can you imagine if immediately 
after 9/11, when the President had that big economic summit down in 
Crawford, TX, or near Crawford, with some of the most prominent, 
significant, and patriotic businessmen in America, and some of the most 
wealthy men and women in America--what do you think would have 
happened, as that broke up, if he said: By the way, I want to ask the 
following of all of you. I would ask each one of you in the spirit of 
unity and harmony in this country, when you leave this room after 
hearing me speak, I strongly urge you--I ask you to take out your cell 
phone and call your accountant at home and ask him to go out and find 
four of the most worthy young women and men, eligible for college, who 
are unable to pay for college for 4 years, and commit to pay their 
tuitions.
  Would any of my colleagues on the Senate floor think there would have 
been a single solitary man or woman in that room who would not have 
walked out, dialed up their cell phone, and said to their accountants, 
find those people? I mean it sincerely. I am not joking about this. I 
can't fathom that group of women and men not responding to the call for 
unity--not just to deal with the war on terror but to deal with healing 
and uniting this country. Nothing has been asked of these people, not 
because they have refused, not because they are unwilling, but because 
of an ideological disposition that somehow in any way to alter the tax 
structure beyond what we have just done is ipso facto wrong, bad, 
counterproductive. We are a slave to ideology on this floor.
  There is not a single person in here who can say this $25 billion 
because it is all fungible is not going to be added to the deficit. Why 
don't we pay for it fairly, honestly, and straightforwardly? When have 
we ever succeeded in the great noble causes of this country without 
engaging all segments of society?
  I would make the rhetorical point--I suspect you will not do this, 
but I will make you a bet. If you were to call your State's 10 wealthy 
people who fall into this category and ask them whether they would 
support having to pay at a 36-percent rate rather than a 35-percent 
rate to pay for the war, I am willing to bet you that 8 out of 10 or 
more of them will say, I am willing. I am betting--and I trust all of 
my colleagues would--if you do that, you will come and tell me you 
found in your State more than 2 out of 10 said they wouldn't do that, I 
will buy you dinner anywhere you want to go to dinner. It is on me. My 
financial disclosure statement shows, unfortunately, that I am one of 
the least well positioned in this body to pay for dinner.
  There is something wrong, there is something not sensible about 
failing to be more responsible. How can it be called responsible to say 
we are going to make these pages, these kids, pay the $25 billion? I 
don't get this. Every one of us, Democrats and Republicans, comes to 
the floor of the Senate and talks about the need for a culture of 
responsibility. I truly don't get it, other than ideology.
  I respectfully suggest that if, in fact, we do this to set a 
precedent that engages more people in the outcome of this war on 
terror--I am not making a populist argument--the group that is in the 
top 1 percent will get, out of the total tax cut of $1.8 trillion, 
$88.9 billion.
  Again, I am not making a populist argument. That may be arguably 
justified on the merits. But it is the idea that 1 percent can't give 
up 1 percent of $688.19 billion. It is not even 1 percent; it is 
actually $688.19 billion over 10 years--that they will not give up 1 
percent for 5 of those years. It is the equivalent of asking them to 
give up one-half of 1 percent of that number when 99 percent of the 
American people pay--not all 99 percent; some don't pay taxes--but 99 
percent of the American people get a tax cut of about $1.1 billion 
dollars.

[[Page 12673]]

  A couple of my Republican colleagues have said it is unfair to pick 
on the wealthy. It is not picking on anybody. I am trying to find the 
most equitable way to do this. What I am trying to do is make sure we 
are in a position to act responsibly, and it is not responsible to pile 
the debt upon our children for an endeavor we chose to undertake when 
it is fully within our power to pay for it without in any way being 
unfair to any single group of taxpayers and without having any rational 
argument that it will, in fact, negatively impact on the economy.
  Were I in my 27-year-old populist mode, I would say it is greed. But 
I have learned a lot in my 32 years here. It is that we have not asked. 
For every wealthy group of businessmen and businesswomen in my State 
that I have approached, I have yet to have one tell me there is 
something unfair or unequitable about this.
  I urge my colleagues. I will conclude this portion by saying I urge 
my colleagues to let us be responsible, what I define as responsible. 
It doesn't mean if you disagree you are irresponsible, but let us be 
responsible here. Let us pay for something we can easily pay for and 
not pile more debt for an elective judgment we made in this body--and I 
made it as well--to take on the dictatorship and the maniacal 
leadership of Saddam Hussein, to take down the Taliban, and to seek al-
Qaida in its hovel.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set this 
amendment aside temporarily. I further ask unanimous consent that the 
time not be charged against either side on this amendment for the 
purpose of resolving an amendment discussed earlier today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BIDEN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I am told by 
leadership staff that we have not been able to clear that at this 
moment on the Senate floor. So I would suggest the Senator withhold 
briefly until I find out why there is some doubt. I object, and I say 
to my friend from Missouri that I will find out why in a moment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I guess that is objection to the unanimous 
consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, do I have 20 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 60 minutes allotted to the Senator. 
Out of fairness, I yield myself 20 minutes because there are other 
Members who want to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 20 minutes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. There is a big problem with Senator Biden's amendment. 
Before I go into the problem with Senator Biden's amendment, let me say 
I agree with his concerns about the size of future Iraq funding 
packages. I am concerned about the Federal deficit we are facing on the 
horizon.
  But we also have to realize we are in war. You do not go to war 
unless you go to war to win. If you go to war, you go to war to win. 
You put all the resources behind the men and women that it takes to win 
that war. You do not put their life in danger on the battlefield. It 
may sound like we do not care about future generations, but you don't 
worry about deficits.
  If we worried about deficits in World War II, Hitler would have been 
in New York City. The Japanese would have been in California. They 
would not have stopped at Pearl Harbor. We decided we were going to win 
that war, and we put all the resources behind it.
  For only the first time since Pearl Harbor, we have been attacked. On 
September 11, 3,000 Americans died. We decided we were going to defend 
America. We decided we were going to fight not on American soil, we 
were going to fight on the soil of the people who harbor the terrorists 
who attacked America on September 11. We are going to go to war to win. 
We are going to put the resources behind our men and women. We are not 
going to take any chances.
  I don't find any fault with anyone who talks about deficits. Only if 
they are so concerned about deficits that they do not care if we win 
the war and protect Americans, and the Constitution gives our 
Government that responsibility.
  We also found, as a result of the war, being attacked in America, 
that the economy went into the tank. Out of 2.5 million jobs supposedly 
lost in this recession, 1 million of those jobs were lost 3 months 
after September 11, 2001; not because of the economy but because of war 
and the public not being certain what would happen in the future.
  So we had tax cuts to revive the economy. We have a strong economy. A 
strong economy produces more resources so we can fight the war and win 
the war. The economy is growing. Federal revenues, as a result of these 
tax cuts, returned to their average levels, where they have been for 50 
years, 18 to 19 percent of gross domestic product. We fought the 
Vietnam war and the Persian Gulf war during that period of time. So 18 
to 19 percent of GDP for Federal taxes seems to be a level that does 
not hurt the economy.
  In fact, the economy grows, and it is a level of taxation that people 
have accepted. It is producing the results we need to bring in more 
revenue to close the gap so that we do not have big budget deficits in 
the future.
  On the point of taxes and the point of the budget gap, I note that 
Senator Biden's amendment contains no dedication of the revenue from 
raising taxes to any kind of fund that is oriented toward the war. In 
other words, the amendment simply raises taxes for more spending. The 
implication is on a Defense bill it will go to defense efforts.
  When we hear about sacrifice, I am not sure I hear sacrifice. Let's 
spend less for domestic programs so we can give more to support our men 
and women in uniform. In World War II there were efforts to curtail 
domestic expenditures. We put all of our efforts behind our men and 
women but not, raise taxes, more spending, bread and butter at the same 
time.
  I also point out there are two sides to the Federal ledger. One is 
the revenue side. That is what we take in from the people who work in 
our factories, our offices, and our farms across America. The other 
side of the ledger is the spending side.
  My friends on the other side focus exclusively, as my good friend 
from Delaware has, on the tax side. They look only to taxpayers to put 
our fiscal house in order.
  I agree with the goals of reducing the deficit, but I don't intend to 
hurt the economy through higher taxes and put a damper on the economy. 
I want the economy to grow. The economy is growing. What sort of a 
signal would raising taxes send? Lower taxes one year, raise them the 
next year. How do you get investment that way?
  I disagree that it is all right to look only at the tax side of the 
ledger. Indeed, the Senate approved a bill a little over a month ago 
that included $170 billion in revenue offsets. Republicans, working 
with like-minded Democrats, have been willing to exercise fiscal 
discipline, especially when it comes to closing corporate loopholes and 
curtailing tax shelters.
  I digress for a moment on the subject of offsets. I notice with some 
amusement a story in Congress Daily A.M. dated last month, May 18. The 
story noted the special alchemy in the Finance Committee work in 
formulating offsets. The article went on to quote anonymous lobbyists 
who were frustrated with the Finance Committee production of offsets.
  As a matter of fact, the tax staff at the Finance Committee happens 
to be the only committee personnel putting in work to generate offsets 
to raise revenues, and doing it in a fair way for corporations taking 
the advice of big tax firms, big investment bankers, big accounting 
firms, working together, to think of some miraculous tax loophole that 
is not legal to avoid taxation. That is cheating.
  We are going after the cheaters and bringing in that revenue.

[[Page 12674]]

  The record is clear. We found plenty of revenue raisers. I ask the 
full Senate, who was the last Democrat to propose any savings on this 
spending side? All we have to do is look at Senator Santorum's 
``spendometer,'' that thermometer he has of red ink that adds up every 
Democrat amendment being offered on budgets and otherwise. We know 
where the pressure to spend is.
  How can we in good conscience propose those billions and billions of 
dollars of expenditures--mostly for domestic programs, not to win the 
war in Iraq--and then complain about budget deficits?
  Not a single spending cut is being proposed by those on the other 
side. Maybe back in the mid-1990s, but we have to go back many years. 
All I see is spending increases.
  So if those on the other side want to claim to be fiscal 
disciplinarians, let's see entries on the spending side of the ledger. 
To have credibility, you cannot just go to the American people and ask 
for more money. You know, if I could ever get a reasonable tax 
increase, and have people on the other side of the aisle tell me how 
high taxes had to go to satisfy their appetite to spend money, I might 
just scratch my head and say: Well, maybe we ought to do it if we could 
get a consensus that is as high as taxes are going to go, and we don't 
have to worry about them going any higher. But I have never seen that 
you could raise taxes high enough to satisfy some people in this body 
who want to spend money.
  I am also concerned about the degree to which taxpayers finance 
reconstruction in Iraq on a blank-check basis. I first raised this 
concern almost a year ago. We ought to be very careful about the 
structure of future aid packages.
  Now I will speak specifically about Senator Biden's amendment. He 
says he is seeking to offset the President's war-funding request with a 
tax increase. As I noted above, the text of the amendment simply raises 
taxes for more spending. There is no connection between taxes raised 
and Iraq funding.
  Let's take a look at the tax increase. For 2001, the top rate was 
reduced to 38.6 percent. In the 2003 tax bill, we reduced the top rate 
to 35 percent. Senator Biden's amendment would raise that top rate back 
to 36 percent. The premise of the Biden amendment seems to be that 
taxpayers in the top bracket are solely Park Avenue millionaires. They 
clip coupons, bring in the money, get out their cigars, lean back in 
their chairs, and enjoy life. Well, the facts are somewhat different.
  According to the Treasury Department, about 80 percent of the 
benefits of the top rate go to taxpayers with small business ownership. 
Now, we have had some debates about the definition of ``small 
business.'' Some on the other side define ``small business'' as only 
those businesses with taxable income below, say, $320,000.
  To those folks, a local chain of shoestores, if it makes over 
$320,000--no matter how many folks it employs--is the same, in their 
category, as the Nordstroms or the J.C. Penneys.
  Those of us from the heartland know that the definition of ``small 
business'' does not cut off at, say, $320,000. It depends upon whether 
the business is locally owned. It depends on whether the business 
finances its growth from its own earnings.
  Conversely, to folks from small towns, like me, big businesses are 
generally the companies that finance themselves through big, massive 
bond borrowing or through the stock market.
  The reason the distinction is important for public policy issues, 
such as the level of taxation, is that we value local or regionally 
based businesses. The folks who own those businesses are from that 
community. They go to the local church. They support the local Little 
League. Small business, as I see it, is a stabilizing yet very dynamic 
social force in these communities and makes America what it is today.
  So when I talk about small business, I am not going to use any 
artificially low level of taxable income. I am going to use a 
commonsense definition of what small business is. There is too much at 
stake to demagog the definition.
  When we are considering tax policy, and specifically the tax rate 
applicable to business, we have really two categories. The first 
category is the regular big corporation. Virtually all big businesses, 
that is, publicly traded companies, are taxed under the regular 
corporate rate schedule.
  Small business income is generally taxed at the individual or 
personal level. In most cases, the owner of the small business puts the 
income of the small business on his or her personal tax return.
  As a practical matter, then, the individual tax rate is the rate paid 
by that small business. The corporate tax rate, with some exceptions in 
the case of some older, smaller corporations, generally applies to big 
business. The relationship between the top individual rate and the top 
corporate rate has a bearing on our policy toward small business. If 
the top individual marginal rate is higher than the top corporate 
marginal rate, then we as a society are sending a very bad and negative 
signal about small business, and even to small businesses that exist.
  Before 2001, the top marginal rate for small business was 39.6 
percent. Guess what. If you were a big corporation, the top rate was 35 
percent. We had a penalty against small business. When you look at the 
difference, it was a 15-percent penalty against small business--before 
we changed the tax law last year. So it was a 15-percent small business 
penalty. That was the law. That was our Federal tax policy bias against 
small business.
  In 2001, a bipartisan majority of this Senate, including almost one-
fourth of the Democrats voting with us, voted to gradually equalize the 
top marginal rate between small business and big business, recognizing 
that penalty as being unfair, being anti-entrepreneurial.
  Starting last year, for the first time in many years, the top rate, 
35 percent, is the same for Fortune 500s as it is for successful small 
businesses. Senator Biden's amendment would take the first step to 
restore and perhaps even enhance the 15-percent penalty on small 
business. With all the appetite for taxing and spending around here, 
rest assured, small business would be facing even higher taxes in the 
future because, as I said, you cannot raise taxes high enough on the 
other side of the aisle to satisfy the appetite to spend money.
  I do not quarrel with the notion that taxpayers in the top bracket 
make incomes starting in the range that has been stated of $320,000. A 
lot of these successful small business owners make figures like that. 
But keep in mind, that figure represents the total net income of those 
small businesses. Successful small businesses are those that purchase 
the equipment and hire the new workers.
  I would ask my friends on the other side, those friends who are so 
eager to raise taxes--and not all are--why they are all so reluctant to 
cut spending and eager to increase spending, to focus on the effects of 
their policy on small business, the effects of their policy on 
entrepreneurship in America, because small business creates 80 percent 
of the jobs in this country. Why, at this time, with a recovering job 
market--1.2 million jobs created this year--would we want to put a 
damper on the economic recovery by raising taxes on the very people, 
the very businesses, the very small businesses, that create 80 percent 
of the new jobs?
  Last month, the Senate, by a vote of 92 to 5, approved a bill 
designed to cut the top marginal tax rate for small business 
manufacturers yet again to 32 percent. Senator Biden's amendment would 
go the other way and hammer our small business manufacturers.
  Anyone voting for Senator Biden's amendment is, in effect, saying 
they support raising taxes on small business manufacturers. A vote for 
the Biden amendment is a vote to raise the top marginal tax rate on 
small business manufacturing from the 32 percent in the JOBS bill that 
we just passed to 36 percent. That is a tax increase on small business 
of 13 percent--13 percent. Is that the direction we want to go in a 
recovering economy, in a job-creating economy? Is there something wrong 
with the economy that is growing now, with 1.2 million jobs in the last 
6

[[Page 12675]]

months? Why would you want to dampen that?
  Finally, I do not want you to take my word for this. I am just a 
public official. I would like to have you listen to what small business 
folks are saying.
  I would like to have you take a look at this chart. The chart is a 
copy of a letter from the three principal small business grassroots 
organizations. The first organization is the National Federation of 
Independent Business or NFIB. The second one is the Small Business 
Legislative Council, and the third organization is the Small Business 
Survival Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). The Senator has used 20 minutes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent for 3 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I am going to read the second paragraph of this letter.

       Accelerating income tax relief: Approximately 85 percent of 
     small businesses file their tax returns as individuals. An 
     increase in tax refunds means small firms will have more 
     resources and more capital to put back into growing their 
     businesses. A series of studies by four top tax economists 
     examined the effect of tax rate cuts on sole proprietors. 
     Their results indicate that a 5 percent point cut in rates 
     would increase capital investment by about 10 percent. And, 
     they found that dropping the top tax rate from 39.6 percent--
     --

  Where it was up until the year 2001----

     to 33.2 percent would increase hiring by 12.1 percent.

  What these small business groups said was their tax policy priorities 
included a reduction in the top marginal rate. It is right there in 
their letter.
  Now let's think about this. As the small business folks say in their 
letter, there is a link between tax relief, economic growth, and jobs. 
We have seen the evidence of that linkage over the last year or so. 
Check out the economic statistics. The tax relief kicked in, the 
economy started growing, and jobs started coming back--1.2 million jobs 
in the last 5 or 6 months.
  Why would we want to reverse the course? Some would speculate that 
for the minority party, it is good politics for the economy to go into 
the tank. Raise taxes as the economy is coming back, and you stifle 
economic growth. If economic growth is stifled, then jobs disappear. If 
jobs disappear, then voters will throw out the President and his party.
  I am not that cynical. I don't believe some of the opposition would 
want to put short-term political advantages over the economic well-
being of their constituents. But it does make you wonder.
  To sum up, a vote for the Biden amendment is, clearly and simply, a 
tax increase. How high do taxes have to go to satisfy the appetite on 
the other side of the aisle to spend money? I don't know. But this is a 
start. It is a tax increase during an economic recovery. It is a tax 
increase on the folks who create the jobs in America, our hard-working 
small business owners.
  For those reasons, I obviously ask Members to reject the Biden 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my friend and colleague, 
Senator Grassley, for his remarks. I join in those remarks. I 
compliment him for his leadership as chairman of the Finance Committee. 
Under his leadership of the Finance Committee, we have passed two very 
significant tax cuts: The tax cut in 2001, and we accelerated or 
completed that tax cut in 2003. As a result of those tax cuts, the 
economy is growing. As a result of the tax cuts, the maximum tax rate 
is 35 percent. Again, this has made a difference. The economy is 
growing.
  Senator Grassley mentioned there have been over 1 million jobs 
created in the last few months. He is correct. The stock market has 
rebounded substantially--the stock market is up 25 percent, if you are 
looking at the Dow Jones; 40 percent, if you are looking at the 
NASDAQ--from the time we took up that bill last year.
  Some people want to undo that. They say: We want to pay for the war; 
we don't want to add more debt to our children and grandchildren. I 
appreciate that, but what about other spending? This is $25 billion. 
They say: We will increase the rate 1 percent on the upper income 
people to pay for that.
  Let me just look at a couple of other facts. As recently as May 12, 3 
or 4 weeks ago, we had an amendment on the floor of the Senate that was 
voted on that would have increased spending $86 billion. It wasn't paid 
for. We made a budget point of order against it. We defeated it, I 
think, by one vote. But no one was saying: We want to increase taxes to 
pay for that. I guess on this one, you would have to increase the 
maximum rate by 3 or 4 points to pay for it. On the same day there was 
a motion to increase spending by $9 billion. We defeated that with a 
budget point of order; again, I believe, by one vote. That was $9 
billion.
  On May 4, there was another spending increase. This was trade 
adjustment assistance, $5 billion. We defeated that by a vote or two.
  Many of the people who are saying they want to pay for this $25 
billion, they want to pay for the war, they didn't want to pay for this 
additional spending or they didn't offer that. So I find it 
interesting, for the ones who are acting as if, in many cases, they 
want to balance the budget, I have a total of about 68 votes where 
budget points of order were made, and in most cases, mostly Democrats--
with the exception of my very good friend, Zell Miller from Georgia--
voted to waive the budget every time. In other words, they voted for 
more spending.
  The three amendments I just alluded to in May of last year were over 
$100 billion of new spending. So there are lots of attempts to increase 
spending over and above what we are doing anyway, mostly by our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle. That is one of the points I 
wanted to make.
  Let me echo a couple of other things my friend from Iowa said. Why 
would you want to have an individual rate higher than corporations? I 
used to be in manufacturing. I used to have my own business. Why should 
an individual be taxed more than Exxon? The corporate rate is 35 
percent. There is an effort to make manufacturers at 32 percent. Yet we 
are going to tell self-employed people, S corp people, that they should 
pay 36 percent. That doesn't make a lot of sense.
  There is one other comment. This happens to be about the 
Constitution. Are people trying to kill this bill? You put this on this 
bill and the House is going to, what we call, blue-slip it. It is going 
to stop the bill. Why? Because there is something called the 
Constitution. The Constitution says in article I of the Constitution, 
section 7:

       All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House 
     of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with 
     Amendments as on other Bills.

