[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10767-10778]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005--Resumed

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 2400, which the clerk will 
report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2400) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2005 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe 
     personnel strengths for each fiscal year for the Armed 
     Forces, and for other purposes.
  Pending:

       Graham (SC) Amendment No. 3170, to provide for the 
     treatment by the Department of Energy of waste material.
       Crapo Amendment No. 3226 (to Amendment No. 3170), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my distinguished colleague, the senior 
Senator from Michigan, and I will momentarily address some of the 
pending amendments which have been cleared on both sides. I do, 
however, note the presence on the floor of two other colleagues. I 
would suggest to my ranking member that perhaps we could accommodate 
them, since he and I will be here throughout much of the morning.
  Mr. LEVIN. I would be happy to do that, of course.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, while the two managers are on the floor, 
could I ask a question before I depart?
  Mr. WARNER. Of course,
  Mr. REID. We have a number of amendments we would like to lay down 
today and not have those amendments take precedence over the pending 
amendment, which is the Graham amendment. We want to be able to show 
the managers of the bill and leadership on the majority side that we 
want to move this bill. My personal feeling, as I expressed to the 
majority leader while he was here, is I think it is not the right thing 
to do to move off this bill and go to something else. I think with some 
determination we could start on Tuesday--which is going to be a very 
short day--work Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, and I think we could 
finish this bill. If we work some long days, I think we could finish 
it. If we go to class action legislation, that is going to take up a 
lot of time. Cloture motions need to be filed. I do not know that. I 
assume so.
  My point is if there is anything the two managers of the bill can do 
to exert their significant influence on the majority to see if we can 
finish this bill, I think everyone would be well served. The House 
passed the bill last night by a wide bipartisan margin. I hope we can 
whittle down some amendments. We could do it, if we work some long 
days. But I predict if we go off this bill we will never finish it.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I hear very clearly the spoken words of my 
good friend and colleague. I think of years past when Senator Levin and 
I have greatly benefited by the individual leadership of the Senator 
from Nevada on the floor when our defense bills have sort of gotten 
into a rut here and there.
  But I encourage my distinguished colleague from Nevada, who heard the 
words of the majority leader moments ago. Those are decisions that have 
to rest with the majority and minority leaders. Consequently, I entrust 
them with those decisions. I hope that pattern of sequencing 
legislation on the floor will be done in such a way as to meet the 
requirements of all Senators and proceed. I am confident it will be 
done. We must, because there is no alternative but to get a bill. This 
Nation is at war. The men and women of the Armed Forces are deserving 
of further recognition, which this bill has, together with their 
families. We send a strong signal throughout the world of America's 
resolve in its war on terrorism--joined by many other nations--and its 
resolve to keep our military strong.
  I am hopeful the honest difference of views can be reconciled, but it 
is a matter that is left to the distinguished majority leader in 
consultation with the distinguished minority leader.
  Mr. REID. If I could, Mr. President, I think the distinguished 
chairman of the committee has made the argument about why we shouldn't 
get off this bill.
  I want everyone to understand the distinguished senior Senator from 
South Dakota, the Democratic leader, has had nothing to do with moving 
off this bill. He wants to finish this bill. He feels that is most 
appropriate.
  This class action bill is important legislation, but it pales in 
comparison to the needs we authorize for these programs for our 
fighting men and women around the world.

[[Page 10768]]