  It says all revenue measures, all tax measures have to originate in 
the House of Representatives. This is the U.S. Senate. So if we do 
that, the tradition is, the House will say: Thank you very much, but we 
are not going to let you preempt our constitutional prerogative. So 
they blue-slip it. In other words, they kill the bill.
  This is a Department of Defense authorization bill. I have great 
respect for Senator Warner and Senator Levin, but they are not supposed 
to rewrite the tax bill. That is for the Finance Committee. That is 
under the jurisdiction and leadership of Senators Grassley and Baucus. 
Tax amendments don't belong on this bill. Maybe it sounds good 
rhetorically: We will just ask the upper 1 percent.
  I think that is bad policy: We want the upper 1 percent to pay for 
the war. Nobody else has to pay for it, just the upper 1 percent.
  That doesn't make sense. We don't do that for education. We don't do 
that for other spending. I don't think it makes sense. I happen to 
think the income-tax code is already so progressive, the upper 5 
percent pay over half; the upper 1 percent pay over 20 percent. Yet 
some people want to make it more and more progressive.
  It wasn't too long ago we were celebrating Ronald Reagan's legacy and 
his

[[Page 12676]]

great contributions to this country and the free world during his term 
of office. At the conclusion of his term of office, the maximum tax 
rate was 28 percent. I know under President Clinton it went all the way 
up to 39.6. That is a pretty significant increase. Now we have it at 35 
percent. Yet some people say: Let's make it more progressive.
  I guess you could take this same amendment and put it on every one of 
these spending amendments. And I haven't totaled it. It is about $1.4 
trillion worth of additional spending that most of our colleagues on 
the Democratic side of the aisle have proposed, and we have stopped 
using budget points of order. For those who ask, Do we need budget 
points of order? Yes, we do.
  They have been effective in curtailing the growth of spending. I said 
$1.4 billion, but it is actually $1.2 trillion, not since the budget 
was adopted last year. Real money, a lot of money. I think the figure 
is well over $140 billion just in 2004 or 2005 alone.
  Constitutionally, those of us who have the pleasure of serving this 
great body, the Senate, stand before the President of the Senate and 
put our hand--most of us--on the Bible and swear allegiance to the 
Constitution of the United States. The Constitution of the United 
States says all revenue measures shall originate in the House. If you 
don't like that, try to amend the Constitution. That is in the 
Constitution. We have over 200 years of history and tradition of the 
Senate of following the Constitution. All revenue measures shall 
originate in the House. So to try to circumvent that and say we are 
going to stick a little tax bill into a Defense authorization bill is 
not the way the Senate is supposed to work. It hasn't worked that way.
  I have only been here 24 years, which is not quite as long as my 
colleague from Delaware. But the Senate doesn't originate tax bills. It 
hasn't for hundreds of years, and it should not today. I ask my 
colleagues to, at the appropriate time, vote against the amendment by 
our friend and colleague from Delaware.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Oklahoma, he doth 
protest too loudly. I am not taking it out of the tax bill. This is 
good stuff on the Constitution, but I think my friend voted for the 
JOBS bill and just violated the Constitution, by his definition, 
because we had a revenue measure in there. It didn't get blue-slipped, 
and he apparently violated his oath, by his definition. I don't think 
he violated his oath at all.
  But the truth is this: In the JOBS bill, what did we do? We changed 
the Tax Code. So this is great rhetoric, and my friend from Iowa went 
through this whole thing about--
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield for a clarification?
  Mr. BIDEN. Yes.
  Mr. NICKLES. For my colleague's information, we have not yet passed 
the JOBS bill. What we are going to do is take a House bill, strike 
that House bill, and insert that bill into an H.R. So it will be a 
House revenue measure before it goes to conference. We have not gone to 
conference. The bill before us is a Senate bill. There is a difference.
  Mr. BIDEN. The Senator did vote for the Senate bill, correct?
  Mr. NICKLES. Yes.
  Mr. BIDEN. He would be able to do the same thing with this bill if he 
used his ingenuity, would he not?
  Mr. NICKLES. To clarify, this is a Senate bill, and it will stay that 
when it goes to conference.
  Mr. BIDEN. But it doesn't have to any more than the last Senate bill 
had to stay a Senate bill. I have been here 32 years. I may not be in 
the No. 2 position in my party, as my friend was, but I don't need an 
education on how we do this. This is malarkey, as they say--this 
argument being made about the Constitution. Let me move on, if I may.
  My friend references President Reagan, and I might note that I voted 
for the Roth-Kemp tax cut. Then I watched President Reagan and voted 
with him when he raised taxes three times after that because he was a 
responsible fellow. He raised taxes three times after that out of 
necessity. I also was here--and we talked about World War II. The 
President says this is the equivalent of World War II. My friends talk 
about World War II. We raised taxes through the ceiling in World War 
II. I don't know whether they didn't teach the same history in Oklahoma 
and Iowa as they did in Delaware, but we raised taxes in World War II.
  Also, this notion about all these other programs--the Senator, 
because he is so busy and has extensive responsibilities on his side of 
the aisle, did not have an opportunity--he didn't miss much--to hear my 
speech on the front end.
  There are two purposes in my doing this: One is to unite this Nation, 
for everybody to get in on the deal. Many other people are being asked 
to sacrifice. You know, this is a war. People are dying. Some people 
are sacrificing. People are having their incomes radically changed--
those in the National Guard and Reserves. They are contributing at the 
office.
  The other part is--I will say this again, and I said it last time--
would any wealthy American--and I hope every one of my kids becomes a 
wealthy American. By most people's standards, based on my salary, most 
people think I am wealthy. I don't have stocks, bonds, debentures, and 
savings accounts. I am not bragging about that, but that is a fact. 
Most Americans think I am wealthy based on the salary I get paid. But I 
say to the top 1 percent out there, call me, give me your name, and 
tell me you are not willing to pay 1 percent higher for the next 5 
years in order to make sure these kids sitting here don't pay.
  War is different than education. Part of the purpose of a leader, 
when you go to war, is to unite the Nation, share the responsibility, 
engage in the sacrifice.
  The other point I will make is that my friend from Iowa talks about 
the fact that this tax cut generated economic growth. I don't disagree 
with that. But the real question is, is taking one-tenth of 1 percent 
of the total tax cut going to stop economic growth? Is the Senator 
making that argument? Well, if he is right, this is a bad idea. One-
tenth of 1 percent is the total cost of the total tax cut of this 
amendment--$25 billion, one-tenth of 1 percent. That is going to bring 
this economic growth to a screeching halt? Give me a break.
  Let's talk about the small business people. I didn't make the 
assertion that all small business people are sitting back clipping 
coupons. I am not saying that. I just tell you what the facts are. The 
facts are, as the Senator knows, that small business owners have to be 
in the top 1 percent of wage earners to fall into this bracket. Only 2 
percent of all the small business owners in America fall into this 
bracket. That does include some people with passive incomes 
participating in investment and small businesses. This is not the 
hands-on, mom-and-pop business owners by any stretch of the 
imagination. If you look at only sole proprietor returns, those with 
hands-on owners, they are less than 2 percent. So I can understand my 
friend disagreeing with me. That is a logical position he takes. He may 
believe that it is unfair to have them pay 1 percent more and not ask 
people making $100,000 to pay 1 percent more. I can understand that. 
That is just an honest disagreement.
  I can understand my friend from Oklahoma in his argument on why are 
we taxing corporations more. That makes sense, too. We can do that. If 
he wants to go that route, I will help him.
  There are other ways to do this. I tried to pick the most painless, 
unifying mechanism I could find to do a responsible thing: make sure 
these kids in the blue suits don't pay for this war. They are still 
going to pay for the war, by the way. We have already spent over $200 
billion on this war. I am not complaining about that. I am arguing that 
we need more troops.
  My Lord, all these specious arguments: My God, the mom-and-pop 
grocery store owners are going to be put in jeopardy by this amendment; 
this is going to slow down economic growth; this is unfair.

[[Page 12677]]

  Then the irony is that my friend from Iowa, who always says he is not 
a lawyer--as I pointed out to him, he is smarter than any lawyer on 
that committee. Be careful of this good old boy from Iowa, who says: 
Golly, gee whiz, I am not a lawyer. He knows more hard case law than 
anybody I know on the Senate floor. Yet he stands up there straight 
faced and says: You know what, this $25 billion tax increase--and it 
is--paid for by the top 1 percent is bad for the economy, but I, Chuck 
Grassley, am out there making sure corporations pay more. I am finding 
loopholes and closing them.
  I congratulate him. Guess what it means. It means you are going to 
have more people pay more taxes. Is that going to slow down the 
economy? When my friend takes out of the tax stream or adds to the tax 
stream by shutting loopholes that do not belong in the law, guess what. 
More money is coming to the Government. More money than $25 billion I 
am talking about.
  He is a very bright guy. So let's be logical. Let's set up a little 
syllogism here. If his thesis is my $25 billion is going to slow down 
the economy, $25 billion now is in the hands of people out there, or 
will be over the next 5 years out in the hands to be spent by 
Americans, what about the $25 billion, $35 billion, $100 billion he is 
looking to take out of the economy over the next 5 years that will be 
spent by corporations, being spent by, maybe unfairly, but being 
spent--that is not going to slow down the economy, but my $25 billion 
is?
  Again, to use the expression of my granddaughter, give me a break. I 
may not be the brightest candle on the table, but I am a relatively 
logical guy. There is no logic in the argument.
  So, look, there are three good reasons to be against Biden: One, you 
ideologically think this is a bad idea because somehow you think--and I 
am being a little facetious--that the top 1 percent of the American 
public pays too much of a burden and is put upon, and to add anything 
else on them is just unfair to the rest of the American public. OK. Got 
it. It is a straightforward argument, logical.
  The second logical argument is, if there is any merit to it: You 
ought to spread this out, Biden. If, in fact, you are going to add to 
the deficit by paying for Medicare or the prescription drug bill--which 
I voted against and which a lot of you voted for; it cost a lot more 
than you promised it was going to cost, raising the deficit, spending 
that I did not vote for--it is better to say unless you are going to 
pay for this spending, you should not pay for it with revenues. OK. I 
got it. It is a straightforward argument.
  Or lastly, one might argue: Psychologically this is dangerous because 
after cutting taxes, to now raise them for 5 years by 1 percent for 1 
percent of the population, it is going to inject some uncertainty. I 
don't know what that means. That could be an argument one could make.
  With all due respect, you cannot make the argument mom and pop are 
going under; mom and pop are slowing down; that the loss of revenue is 
going to stifle economic growth; that this portion of the population is 
put upon; that this is no different than education or health care or 
highways, because it is. It is war.
  By the way, when I introduced this proposal on a larger measure--$87 
billion--a while ago, according to the national polls, 56 percent of 
the Americans polled on the last version of this amendment said pay for 
the war from the tax cut.
  This is all about values. This is about value differences. And the 
value that I am espousing--and I am not being so moralistic to suggest 
that I know it is superior to the value my friends are proposing, but 
it is a different value. I value the necessity of a greater sense of 
national unity and a greater contribution from all sectors of the 
economy in winning this war. I value the notion that when we are 
clearly able, without doing any harm to the economy or being unfair to 
any one segment, that we should pay, when we can, rather than make our 
children and grandchildren pay.
  The difference between war and education is on education we made a 
judgment that we should have an educational system, and we do not 
control the population. So as children are born, the responsibility to 
keep a commitment we made exists. It is not elective. War, in this 
case, was elective. I elected to go to war. That is not a societal 
responsibility that rests with a generation that has not even come of 
age yet; it is a responsibility of ours, just as World War II was the 
responsibility of the greatest generation in the history of mankind, 
the World War II generation. They did not say: Make my son, Joe, make 
my daughter, Valerie, make my son, Jim or Frank, pay for this war. They 
valued responsibility. They stepped up to the ball. As to the idea that 
this even calls for any serious sacrifice, if that is the case, my 
Lord, we have lost our bearings.
  I have seen not one scintilla of evidence that this will slow 
economic recovery; that this is a burden upon a group of people who 
strongly resist taking on the burden; that this is, per se, unfair. 
This is something I believe--and I cannot prove it because I have not 
conducted any national poll--that if the people who will be affected by 
this, again, whose average income is $1 million a year, who have to 
have a taxable income of $320,000 a year even to get in the game, and 
if they are small business, 98 percent of them will be not affected one 
single little way by this, my guess is, if they know it is really going 
to pay for the $25 billion needed next year for the war, they would pay 
it, proudly pay it, and rightfully should pay.
  My dad, who passed away long ago, used to have an expression. My dad 
was, I guess, probably like the mom or dad of Senator Grassley and 
Senator Nickles and others, a generation that had a different view. My 
dad's table was a place where you had dinner, you sat down, and two 
things were demanded. One, you had to have good table manners, and the 
other was you had to engage in conversation. Our table was a table 
where you sat down and had conversation and incidentally ate, rather 
than sat down, ate, and had incidental conversation. It was the one 
place the family got together with certainty every night, and friends 
were always included.
  I will never forget my father in a discussion with my uncle, Bill 
Scheen, talking about a particular tax. My dad looked at him and said: 
Bill, there is no price too high to pay to live in this great country.
  I am not asking for a big price. I am just asking for people to do 
what in their heart they know is right.
  I understand my friends, what they have not said--and I may be wrong, 
but I suspect part of their concern about this amendment, because at 
least four Members on that side have come up to me and said: I would 
like to vote for this, Joe, but here is my fear--I give my word this is 
true--this is my fear: My fear is this would be a foot in the door. If 
you make this argument and it has catches, I am paying for the war, 
then your guys are going to come back and say: Look, we ought to raise 
taxes on the wealthiest corporations to pay for health care, or to pay 
for whatever. I think that is a legitimate concern on the part of my 
Republican friends. I understand that. Maybe that is the reason why, 
not the people who have spoken but some of the people who have spoken 
to me, who share my concern about not passing this on to these kids are 
not going to vote with me. I think it is a shame. I just cannot think 
of how we are able to communicate to the American people that we are in 
mortal combat for what will be an extended period of time with an enemy 
that does not wear a uniform but has the capacity to do overwhelming 
harm to us but that there is no need to rally the entire Nation to 
contribute a little bit at the office in order to win that war.
  Again, the example I gave of what if the President had said go out 
and pay the tuition of two or four people in your neighborhood, for 
those of you who can afford it, that is not going to help the war. If 
anyone thinks that is what I meant, they missed the whole point.
  The point is, we should use this time of crisis to unite the country, 
to talk about the things where we can help one

[[Page 12678]]

another, where it is not paid for, where it is not unfair. That is the 
point I am trying to make, and I guess I am not being articulate enough 
because I do not think a lot of my friends get it.
  It is probably my fault because maybe I am not explaining it well 
enough, but just to make sure everybody understands, how does one 
convince people that this is as tough a deal as it is if, in fact, we 
have this incredibly large tax cut? How does that square? It is like my 
saying to my kids, when they ask me can they go to a summer camp, and 
my saying I cannot afford to do that, and I drive up the driveway the 
next day in a brand new Lexus; it is tough times, kids, I cannot afford 
to send you to that college, you are going to go to the State 
university, and we buy a summer house. I mean, how does one do that?
  By the way, this war is going to cost us a couple hundred billion 
dollars more before this is over.
  Well, I have said all I want to say. I wish I could have said it 
better but I think this is fair. I think it is equitable. I think it is 
necessary, and I hope my colleagues will see it that way. I understand 
if they do not.
  I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I join Senator Biden in support of 
this amendment to pay for the President's request for an additional $25 
billion to fund the war in Iraq.
  This amendment will temporarily roll back the acceleration of the 
President's May 2003 tax cuts for those making more than $319,000 per 
year by raising the income tax rate from 35 percent to 36 percent for 5 
years, 2005-2009.
  Assuming passage of this supplemental funding request, the Iraq war 
will have cost the American people more than $175 billion. And without 
this amendment, every penny of this $25 billion supplemental request 
will be borrowed, becoming another debt we will leave to our children 
and grandchildren.
  This amendment, however, offers a very reasonable way to pay for this 
stage of the war on terror.
  By rolling back the acceleration of the May 2003 tax cut just enough 
to fund the $25 billion request before us, we will reduce the already 
serious debt burden on our Nation.
  We are offering this amendment because it is essential that we begin 
paying for the programs that we propose.
  It is important for the public to know that they--along with our 
soldiers--must also sacrifice during this war on terror.
  Except to tell us that we should visit our shopping malls more 
frequently, the President has shown little leadership in asking 
citizens to give to this war effort.
  This amendment sends a different message--one that says that it is 
important that those who have the capacity to pay for this war effort 
must step forward.
  It is time for sacrifice. Deficits, interest costs and the debt are 
growing again.
  Net interest payments on Federal debt are set to increase sharply 
from approximately $170 billion in 2003 to more than $300 billion by 
2012.
  And we are facing these daunting fiscal realities as we try to meet a 
host of new challenges: the war on terror, the war in Iraq, the threat 
of North Korea, and, of course, securing our homeland.
  The Congressional Budget Office predicts that the Federal deficit for 
fiscal year 2004 will top $470 billion--the largest deficit in our 
history.
  A portion of every dollar we spend from this day until the end of 
September 2004, will be borrowed money--money our children and 
grandchildren will have to repay.
  After this year's deficit, it is estimated that we will accumulate 
almost $1.5 trillion in debt during the next 5 years and a total of $2 
trillion during the next decade
  To help us understand the fiscal track we are on, one must understand 
that this year's deficit is larger than the amount the President 
requested for defense in his Fiscal Year 2005 budget request, 447 
billion, and larger than the combined non-defense discretionary budget 
for this year, 459 billion.
  Further, the budget projections we are now using do not include the 
cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. So add another $25 
billion to $80 billion to the deficit.
  Nor do they include long-term costs associated with correcting a 
growing problem with the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT. This will cost 
$660 billion over the next 10 years.
  The current budget picture also hides the full impact of extending 
the President's tax cuts to just the next 5 years. Beyond this 5-year 
window, the costs escalate dramatically. The total 10-year cost of 
those cost: $1.6 trillion.
  And the budget uses $1.1 trillion of revenue from the Social Security 
and Medicare trust funds over the next 5 years.
  Overall, our Federal debt is expected to rise from $6.8 trillion 
today to $15.1 trillion in 2014.
  Why do Deficits Matter? They matter, as the Brookings Institution 
points out, because they slow economic growth. By 2014, the average 
family's income will be an estimated $1,800 lower because of the slower 
income growth that results when government competes with the private 
sector for a limited pool of savings or borrows more from abroad.
  They increase household borrowing costs by driving up interest rates: 
A family with a $250,000, 30-year-mortgage, for example, will pay an 
additional $2,500 in interest for a one-percent hike in interest rates.
  They increase indebtedness to foreign creditors. Japan holds $526 
billion of our debt. China holds $144 billion. The United Kingdom holds 
$112 billion. Caribbean Banking Centers hold $62 billion.
  They require that a growing proportion of revenues be devoted to 
paying interest on the national debt: By 2014, this increased borrowing 
will cost the average household $3,000 in added interest on debt alone.
  They impose enormous burdens on future generations. Today's young 
people will have to pay more because our generation has increased the 
debt so tremendously. And there will be added pressure to cut spending 
on health care, education, and other critical services.
  Additionally, deficits will prevent us from addressing looming crises 
in both Social Security and Medicare when the baby boomers retire.
  In 2003, we spent $1.2 trillion on these programs and other 
entitlements--54 percent of the Federal budget. This includes Social 
Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment compensation.
  By 2009, we will be spending $1.6 trillion for these entitlements--57 
percent of the Federal budget.
  By 2014, we will be spending $2.1 trillion--59 percent of the budget.
  These programs are in serious danger if we continue down this path of 
deficit spending.
  In January of last year during his State of the Union Address, the 
President said the following:

       This country has many challenges. We will not deny, we will 
     not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other 
     Congresses, to other Presidents, and to other generations. We 
     will confront them with focus and clarity and courage.

  Well, this is one challenge we are passing on to other Congresses and 
to other generations.
  Today we have a chance to meet this challenge and demonstrate fiscal 
responsibility by temporarily rolling back a small portion of the 
accelerated tax cut for the wealthiest Americans.
  Everyone who is affected by this amendment makes more than $319,000 a 
year in taxable income, which typically means that they are making more 
than $430,000 a year in gross income.
  This amendment does not revoke the 2001 or 2003 reductions in the top 
income tax rate, nor would it affect any other element of the 2001 or 
2003 tax packages. It would merely temporarily raise the marginal 
income tax rate on the richest in our society.
  By scaling back a small portion of the accelerated cut in the May 
2003 tax package, we will be taking a first step toward putting our 
fiscal house in order and asking citizens to sacrifice for the war on 
terror.
  Passing this amendment is the responsible thing to do. I urge your 
support.