  The House bill includes a number of provisions. The $25 billion 
requested by the administration, as I understand, also legislates the 
number of troops we would have. If we don't authorize that along with 
the House, it won't happen. We will wind up going through the 
appropriations process and appropriating money that has not been 
authorized in the past.
  We need this bill. I repeat, as important as the class action is, it 
is insignificant compared to what we are doing here. I say to everyone 
within the sound of my voice, we should do everything we can to finish 
this bill; otherwise, I think we will not have a Defense authorization 
bill this year.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I readily acknowledge that yesterday the 
distinguished Senator from South Dakota was right where I am standing 
until the closing minutes of yesterday's deliberation. He was trying to 
move certain matters. But I bring to the attention of the Senator that 
the distinguished Senator from South Carolina had an amendment and was 
on the floor. I will leave it to the record. But other Senators said no 
way; we are going to sit here through the night and debate and debate 
and debate.
  Therefore, I think leadership--myself, Senator Levin, and the 
majority leader--felt there was no purpose in trying to press on. I 
think we have pretty well covered it. I think we understand our 
positions.
  Unless the Senator has further observations----
  Mr. REID. If I could say one more thing--and I will say no more--as I 
said in my remarks this morning through the Chair, to the distinguished 
Senator from Tennessee, the majority leader, we felt the best thing to 
do yesterday was to move off the bill, and Senator Hollings and Senator 
Cantwell said when we got back we would finish this phase of the 
legislation within 2 hours. We agreed to do that.
  For reasons that are in the minds of the managers of the bill, there 
was a decision not to accept it. We want to move forward. I think the 
Lindsey Graham amendment has been a hiccup here in the process but 
slowed us down all day yesterday. We think it can be completed very 
quickly when we get back.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from--the committee 
chairman would yield for one minute.
  I was kind of surprised when I walked in a few minutes late on the 
floor to hear we are going off this bill. I don't quite understand the 
logic. I missed the majority leader's statement and I apologize for 
that. But we have to pick up this bill at some point. I don't know why 
it is assumed we are going to have any more or less trouble when we get 
back on this bill than we do right now continuing this bill. We are 
going to have to resolve the Graham issue and we will. It can be done 
in a few hours. To just set this bill aside, I am not sure I understand 
what the reasoning is. It is unusual in the middle of the Defense bill 
to set it aside for some other less important bill. I missed the 
explanation of the majority leader. I am surprised.
  We have troops in the field. There are many important issues. The 
chairman knows better than any Member in the Senate. He is the 
chairman, an incredibly effective chairman of this committee, and he 
knows what the provisions of this bill are. They include provisions not 
just on all of the quality of life issues, pay issues, and family 
issues, but they also include a very important issue on troop strength 
and the signal we send on that matter. At this moment it seems to me it 
is one of the most important issues to resolve. We are going to resolve 
that issue. We will figure out a way to resolve it. The chairman is 
fully on board with the direction in which this Congress is going. He 
is certainly aware and understands the importance of dealing with this.
  I am really surprised. I will express that surprise. This means we 
are derailed for at least a week. I cannot imagine the urgency of the 
bill on class action suits.
  I will ask our deputy minority leader as to what the estimate is for 
that bill. It will take, I assume, the whole week, will it not?
  Mr. REID. I doubt very seriously we can finish the class action bill 
the week we get back. It would be a rare occasion in the annals of 
legislation that we could finish this very contentious bill. It may 
pass, but it will pass by a slim margin. I am sure there will have to 
be a cloture vote on it at some time. It is a bill that need not be 
done now.
  If class action law does not change this whole year, it will be 
uncomfortable for some people, but it is not a life- or-death matter, 
as is this bill of the two managers. This class action is a convenience 
for businesses and lawyers.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague for our colloquy this morning.
  I see members of our committee on either side. I suggest, following 
the distinguished Senator from Colorado, the distinguished Senator from 
Hawaii be recognized. I make that not as a unanimous consent but as a 
courtesy, and the Senator from Michigan and I can proceed.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator from Hawaii wishes to speak this 
morning and whether it would be all right if we sequenced Senator Akaka 
immediately after Senator Allard, and we will put that in the Record. I 
suggest we make that a unanimous consent.
  Mr. WARNER. I make that in the form of a unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank both the chairman and the ranking 
member on the Armed Services Committee for their courtesy this morning.
  I will take a few moments to clear up some of the debate last 
evening. I would very much have liked to have had a vote on the Lindsey 
amendment, but I understand how those things happen. I hope we can move 
forward.
  I will address three main issues we left hanging last night. No. 1 is 
the proper classification of the wastesites in Hanford in Washington, 
the Idaho site, and also Savannah River in South Carolina. This program 
that has been put in place is a waste and incidental reprocessing 
commonly referred to as WIR in this debate.
  First of all, I compliment Jesse Roberson with the Department of 
Energy. She was instrumental in getting Rocky Flats cleared up ahead of 
time. We are a little bit ahead of schedule. We are under budget. We 
have a huge savings in Rocky Flats because of a plan she put in place 
to accelerate cleanup, as much as $10 billion savings over time because 
of her plan she helped put in place, consulting with a lot of people in 
Rocky Flats. She had the capability of working with local elected 
officials, the employees, and with the congressional delegation to get 
things like that to happen.
  Obviously, everyone--the employees, the local leaders from those 
communities around Rocky Flats--played a role, but she was the focal 
point that made all that come together. She is the one who has been 
working on this issue to enhance and speed up cleanup on these 
particular nuclear sites. They create some very special problems, very 
difficult problems. I commend her for being willing to think outside 
the box and for the tremendous leadership she has shown in that regard.
  I will talk a little bit about the classification of waste, then 
about the fact that we did have hearings, then also about how we have 
reached out. The proper disposal plan is to leave things in place there 
at Hanford and Idaho, for example.
  Here is the issue as I see it, regarding proper classification. We 
can get all tied up in terminology, but the point is, what happens to 
the level of radiation? All these wastes are based on the amount of 
nuclear radiation. The fact is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission rating 
is as low-level waste. This is based on good, scientific evidence.
  DOE is relying on three key points in classifying the residue as low-
level waste. The first point is DOE has removed the vast bulk of the 
mobile radionuclides that were originally in the tanks; No. 2, that it 
has solidified and stabilized the remaining radionuclides by using a 
grout that chemically binds them so as to further limit