[[Page 12679]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I assure my colleague from the State of 
Delaware, for whom I have a tremendous amount of respect, that his 
inability to persuade us has nothing to do with his lack of passion or 
eloquence. He has an abundance of both, and a lot of good faith and 
friendliness thrown in to boot. The problem is, he is wrong. That is 
the only problem.
  I would like to try to explain why I think that is so, with all good 
faith, to my friend. He started out by saying that the purpose of his 
amendment is to unite the Nation and then proceeded to offer an 
amendment which chose a very small minority of taxpayers on whom to 
raise taxes, and that is supposed to unite the Nation.
  With all due respect to my friend, I do not think that unites the 
Nation. That hearkens back to the old class warfare concept that there 
are some people who are so rich that we have to soak them a little bit 
more in order to be fair.
  In fact, that is implicit in the argument. We have a lot of people 
overseas sacrificing. These rich people must not be sacrificing enough 
so let us extract more money from them in the form of income taxes. 
That is the implicit argument. That is not a uniting argument.
  The interesting thing is that when it comes to the Tax Code of the 
United States, Americans are very egalitarian. Middle-income taxpayers 
support repeal of the death tax, for example, even though they know it 
would never help them. They support the retention of the tax cuts on 
the highest tax brackets, on the middle tax brackets. We all support it 
for the lower tax brackets. In fact, a lot of people would like to be 
in the next higher bracket. That may be one reason they do not want to 
soak the rich, because they would like to be in that next bracket maybe 
in a few years.
  The reality is, most people are perfectly happy, even where they are, 
supporting fair taxes. Polls have been taken, and the question asked 
is, What do you think is the fair percentage of taxes to extract from 
Americans? The answer, uniformly, year after year, is about one-third, 
and that applies to all tax brackets. So most Americans believe that 
the fair tax would be about a third of what one makes, regardless of 
how rich they are.
  What are the real facts about the sacrifice that Americans make 
financially, the sacrifice, that is to say in the amount of taxes that 
they pay to fund things such as the war effort? Let me give the exact 
statistics, because I think this makes the point that there is already 
a lot of sacrifice--and, by the way, it is a willing sacrifice.
  When it comes to war, I think we are all willing to do more because 
we are asking some young men and women to sacrifice an awful lot, but 
let's get the exact facts.
  How much do the top 1 percent--and that is the people we are talking 
about--pay in taxes in this country? The top 1 percent obviously pay 
more than 1 percent, maybe 5 percent or 10 percent, maybe 20 percent, 
30 percent? Do my colleagues know how much the top 1 percent pay? They 
pay almost a third of the taxes of this country. So the folks we are 
talking about, the 1 percent pay, to be exact, 32.3 percent of the 
taxes. Almost exactly a third of the taxes are paid by the top 1 
percent.
  That is more than fair. That is a pretty progressive tax system.
  How about the top 5 percent? They pay over half of all taxes. Just 
the top 5 percent pay 52.8 percent of the taxes.
  How about the top 10 percent? We always like to talk about the top 10 
percent of the class, and that is a pretty elite group. The top 10 
percent pay almost two-thirds of all of the taxes--64.8 percent, to be 
exact. What do the bottom half percent of our taxpayers pay? There is 
the top half and the bottom half. How much do my colleagues think the 
bottom half pay? Less than 4 percent of the taxes are paid by the 
bottom half--36 percent, to be exact.
  One could say the wealthier people in this country are paying their 
fair share. One could say they are making a sacrifice. I would not put 
it that way because, frankly, I think most of them can afford to do it. 
I do not think it is something they resent doing. So I think it is a 
sacrifice they are very willing to take on, but I do not think we 
should contend that we are uniting America by picking a very small 
minority of taxpayers, who are already paying a third of all of the 
taxes in the country, and saying now they are going to have to pay some 
more or else they are not sacrificing enough.
  The interesting thing is that the tax cuts President Bush proposed 
and we passed into law actually increased the percentage of taxes paid 
by those in the higher brackets. It did not decrease it. So it added to 
the sacrifice, if one wants to put it that way.
  In every one of these brackets, if we want to take the top 1 percent, 
the top 5 percent, the top 10 percent, the percentage of taxes paid by 
that group of people is higher today than it was before the tax cuts. 
And the percentage paid by the lower 50 percent is actually less. It 
used to be 4.1 percent. Now it is down to 3.6 percent.
  So it is a specious argument to suggest that somehow these people are 
not paying their fair share, that the only way to be fair is to make 
them sacrifice some more. I don't think we should look at the war 
effort this way, let alone fund our Government this way. I don't think 
it is the way to unite the country. If anything, it further tends to 
divide the country.
  I would like to move to the second point. I think most people now 
recognize that the tax reductions had a great deal to do with the 
stimulation of the economy. Why was that so? Primarily because there 
was more capital available. People were able to keep more of their own 
money, and they did one of three things with it: They either spent it, 
which helped some businesses because they now had more revenue; or they 
invested it, then there was more capital to be invested in businesses 
to create more jobs, for example; or they saved it, and savings amounts 
to investment because whatever institution you put it in then invests 
the money.
  So in all three situations there was more money infused into the 
economy; more capital, which created more jobs; and those jobs, the 
jobs that have been created and the capital infused in the economy, 
have created an extraordinarily strong economy.
  One of the results of that has been to begin to reduce the budget 
deficit by providing more income to the Federal Government because more 
money is being paid by people and by businesses. That wealth is what is 
going to be able to help us win the war as well as fund the other 
things we have to fund.
  The argument of my colleague from Delaware is: But this is a very 
small amount of money. One-tenth of 1 percent, I believe, is the 
number. That may be. One-tenth of 1 percent of what we are talking 
about is a heck of a lot of money--$25 billion to be exact, as I 
understand it. So we are not talking peanuts. That is $25 billion that 
would not be helping to create new jobs, to stimulate the economy, to 
create additional wealth, which could be used to pay for the war as 
well as the other things on which we need to spend it.
  It is an especially important part of the economy. Phil Gramm, our 
former colleague from Texas, used to talk about one of his constituents 
who said he had a lot of jobs in his life. He worked for a lot of 
employers, and he said, the funny thing was they all had more money 
than he did.
  There are employers and there are employees. Thank God for both. But 
you have to have enough capital, enough wealth, to create jobs to pay 
people to do work for you in order for the rest of us to have a job. It 
is those people in these tax brackets who have that capital that they 
are able to invest in a business, so-called disposable income, money 
that they can invest in a stock or some other equity to help create a 
job in this country. That money has more effect in the economic 
recovery than a lot of the other money that is paid in taxes. 
Therefore, this is not an insignificant proposition that we are talking 
about, only talking about one-tenth of 1 percent, and therefore what 
difference and does it matter? It could make a great deal of difference 
in the economic health of our country.

[[Page 12680]]

  It is wrong to raise taxes at this point when we know the reduction 
in taxes, especially the marginal rates, have produced such a strong 
effect on the economy.
  We could get into an argument about small businesses. There is an 
entire report that I could get into that talks about the effect on 
small businesses. We know many of the people in this tax bracket are 
small business owners. These are where most of the jobs are created, 7 
out of 10 jobs, if you want to get into the statistics, are created by 
small businesses. There are 8 million small businesses in America that 
employ over half the workers, and this tax rate is the rate many pay 
because they are a passthrough entity, like the subchapter S 
corporations and partnerships and so on. We don't need to get into all 
that.
  The point is, this hurts small businesses just as much as it hurts 
big businesses. In any event, it hurts those who create jobs, and it 
doesn't unite America. It doesn't unite us as a nation, as my colleague 
would suggest. It tends to divide us and hurt us. That is one of the 
reasons we oppose it.
  There are very few people on the other side of the aisle for whom I 
have greater respect than the Senator from Delaware. I understand the 
motivation behind his proposal. I simply think it is the wrong 
approach. It is in that spirit that I oppose his amendment and urge my 
colleagues to keep the tax cuts that we put in place. They have done a 
lot of good. Let's keep them. We do not need to hurt somebody in order 
to unite the country. We have enough revenue to pay for the increased 
needs of our country. Of course, the amendment doesn't even apply that 
money to the war in Iraq. There is an assumption that it would be used 
for that purpose, and I will grant that assumption. But the bottom line 
is we don't have to do this in order to win the war in Iraq, in order 
to supply our troops, and it would have very negative effects on the 
economy of the country, as well as being very unfair.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment of the Senator 
from Delaware.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  When the author of this amendment finished, he spoke about my being 
inconsistent; that I want to close tax loopholes. He says that takes 
money out of the economy, so it is inconsistent when I say that it is 
wrong for him to take money out of the economy.
  I think the thing for him to remember about closing these tax 
loopholes, we are taking in money from dishonest taxpayers, whereas he 
is taking money away from honest taxpayers by raising the marginal tax 
rate. He would say I am inconsistent in complaining about his taking 
money out of the economy and running it through Government, whereas I 
am taking money out of the economy by closing the tax loopholes of 
dishonest taxpayers.
  When I close those loopholes, have dishonest taxpayers pay taxes they 
ought to be paying anyway--except for the fact that they buy tax 
shelters put together by big corporate lawyers, big accounting firms, 
and big investment bankers--I am getting money from dishonest 
taxpayers. But in the bill that I referred to, the JOBS bill, we reduce 
taxes in America so that companies that do manufacture in the United 
States will pay less corporate tax as an incentive to create jobs in 
America.
  We are taking money from dishonest taxpayers, but we are putting it 
right back into the economy in the private sector by reduced taxes for 
people who do manufacturing in America to create jobs. So I think I am 
totally consistent. I think having dishonest taxpayers pay what they 
would otherwise pay if they hadn't been buying these tax shelters is 
the right policy.
  I think the Biden amendment reducing marginal tax rates and hurting 
small business is the wrong policy. It is the right policy to have 
dishonest taxpayers who use tax shelters pay their taxes, and I think 
it is all right to give tax relief to companies that manufacture in 
America--not those that manufacture overseas but create jobs in 
America. That bill passed 92 to 5, and I presume with the support of 
the Senator from Delaware.
  I believe we are doing the right thing. I believe he is doing the 
wrong thing. I believe we encourage job creation and entrepreneurship, 
particularly among small business. I believe his amendment will 
actually discourage it.
  I believe his amendment is the first step towards what Senator Kerry 
is campaigning for in his campaign for the Presidency--that, if he is 
elected, he made it very clear he is going to raise the top marginal 
tax rate not just to 36 percent as the Senator from Delaware would, but 
raise it to 39.6 percent.
  Do you think that is the end? There is not enough money there to do 
all the things Senator Kerry is campaigning on. Pretty soon it is not 
just 39.6. Pretty soon it is taking away deductions so that the top 
marginal tax rate might say 39.6, but it is effectively 42, or, in the 
case of subchapter S, 45 as it used to be. Pretty soon there is not 
enough money there. Pretty soon you are taxing middle-income people to 
a greater extent. Who knows where that all ends?
  I think sometime there has to be a decision made that the Government 
will only take so much out of the economy; that 535 Members of Congress 
will only spend so much money. That amount of money is not satisfactory 
to people on the other side of the aisle, but I decided that where it 
has been for 50 years--17 to 19 percent of GNP--is where it ought to 
be, and the tax reductions we passed in 2001 and in 2003 to stimulate 
the economy, to get us out of the recession, out of the joblessness 
that came as a result of the September 11 attack on America by 
terrorism, and to revive the economy, is about right. These tax bills 
were at their highest level since World War II. We ought to bring it 
back to where it was for 50 years--17 to 19 percent--for two reasons.
  No. 1: The economy has grown at that level of taxation very well over 
that 50 years. It hasn't done any harm to the economy.
  No. 2: It is a level of taxation that is accepted by the people of 
this country.
  There is a basic philosophical difference between that side of the 
aisle and this side of the aisle. They believe we should bring the 
money into Washington and let 535 Members of Congress decide how to 
divide up the goods and services of this country. There is a philosophy 
we have on this side of the aisle that it is better to leave the money 
in the pockets of the taxpayers because having 130 million people 
decide how the goods and services of this country ought to be expended 
or invested results in a more dynamic economy than if 535 Members 
elected to the Congress of the United States make that decision for 270 
million Americans.
  When we enacted the individual tax cuts in 2001, the Treasury 
Department estimated that roughly three out of four taxpayers affected 
by the 35 percent bracket filed returns with small business activity 
involving a sole proprietorship, S-corporation, partnership, or a farm.
  Advocates of tax increases now claim that only 2 percent of small 
businesses are impacted by the top rates.
  I would like to address their criticism that a very small percentage 
of all small businesses are affected by the top brackets.
  This statistic merely states the obvious. Only about 2 percent of all 
taxpayers have incomes above $200,000 per year, so it is not surprising 
that the distribution of small business owners follows roughly the same 
pattern.
  Let's consider the impact of this tax increase on small business.
  A soon-to-be-released study by the Tax Foundation concludes that most 
high-income taxpayers are active business owners rather than 
``passive'' investors.
  The Tax Foundation study combines IRS data with demographic Census 
data, and finds that high-income taxpayers are mostly in ``active'' 
business occupations--such as construction, manufacturing, and retail 
trade--rather than in passive occupations such as banking, finance, and 
securities.

[[Page 12681]]

  What is significant about the Tax Foundation report is that, overall, 
about 74 percent of those hit by the highest marginal rate have active 
business activity.
  This business activity comes in three basic forms: Schedule C, for 
sole proprietorships; Schedule E, for S-corporations, royalties, and 
partnerships; and Schedule F, farm income. The most common of these are 
Schedule E.
  Of those taxpayers hit by the 35 percent rate, nearly two-thirds--
62.7 percent--have Schedule E income from an S-corporation, royalty, or 
partnership.
  It is likely that most of these taxpayers are shareholders in S-
corporations.
  The Tax Foundation data shows that these high-income taxpayers 
receive about 37 percent of their overall income from salaries and 
wages which, when combined with their Schedule C, E, and F income, 
would bring their total amount of business income to 65 percent of 
their total adjusted gross income.
  This figure does not include other ways in which a business owner may 
take profits out of the firm.
  For example, an entrepreneur who capitalized his business with a 
loan, may receive regular interest in return.
  Taxable interest and dividends account for roughly 9 percent of the 
overall income for high-income taxpayers.
  While most of this interest and dividend income is likely from 
traditional investments, a portion could be ``business income'' taken 
as interest or dividends from their small business.
  The Tax Foundation was able to isolate the occupations and industries 
that these high-income individuals are engaged in. They did this by 
combining IRS data with demographic Census data.
  They found that high-income taxpayers are engaged in a wide variety 
of active business industries and occupations throughout the economy.
  The largest single category of 31.5 percent is ``executive, 
administration & managerial''--the most likely category that the 
president or CEO of a firm would choose.
  By contrast, physicians, lawyers, and judges comprise just 11.4 
percent of these individuals.
  Another analysis shows that high-income taxpayers are engaged across 
all industries.
  The one category in which passive investors would most likely be 
found is within the ``securities, brokerage, and investment 
companies.'' But only about 4 percent of high-income taxpayers are 
found in this industry.
  By contrast, 4.9 percent of these taxpayers are found in the 
construction industry, 8.1 percent are in manufacture durable goods, 5 
percent are in retail trades, and 6 percent are in business services 
such as computers and data processing.
  High-income taxpayers engaged in legal services comprise just 3.2 
percent of these high-income taxpayers.
  The data clearly shows that a very large proportion of high-income 
taxpayers are engaged in some form of active business operation--not 
clipping coupons and resting back in their rocking chairs smoking their 
cigars, the image of a lot of rich people.
  The only conclusion from these findings is that raising taxes on 
these high-income taxpayers would ripple through every industry, not 
just passive investors.
  And as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says in their letter, it will 
kill job growth in small businesses.
  The 1997 economic census--the most recent available--shows that S-
corps, proprietorships, and partnerships employed over 30 million 
people that year.
  It seems unlikely that 30 million jobs cold be created by ``shell'' 
companies owned by passive investors.
  The stakes of this debate are high because there has been an 
explosion of individual-owned businesses over the past two decades.
  Between 1980 and 2000, for example, the total number of sole 
proprietorships, partnerships, and S-corporations more than doubled, 
from 10.8 million in 1980 to 22.8 million in 2000.
  S-corps alone grew 424 percent, from 545,389 in 1980, to 2.86 million 
in 2000, and now far exceed the number of conventional C-corporations.
  This year, the IRS estimates that nearly 58 percent of all corporate 
tax returns will be S corporation returns. If you are prepared to vote 
for a tax increase on small business job growth, then Members should 
vote for the amendment before the Senate by the Senator from Delaware. 
If Members care about sustaining the job growth that we have 
experienced over the past several months, I urge Members not to vote 
against that growth by increasing taxes on the important small business 
sector.
  There is also another problem with the bill. Senator Biden would have 
Members believe the world is filled with wealthy, passive investors. 
The truth is, however, that people continually move in and out of high 
tax rate categories, most likely because they have sold a business or a 
major asset.
  The IRS recently released a study of 400 of the highest individual 
income tax returns for the years 1990 through 2000. That study shows 
less than 25 percent of those returns appeared in the top 400 more than 
once and less than 13 percent appeared more than twice, which shows 
high-income people are not high income through their livee.
  I could add that low-income people are not always low income 
throughout their lives because we have a dynamic society, a dynamic 
economy. Some people improve their lot and some people do not improve 
their lot. Some people end up in a lower level.
  What does this mean? The top taxpayers are not a fixed group of 
people. People move in and out of this group according to economic 
fluctuations or maybe because of major events. So we are probably 
looking at a large number of business owners who are selling their 
businesses or selling their farm. If members think they are voting for 
a tax increase on a class of idle rich, think again. These are not 
coupon-clipping people who get their money, smoke their cigars, and 
lean back in their rocking chairs. These are people that create jobs, 
probably never retire, keeping that small business going by reinvesting 
their earnings.
  If Members vote for this amendment, I am not sure they will know 
whose taxes they are increasing.
  How much time remains on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time in opposition is expired.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 6 minutes 18 seconds remaining.
  Mr. REID. This is for Senator Biden's amendment.
  Mr. BIDEN. If my colleagues are finished responding, I am prepared to 
yield back the remainder of my time and at whatever time appropriate, 
vote on the amendment.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. My time has expired.
  Mr. BIDEN. I yield back the time.


                     Amendment No. 3352, As Amended

  Mr. REID. Under the order, there will now be 10 minutes for Senator 
Reed. We are going to yield back that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is yielded back.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. 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. WARNER. The regular order is the vote on the Reed amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. As amended.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I anounce that the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett) and 
the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REED. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?

[[Page 12682]]

  The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 4, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 129 Leg.]

                                YEAS--93

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--4

     Craig
     Santorum
     Smith
     Thomas

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bennett
     Inhofe
     Kerry
  The amendment (No. 3352), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we have made good progress on the bill. I 
congratulate the managers for their tremendous progress. We have been 
in discussions with the Democratic leadership and the chairman and the 
ranking member as to how we can complete action on the bill. I think we 
are underway, although we have a number of amendments pending, a lot of 
amendments planned for tomorrow and Monday. After discussion with the 
Democratic leadership, we are prepared to vitiate cloture in large part 
because of the progress we made yesterday and today, and we will 
continue to make tomorrow and Monday.
  Members have talked to the managers of the bill about amendments 
tomorrow as well as Monday. They have a good outline. We would, 
therefore, not vote tomorrow. We have one more vote tonight. So we 
would not vote tomorrow.
  Monday has to be a very productive day and, in all likelihood, we 
would have a series of votes beginning late Monday afternoon, sometime 
after 5 o'clock. We can talk about the specific time. But there are 
likely to be four or five or even six rollcall votes on Monday, 
starting after 5 o'clock, probably 5:30 or so. The exact time will be 
announced tomorrow.
  We will have a busy day Tuesday as well, as we consider the remaining 
amendments. It is my personal hope--as long as we continue working 
together very aggressively--to complete the bill on Tuesday, 
understanding we have a lot of work to do. Thus, the proposal would be 
to have one more rollcall vote, which will be shortly, no more rollcall 
votes tonight, no votes tomorrow, and starting at about 5 or 5:30 on 
Monday, a series of rollcall votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3379, offered by the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden.
  Mr. REID. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett) 
and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 130 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--53

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bennett
     Inhofe
     Kerry
  The amendment (No. 3379) was rejected.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. The managers, together with our distinguished colleague 
from Nevada, would like to do the following to accommodate Senators on 
both sides: The Senator from Missouri would introduce an amendment, lay 
it down, and speak maybe 1 minute to it. We then would turn to the 
other side. The Senator from New York wishes to address the Senate for 
several minutes and then we will come back over to Senator Talent, who 
wishes to speak with Senator Clinton. They will each have a couple of 
minutes. Then Senator Brownback will lay an amendment down and Senator 
Dorgan may or may not speak to it, but there will be no more votes, of 
course, tonight.
  Mr. LEVIN. Then we will clear those amendments after all of that?
  Mr. WARNER. No, we might stop midway and clear the amendments. As 
soon as the package is ready, the Senator from Michigan and I may clear 
an en bloc package of amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I have a question for the manager of the 
bill. I will have a second-degree amendment to the Brownback amendment 
which I will also lay down after his.
  Mr. WARNER. That is fine. I am not seeking unanimous consent. I am 
just trying, in a gentlemanly way, to organize this.
  I see the distinguished Senator from Nevada wishes to speak?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, can we just do this one step at a time, 
before we agree to any amendment? If there is going to be a second-
degree amendment as part of a unanimous consent, I think we better 
withhold that piece. We didn't realize there was going to be a second-
degree amendment. Is it to the Brownback amendment? If this is in the 
form of a unanimous consent request, we can't at this moment agree to 
it.
  Mr. WARNER. It is not in the form of a unanimous consent.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could address remarks to the Chair? We 
have a number of Senators who have been waiting. The two managers have 
cleared 18 amendments, or something like that. It would take just a 
matter of a minute or two to do that, but they are not yet ready.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the leader. The package is being put together. At

[[Page 12683]]

this point in time I yield the floor and I see the Senator from 
Missouri seeks recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                           Amendment No. 3384

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my good friend, the chairman, and 
certainly I thank the ranking member, for their accommodation. I call 
up amendment No. 3384 which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), for himself, Mr. 
     Talent, and Mr. Harkin, proposes an amendment numbered 3384.

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

(Purpose: To include certain former nuclear weapons program workers in 
  the Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy Employees Occupational 
Illness Compensation Program and to provide for the disposal of certain 
    excess Department of Defense stocks for funds for that purpose)

       At the end of subtitle D of title XXXI, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 3146. INCLUSION OF CERTAIN FORMER NUCLEAR WEAPONS 
                   PROGRAM WORKERS IN SPECIAL EXPOSURE COHORT 
                   UNDER THE ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS 
                   COMPENSATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Energy workers at the former Mallinkrodt facilities 
     (including the St. Louis downtown facility and the Weldon 
     Springs facility) were exposed to levels of radionuclides and 
     radioactive materials that were much greater than the current 
     maximum allowable Federal standards.
       (2) The Mallinkrodt workers at the St. Louis site were 
     exposed to excessive levels of airborne uranium dust relative 
     to the standards in effect during the time, and many workers 
     were exposed to 200 times the preferred levels of exposure.
       (3)(A) The chief safety officer for the Atomic Energy 
     Commission during the Mallinkrodt-St. Louis operations 
     described the facility as 1 of the 2 worst plants with 
     respect to worker exposures.
       (B) Workers were excreting in excess of a milligram of 
     uranium per day causing kidney damage.
       (C) A recent epidemiological study found excess levels of 
     nephritis and kidney cancer from inhalation of uranium dusts.
       (4) The Department of Energy has admitted that those 
     Mallinkrodt workers were subjected to risks and had their 
     health endangered as a result of working with these highly 
     radioactive materials.
       (5) The Department of Energy reported that workers at the 
     Weldon Springs feed materials plant handled plutonium and 
     recycled uranium, which are highly radioactive.
       (6) The National Institute of Occupational Safety and 
     Health admits that--
       (A) the operations at the St. Louis downtown site consisted 
     of intense periods of processing extremely high levels of 
     radionuclides; and
       (B) the Institute has virtually no personal monitoring data 
     for Mallinkrodt workers prior to 1948.
       (7) The National Institute of Occupational Safety and 
     Health has informed claimants and their survivors at those 3 
     Mallinkrodt sites that if they are not interviewed as a part 
     of the dose reconstruction process, it--
       (A) would hinder the ability of the Institute to conduct 
     dose reconstruction for the claimant; and
       (B) may result in a dose reconstruction that incompletely 
     or inaccurately estimates the radiation dose to which the 
     energy employee named in the claim had been exposed.
       (8) Energy workers at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant (also 
     known as the Burlington Atomic Energy Commission Plant and 
     the Iowa Ordnance Plant) between 1947 and 1975 were exposed 
     to levels of radionuclides and radioactive material, 
     including enriched uranium, plutonium, tritium, and depleted 
     uranium, in addition to beryllium and photon radiation, that 
     are greater than the current maximum Federal standards for 
     exposure.
       (9) According to the National Institute of Occupational 
     Safety and Health--
       (A) between 1947 and 1975, no records, including bioassays 
     or air samples, have been located that indicate any 
     monitoring occurred of internal doses of radiation to which 
     workers described in paragraph (8) were exposed;
       (B) between 1947 and 1955, no records, including dosimetry 
     badges, have been located to indicate that any monitoring 
     occurred of the external doses of radiation to which such 
     workers were exposed;
       (C) between 1955 and 1962, records indicate that only 8 to 
     23 workers in a workforce of over 1,000 were monitored for 
     external radiation doses; and
       (D) between 1970 and 1975, the high point of screening at 
     the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant, only 25 percent of the 
     workforce was screened for exposure to external radiation.
       (10) The Department of Health and Human Services published 
     the first notice of proposed rulemaking concerning the 
     Special Exposure Cohort on June 25, 2002, and as of May 13, 
     2004, the rule has yet to be finalized.
       (11) Many of those former workers have died while waiting 
     for the proposed rule to be finalized, including some 
     claimants who were waiting for dose reconstruction to be 
     completed.
       (12) Because of the aforementioned reasons, including the 
     serious lack of records and the death of many potential 
     claimants, it is not feasible to conduct valid dose 
     reconstructions for the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant facility 
     or the Mallinkrodt facilities.
       (b) Inclusion of Certain Former Workers in Cohort.--Section 
     3621(14) of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 
     Compensation Program Act of 2000 (title XXXVI of the Floyd D. 
     Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2001 (as enacted into law by Public Law 106-398); 42 U.S.C. 
     7384l(14)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D); 
     and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new 
     subparagraph (C):
       ``(C) Subject to the provisions of section 3612A, the 
     employee was so employed for a number of work days 
     aggregating at least 45 workdays at a facility operated under 
     contract to the Department of Energy by Mallinkrodt 
     Incorporated or its successors (including the St. Louis 
     downtown or `Destrahan' facility during any of calendar years 
     1942 through 1958 and the Weldon Springs feed materials plant 
     facility during any of calendar years 1958 through 1966), or 
     at a facility operated by the Department of Energy or under 
     contract by Mason & Hangar-Silas Mason Company at the Iowa 
     Army Ammunition Plant (also known as the Burlington Atomic 
     Energy Commission Plant and the Iowa Ordnance Plant) during 
     any of the calendar years 1947 through 1975, and during the 
     employment--
       ``(i)(I) was monitored through the use of dosimetry badges 
     for exposure at the plant of the external parts of an 
     employee's body to radiation; or
       ``(II) was monitored through the use of bioassays, in vivo 
     monitoring, or breath samples for exposure at the plant to 
     internal radiation; or
       ``(ii) worked in a job that had exposures comparable to a 
     job that is monitored, or should have been monitored, under 
     standards of the Department of Energy in effect on the date 
     of enactment of this subparagraph through the use of 
     dosimetry badges for monitoring external radiation exposures, 
     or bioassays, in vivo monitoring, or breath samples for 
     internal radiation exposures, at a facility.''.
       (c) Funding of Compensation and Benefits.--(1) Such Act is 
     further amended by inserting after section 3612 the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC. 3612A. FUNDING FOR COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR 
                   CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE SPECIAL EXPOSURE COHORT.

       ``(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is hereby 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Labor for 
     each fiscal year after fiscal year 2004 such sums as may be 
     necessary for the provision of compensation and benefits 
     under the compensation program for members of the Special 
     Exposure Cohort described in section 3621(14)(C) in such 
     fiscal year.
       ``(b) Prohibition on Use for Administrative Costs.--(1) No 
     amount authorized to be appropriated by subsection (a) may be 
     utilized for purposes of carrying out the compensation 
     program for the members of the Special Exposure Cohort 
     referred to in that subsection or administering the amount 
     authorized to be appropriated by subsection (a).
       ``(2) Amounts for purposes described in paragraph (1) shall 
     be derived from amounts authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 3614(a).
       ``(c) Provision of Compensation and Benefits Subject to 
     Appropriations Acts.--The provision of compensation and 
     benefits under the compensation program for members of the 
     Special Exposure Cohort referred to in subsection (a) in any 
     fiscal year shall be subject to the availability of 
     appropriations for that purpose for such fiscal year and to 
     applicable provisions of appropriations Acts.''.
       (2) Section 3612(d) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 7384e(d)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``Subject''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Amounts for the provision of compensation and 
     benefits under the compensation program for members of the 
     Special Exposure Cohort described in section 3621(14)(C) 
     shall be derived from amounts authorized to be appropriated 
     by section 3612A(a).''.
       On page 373, line 18, strike ``$6,674,898,000 and insert 
     ``$6,494,898,000''.


                    Amendment No. 3384, As Modified

  Mr. BOND. I send to the desk a modification on behalf of myself, 
Senator Harkin, Senator Talent, and Senator

[[Page 12684]]

Grassley, and ask it be immediately considered as a modification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification? 
Hearing none, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3384), as modified, is as follows:

(Purpose: To include certain former nuclear weapons program workers in 
  the Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy Employees Occupational 
Illness Compensation Program and to provide for the disposal of certain 
    excess Department of Defense stocks for funds for that purpose)

       At the end of subtitle D of title XXXI, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 3146. INCLUSION OF CERTAIN FORMER NUCLEAR WEAPONS 
                   PROGRAM WORKERS IN SPECIAL EXPOSURE COHORT 
                   UNDER THE ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS 
                   COMPENSATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Energy workers at the former Mallinkrodt facilities 
     (including the St. Louis downtown facility and the Weldon 
     Springs facility) were exposed to levels of radionuclides and 
     radioactive materials that were much greater than the current 
     maximum allowable Federal standards.
       (2) The Mallinkrodt workers at the St. Louis site were 
     exposed to excessive levels of airborne uranium dust relative 
     to the standards in effect during the time, and many workers 
     were exposed to 200 times the preferred levels of exposure.
       (3)(A) The chief safety officer for the Atomic Energy 
     Commission during the Mallinkrodt-St. Louis operations 
     described the facility as 1 of the 2 worst plants with 
     respect to worker exposures.
       (B) Workers were excreting in excess of a milligram of 
     uranium per day causing kidney damage.
       (C) A recent epidemiological study found excess levels of 
     nephritis and kidney cancer from inhalation of uranium dusts.
       (4) The Department of Energy has admitted that those 
     Mallinkrodt workers were subjected to risks and had their 
     health endangered as a result of working with these highly 
     radioactive materials.
       (5) The Department of Energy reported that workers at the 
     Weldon Springs feed materials plant handled plutonium and 
     recycled uranium, which are highly radioactive.
       (6) The National Institute of Occupational Safety and 
     Health admits that--
       (A) the operations at the St. Louis downtown site consisted 
     of intense periods of processing extremely high levels of 
     radionuclides; and
       (B) the Institute has virtually no personal monitoring data 
     for Mallinkrodt workers prior to 1948.
       (7) The National Institute of Occupational Safety and 
     Health has informed claimants and their survivors at those 3 
     Mallinkrodt sites that if they are not interviewed as a part 
     of the dose reconstruction process, it--
       (A) would hinder the ability of the Institute to conduct 
     dose reconstruction for the claimant; and
       (B) may result in a dose reconstruction that incompletely 
     or inaccurately estimates the radiation dose to which the 
     energy employee named in the claim had been exposed.
       (8) Energy workers at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant (also 
     known as the Burlington Atomic Energy Commission Plant and 
     the Iowa Ordnance Plant) between 1947 and 1975 were exposed 
     to levels of radionuclides and radioactive material, 
     including enriched uranium, plutonium, tritium, and depleted 
     uranium, in addition to beryllium and photon radiation, that 
     are greater than the current maximum Federal standards for 
     exposure.
       (9) According to the National Institute of Occupational 
     Safety and Health--
       (A) between 1947 and 1975, no records, including bioassays 
     or air samples, have been located that indicate any 
     monitoring occurred of internal doses of radiation to which 
     workers described in paragraph (8) were exposed;
       (B) between 1947 and 1955, no records, including dosimetry 
     badges, have been located to indicate that any monitoring 
     occurred of the external doses of radiation to which such 
     workers were exposed;
       (C) between 1955 and 1962, records indicate that only 8 to 
     23 workers in a workforce of over 1,000 were monitored for 
     external radiation doses; and
       (D) between 1970 and 1975, the high point of screening at 
     the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant, only 25 percent of the 
     workforce was screened for exposure to external radiation.
       (10) The Department of Health and Human Services published 
     the first notice of proposed rulemaking concerning the 
     Special Exposure Cohort on June 25, 2002, and the final rule 
     published on May 26, 2004.
       (11) Many of those former workers have died while waiting 
     for the proposed rule to be finalized, including some 
     claimants who were waiting for dose reconstruction to be 
     completed.
       (12) Because of the aforementioned reasons, including the 
     serious lack of records and the death of many potential 
     claimants, it is not feasible to conduct valid dose 
     reconstructions for the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant facility 
     or the Mallinkrodt facilities.
       (b) Inclusion of Certain Former Workers in Cohort.--Section 
     3621(14) of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 
     Compensation Program Act of 2000 (title XXXVI of the Floyd D. 
     Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2001 (as enacted into law by Public Law 106-398); 42 U.S.C. 
     7384l(14)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D); 
     and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new 
     subparagraph (C):
       ``(C) Subject to the provisions of section 3612A and 
     section 3146(e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2005, the employee was so employed for a number 
     of work days aggregating at least 45 workdays at a facility 
     operated under contract to the Department of Energy by 
     Mallinkrodt Incorporated or its successors (including the St. 
     Louis downtown or `Destrehan' facility during any of calendar 
     years 1942 through 1958 and the Weldon Springs feed materials 
     plant facility during any of calendar years 1958 through 
     1966), or at a facility operated by the Department of Energy 
     or under contract by Mason & Hangar-Silas Mason Company at 
     the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant (also known as the Burlington 
     Atomic Energy Commission Plant and the Iowa Ordnance Plant) 
     during any of the calendar years 1947 through 1975, and 
     during the employment--
       ``(i)(I) was monitored through the use of dosimetry badges 
     for exposure at the plant of the external parts of an 
     employee's body to radiation; or
       ``(II) was monitored through the use of bioassays, in vivo 
     monitoring, or breath samples for exposure at the plant to 
     internal radiation; or
       ``(ii) worked in a job that had exposures comparable to a 
     job that is monitored, or should have been monitored, under 
     standards of the Department of Energy in effect on the date 
     of enactment of this subparagraph through the use of 
     dosimetry badges for monitoring external radiation exposures, 
     or bioassays, in vivo monitoring, or breath samples for 
     internal radiation exposures, at a facility.''.
       (c) Funding of Compensation and Benefits.--(1) Such Act is 
     further amended by inserting after section 3612 the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC. 3612A. FUNDING FOR COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR 
                   CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE SPECIAL EXPOSURE COHORT.

       ``(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is hereby 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Labor for 
     each fiscal year after fiscal year 2004 such sums as may be 
     necessary for the provision of compensation and benefits 
     under the compensation program for members of the Special 
     Exposure Cohort described in section 3621(14)(C) in such 
     fiscal year.
       ``(b) Prohibition on Use for Administrative Costs.--(1) No 
     amount authorized to be appropriated by subsection (a) may be 
     utilized for purposes of carrying out the compensation 
     program for the members of the Special Exposure Cohort 
     referred to in that subsection or administering the amount 
     authorized to be appropriated by subsection (a).
       ``(2) Amounts for purposes described in paragraph (1) shall 
     be derived from amounts authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 3614(a).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the Senator from New York, Mrs. 
Clinton, be recognized for 5 minutes to speak?
  Mr. WARNER. We would have to lay this aside. We are waiting for the 
Chair to rule.
  Mr. REID. It doesn't have to be laid aside.
  Mr. WARNER. We wanted to clear the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. I promise I will speak very briefly. We discussed this 
amendment at great length today. This is an amendment designed to take 
care of and put in a special employee cohort, workers in some very 
dirty nuclear bomb plants in Iowa and Missouri, back in the 1940s and 
1950s. At the request of the managers, we added a number of conditions 
to it. We worked through the authorizations, and the funding of it is 
by authorization. I believe we have worked that out.
  I think the amendment will be set aside. If anybody is really 
interested in it we will be happy to refer them to the Congressional 
Record, and at the appropriate time we will come back and restate why 
this is so important. It is relatively inexpensive--$180 million over 
10 years. I hope my colleagues will be willing to accept it.
  With that, I thank the managers and my cosponsors and I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to say at this time, we started 
today's

[[Page 12685]]

very productive session of amendments with Senator Bond, who has 
remained on the floor now I would say about 9 hours, to obtain what you 
have right now. Well done, sir.
  Mr. BOND. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. WARNER. If it is agreeable to my colleagues, I ask unanimous 
consent that amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


 Amendments Nos. 3173, As Modified; 3202, 3440, As Modified; 3163, As 
  Modified; 3199, as Modified; 3172, As Modified; 3245, As Modified; 
 3285, As Modified; 3254; 3413, As Modified; 3246; 3390, As Modified; 
3273, As Modified; 3284, As Modified; 3434, As Modified; 3401; 3237, As 
                      Modified; 3279, As Modified

  Mr. WARNER. I now send a package of amendments to the desk and ask 
they be considered en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, the 
amendments will be considered en bloc.
  Is there debate?
  Mr. LEVIN. These amendments have been cleared, I believe, on both 
sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to en bloc.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                    amendment no. 3173, as modified

   (Purpose: To provide for the supplemental subsistence allowance, 
 imminent danger pay, family separation allowance, and certain federal 
   assistance to be cumulative benefits; and to require a report on 
    availability of social services to members of the Armed Forces)

       On page 127, between the matter following line 5 and line 
     6, insert the following:

     SEC. 621. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ELIGIBILITY TO RECEIVE 
                   SUPPLEMENTAL SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE AND 
                   ELIGIBILITY TO RECEIVE IMMINENT DANGER PAY, 
                   FAMILY SEPARATION ALLOWANCE, AND CERTAIN 
                   FEDERAL ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Entitlement Not Affected by Receipt of Imminent Danger 
     Pay and Family Separation Allowance.--Subsection (b)(2) of 
     section 402a of title 37, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the following:
       ``(A) shall not take into consideration--
       ``(i) the amount of the supplemental subsistence allowance 
     that is payable under this section;
       ``(ii) the amount of special pay (if any) that is payable 
     under section 310 of this section, relating to duty subject 
     to hostile fire or imminent danger; or
       ``(iii) the amount of family separation allowance (if any) 
     that is payable under section 427 of this title; but''.
       (b) Eligibility for Other Federal Assistance.--Section 402a 
     of such title is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (g) and (h) as subsections 
     (h) and (i), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following new 
     subsection (g):
       ``(g) Eligibility for Other Federal Assistance.--(1)(A) A 
     child or spouse of a member of the armed forces receiving the 
     supplemental subsistence allowance under this section who, 
     except for the receipt of such allowance, would otherwise be 
     eligible to receive a benefit described in subparagraph (B) 
     shall be considered to be eligible for that benefit.
       ``(B) The benefits referred to in subparagraph (A) are as 
     follows:
       ``(i) Assistance provided under the Richard B. Russell 
     National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.).
       ``(ii) Assistance provided under the Child Nutrition Act of 
     1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.).
       ``(iii) A service under the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 
     et seq.).
       ``(iv) Assistance under the Child Care and Development 
     Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.).
       ``(2) A household that includes a member of the armed 
     forces receiving the supplemental subsistence allowance under 
     this section and, except for the receipt of such allowance, 
     would otherwise be eligible to receive a benefit under the 
     Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8621 
     et seq.) shall be considered to be eligible for that 
     benefit.''.
       (c) Requirement for Report.--(1) Not later than 180 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall submit to the committees of Congress named in 
     paragraph (2) a report on the accessibility of social 
     services to members of the Armed Forces and their families. 
     The report shall include the following matters:
       (A) The social services for which members of the Armed 
     Forces and their families are eligible under social services 
     programs generally available to citizens and other nationals 
     of the United States.
       (B) The extent to which members of the Armed Forces and 
     their families utilize the social services for which they are 
     eligible under the programs identified under subparagraph 
     (A).
       (C) The efforts made by each of the military departments--
       (i) to ensure that members of the Armed Forces and their 
     families are aware of the social services for which they are 
     eligible under the programs identified under subparagraph 
     (A); and
       (ii) to assist members and their families in applying for 
     and obtaining such social services.
       (2) The committees of Congress referred to in paragraph (1) 
     are as follows:
       (A) The Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on 
     Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate.
       (B) The Committee on Armed Services of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (d) Effective Date.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph 
     (2), this section and the amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2004.
       (2) Subsection (c) shall take effect on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.


                           amendment no. 3202

   (Purpose: To provide relief to mobilized military reservists from 
             certain Federal agricultural loan obligations)

       On page 131, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:

     SEC. 653. RELIEF FOR MOBILIZED MILITARY RESERVISTS FROM 
                   CERTAIN FEDERAL AGRICULTURAL LOAN OBLIGATIONS.

       The Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act is amended 
     by inserting after section 331F (7 U.S.C. 1981f) the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 332. RELIEF FOR MOBILIZED MILITARY RESERVISTS FROM 
                   CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL LOAN OBLIGATIONS.

       ``(a) Definition of Mobilized Military Reservist.--In this 
     section, the term `mobilized military reservist' means an 
     individual who--
       ``(1) is on active duty under section 688, 12301(a), 
     12301(g), 12302, 12304, 12306, or 12406, or chapter 15 of 
     title 10, United States Code, or any other provision of law 
     during a war or during a national emergency declared by the 
     President or Congress, regardless of the location at which 
     the active duty service is performed; or
       ``(2) in the case of a member of the National Guard, is on 
     full-time National Guard duty (as defined in section 
     101(d)(5) of title 10, United States Code) under a call to 
     active service authorized by the President or the Secretary 
     of Defense for a period of more than 30 consecutive days 
     under section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code, for 
     purposes of responding to a national emergency declared by 
     the President and supported by Federal funds.
       ``(b) Forgiveness of Interest Payments Due While Borrower 
     Is a Mobilized Military Reservist.--Any requirement that a 
     borrower of a direct loan made under this title make any 
     interest payment on the loan that would otherwise be required 
     to be made while the borrower is a mobilized military 
     reservist is rescinded.
       ``(c) Deferral of Principal Payments Due While or After 
     Borrower Is a Mobilized Military Reservist.--The due date of 
     any payment of principal on a direct loan made to a borrower 
     under this title that would otherwise be required to be made 
     while or after the borrower is a mobilized military reservist 
     is deferred for a period equal in length to the period for 
     which the borrower is a mobilized military reservist.
       ``(d) Nonaccrual of Interest.--Interest on a direct loan 
     made to a borrower described in this section shall not accrue 
     during the period the borrower is a mobilized military 
     reservist.
       ``(e) Borrower Not Considered To Be Delinquent or Receiving 
     Debt Forgiveness.--Notwithstanding section 373 or any other 
     provision of this title, a borrower who receives assistance 
     under this section shall not, as a result of the assistance, 
     be considered to be delinquent or receiving debt forgiveness 
     for purposes of receiving a direct or guaranteed loan under 
     this title.''.


                    amendment no. 3440, as modified

  (Purpose: To promote a thorough investigation of the United Nations 
                         Oil-for-Food Program)

       On page 272, after the matter following line 18, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 1055. UNITED NATIONS OIL-FOR-FOOD PROGRAM

       (a) Responsibility of Inspector General of the Department 
     of Defense for Security of Documents.--(1) The Inspector 
     General of the Department of Defense, in cooperation with the 
     Director of the Defense Contract Audit Agency and the 
     Director of the Defense Contract Management Agency, shall 
     ensure, not later than June 30, 2004, the security of all 
     documents relevant to the United Nations Oil-for-Food Program 
     that are in the possession or control of the Coalition 
     Provisional Authority.
       (2) The Inspector General shall--
       (A) maintain copies of all such documents in the United 
     States at the Department of Defense; and
       (B) not later than August 31, 2004, deliver a complete set 
     of all such documents to the Comptroller General of the 
     United States.
       (b) Cooperation in Investigations.--Each head of an 
     Executive agency, including the Department of State, the 
     Department of Defense, the Department of the Treasury, and 
     the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Administrator of the 
     Coalition Provisional Authority shall, upon a request in 
     connection with an investigation of the United Nations

[[Page 12686]]

     Oil-for-Food Program made by the chairman of the Committee on 
     Foreign Relations, the Committee on Armed Services, the 
     Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Governmental 
     Affairs, the Select Committee on Intelligence, the Permanent 
     Subcommittee on Investigations, or other committee of the 
     Senate with relevant jurisdiction, promptly provide to such 
     chairman--
       (1) access to any information and documents described in 
     subsections (a) or (c) that are under the control of such 
     agency and responsive to the request; and
       (2) assistance relating to access to and utilization of 
     such information and documents.
       (c) Information from the United Nations.--(1) The Secretary 
     of State shall use the voice and vote of the United States in 
     the United Nations to urge the Secretary-General of the 
     United Nations to provide the United States copies of all 
     audits and core documents related to the United Nations Oil-
     for-Food Program.
       (2) It is the sense of Congress that, pursuant to section 
     941(b)(6) of the United Nations Reform Act of 1999 (title IX 
     of division A of H.R. 3427 of the 106th Congress, as enacted 
     into law by section 1000(a)(7) of Public Law 106-113; 113 
     Stat. 1501A-480), the Comptroller General of the United 
     States should have full and complete access to financial data 
     relating to the United Nations, including information related 
     to the financial transactions, organization, and activities 
     of the United Nations Oil-for-Food Program.
       (3) The Secretary of State shall facilitate the providing 
     of access to the Comptroller General to the financial data 
     described in paragraph (2).
       (d) Review of Oil-for-Food Program by Comptroller 
     General.--(1) The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct a review of United States oversight of the 
     United Nations Oil-for-Food Program. The review--
       (A) in accordance with Generally Accepted Government 
     Auditing Standards, should not interfere with any ongoing 
     criminal investigations or inquiries related to the Oil-for-
     Food program; and
       (B) may take into account the results of any investigations 
     or inquiries related to the Oil-for-Food program.
       (2) The head of each Executive agency shall fully cooperate 
     with the review under this subsection.
       (e) Executive Agency Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``Executive agency'' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 105 of title 5, United States Code.


                    amendment no. 3163, as modified

 (Purpose: To provide for improved medical readiness of the members of 
               the Armed Forces, and for other purposes)

       On page 296, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

     TITLE XIII--MEDICAL READINESS TRACKING AND HEALTH SURVEILLANCE

     SEC. 1301. ANNUAL MEDICAL READINESS PLAN AND JOINT MEDICAL 
                   READINESS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE.

       (a) Requirement for Plan.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     develop a comprehensive plan to improve medical readiness, 
     and Department of Defense tracking of the health status, of 
     members of the Armed Forces throughout their service in the 
     Armed Forces, and to strengthen medical readiness and 
     tracking before, during, and after deployment of the 
     personnel overseas. The matters covered by the comprehensive 
     plan shall include all elements that are described in this 
     title and the amendments made by this title and shall comply 
     with requirements in law.
       (b) Joint Medical Readiness Oversight Committee.--
       (1) Establishment.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     establish a Joint Medical Readiness Oversight Committee.
       (2) Composition.--The members of the Committee are as 
     follows:
       (A) The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 
     Readiness, who shall chair the Committee.
       (B) The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs.
       (C) The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs.
       (D) The Surgeons General of the Armed Forces.
       (E) The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and 
     Reserve Affairs.
       (F) The Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and 
     Reserve Affairs.
       (G) The Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower, 
     Reserve Affairs, Installations, and Environment.
       (H) The Chief of the National Guard Bureau.
       (I) The Chief of Army Reserve.
       (J) The Chief of Naval Reserve.
       (K) The Chief of Air Force Reserve.
       (L) The Commander, Marine Corps Reserve.
       (M) The Director of the Defense Manpower Data Center.
       (N) A representative of the Department of Veterans Affairs 
     designated by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
       (O) Representatives of veterans and military health 
     advocacy organizations appointed to the Committee by the 
     Secretary of Defense.
       (P) An individual from civilian life who is recognized as 
     an expert on military health care treatment, including 
     research relating to such treatment.
       (3) Duties.--The duties of the Committee are as follows:
       (A) To advise the Secretary of Defense on the medical 
     readiness and health status of the members of the active and 
     reserve components of the Armed Forces.
       (B) To advise the Secretary of Defense on the compliance of 
     the Armed Forces with the medical readiness tracking and 
     health surveillance policies of the Department of Defense.
       (C) To oversee the development and implementation of the 
     comprehensive plan required by subsection (a) and the actions 
     required by this title and the amendments made by this title, 
     including with respect to matters relating to--
       (i) the health status of the members of the reserve 
     components of the Armed Forces;
       (ii) accountability for medical readiness;
       (iii) medical tracking and health surveillance;
       (iv) declassification of information on environmental 
     hazards;
       (v) postdeployment health care for members of the Armed 
     Forces; and
       (vi) compliance with Department of Defense and other 
     applicable policies on blood serum repositories.
       (D) To ensure unity and integration of efforts across 
     functional and organizational lines within the Department of 
     Defense with regard to medical readiness tracking and health 
     status surveillance of members of the Armed Forces.
       (E) To establish and monitor compliance with the medical 
     readiness standards that are applicable to members and those 
     that are applicable to units.
       (F) To improve continuity of care in coordination with the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs, for members of the Armed 
     Forces separating from active service with service-connected 
     medical conditions.
       (G) To prepare and submit to the Secretary of Defense and 
     to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 
     House of Representatives, not later than February 1 of each 
     year, a report on--
       (i) the health status and medical readiness of the members 
     of the Armed Forces, including the members of reserve 
     components, based on the comprehensive plan required under 
     subsection (a) and the actions required by this title and the 
     amendments made by this title; and
       (ii) compliance with Department of Defense policies on 
     medical readiness tracking and health surveillance.
       (4) First meeting.--The first meeting of the Committee 
     shall be held not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 1302. MEDICAL READINESS OF RESERVES.

       (a) Comptroller General Study of Health of Reserves Ordered 
     to Active Duty for Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi 
     Freedom.--
       (1) Requirement for study.--The Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall carry out a study of the health of the 
     members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces who 
     have been called or ordered to active duty for a period of 
     more than 30 days in support of Operation Enduring Freedom 
     and Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Comptroller General shall 
     commence the study not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Purposes.--The purposes of the study under this 
     subsection are as follows:
       (A) To review the health status and medical fitness of the 
     activated Reserves when they were called or ordered to active 
     duty.
       (B) To review the effects, if any, on logistics planning 
     and the deployment schedules for the operations referred to 
     in paragraph (1) that resulted from deficiencies in the 
     health or medical fitness of activated Reserves.
       (C) To review compliance of military personnel with 
     Department of Defense policies on medical and physical 
     fitness examinations and assessments that are applicable to 
     the reserve components of the Armed Forces.
       (3) Report.--The Comptroller General shall, not later than 
     one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, submit 
     a report on the results of the study under this subsection to 
     the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House 
     of Representatives. The report shall include the following 
     matters:
       (A) With respect to the matters reviewed under subparagraph 
     (A) of paragraph (2)--
       (i) the percentage of activated Reserves who were 
     determined to be medically unfit for deployment, together 
     with an analysis of the reasons why the member was unfit, 
     including medical illnesses or conditions most commonly found 
     among the activated Reserves that were grounds for 
     determinations of medical unfitness for deployment; and
       (ii) the percentage of the activated Reserves who, before 
     being deployed, needed medical care for health conditions 
     identified when called or ordered to active duty, together 
     with an analysis of the types of care that were provided for 
     such conditions and the reasons why such care was necessary.
       (B) With respect to the matters reviewed under subparagraph 
     (B) of paragraph (2)--

[[Page 12687]]

       (i) the delays and other disruptions in deployment 
     schedules that resulted from deficiencies in the health 
     status or medical fitness of activated Reserves; and
       (ii) an analysis of the extent to which it was necessary to 
     merge units or otherwise alter the composition of units, and 
     the extent to which it was necessary to merge or otherwise 
     alter objectives, in order to compensate for limitations on 
     the deployability of activated Reserves resulting from 
     deficiencies in the health status or medical fitness of 
     activated Reserves.
       (C) With respect to the matters reviewed under subparagraph 
     (C) of paragraph (2), an assessment of the extent of the 
     compliance of reserve component personnel with Department of 
     Defense policies on routine medical and physical fitness 
     examinations that are applicable to the reserve components of 
     the Armed Forces.
       (D) An analysis of the extent to which the medical care, if 
     any, provided to activated Reserves in each theater of 
     operations referred to in paragraph (1) related to 
     preexisting conditions that were not adequately addressed 
     before the deployment of such personnel to the theater.
       (4) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       (A) The term ``activated Reserves'' means the members of 
     the Armed Forces referred to in paragraph (1).
       (B) The term ``active duty for a period of more than 30 
     days'' has the meaning given such term in section 101(d) of 
     title 10, United States Code.
       (C) The term ``health condition'' includes a mental health 
     condition and a dental condition.
       (D) The term ``reserve components of the Armed Forces'' 
     means the reserve components listed in section 10101 of title 
     10, United States Code.
       (b) Accountability for Individual and Unit Medical 
     Readiness.--
       (1) Policy.--The Secretary of Defense shall issue a policy 
     to ensure that individual members and commanders of reserve 
     component units fulfill their responsibilities for medical 
     and dental readiness of members of the units on the basis 
     of--
       (A) frequent periodic health assessment of members (not 
     less frequently than once every two years) using the 
     predeployment assessment procedure required under section 
     1074f of title 10, United States Code, as the minimum 
     standard of medical readiness; and
       (B) any other information on the health status of the 
     members that is available to the commanders.
       (2) Review and followup care.--The regulations under this 
     subsection shall provide for review of the health assessments 
     under paragraph (1) by a medical professional and for any 
     followup care and treatment that is needed for medical or 
     dental readiness.
       (3) Modification of predeployment health assessment 
     survey.--In meeting the policy under paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall--
       (A) to the extent practicable, modify the predeployment 
     health assessment survey to bring such survey into conformity 
     with the detailed postdeployment health assessment survey in 
     use as of October 1, 2004; and
       (B) ensure the use of the predeployment health assessment 
     survey, as so modified, for predeployment health assessments 
     after that date.
       (c) Uniform Policy on Deferral of Medical Treatment Pending 
     Deployment to Theaters of Operations.--
       (1) Requirement for policy.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     prescribe, for uniform applicability throughout the Armed 
     Forces, a policy on deferral of medical treatment of members 
     pending deployment.
       (2) Content.--The policy prescribed under paragraph (1) 
     shall specify the following matters:
       (A) The circumstances under which treatment for medical 
     conditions may be deferred to be provided within a theater of 
     operations in order to prevent delay or other disruption of a 
     deployment to that theater.
       (B) The circumstances under which medical conditions are to 
     be treated before deployment to that theater.

     SEC. 1303. BASELINE HEALTH DATA COLLECTION PROGRAM.

       (a) Requirement for Program.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 55 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 1092 the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 1092a. Persons entering the armed forces: baseline 
       health data

       ``(a) Program Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     carry out a program--
       ``(1) to collect baseline health data from all persons 
     entering the armed forces;
       ``(2) to provide for computerized compilation and 
     maintenance of the baseline health data; and
       ``(3) to analyze the data.
       ``(b) Purposes.--The program under this section shall be 
     designed to achieve the following purposes:
       ``(1) To facilitate understanding of how exposures related 
     to service in the armed forces affect health.
       ``(2) To facilitate development of early intervention and 
     prevention programs to protect health and readiness.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to section 1092 the following new item:

``1092a. Persons entering the armed forces: baseline health data.''.

       (3) Time for implementation.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall implement the program required under section 1092a of 
     title 10, United States Code (as added by paragraph (1)), not 
     later than two years after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (b) Interim Standards for Blood Sampling.--The Secretary of 
     Defense shall require under the medical tracking system 
     administered under section 1074f of title 10, United States 
     Code, that--
       (1) the blood samples necessary for the predeployment 
     medical examination of a member of the Armed Forces required 
     under subsection (b) of such section be drawn not earlier 
     than 60 days before the date of the deployment; and
       (2) the blood samples necessary for the postdeployment 
     medical examination of a member of the Armed Forces required 
     under such subsection be drawn not later than 30 days after 
     the date on which the deployment ends.

     SEC. 1304. MEDICAL CARE AND TRACKING AND HEALTH SURVEILLANCE 
                   IN THE THEATER OF OPERATIONS.

       (a) Recordkeeping Policy.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     prescribe a policy that requires the records of all medical 
     care provided to a member of the Armed Forces in a theater of 
     operations to be maintained as part of a complete health 
     record for the member.
       (b) In-Theater Medical Tracking and Health Surveillance.--
       (1) Requirement for evaluation.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall evaluate the system for the medical tracking and health 
     surveillance of members of the Armed Forces in theaters of 
     operations and take such actions as may be necessary to 
     improve the medical tracking and health surveillance.
       (2) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit 
     a report on the actions taken under paragraph (1) to the 
     Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives. The report shall include the following 
     matters:
       (A) An analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the 
     medical tracking system administered under section 1074f of 
     title 10, United States Code.
       (B) An analysis of the efficacy of health surveillance 
     systems as a means of detecting--
       (i) any health problems (including mental health 
     conditions) of members of the Armed Forces contemporaneous 
     with the performance of the assessment under the system; and
       (ii) exposures of the assessed members to environmental 
     hazards that potentially lead to future health problems.
       (C) An analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of such 
     medical tracking and surveillance systems as a means for 
     supporting future research on health issues.
       (D) Recommended changes to such medical tracking and health 
     surveillance systems.
       (E) A summary of scientific literature on blood sampling 
     procedures used for detecting and identifying exposures to 
     environmental hazards.
       (F) An assessment of whether there is a need for changes to 
     regulations and standards for drawing blood samples for 
     effective tracking and health surveillance of the medical 
     conditions of personnel before deployment, upon the end of a 
     deployment, and for a followup period of appropriate length.
       (c) Plan To Obtain Health Care Records From Allies.--The 
     Secretary of Defense shall develop a plan for obtaining all 
     records of medical treatment provided to members of the Armed 
     Forces by allies of the United States in Operation Enduring 
     Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. The plan shall specify 
     the actions that are to be taken to obtain all such records.
       (d) Policy on In-Theater Personnel Locator Data.--Not later 
     than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary of Defense shall prescribe a Department of 
     Defense policy on the collection and dissemination of in-
     theater individual personnel location data.

     SEC. 1305. DECLASSIFICATION OF INFORMATION ON EXPOSURES TO 
                   ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS.

       (a) Requirement for Review.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     review and, as determined appropriate, revise the 
     classification policies of the Department of Defense with a 
     view to facilitating the declassification of data that is 
     potentially useful for the monitoring and assessment of the 
     health of members of the Armed Forces who have been exposed 
     to environmental hazards during deployments overseas, 
     including the following data:
       (1) In-theater injury rates.
       (2) Data derived from environmental surveillance.
       (3) Health tracking and surveillance data.
       (b) Consultation With Commanders of Theater Combatant 
     Commands.--The Secretary shall, to the extent that the 
     Secretary considers appropriate, consult with the senior 
     commanders of the in-theater

[[Page 12688]]

     forces of the combatant commands in carrying out the review 
     and revising policies under subsection (a).

     SEC. 1306. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS.

       (a) Report on Training of Field Medical Personnel.--
       (1) Requirement for report.--Not later than one year after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of 
     the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on the 
     training on environmental hazards that is provided by the 
     Armed Forces to medical personnel of the Armed Forces who are 
     deployable to the field in direct support of combat 
     personnel.
       (2) Content.--The report under paragraph (1) shall include 
     the following:
       (A) An assessment of the adequacy of the training 
     regarding--
       (i) the identification of common environmental hazards and 
     exposures to such hazards; and
       (ii) the prevention and treatment of adverse health effects 
     of such exposures.
       (B) A discussion of the actions taken and to be taken to 
     improve such training.
       (c) Report on Responses to Health Concerns of Members.--
       (1) Requirement for report.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Assistant 
     Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs shall submit to the 
     Secretary of Defense and the Committees on Armed Services of 
     the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on 
     Department of Defense responses to concerns expressed by 
     members of the Armed Forces during post-deployment health 
     assessments about possibilities that the members were exposed 
     to environmental hazards deleterious to the members' health 
     during a deployment overseas.
       (2) Content.--The report regarding health concerns 
     submitted under paragraph (1) shall include the following:
       (A) A discussion of the actions taken by Department of 
     Defense officials to investigate the circumstances underlying 
     such concerns in order to determine the validity of the 
     concerns.
       (B) A discussion of the actions taken by Department of 
     Defense officials to evaluate or treat members and former 
     members of the Armed Forces who are confirmed to have been 
     exposed to environmental hazards deleterious to their health 
     during deployments of the Armed Forces.

     SEC. 1307. POST-DEPLOYMENT MEDICAL CARE RESPONSIBILITIES OF 
                   INSTALLATION COMMANDERS.

       (a) Requirement for Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall prescribe a policy that requires the commander of each 
     military installation at which members of the Armed Forces 
     are to be processed upon redeployment from an overseas 
     deployment--
       (1) to identify and analyze the anticipated health care 
     needs of such members before the arrival of such members at 
     that installation; and
       (2) to report such needs to the Secretary.
       (b) Health Care To Meet Needs.--The policy under this 
     section shall include procedures for the commander of each 
     military installation described in subsection (a) to meet the 
     anticipated health care needs that are identified by the 
     commander in the performance of duties under the regulations, 
     including the following:
       (1) Arrangements for health care provided by the Secretary 
     of Veterans Affairs.
       (2) Procurement of services from local health care 
     providers.
       (3) Temporary employment of health care personnel to 
     provide services at such installation.

     SEC. 1308. FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF MEDICAL READINESS TRACKING 
                   AND HEALTH SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM AND FORCE 
                   HEALTH PROTECTION AND READINESS PROGRAM.

       (a) Implementation at All Levels.--The Secretary of 
     Defense, in conjunction with the Secretaries of the military 
     departments, shall take such actions as are necessary to 
     ensure that the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps fully 
     implement at all levels--
       (1) the Medical Readiness Tracking and Health Surveillance 
     Program under this title and the amendments made by this 
     title; and
       (2) the Force Health Protection and Readiness Program of 
     the Department of Defense (relating to the prevention of 
     injury and illness and the reduction of disease and noncombat 
     injury threats).
       (b) Action Official.--The Secretary of Defense may act 
     through the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 
     Readiness in carrying out subsection (a).

     SEC. 1309. OTHER MATTERS.

       (a) Annual Reports.--
       (1) Requirement for reports.--
       (A) Chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting after section 1073a the following new section:

     ``Sec. 1073b. Recurring reports

       ``(a) Annual Report on Health Protection Quality.--(1) The 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed 
     Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives each 
     year a report on the Force Health Protection Quality 
     Assurance Program of the Department of Defense. The report 
     shall include the following matters:
       ``(A) The results of an audit of the extent to which the 
     serum samples required to be obtained from members of the 
     armed forces before and after a deployment are stored in the 
     serum repository of the Department of Defense.
       ``(B) The results of an audit of the extent to which the 
     health assessments required for members of the armed forces 
     before and after a deployment are being maintained in the 
     electronic database of the Defense Medical Surveillance 
     System.
       ``(C) An analysis of the actions taken by the Department of 
     Defense personnel to respond to health concerns expressed by 
     members of the armed forces upon return from a deployment.
       ``(D) An analysis of the actions taken by the Secretary to 
     evaluate or treat members and former members of the armed 
     forces who are confirmed to have been exposed to occupational 
     or environmental hazards deleterious to their health during a 
     deployment.
       ``(2) The Secretary of Defense shall act through the 
     Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs in carrying 
     out this subsection.
       ``(b) Annual Report on Recording of Health Assessment Data 
     in Military Personnel Records.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall issue each year a report on the compliance by the 
     military departments with applicable policies on the 
     recording of health assessment data in military personnel 
     records. The report shall include a discussion of the extent 
     to which immunization status and predeployment and 
     postdeployment health care data is being recorded in such 
     records.''.
       (B) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
     1073a the following new item:

``1073b. Recurring reports.''.

       (2) Initial report.--The first report under section 
     1073b(a) of title 10, United States Code (as added by 
     paragraph (1)), shall be completed not later than 180 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Internet Accessibility of Health Assessment Information 
     for Members of the Armed Forces.--Not later than one year 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Chief 
     Information Officer of each military department shall ensure 
     that the online portal website of that military department 
     includes the following information relating to health 
     assessments:
       (1) Information on the Department of Defense policies 
     regarding predeployment and postdeployment health 
     assessments, including policies on the following matters:
       (A) Health surveys.
       (B) Physical examinations.
       (C) Collection of blood samples and other tissue samples.
       (2) Procedural information on compliance with such 
     policies, including the following information:
       (A) Information for determining whether a member is in 
     compliance.
       (B) Information on how to comply.
       (3) Health assessment surveys that are either--
       (A) web-based; or
       (B) accessible (with instructions) in     printer-ready 
     form by download.

     SEC. 1310. USE OF CIVILIAN EXPERTS AS CONSULTANTS.

       Nothing in this title or an amendment made by this title 
     shall be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of 
     Defense to procure the services of experts outside the 
     Federal Government for performing any function to comply with 
     requirements for readiness tracking and health surveillance 
     of members of the Armed Forces that are applicable to the 
     Department of Defense.


                    amendment no. 3199, as modified

(Purpose: To authorize United Service Organizations, Incorporated (USO) 
      to procure supplies and services from the General Services 
  Administration supplies and services on the Federal Supply Schedule)

       On page 195, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:

     SEC. 868. AVAILABILITY OF FEDERAL SUPPLY SCHEDULE SUPPLIES 
                   AND SERVICES TO UNITED SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS, 
                   INCORPORATED.

       Section 220107 of title 36, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting after ``Department of Defense'' the following: 
     ``, including access to General Services Administration 
     supplies and services through the Federal Supply Schedule of 
     the General Services Administration,''


                    amendment no. 3172, as modified

     (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that perchlorate 
  contamination of ground and surface water is becoming increasingly 
    problematic to the public health of people in the United States)

       On page 48, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 326. SENSE OF SENATE ON PERCHLORATE CONTAMINATION OF 
                   GROUND AND SURFACE WATER.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) Because finite water sources in the United States are 
     stretched by regional drought conditions and increasing 
     demand for water supplies, there is increased need for safe 
     and dependable supplies of fresh water for drinking and use 
     for agricultural purposes.

[[Page 12689]]

       (2) Perchlorate, a naturally occurring and manmade compound 
     with medical, commercial, and national defense applications, 
     which has been used primarily in military munitions and 
     rocket fuels, has been detected in fresh water sources 
     intended for use as drinking water and water necessary for 
     the production of agricultural commodities.
       (3) If ingested in sufficient concentration and in adequate 
     duration, perchlorate may interfere with thyroid metabolism, 
     and this effect may impair the normal development of the 
     brain in fetuses and newborns.
       (4) The Federal Government has not yet established a 
     drinking water standard for perchlorate.
       (5) The National Academy of Sciences is conducting an 
     assessment of the state of the science regarding the effects 
     on human health of perchlorate ingestion that will aid in 
     understanding the effect of perchlorate exposure on sensitive 
     populations.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) perchlorate has been identified as a contaminant of 
     drinking water sources or in the environment in 34 States and 
     has been used or manufactured in 44 States;
       (2) perchlorate exposure at or above a certain level may 
     adversely affect public health, particularly the health of 
     vulnerable and sensitive populations; and
       (3) the Department of Defense should--
       (A) work to develop a national plan to remediate 
     perchlorate contamination of the environment resulting from 
     Department's activities to ensure the Department is prepared 
     to respond quickly and appropriately once a drinking water 
     standard is established;
       (B) in cases in which the Department is already remediating 
     perchlorate contamination, continue that remediation;
       (C) prior to the development of a drinking water standard 
     for perchlorate, develop a plan to remediate perchlorate 
     contamination in cases in which such contamination from the 
     Department's activities is present in ground or surface water 
     at levels that pose a hazard to human health; and
       (D) continue the process of evaluating and prioritizing 
     sites without waiting for the development of a Federal 
     standard.


                    amendment no. 3245, as modified

  (Purpose: To require two reports on operation of the Federal Voting 
Assistance Program and the military postal system together with certain 
             actions to improve the military postal system)

       On page 247, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:

     SEC. 1022. OPERATION OF THE FEDERAL VOTING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 
                   AND THE MILITARY POSTAL SYSTEM.

       (a) Requirement for Reports.--(1) The Secretary of Defense 
     shall submit to Congress two reports on the actions that the 
     Secretary has taken to ensure that--
       (A) the Federal Voting Assistance Program functions 
     effectively to support absentee voting by members of the 
     Armed Forces deployed outside the United States in support of 
     Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, and all 
     other contingency operations; and
       (B) the military postal system functions effectively to 
     support the morale of the personnel described in subparagraph 
     (A) and absentee voting by such members.
       (2)(A) The first report under paragraph (1) shall be 
     submitted not later than 60 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (B) The second report under paragraph (1) shall be 
     submitted not later than 60 days after the date on which the 
     first report is submitted under that paragraph.
       (3) In this subsection, the term ``Federal Voting 
     Assistance Program'' means the program referred to in section 
     1566(b)(1) of title 10, United States Code.
       (b) Implementation of Recommended Postal System 
     Improvements.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit 
     to Congress a report setting forth--
       (1) the actions taken to implement the recommendations of 
     the Military Postal Service Agency Task Force, dated 28 
     August 2000; and
       (2) in the case of each such recommendation not implemented 
     or not fully implemented as of the date of report, the 
     reasons for not implementing or not fully implementing such 
     recommendation, as the case may be.


                    amendment no. 3285, as modified

(Purpose: To amend title 32, United States Code, to provide for the use 
 of members of the National Guard on full-time National Guard duty for 
    carrying out homeland security activities in support of Federal 
                               agencies)

       On page 208, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:

     SEC. 906. HOMELAND SECURITY ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL GUARD.

       (a) Authority.--Chapter 1 of title 32, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 116. Homeland security activities

       ``(a) Use of Personnel Performing Full-Time National Guard 
     Duty.--The Governor of a State may, upon the request by the 
     head of a Federal agency and with the concurrence of the 
     Secretary of Defense, order any personnel of the National 
     Guard of the State to perform full-time National Guard duty 
     under section 502(f) of this title for the purpose of 
     carrying out homeland security activities, as described in 
     subsection (b).
       ``(b) Purpose and Duration.--(1) The purpose for the use of 
     personnel of the National Guard of a State under this section 
     is to temporarily provide trained and disciplined personnel 
     to a Federal agency to assist that agency in carrying out 
     homeland security activities.
       ``(2) The duration of the use of the National Guard of a 
     State under this section shall be limited to a period of 180 
     days. The Governor of the State may, with the concurrence of 
     the Secretary of Defense, extend the period one time for an 
     additional 90 days to meet extraordinary circumstances.
       ``(c) Relationship to Required Training.-- A member of the 
     National Guard serving on full-time National Guard duty under 
     orders authorized under subsection (a) shall participate in 
     the training required under section 502(a) of this title in 
     addition to the duty performed for the purpose authorized 
     under that subsection. The pay, allowances, and other 
     benefits of the member while participating in the training 
     shall be the same as those to which the member is entitled 
     while performing duty for the purpose of carrying out 
     homeland security activities. The member is not entitled to 
     additional pay, allowances, or other benefits for 
     participation in training required under section 502(a)(1) of 
     this title.
       ``(d) Readiness.--To ensure that the use of units and 
     personnel of the National Guard of a State for homeland 
     security activities does not degrade the training and 
     readiness of such units and personnel, the following 
     requirements shall apply in determining the homeland security 
     activities that units and personnel of the National Guard of 
     a State may perform:
       ``(1) The performance of the activities may not adversely 
     affect the quality of that training or otherwise interfere 
     with the ability of a member or unit of the National Guard to 
     perform the military functions of the member or unit.
       ``(2) National Guard personnel will not degrade their 
     military skills as a result of performing the activities.
       ``(3) The performance of the activities will not result in 
     a significant increase in the cost of training.
       ``(4) In the case of homeland security performed by a unit 
     organized to serve as a unit, the activities will support 
     valid unit training requirements.
       ``(e) Payment of Costs.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall 
     provide funds to the Governor of a State to pay costs of the 
     use of personnel of the National Guard of the State for the 
     performance of homeland security activities under this 
     section. Such funds shall be used for the following costs:
       ``(A) The pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, 
     gratuities, travel, and related expenses (including all 
     associated training expenses, as determined by the 
     Secretary), as authorized by State law, of personnel of the 
     National Guard of that State used, while not in Federal 
     service, for the purpose of homeland security activities.
       ``(B) The operation and maintenance of the equipment and 
     facilities of the National Guard of that State used for the 
     purpose of homeland security activities.
       ``(2) The Secretary of Defense shall require the head of an 
     agency receiving support from the National Guard of a State 
     in the performance of homeland security activities under this 
     section to reimburse the Department of Defense for the 
     payments made to the State for such support under paragraph 
     (1).
       ``(f) Memorandum of Agreement.--The Secretary of Defense 
     and the Governor of a State shall enter into a memorandum of 
     agreement with the head of each Federal agency to which the 
     personnel of the National Guard of that State are to provide 
     support in the performance of homeland security activities 
     under this section. The memorandum of agreement shall--
       ``(1) specify how personnel of the National Guard are to be 
     used in homeland security activities;
       ``(2) include a certification by the Adjutant General of 
     the State that those activities are to be performed at a time 
     when the personnel are not in Federal service;
       ``(3) include a certification by the Adjutant General of 
     the State that--
       ``(A) participation by National Guard personnel in those 
     activities is service in addition to training required under 
     section 502 of this title; and
       ``(B) the requirements of subsection (d) of this section 
     will be satisfied;
       ``(4) include a certification by the Attorney General of 
     the State (or, in the case of a State with no position of 
     Attorney General, a civilian official of the State equivalent 
     to a State attorney general), that the use of the National 
     Guard of the State for the activities provided for under the 
     memorandum of agreement is authorized by, and is consistent 
     with, State law;
       ``(5) include a certification by the Governor of the State 
     or a civilian official of the State designated by the 
     Governor that the activities provided for under the 
     memorandum of agreement serve a State security purpose; and

[[Page 12690]]

       ``(6) include a certification by the head of the Federal 
     agency that the agency will have a plan to ensure that the 
     agency's requirement for National Guard support ends not 
     later than 179 days after the commencement of the support.
       ``(g) Exclusion From End-Strength Computation.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, members of the 
     National Guard on active duty or full-time National Guard 
     duty for the purposes of administering (or during fiscal year 
     2003 otherwise implementing) this section shall not be 
     counted toward the annual end strength authorized for 
     Reserves on active duty in support of the reserve components 
     of the armed forces or toward the strengths authorized in 
     sections 12011 and 12012 of title 10.
       ``(h) Annual Report.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit 
     to Congress an annual report regarding any assistance 
     provided and activities carried out under this section during 
     the preceding fiscal year. The report shall include the 
     following:
       ``(1) The number of members of the National Guard excluded 
     under subsection (g) from the computation of end strengths.
       ``(2) A description of the homeland security activities 
     conducted with funds provided under this section.
       ``(3) An accounting of the amount of funds provided to each 
     State.
       ``(4) A description of the effect on military training and 
     readiness of using units and personnel of the National Guard 
     to perform homeland security activities under this section.
       ``(i) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed as a limitation on the authority of any 
     unit of the National Guard of a State, when such unit is not 
     in Federal service, to perform functions authorized to be 
     performed by the National Guard by the laws of the State 
     concerned.
       ``(j) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       ``(1) The term `Governor of a State' means, in the case of 
     the District of Columbia, the Commanding General of the 
     National Guard of the District of Columbia.
       ``(2) The term `State' means each of the several States, 
     the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or 
     a territory or possession of the United States.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such section is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new item:

``116. Homeland security activities.''.


                           amendment no. 3254

    (Purpose: To repeal a requirement for an officer to retire upon 
   termination of service as Superintendent of the Air Force Academy)

         On page 84, between the matter following line 13 and line 
     14, insert the following:

     SEC. 535. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT FOR OFFICER TO RETIRE UPON 
                   TERMINATION OF SERVICE AS SUPERINTENDENT OF THE 
                   AIR FORCE ACADEMY.

       (a) Repeals.--Sections 8921 and 9333a of title 10, United 
     States Code, are repealed.
       (b) Clerical Amendments.--Subtitle D of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 
     867, by striking the item relating to section 8921; and
       (2) in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 
     903, by striking the item relating to section 9333a.


                    amendment no. 3413, as modified

     (Purpose: To amend the Science, Mathematics, and Research for 
       Transformation (SMART) Defense Scholarship Pilot Program)

       On page 285, line 1, insert ``, the Committee on 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on 
     Government Reform of the House of Representatives'' after 
     ``Representatives''.
       On page 285, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
       (g) Critical Hiring Need.--Section 3304(a)(3) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking subparagraph (B) 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(B)(i) the Office of Personnel Management has determined 
     that there exists a severe shortage of candidates or there is 
     a critical hiring need; or
       ``(ii) the candidate is a participant in the Science, 
     Mathematics, and Research for Transformation (SMART) Defense 
     Scholarship Pilot Program under section 1101 of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005.''.
       On page 285, line 9, strike ``(g)'' and insert ``(h)''.


                           amendment no. 3246

(Purpose: To permit qualified HUBZone small business concerns and small 
business concerns owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans to 
participate in the mentor-protege program of the Department of Defense)

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

     SEC. __. MENTOR-PROTEGE PILOT PROGRAM.

       Section 831(m)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2302 
     note) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(F) a small business concern owned and controlled by 
     service-disabled veterans (as defined in section 8(d)(3) of 
     the Small Business Act); and
       ``(G) a qualified HUBZone small business concern (as 
     defined in section 3(p) of the Small Business Act).''.


                    amendment no. 3390, as modified

 (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress on the Global Partnership 
           Against the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction)

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

     SEC. 1055. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP 
                   AGAINST THE SPREAD OF WEAPONS OF MASS 
                   DESTRUCTION.

       It is the sense of Congress that the President should be 
     commended for the steps taken at the G-8 summit at Sea 
     Island, Georgia, on June 8-10, 2004, to demonstrate continued 
     support for the Global Partnership against the Spread of 
     Nuclear Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction and to 
     expand the Partnership by welcoming new members and using the 
     Partnership to coordinate non-proliferation projects in 
     Libya, Iraq and other countries; and that the President 
     should continue to--
       (1) expand the membership of donor nations to the 
     Partnership;
       (2) insure that Russia remains the primary partner of the 
     Partnership while also seeking to fund through the 
     Partnership efforts in other countries with potentially 
     vulnerable weapons or materials;
       (3) develop for the Partnership clear program goals;
       (4) develop for the Partnership transparent project 
     prioritization and planning;
       (5) develop for the Partnership project implementation 
     milestones under periodic review;
       (6) develop under the Partnership agreements between 
     partners for project implementation; and
       (7) give high priority and senior-level attention to 
     resolving disagreements on site access and worker liability 
     under the Partnership.


                    amendment no. 3273, as modified

 (Purpose: To revise and extend the authority for an advisory panel on 
         review of Government procurement laws and regulations)

       On page 158, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:

     SEC. 805. REVISION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR ADVISORY 
                   PANEL ON REVIEW OF GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT LAWS 
                   AND REGULATIONS.

       (a) Relationship of Recommendations to Small Businesses.--
     Section 1423 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 106-136; 117 Stat. 1669; 41 
     U.S.C. 405 note) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new 
     subsection (d):
       ``(d) Issues Relating to Small Businesses.--In developing 
     recommendations under subsection (c)(2), the panel shall--
       ``(1) consider the effects of its recommendations on small 
     business concerns; and
       ``(2) include any recommended modifications of laws, 
     regulations, and policies that the panel considers necessary 
     to enhance and ensure competition in contracting that affords 
     small business concerns meaningful opportunity to participate 
     in Federal Government contracts.''.
       (b) Revision and Extension of Reporting Requirement.--
     Section 1423(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136; 117 Stat. 1669; 41 
     U.S.C. 405 note) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``one year after the establishment of the 
     panel'' and inserting ``one year after the date of the 
     enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2005'';
       (2) by striking ``Services and'' both places it appears and 
     inserting ``Services,'';
       (3) by inserting ``, and Small Business'' after 
     ``Government Reform''; and
       (4) by inserting ``, and Small Business and 
     Entrepreneurship'' after ``Governmental Affairs''.


                    amendment no. 3284, as modified

   (Purpose: To require an independent report on the efforts of the 
  National Nuclear Security Administration to understand the aging of 
                     plutonium in nuclear weapons)

       On page 394, after line 22, insert the following:

     SEC. 3122. REPORT ON EFFORTS OF NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY 
                   ADMINISTRATION TO UNDERSTAND PLUTONIUM AGING.

       (a) Study.--(1) The Administrator for Nuclear Security 
     shall enter into a contract with a Federally Funded Research 
     and Development Center (FFROC) providing for a study to 
     assess the efforts of the National Nuclear Security 
     Administration to understand the aging of plutonium in 
     nuclear weapons.

[[Page 12691]]

       (2) The Administrator shall make available to the FFROC 
     contractor under this subsection all information that is 
     necessary for the contractor to successfully complete a 
     meaningful study on a timely basis.
       (b) Report Required.--(1) Not later than two years after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator 
     shall submit to Congress a report on the findings of the 
     study on the efforts of the Administration to understand the 
     aging of plutonium in nuclear weapons.
       (2) The report shall include the recommendations of the 
     study for improving the knowledge, understanding, and 
     application of the fundamental and applied sciences related 
     to the study of plutonium aging.
       (3) The report shall be submitted in unclassified form, but 
     may include a classified annex.


                    amendment no. 3434, as modified

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on the effects of cost 
inflation on the value range of the contracts to which a small business 
                     contract reservation applies)

       On page 164, after line 18, insert the following:

     SEC. 816. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON EFFECTS OF COST INFLATION ON 
                   THE VALUE RANGE OF THE CONTRACTS TO WHICH A 
                   SMALL BUSINESS CONTRACT RESERVATION APPLIES.

       (a) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) in the administration of the requirement for 
     reservation of contracts for small businesses under 
     subsection (j) of section 15 of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 644), the maximum amount in the contract value range 
     provided under that subsection should be treated as being 
     adjusted to the same amount to which the simplified 
     acquisition threshold is increased whenever such threshold is 
     increased under law; and
       (2) the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy, in 
     consultation with the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council, 
     should ensure that appropriate governmentwide policies and 
     procedures are in place--
       (A) to monitor socioeconomic data concerning purchases made 
     by means of purchase cards or credit cards issued for use in 
     transactions on behalf of the Federal Government; and
       (B) to encourage the placement of a fair portion of such 
     purchases with small businesses consistent with 
     governmentwide goals for small business prime contracting 
     established under section 15(g) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 644(g)).
       (b) Simplified Acquisition Threshold Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``simplified acquisition threshold'' has 
     the meaning given such term in section 4(11) of the Office of 
     Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403(11)).


                           amendment no. 3401

(Purpose: To amend the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 
 to provide financial assistance for the improvement of the health and 
 safety of firefighters, promote the use of life saving technologies, 
and achieve greater equity for departments serving large jurisdictions)

       (The amendment is printed in the Record of Monday, June 7, 
     2004)


                    amendment no. 3237, as modified

(Purpose: To ensure fairness in the standards applied to members of the 
  Army in the awarding of the Combat Infantryman Badge and the Combat 
   Medical Badge for service in Korea in comparison to the standards 
   applied to members of the Army in the awarding of such badges for 
                 service in other areas of operations)

       On page 86, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:

     SEC. 543. PLAN FOR REVISED CRITERIA AND ELIGIBILITY 
                   REQUIREMENTS FOR AWARD OF COMBAT INFANTRYMAN 
                   BADGE AND COMBAT MEDICAL BADGE FOR SERVICE IN 
                   KOREA AFTER JULY 28, 1953.

       (a) Requirement for Plan.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army 
     shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives a plan for revising 
     the Army's criteria and eligibility requirements for award of 
     the Combat Infantryman Badge and the Combat Medical Badge for 
     service in the Republic of Korea after July 28, 1953, to 
     fulfill the purpose stated in subsection (b).
       (b) Purpose of Revised Criteria and Eligibility 
     Requirements.--The purpose for revising the criteria and 
     eligibility requirements for award of the Combat Infantryman 
     Badge and the Combat Medical Badge for service in the 
     Republic of Korea after July 28, 1953, is to ensure fairness 
     in the standards applied to Army personnel in the awarding of 
     such badges for Army service in the Republic of Korea in 
     comparison to the standards applied to Army personnel in the 
     awarding of such badges for Army service in other areas of 
     operations.


                    amendment no. 3279, as modified

 (Purpose: To require a report on any relationships between terrorist 
      organizations based in Colombia and foreign governments and 
                             organizations)

       On page 269, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       (f) Report on Relationships Between Terrorist Organizations 
     in Colombia and Foreign Governments and Organizations.--(1) 
     Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of State shall, in consultation with 
     the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central 
     Intelligence, submit to the congressional defense committees 
     and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the 
     Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives a report that describes--
       (A) any relationships between foreign governments or 
     organizations and organizations based in Colombia that have 
     been designated as foreign terrorist organizations under 
     United States law, including the provision of any direct or 
     indirect assistance to such organizations; and
       (B) United States policies that are designed to address 
     such relationships.
       (2) The report under paragraph (1) shall be submitted in 
     unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.


                           amendment no. 3279

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to address amendment No. 
3279 to the pending bill. This amendment asks the administration to 
report on any relationships between foreign governments or groups 
operating within their territories and foreign terrorist organizations 
in Colombia. It also asks the administration to describe United States 
policies that are designed to address such relationships.
  This amendment, tragically, is extremely timely in light of today's 
news. This morning's Miami Herald reported that in Little River, 
Colombia, in the province of Norte de Santander, over 30 peasants were 
murdered in cold blood. Terrorists entered their residencies and shot 
them to death with automatic weapons. The FARC is suspected to have 
committed this crime. While Colombia, with tremendous support of the 
U.S., has made great strides in fighting narcoterror-
ism under President Uribe, there is still much work to be done, as is 
underscored by yesterday's events.
  The FARC and the ELN, Colombia's two main rebel groups, both of which 
have been designated by the United States as foreign terrorist 
organizations, continue to conduct terrorist attacks against civilians 
in their campaign against the Colombian government. These groups are 
also heavily involved in the drug trade that does so much harm to 
Colombia and to our own country. At a time when Colombia is making slow 
but steady gains in its long struggle against the FARC, the last thing 
it needs is to have neighboring countries providing assistance to these 
brutal adversaries.
  To be perfectly blunt, my primary concern is with Venezuela. On my 
visit to Colombia and Venezuela in April, I heard some disturbing 
accounts from various U.S. officials of instances in which the FARC had 
been able to cross the line into Venezuela and conduct operations from 
that side of the border from virtual safe havens. Colombian authorities 
are also suspicious that the Chavez government has been willing to, at 
a minimum, look the other way while FARC elements operate in Venezuela, 
if not actually permitting some level of coordination.
  Threatening to compound the ``safe haven'' problem for the United 
States and Colombia is the fact that Venezuela also harbors a potent 
market in false documentation, such as passports and other identity 
cards. I am increasingly concerned at the ease with which, simply by 
buying off officials for $800 or $900, one can acquire fully 
legitimate, yet false, documents in Venezuela--everything from a 
passport to a driver's license. I am certainly concerned that 
international terrorist groups will discover their ability to acquire 
and make use of forged Venezuela documents to conduct terrorist 
attacks, and I raised these important issues with Venezuelan officials 
during my visit.
  Naturallly, the Venezuelan government disputes these serious 
allegations. What this amendment would do is help us establish the 
facts. If groups in Colombia that our government has

[[Page 12692]]

designated as foreign terrorist organizations are receiving support or 
assistance from Venezuela, or any of Colombia's other neighbors, or any 
other state for that matter, we need to know about it and adjust our 
policies accordingly.
  Right now, Colombia needs all the help it can get from its neighbors. 
In asking the administration to report on whether terrorist groups may 
have relationships with or be operating in neighboring countries such 
as Venezuela, perhaps we can address this problem in a more regional 
context and better understand what Colombia is up against.
  I thank the chairman and ranking member and their staffs for their 
support.


                           amendment no. 3401

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senate amendment 
No. 3401 is acceptable to both the chair and ranking member. This 
amendment would reauthorize the Assistance to Firefighters Grant 
Program, or the FIRE Act, for the next 6 years.
  It is based on bipartisan legislation introduced by Senator DeWine 
and myself on May 11, 2004. The bill, S. 2411, currently has 39 co-
sponsors, including the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member of 
the Senate Armed Services Committee.
  As many of our colleagues know, the Senate approved by unanimous 
consent the original FIRE Act as part of the Defense Authorization bill 
4 years ago. There is some precedent, then, for this amendment to the 
current Defense Authorization bill, despite the fact that the 
legislation falls under the jurisdiction of the Senate Commerce 
Committee.
  Unless Congress quickly reauthorizes the FIRE Act grant program, it 
will expire at the end of the current fiscal year on September 30, 
2004. If this legislation is not quickly enacted, fire departments 
throughout the Nation will not receive the assistance they need to 
fight fires, save lives, and protect their own.
  I have consulted with the distinguished Chairman of the Senate 
Commerce Committee about the urgency of reauthorizing the FIRE Act 
before the fiscal year ends. He is fully aware of the fact that we have 
precious few legislative days left on the Senate Calendar. Accordingly, 
he has indicated to me his intention to hold a hearing on the 
reauthorization bill on July 8, with a markup to follow before the 
August recess.
  Assuming that this schedule holds firm, my expectation is that 
legislation passed by the Commerce Committee would take the place of 
amendment No. 3401. In the event that work on the Defense Authorization 
Act is not completed this year, I am also prepared to move the FIRE Act 
reauthorization as a free-standing bill. Alternatively, should the 
Commerce Committee not act on this legislation, the Senate will have at 
least acted to reauthorize the FIRE Act adopting amendment No. 3401.
  In closing, I thank Senator McCain for his leadership on this issue, 
and his unwavering commitment over the years to advancing the cause of 
firefighters. I also commend Chairman Warner and Senator Levin for 
their willingness to help the Nation's fire services on the Defense 
Authorization bill both today and 4 years ago. Finally, I would like to 
express my appreciation to Senator Hollings for his wise counsel and 
strong support for the FIRE Act initiative.
  I yield to the distinguished Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Connecticut. I am 
prepared to accept this amendment based on the understanding he has 
reached with the distinguished Chairman of the Commerce Committee.
  As Senator Dodd indicated, the Commerce Committee plans to hold a 
hearing on the FIRE Act on July 8, with a markup expected shortly 
thereafter. I look forward to working with Senators McCain, Dodd, and 
DeWine to ensure that this important legislation to help our Nation's 
fire departments is enacted into law this year.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the distinguished Chairman of the Armed Services 
and my friend from Connecticut for the opportunity to work with them to 
reauthorize this important program.
  As Chairman of the committee of jurisdiction over the Assistance to 
Firefighters Grant Program, I am familiar with this program's success. 
This program provides grants to local fire departments using a 
competitive, merit-based review process. I agree with my colleagues 
that this program is an example of a well-run government program that 
should be reauthorized, and am proud to be a cosponsor of S. 2411.
  I have consented to allow Senator Dodd's amendment be added to this 
important legislation as a placeholder. The Senate Commerce Committee 
intends to hold a hearing on S. 2411 on July 8, 2004, and then we 
expect to report the bill out of Committee by the August recess. It is 
my intention that this reported version of S. 2411 be used to replace 
the placeholder during the conference for S. 2400.
  I thank Senators Dodd, Warner, and DeWine for their leadership on 
this issue, and look forward to working with them to pass this 
legislation this year.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Before the Senator from New York speaks, I wonder if I 
might get the attention of the distinguished whip?
  If we can have assurance, as the managers depart the floor, to do 
some other work, that this will be the final action on this bill 
tonight?
  Mr. REID. I will indicate, as both managers know, tomorrow Senator 
Lautenberg is going to offer two amendments, Senator Durbin is going to 
offer two amendments, Senator Reed is going to offer his amendment, if 
he so chooses, on missile defense, and I am going to offer my amendment 
on current receipts.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Nevada went 
over that with me, and that strikes me as a very good day. If a 
Republican Senator desires an amendment, we will work him or her into 
the queue as the case may be.
  Mr. REID. Absolutely.
  Mr. WARNER. Then we might mention also the schedule for Monday?
  Mr. REID. On Monday, we have Senator Levin, Senator Dayton, Senator 
Byrd, and Senator Bingaman, and there may be others as the day 
progresses.
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct. These are the amendments that have been 
forthcoming on the other side of the aisle.
  I am prepared to assist my colleagues on this side if they have 
matters, but we are really working toward what the majority leader, in 
consultation with the distinguished Democratic leader, indicates. We 
are going to conclude this bill on Tuesday.
  Mr. REID. We will do our very best--Tuesday night or Wednesday 
morning. But we are doing quite well.
  Mr. WARNER. It is largely due to the tremendous cooperation on both 
sides. So we have the assurance that this will be the completion of the 
work tonight?
  Mr. REID. Absolutely.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished leader.
  Mr. REID. There will be no more votes. The Chair already announced 
that. Can the Senator from New York be recognized for 5 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from New York 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. And the Senator from Missouri wishes to speak for how 
many minutes?
  Mr. TALENT. I would like 5, but I probably will not use them.
  Mr. WARNER. Five minutes to follow the Senator from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield for a unanimous consent, I ask 
unanimous consent the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, be added 
as a cosponsor to amendment No. 3432, which has already been agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 12693]]




                    Amendment No. 3163, as modified

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to thank the chairman and ranking 
member for the work they and their staffs have done, along with the 
Senator from Missouri and myself and our staffs, to accept an amendment 
that addresses two issues critical to our men and women in uniform. 
First, through this amendment we are attempting to develop better 
policies and information in order to track the health of soldiers and 
others in uniform after a deployment overseas.
  Second, we are seeking to improve the medical and dental readiness of 
our National Guard members and reservists.
  Last month, Senator Talent and I introduced the Armed Forces 
Personnel Medical Readiness and Tracking Act of 2004. I am delighted 
that many of the ideas we have advocated are included in this 
legislation because of our amendment.
  It has been a pleasure working with my colleague on the Armed 
Services Committee, Senator Talent, and with his staff.
  When I was First Lady, I worked to bring attention to the problems 
and symptoms that many of our veterans returning from the 1991 gulf war 
experienced. This constellation of symptoms came to be known as the 
Gulf War Syndrome.
  During Senate Armed Services Committee hearings in February 2003, 
before the current Iraq war, I asked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, 
General Myers, and each of the Service Chiefs, whether they would be 
monitoring and tracking the health of our soldiers who are deployed in 
the gulf.
  They assured me they would. But I am afraid that based on reports 
from soldiers returning from this deployment, we have not done all we 
should to screen and track the health of our soldiers. Indeed, several 
weeks ago we had several soldiers from the 442 MP unit out of 
Orangeburg, NY, who are being treated at Fort Dix for injuries and 
symptoms they incurred in Iraq, including headache, sleeplessness, and 
many others.
  We know very well our enemy stops at nothing. The use of Sarin in an 
artillery shell in Iraq last month demonstrates more than ever the need 
to have adequate information about the health of our young men and 
women.
  The legislation we have championed that is being adopted seeks to 
establish procedures to ensure that the information is systematically 
collected so that, if soldiers return exhibiting certain symptoms, 
there will be a base of information on which we can determine what 
could have caused that.
  The amendment requires the Department of Defense to develop a 
comprehensive plan to improve medical readiness and tracking before, 
during, and after deployment. It establishes a Joint Medical Readiness 
Oversight Committee to advise the Secretary of Defense on the medical 
readiness and health status of members of the active Reserve 
components.
  It requires compliance of the Armed Forces with medical readiness and 
tracking policies. It requires that we develop and implement the annual 
readiness plan.
  The committee will include DOD officials and experts in the military 
service organizations, veterans service organizations, and civilians.
  Finally, current law requires the information about the health of 
soldiers returning from deployment to be collected, but it appears 
these provisions are not being enforced. So we require audits of blood 
serum collection programs, as well as the predeployment and 
postdeployment health assessment database that DOD is supposed to 
maintain.
  These problems have come to light because of our many Guard and 
Reserve members who have been deployed, and we are finding too many 
examples where they don't have the requisite medical readiness and 
where they are not sufficiently tracked.
  This is an effort to do what we should do--the right thing to treat 
our young men and women in uniform. I am hoping it provides a good base 
for us to learn more about what they are supposed to do during their 
deployment in the gulf and elsewhere around the world.
  I thank my colleague from Missouri as well as the chairman and 
ranking member for working with us and I look forward to seeing this 
implemented to further the health of our young men and women.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words on our 
amendment, but before I do that, let me take a minute to compliment 
again Senator Bond, who laid down the amendment and Senator Harkin for 
cosponsoring it, to assist former employees in Iowa and Missouri who 
were affected because they worked in plants that produced the atomic 
materials from which we made the atom bombs which won the war and then 
kept us safe.
  Because of their exposure to the radiation, they have become ill and 
they deserve compensation. They are not getting it because of the 
convoluted procedures that are currently in place. We simply want to 
allow them to be treated separately as already occurs with employees in 
the four States.
  I admire the way Senator Bond has fought like a tiger for those 
employees. I have joined him in doing that.
  I appreciate the work of the managers of the bill in trying to figure 
out a way to accept that amendment. I hope we can, indeed, do that. It 
is just a matter of justice for these employees.
  I also wish to speak for a moment about the amendment which Senator 
Clinton and I offered based on the legislation which we sponsored 
together some weeks ago. I want to return her kind words and say it has 
been a pleasure to work with her and her staff on a strong bipartisan 
basis to make these changes which we think are necessary to protect the 
health of our men and women in the military, and also to make certain 
they are ready to be deployed when they need to be deployed. Those are 
the two things we are trying to do.
  Before employees, service men and women are deployed to combat 
theaters, we require that a blood sample be drawn from them, and after 
they return that another blood sample be drawn from them.
  The point is, it has happened too often in the past where service men 
and women coming back from active duty show signs and symptoms of 
illness, and we can't figure out what is wrong. We need baseline blood 
tests so we can tell the extent to which their blood is deviate and 
their health symptoms are deviating from what they were before 
deployment. This will give us a clue as to what is wrong with them so 
we can avoid another gulf war syndrome episode.
  I have had vets from Missouri over several years talking to me about 
this issue. We allow the military to do it today, particularly with 
regard to reservists and guardsmen because it is often not done because 
local commanders want to get them deployed and into the theater.
  This is very important and now it will be the law. I am grateful to 
the managers of the amendment for accepting that part of the amendment.
  The other point is to simply improve the health of our Active and 
Reserve component service men and women. We put in place a joint 
committee to oversee the medical tracking system that is supposed to be 
in place but isn't implemented as well as it should be.
  We require that reservists receive detailed health assessments at 
least every 2 years. Right now they only get exams every 5 years.
  We require routine health baselines for all our recruits entering the 
armed services so we will know the health status of people when they 
enter the military.
  There are a number of other good measures as well.
  I only have 5 minutes. I imagine I have used most of that.
  Let us say it has been a pleasure to work with the Senator from New 
York and her staff. We are jointly grateful to the Senator from 
Virginia and the Senator from Michigan for their openness on this 
amendment, and we are pleased that it was agreed to and look forward

[[Page 12694]]

to holding it through the rest of the process.
  I yield my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3235

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Brownback] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3235.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. 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 increase the penalties for violations by television and 
radio broadcasters of the prohibitions against transmission of obscene, 
                    indecent, and profane language)

       On page 280, after line 22, insert the following:

     SEC. __. BROADCAST DECENCY ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2004.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004''.
       (b) Increase in Penalties for Obscene, Indecent, and 
     Profane Broadcasts.--Section 503(b)(2) of the Communications 
     Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as 
     subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(C) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), if the violator 
     is--
       ``(i)(I) a broadcast station licensee or permittee; or
       ``(II) an applicant for any broadcast license, permit, 
     certificate, or other instrument or authorization issued by 
     the Commission; and
       ``(ii) determined by the Commission under paragraph (1) to 
     have broadcast obscene, indecent, or profane language, the 
     amount of any forfeiture penalty determined under this 
     subsection shall not exceed $275,000 for each violation or 
     each day of a continuing violation, except that the amount 
     assessed for any continuing violation shall not exceed a 
     total of $3,000,000 for any single act or failure to act.''; 
     and
       (3) in subparagraph (D), as redesignated by paragraph (1), 
     by striking ``subparagraph (A) or (B)'' and inserting 
     ``subparagraph (A), (B), or (C)''.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, on this amendment, I am being joined by 
Senator Lieberman and Senator Zell Miller.
  It is a simple issue. I want to take a few minutes to explain it. I 
am hopeful we will get strong support in this body as in the House. A 
similar bill came up earlier in the House and it passed that body 391 
to 22. The same issue passed the Commerce Committee in the Senate 14 to 
0 on a recorded vote.
  It is an issue of fines and decency on over-the-air broadcasts--
whether it be radio or television.
  I think it is important to put my comments in context today by 
explaining the policy history of this issue; that is, decency on over-
the-air public airwaves.
  At the invention of television, our Nation established a public 
policy of providing citizens with free over-the-air television. It gave 
broadcasters wishing to provide that service with the use of valuable 
spectrum. Not everyone can broadcast over the Nation's public airwaves. 
These are airwaves owned by the public. That is why the statute 
requires the Federal Communications Commission to evaluate not just the 
ability but the character of an entity to operate.
  When handing out a broadcast license, in return for a license, each 
broadcaster agrees not to air indecent or obscene content between the 
hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. The broadcaster gets a valuable piece of 
spectrum, which is public property. The broadcaster gets the right to 
use that. In exchange, one of the requirements is they not broadcast 
indecent or obscene content between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.
  Fines and license revocations have always been the discipline tool 
available to the FCC to help enforce America's longstanding commitment 
to broadcast decency.
  This is an issue about license. It is an issue about the use of 
public property, and some modest limitation of that.
  We live in a nation where we hold the first amendment in high regard, 
as well we should. In an effort to maintain the free exchange of 
information, thoughts, and opinions, we strive to avoid government 
involvement in communications content.
  At the same time, as a nation, we strive to project decency and 
justice for all. As a nation raising children, we do the same. With the 
turning of a tuning knob, or the click of a remote, minors all across 
America are presented with the content of the public airwaves.
  Broadcasters have a legal and a moral duty to ensure that American 
taxpayers--and especially children--are not assaulted by explicit 
material.
  For years, we have been asking and waiting for the broadcasters to 
police themselves in this effort. Unfortunately, instead of fulfilling 
the public interest duty, they have allowed the content to grow 
steadily worse and worse.
  Meanwhile, the companies that own the broadcast stations have grown 
steadily larger--and not surprisingly. Some of these broadcasters' 
profit margins have made them immune to the FCC's current fine 
structure. Let me give you an example.
  Today's maximum fine for an indecent broadcast is $27,500. That seems 
like a lot of money--and it is to some. But it isn't to others. Compare 
that fact to a 30-second commercial during the 2004 Super Bowl which 
cost advertisers an average of $2.3 million for a 30-second ad.
  In the words of the FCC Commissioner, Michael Powell, these fines are 
peanuts to the big media conglomerates. That is why we are here to 
increase the fine structure for indecency and obscene broadcasts. The 
threat of these fines will be taken seriously and force broadcasters to 
protect their consumers from explicit content.
  Nothing in this amendment forges any new ground in broadcast decency 
law. The intent is simple: To increase the fines for indecent 
broadcasts to mask the realities of today's media markets. This 
amendment would increase the maximum fines tenfold, from $27,500 to 
$270,000, with a maximum $3 million cap per incident per day.
  Why do we need to do this? We need this amendment to end the growing 
volume of graphic content on free over-the-air broadcasts. Remember, 
broadcasters profit from exclusive and free use of the public airwaves 
which gives them unique access to all Americans, particularly America's 
youth. With that access to our country's intellectual, moral, and 
social development comes a set of moral and social responsibilities and 
obligations that are agreed to in the licensing process.
  I am very disappointed by the apparent confusion the broadcasters are 
having between the right to do something and the right thing to do when 
it comes to the public airwaves.
  Recently, FOX and VIACOM announced they were going to appeal the FCC 
Bono ruling so they can use the ``F'' word on broadcast television. 
This is their response in spite of the fact that the FCC overturned the 
original rule in response to a fierce public outcry.
  This hostile response the public is getting from broadcasters is 
inexcusable. We see time and again media leaders defending their 
profit-driven motives by airing explicit content and then falsely 
hiding behind their so-called first amendment rights. Broadcasters have 
joined the shock jocks of the country to shout down those who publicly 
question harmful content as an anti-first-amendment censor. In 
abandoning their duty to adhere to decency standards, broadcasters 
point to the absence of decency regulations on cable television. This 
is just a red herring. We are talking about public airwaves and a 
public right to air decent material.
  The broadcasters argue they have a right to air indecent, obscene, 
and profane material. But that is a disgraceful abuse of the first 
amendment. I support the first amendment and its guarantees of free 
speech. It is the basis of much of

[[Page 12695]]

the freedoms we enjoy in our great democracy. But there are limits, and 
particularly here, where we are dealing with a public license and the 
use of public property where the licensee has agreed to not broadcast 
indecent material.
  This principle has been affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the famous Pacifica case where it was upheld that the 
Government had the right to protect the public airwaves. This case came 
to the Court in the early 1970s when George Carlin's famous ``filthy 
words monologue'' was broadcast during the middle of the day on a New 
York radio station owned by Pacifica Foundation. A father driving with 
his son heard the broadcast and complained to the FCC. The FCC said 
that if those kinds of words were used again, the radio station airing 
them would be fined. Just like today, the broadcasters challenged the 
ruling and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Court 
upheld the FCC action and added that it could continue to fine 
broadcasters in the future because broadcasters had to take special 
care not to air material that would offend or shock children.
  The majority opinion stressed that of all the forms of communication, 
broadcasting has the most limited first amendment protection because it 
extends into the privacy of the home and is uniquely accessible to 
children.
  The FCC has been too lax for too long enforcing the law on 
broadcasters. A recent public outcry has been a wake-up call for the 
FCC. The Commission told us they do not have all the tools they need 
for effective enforcement. That is why we are here today.
  Passing this legislation will tell the broadcasters that we are 
serious about protecting our airwaves and we will give the FCC updated 
tools to get the job done. I don't know if I need to remind my 
colleagues that this came to the forefront at this year's Super Bowl, 
an event families across the country watch together. At the halftime 
show, the incident between Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson set off 
a firestorm that had been brewing for a long period of time.
  Finally people said: Look, I have had enough; I don't want to see 
this any more, particularly when I am watching TV with my family. That 
is what launched this forward.
  We have been waiting for years for the broadcasters to voluntarily 
take care of this growing problem. They have failed. Instead, they are 
fighting tooth and nail for the availability to air graphic material so 
they can increase their profit margins.
  America deserves better. That is why we need to make the consequences 
of broadcasting indecency punitive so the standards are no longer 
ignored.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. Increasing the fines 
will help clean up our Nation's free, over-the-air television and radio 
by holding accountable broadcasters who use the public airwaves and 
individuals who use the opportunity of a live performance to gain 
notoriety through indecent acts.
  As I noted previously, this has been considered by the Senate 
Commerce Committee and it has passed unanimously in that committee. It 
has been considered previously by the House of Representatives, which 
has voted 391 in favor with only 22 against increasing these fines. 
They actually have some teeth in today's marketplace. I urge my 
colleagues to vote for this amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays when we vote on this Monday. I further 
ask unanimous consent that when we go back to this amendment on Monday 
that I be recognized first to speak if there are any further amendments 
that are proposed to this that are to be considered on Monday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator has requested the yeas and nays.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I have been informed that we need 
colleagues on the other side to respond to yeas and nays and I will not 
ask for that until we do get that agreement from my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I send to the desk a second-degree 
amendment to the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns], for himself and Mr. 
     Ensign, proposes an amendment numbered 3457 to amendment No. 
     3235.

  Mr. BURNS. 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:

       At the end of the amendment, add the following:

     SEC.   . ADDITIONAL FACTORS IN INDECENCY PENALTIES; 
                   EXCEPTION.

       Section 503(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 503(b)(2)), as amended by section 102 of this Act, is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(F) In the case of a violation in which the violator is 
     determined by the Commission under paragraph (1) to have 
     uttered obscene, indecent, or profane material, the 
     Commission shall take into account, in addition to the 
     matters described in subparagraph (E), the following factors 
     with respect to the degree of culpability of the violator:
       ``(i) Whether the material uttered by the violator was live 
     or recorded, scripted or unscripted.
       ``(ii) Whether the violator had a reasonable opportunity to 
     review recorded or scripted programming or had a reasonable 
     basis to believe live or unscripted programming would contain 
     obscene, indecent, or profane material.
       ``(iii) If the violator originated live or unscripted 
     programming, whether a time delay blocking mechanism was 
     implemented for the programming.
       ``(iv) The size of the viewing or listening audience of the 
     programming.
       ``(v) The size of the market.
       ``(vi) Whether the violation occurred during a children's 
     television program (as such term is used in the Children's 
     Television Programming Policy referenced in section 
     73.4050(c) of the Commission's regulations (47 C.F.R. 
     73.4050(c)) or during a television program rated TVY, TVY7, 
     TVY7FV, or TVG under the TV Parental Guidelines as such 
     ratings were approved by the Commission in implementation of 
     section 551 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Video 
     Programming Ratings, Report and Order, (CS Docket No. 97-55, 
     13 F.C.C. Rcd. 8232 (1998)), and, with respect to a radio 
     broadcast station licensee, permittee, or applicant, whether 
     the target audience was primarily comprised of, or should 
     reasonably have been expected to be primarily comprised of, 
     children.
       ``(G) The Commission may double the amount of any 
     forfeiture penalty (not to exceed $550,000 for the first 
     violation, $750,000 for the second violation, and $1,000,000 
     for the third or any subsequent violation not to exceed up to 
     $3,000,000 for all violations in a 24 hour time period 
     notwithstanding section 503(b)(2)(C)) if the Commission 
     determines additional factors are present which are 
     aggravating in nature, including--
       ``(i) whether the material uttered by the violator was 
     recorded or scripted;
       ``(ii) whether the violator had a reasonable opportunity to 
     review recorded or scripted programming or had a reasonable 
     basis to believe live or unscripted programming would contain 
     obscene, indecent, or profane material;
       ``(iii) whether the violator failed to block live or 
     unscripted programming;
       ``(iv) whether the size of the viewing or listening 
     audience of the programming was substantially larger than 
     usual, such as a national or international championship 
     sporting event or awards program;
       ``(v) whether the obscene, indecent or profane language was 
     within live programming not produced by the station licensee 
     or permittee; and
       ``(vi) whether the violation occurred during a children's 
     television program (as defined in subparagraph (F)(vi)).''.

  Mr. BURNS. This is a friendly second-degree amendment. We have talked 
about and, of course, we know that the bill that has been voted out of 
the committee and is waiting for floor action moves this along.
  We were all shocked and dismayed over the spectacle at the Super Bowl 
this year. Those responsible should be severely punished for such a 
vulgar display of tastelessness.
  That being said, this high-profile, well-publicized incident could 
prompt Congress to go too far. In some areas of this bill, we did go 
too far. This second-degree amendment fixes that.
  While I fully support the underlying Brownback legislation, I am 
offering this second-degree amendment to protect the interests of small 
broadcasters that should not be punished for the events outside of 
their control.

[[Page 12696]]

  I am sorry I did not see the halftime show during the Super Bowl. I 
saw who it was going to be. It was put on by MTV, which I never watch, 
for very good reason. It ought to be a pay channel. I moved over to the 
poker tournament on ESPN, so I missed the whole spectacle. But, 
nonetheless, lots of families did not.
  In the case of the Super Bowl, for example, many affiliates were 
furious their viewership was exposed to such a spectacle. The amendment 
I offer simply calls on the FCC to consider the size and revenues of 
the stations in question, as well as whether they had anything to do 
with producing the offensive content in question. In other words, we 
have small market television stations that have no control on content 
but may find themselves in a lawsuit for indecent content that might be 
broadcast.
  Finally, I believe, as we approach these issues, we must take a hard 
look at the declining standards across all media. I understand there 
have been industry efforts to develop indecency guidelines that will 
apply fairly and evenly across all media platforms that distribute 
content. I think this approach could prove enormously beneficial in 
setting unified standards so individual broadcasters understand what is 
expected of them. Additional clarity in terms of content standards 
would also eliminate excuses among those who choose to push the 
envelope, the limits of vulgarity for commercial gain.
  Nothing in the broadcast industry has been talked about so much as 
the halftime at this year's Super Bowl. It has absolutely been on the 
minds of broadcasters across this country.
  The American people clearly expect Congress to act on the indecency 
issue. So I call on my colleagues to adopt this second-degree amendment 
I have offered, which will help to produce real solutions without 
unduly penalizing small broadcasters.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. 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. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, in speaking to the Burns second-degree 
amendment, this is an amendment that was considered in the Commerce 
Committee and added to the base bill at that time. What he is proposing 
to do makes a lot of sense. I do not see a problem with that at all, so 
I would be supportive of doing that.
  Overall, we want to get this to move it forward. The House has moved 
on this action. The FCC is seeking this authority. So we really want to 
try to get this to move on through the process, if at all possible. We 
are not having further rollcall votes until Monday, so we will proceed 
at that time, and I will ask for a rollcall vote then.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, earlier today the Senate adopted the Murray 
amendment No. 3427, to facilitate the availability of childcare for the 
children of members of the Armed Forces on active duty in connection 
with Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom.
  I support that amendment but wanted to additionally acknowledge 
efforts that are already underway in the private sector to help support 
those who are risking their lives to keep us safe.
  I would like to speak about the American spirit. We are a people who 
can do great things when united. We have witnessed this in recent 
months with dozens of home-front stories of the many great deeds of 
Americans in support of our troops and our Nation's efforts abroad in 
the war on terror.
  There is Spirit of America, a private group which set out to raise 
$100,000 to build TV stations in Iraq. Americans responded with 
thousands of donations totaling $1.52 million. Federal Express donated 
the domestic shipping costs of the equipment for this gift to the 
country of Iraq. Those stations are being built now and will offer the 
Iraqi people a national and independent news source that is not Al-
Jazeera. This is great.
  This American spirit is also responsible for the gift of 10,000 
school supply kits, 3 tons of medical supplies, and 2 tons of 
`friendship' Frisbees to the Iraqi people, all paid for and donated by 
Americans.
  You hear about American students donating books to Iraqi schools and 
sending letters to Iraqi children.
  And now, thousands of childcare providers have united across the 
country to donate childcare services to National Guard and Reserve 
members home on 2 week R&R leave from Iraq and Afghanistan to allow 
them to carry out personal business, take their spouses out on a date, 
or enjoy other recreational activities while they are home.
  Operation Childcare is an effort of the Nation's network of childcare 
resource and referral, NACCRRA, their local agencies, and thousands of 
childcare providers across the country to give back to those men and 
women who are fighting to keep us safe. This program was designed for 
those members of the military who do not live near military bases and 
therefore do not have access to family support programs provided to 
Active-Duty personnel.
  So far, over 4,700 centers and individual providers have signed on to 
Operation Childcare. In my home State of New Hampshire there are 35 
providers who are donating childcare to our guardsmen and reservists. 
These numbers continue to grow, as more people hear about the program.
  Childcare providers who volunteer their time for Operation Childcare 
will receive official recognition, but I suspect many would agree with 
one childcare provider in Tennessee who said:

       You don't have to recognize me--I am just thrilled and 
     honored to be able to do something to help our troops.

  NACCRRA should be applauded for their efforts in organizing this 
service for our service members.
  This is but a snapshot of the home-front efforts being carried out by 
thousands of Americans across this country. The American people are 
truly united behind our men and women in uniform. This is the American 
spirit that continues to inspire.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to put my full support behind 
an agreement made between Senators Dodd, McCain, Warner, Levin, and 
Hollings to attach the Assistance to Firefighters Act of 2004, as 
amendment No. 3309, to the pending Department of Defense Authorization 
bill.
  Each day, we entrust our lives and the safety of our families, 
friends, and neighbors to the capable hands of the brave men and women 
in our local police departments. These individuals are willing to risk 
their lives and safety out of a dedication to their citizens and their 
commitment to public service.
  We ask local firefighters to risk no less than their lives, as well, 
every time they respond to an emergency fire alarm, a chemical spill, 
or as we saw on September 11--terrorist attacks. We ask them to risk 
their lives responding to the nearly 2 million reports of fire that 
they receive on an annual basis. Every 18 seconds while responding to 
fires, we expect them to be willing to give their lives in exchange for 
the lives of our families, neighbors, and friends. One hundred 
firefighters lost their lives in 2002 in the line of duty, and nearly 
450 lost their lives in 2001. The unyielding commitment these 
individuals have made to public safety surely deserves an equally 
strong commitment from the Federal Government.
  In 2000, Congress affirmed the value of having a properly trained, 
equipped, and staffed fire service by passing the Firefighter 
Investment and Response Enhancement, FIRE, Act--legislation that 
Senator Dodd and I introduced, along with Congressmen Pascrell, Weldon, 
and many others, on the House side. In the 4 years since the FIRE Act 
became law, fire departments have made significant progress in terms of 
filling the substantial needs outlined in the National Fire Protection 
Association's ``needs assessment.''
  To date, Congress has appropriated nearly $2 billion dollars for the 
FIRE

[[Page 12697]]

Act program. Virtually every penny of that amount has gone directly to 
local fire departments through FIRE grants to provide firefighter 
personal protective equipment, training to ensure more effective 
firefighting practices, breathing apparatus, new firefighting vehicles, 
emergency medical services supplies, fire prevention programs, and 
other important uses.
  The direct nature of the FIRE Act grant program--funds literally go 
straight from the Federal Government to local fire departments--is an 
extremely important aspect of the law, particularly in light of the 
difficulties we are seeing with other homeland security grant programs 
getting money to flow directly to the intended recipients.
  FIRE Act grants are awarded based on a competitive, peer-review 
process that helps ensure that the most important needs are filled 
first and that funding will be used in an effective manner. I am proud 
to note that 86 of Ohio's 88 counties have received FIRE Act funding up 
to this point and that the fire service in my home state is much better 
prepared to respond to emergencies as a result. The bottom line is 
this: The FIRE Act program has proven to be an extremely valuable tool 
for fire-based first responders.
  The time has come to reauthorize this important legislation--to build 
upon the successes of the original FIRE Act and to refine the program 
where improvements can be made. Amendment No. 3309, which I am offering 
along with Senator Dodd, accomplishes just that.
  Our amendment focuses on four central themes. First, we take steps to 
make the grant program more accessible for fire departments serving 
small, rural communities and to eliminate barriers to participation 
faced by departments serving heavily populated jurisdictions. Second, 
we codify changes made in program administration since its transfer to 
the recently created Department of Homeland Security. Third, the 
amendment increases the emphasis within the program on life-saving 
Emergency Medical Services and technologies. And fourth, we evaluate 
the program through a series of reports to help ensure that resources 
are targeted to the areas of greatest need. These priorities have been 
developed jointly with the fire service, and represent a means to 
strengthen the FIRE Act program for years to come.
  Our amendment would help the FIRE Act program more accessible for 
fire departments serving the very largest and smallest jurisdictions in 
America. Our experience over the past four years has been that a number 
of features in the program make participation difficult for departments 
serving these populations. Career fire departments, most of which serve 
populations well in excess of 50,000, have been receiving only a small 
percentage of the total grants thus far. After consulting with the fire 
service organizations, fire chiefs in my home State of Ohio, and 
officials administering the program at the Department of Homeland 
Security, we have found that there are two main reasons why this has 
been the case.
  First, matching requirements for large departments, currently fixed 
at 30 percent, have been particularly difficult to meet. Second, 
current law dictates that departments--whether they serve a large city, 
such as Cleveland and have numerous fire stations, or a small town, 
such as Cedarville, OH, and have only one station--are eligible for the 
exact same level of funding each year: $750,000. These two elements of 
the current program have caused a number of large fire departments to 
forgo applying for FIRE grants. With respect to smaller, often 
volunteer-based departments serving populations of 20,000 or less, 
budgets are often so limited that meeting the current match is simply 
not possible. Many of these departments struggle with even the most 
basic needs, such as having an adequate number of staff available to 
respond to a structure fire.
  Our legislation addresses each of these problems in a simple and 
straightforward fashion. Specifically, the amendment would reduce 
matching requirements by one third for departments serving communities 
of 50,000, and by one half for departments serving 20,000 or fewer 
residents in order to encourage increased participation by these 
departments. The amendment also would re-structure caps on grant 
amounts to reflect population served, with up to $2,250,000 for 
departments serving one million or more, $1,500,000 for departments 
serving between 500,000 and one million, and $1,000,000 for departments 
serving fewer than 500,000 residents. Together, these two changes would 
go a long way toward increasing the accessibility of the program for 
the very largest and smallest departments in the United States.
  The second major component of our legislation has to do with the 
transfer of the FIRE Act Administration from the Federal Emergency 
Management Administration, FEMA, to the Department of Homeland 
Security, DHS. When FEMA's functions were transferred into the DHS, the 
FIRE grant program, along with the U.S. Fire Administration, also were 
transferred to DHS. As a part of that transfer, formal administration 
of the FIRE grant program has been delegated to the Department to the 
Office of Domestic Preparedness, ODP, which oversees all DHS grant 
programs. While the U.S. Fire Administration--the real fire experts 
within the Federal Government--remains involved, we need to take steps 
to formalize the management of the program following the transfer to 
DHS.
  There are a number of reasons for solidifying program administration 
in law, chief among them being the ability of fire departments across 
our Nation to plan for the future, and the ability to ensure an ongoing 
role for fire experts in the process. First, our amendment gives the 
Secretary of Homeland Security overall authority for the program. This 
just makes sense given the Secretary's current home within ODP. 
Additionally, the amendment would codify in law practices currently in 
use by ODP--peer review by experts from national fire service 
organizations, a formal role for the U.S. Fire Administration, and 
collaborative meetings to recommend grant criteria.
  These steps would benefit the program for years to come and would 
help bring stability to the increasingly mature FIRE grant program. 
Perhaps more importantly, formalizing the role of the U.S. Fire 
Administrator and national fire service organizations would help 
resolve a fundamental tension between the mission of the FIRE Act 
program, to improve firefighting and EMS resources nationwide for all 
hazards, and the mission of its caretaker, ODP, to focus on terrorism 
prevention and response.
  It makes sense for ODP, as the central clearinghouse for grant 
programs within DHS, to manage the FIRE grant program. Equally so, it 
makes sense to build features into the program which would help ensure 
that the FIRE grant program will remain dedicated solely to the fire 
and Emergency Medical Services, EMS, communities and will not be 
diluted over time into a generic terrorism-prevention program. Our 
amendment carefully strikes this balance.
  The third major focus of this amendment is on finding ways to improve 
safety and to save lives. We do this in a number of ways. First, we 
have teamed up with national fire service organizations to incorporate 
firefighter safety research into the fire prevention and safety set-
aside program. This new research, supported by a 20 percent increase in 
funds for the prevention and safety set-aside, would help reduce the 
number of firefighter fatalities each year and would dramatically 
improve the health and welfare of firefighters nationwide.
  Second, we place an increased emphasis on Emergency Medical Services. 
In most communities, the fire department is the chief provider for all 
emergency services, including EMS. To illustrate this point, a 2002 
National Fire Protection Association study indicates that fire 
departments received more than seven times as many calls for EMS 
assistance as they did for fires. When our family members, neighbors, 
and friends need immediate medical help, we turn to EMS providers, and 
we rely on this help to be as effective and timely as possible. It is 
our duty in

[[Page 12698]]

structuring the FIRE grant program, then, to do everything we can to 
give EMS squads the assistance they need to carry out this important 
mission.
  Despite the overwhelming ratio of EMS calls to fire calls, the FIRE 
grant program has not adequately reflected the importance of EMS over 
the past few years, with about 1 percent of all grants going 
specifically for EMS purposes. While there is no question that a number 
of other grants have indirectly benefited EMS and that departments do 
invest their own money into this service, more can and should be done 
through the FIRE Act to boost our EMS capabilities nationwide. To 
accomplish this goal, we do a number of things in the amendment, 
including specifically including fire-based EMS professionals in the 
peer review process and allowing EMS grant requests to be combined with 
those for equipment and training. We have already seen evidence that 
new, combined structure is making excellent progress this year in 
shifting a greater emphasis to EMS within the program.
  Additionally, we include language to incorporate independent, 
nonprofit EMS squads into the FIRE grant program for the first time. 
While our work with national fire service organizations on this 
particular provision has been productive and is ongoing, its intent is 
clear--and that is to try to bring the emphasis within the FIRE grant 
program on EMS closer to the level of demand in the field for this 
life-saving service. I am pleased that we have this language in the 
amendment and believe that through markup in the Commerce Committee 
next month, and perhaps later during conference consideration of the 
underlying bill, we can find an even better solution for increasing 
support for EMS.
  Third, we create a new incentive program within the FIRE Act that 
encourages departments to invest in life-saving Automated External 
Defibrillator, AED, devices. These devices are capable of dramatically 
reducing the number one cause of firefighter death in the line of 
duty--heart attacks. Our incentive program essentially says to fire 
departments that if you equip each of your firefighting vehicles with a 
defibrillator unit, we will give you a one-time discount on your 
matching requirement. Congress has expressed, time and again, strong 
support for getting these devices out to communities through various 
grant programs. It is our hope that we can maintain that commitment by 
extending support for lifesaving defibrillator technologies to fire 
departments across the country.
  Fourth, we eliminate a burdensome and unintended matching requirement 
for fire prevention grants. These grants generally go to non-profit 
organizations, such as National SAFE KIDS, to provide for fire safety 
awareness campaigns, smoke detector installations in low-income 
housing, and other important prevention efforts. Though no match was 
required in the first few years of the program, a recent legal opinion 
from the Office of Domestic Preparedness has reversed course and 
instituted a 10 percent match for grantees. This unanticipated 
requirement, which is extremely difficult for nonprofits with limited 
capital, has had a debilitating effect on the prevention program and 
needs to be eliminated. Our legislation does just that.
  Together, these commonsense features of our amendment would 
dramatically improve the safety of our communities, as well as the 
firefighters who bravely serve them.
  The fourth section of this amendment centers on a comprehensive 
review of the FIRE grant program. This review, to be conducted in part 
by the National Fire Protection Association, and in part by the General 
Accounting Office, GAO, seeks to evaluate the program with an eye 
toward ensuring that resources are targeted to the areas of greatest 
need. A similar study by the National Fire Protection Association 
conducted shortly after passage of the initial FIRE Act was extremely 
helpful as far as identifying the nature of the fire service needs. 
Ultimately, this part of the amendment is about making sure that the 
billions of taxpayer dollars authorized by this legislation are used in 
the most responsible and effective manner possible.
  Our amendment is a good amendment. It is comprehensive and 
collaboratively drafted with input from fire and emergency services 
experts from across the country. The National Safe Kids Campaign, the 
International Association of Fire Fighters, the International 
Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Volunteer Fire Council, the 
International Association of Arson Investigators, the International 
Society of Fire Service Instructors, and the National Fire Protection 
Association, among others, all support our legislation.
  Furthermore, the process agreed upon between Senators Dodd, McCain, 
and Warner for consideration of our amendment is a good process. 
Senator McCain, in his capacity as chairman of the Committee of 
jurisdiction--the Commerce Committee--has graciously agreed to allow 
our amendment to be attached to the underlying bill, with the 
expectation that language reported out of his committee next month will 
be inserted in its place during conference negotiations. This 
arrangement gives our legislation the best possible opportunity to pass 
the Senate, with the added benefit of thorough deliberative 
consideration through the committee structure. I appreciate Chairman 
McCain's, and ranking member Hollings' willingness to take this 
approach, Senator Dodd's hard work to reach a positive resolution to 
the matter, and Senators Warner and Levin's willingness to facilitate 
this agreement by accepting the amendment at this time. The efforts of 
all three Senators deserve the praise of the firefighting community.
  As was the case in 2000, the Department of Defense authorization bill 
has become the vehicle of choice for the FIRE Act legislation. I am 
optimistic that the final result this year will be the same as it was 
then, concluding with passage of our amendment into law. I am proud to 
introduce this amendment with my friend and colleague from Connecticut 
and look forward to working to ensure that the Federal Government 
increases its commitment to the men and women who make up our local 
fire departments. We owe them and their service and dedication nothing 
less than our full support.


                  science & technology funding levels

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to engage the distinguished 
Senator from New Mexico, Senator Jeff Bingaman, concerning the 
Department of Defense Science and Technology--S&T--program. Senator 
Bing-
aman and I are both former members of the Senate's Committee on Armed 
Services and have a deep appreciation for the importance of the 
Department of Defense's S&T program in meeting current and future 
defense needs.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. The Senator from Pennsylvania is correct in noting our 
strong support for the Department's S&T programs. During the 106th 
Congress, I introduced an amendment--SA 199--cosponsored by Senators 
San-
torum, Kennedy, and Lieberman, to S. Con. Res. 20, the Senate's Budget 
Resolution for Fiscal Year 2002, that was designed to ensure the long-
term national security of the United States through a robust Department 
of Defense S&T program. Additionally, during the 105th Congress, I 
introduced an amendment--SA 2999--cosponsored by Senators Santorum and 
Lieberman, to S. 2057, the Fiscal Year 1999 National Defense 
Authorization Act, articulating a sense of the Senate on the ideal 
level of funding for our Department of Defense's S&T program.
  Mr. SANTORUM. The Senator from New Mexico is correct. He has been a 
strong advocate for our Department of Defense S&T program for many 
years. It is worth noting that together, we have succeeded in raising 
the profile of these budget accounts and helped to influence the levels 
requested for the S&T program in the annual budget request submitted by 
this and other administrations. I also want to thank Senator Bingaman 
for his support for my amendment--SA 182--to H. Con. Res. 83, the 
Senate's Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2002, which sought to 
increase funding devoted to the Department of Defense's Basic 
Research--6.1--account. It is by investing in these budget accounts 
that we will reap the

[[Page 12699]]

technology benefits that will sustain our military edge over our 
adversaries.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. We also agree that by funding these vital programs at 
over 3 percent of the total Defense Department budget, we will be 
demonstrating a commitment and leadership in an area critical to U.S. 
national security. Past research carried out with S&T program funding 
has provided the foundation for protecting U.S. military personnel and 
ensuring U.S. technological superiority on the battlefield. Hand-held 
translators, unmanned systems, thermobaric bombs, and laser-guided and 
global positioning systems are just a few examples of the many 
technologies resulting from S&T investments that are used today to 
remove personnel from harm's way, enhance battlespace awareness, and 
address new threats.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Additionally, we are united in advocating continued 
support for these critical programs so we can meet our national 
security needs of tomorrow. The Department of Defense's S&T program 
provides a unique contribution to the job of equipping and protecting 
our men and women in uniform and defending America. S&T funding 
supports education and training for future scientists and engineers--
leading to technological advancements that shape defense technologies, 
including engineering, mathematics, and physical, computer and 
behavorial sciences. Throughout the decades of the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s 
and 1980s, the Department of Defense and other federal agencies 
sustained their commitments to these investments in American 
universities. This investment can be measured by the number of systems 
relied upon by America today to project power and maintain our 
interests around the globe.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Furthermore, American universities offer the Department 
of Defense the laboratories and knowledge base necessary to 
successfully complete this transformation objective. The Department of 
Defense has historically played a major federal role in funding basic 
research and has been a significant sponsor of engineering research and 
technology development conducted in American universities.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Senator Bingaman is correct. For over 50 years, 
Department of Defense investment in university research has been a 
dominant element of the Nation's research and development 
infrastructure and an essential component of the United States capacity 
for technological innovation.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank Senator Santorum for his observations on the 
importance of robust Department of Defense S&T program funding, and I 
urge that we continue to advocate funding the S&T program at a level of 
at least at 3 percent of the total Department of Defense appropriation.
  Mr. SANTORUM. The Senator is correct in his statement and I too 
support the 3 percent S&T program funding goal.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________