[[Page 10769]]

their mobility; and No. 3, that the stabilized residues meet 
performance standards specified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
for disposal of low-level waste.
  DOE performance assessment shows the residue will produce an annual 
dose of radioactivity below the Environmental Protection Agency 
drinking water standard and well below what a person gets from a 
standard X-ray machine when you go into the doctor's office and get an 
X-ray, and that the radioactive dose to an inadvertent intruder will be 
minimal. Therefore, the residues meet the NRC's low-level waste 
standards.
  None of this relies on dilution of the residues but, rather, it 
relies on classifying the stabilized residues in accordance with the 
risks they present in a manner consistent with the NRC performance 
standards which the NRC has specifically identified as the key 
consideration in classifying this waste.
  The Department of Energy has been very responsible in what they have 
been doing. I am very disappointed the court decision has upset this. 
Prior to the court decision, it has been my understanding, the State of 
Washington, the State of Idaho, and the State of North Carolina all 
agreed on a plan with the DOE for the waste and incidental reprocessing 
plan. The court case gets filed, they file a friend-of-the-court brief, 
and everything begins to fall apart.
  Initially, the State of Washington, the State of Idaho, under RCRA, 
were working with the Department of Energy, and nationally under the 
Clean Water Act, the State of South Carolina was working with DOE. Now 
the State of South Carolina is ready to move forward. The other two 
States feel they cannot move forward on this issue. I think it is 
terrible we would tie up their plans because of problems we have in the 
other two States. We have to work out something that is fair. We do 
need to work out something that is fair to all the States.
  The Senator from Washington wants to completely demolish these tanks 
and move them out. What she did not talk about is the risk of going 
down into those tanks and cleaning them out before you demolish them. 
As a worker, I am not sure I want to go down there. I think that is a 
safety hazard beyond comprehension. I do not think anybody is thinking 
about these aspects of it.
  I think what the Department of Energy has come out with, with the 
grout, is going to immediately seal the leaking tanks so we are not 
going to have any more pollution. If things don't continue, they are 
going to continue to pour into the Columbia River in Washington. So I 
think they have come up with a commonsense solution.
  We have had two public hearings in the committee. I have the 
transcript here. We had one public hearing on February, 25, 2004, and 
we had the other public hearing on March 23, 2004. We talked about the 
WIR issue and how to best resolve it.
  I would also point out for my colleagues, there has been built at 
Hanford a low-level waste disposal area. So this is not new, leaving 
low-level waste in Hanford. I think we need to move forward in a very 
practical way.
  I will have more to say about this when we get back into debate on 
the armed services bill and we have the Lindsey Graham amendment before 
us again. These are a few things I wanted to begin to address this 
morning.
  Mr. President, I yield floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 15 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Akaka and Mr. Durbin pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 2475 are printed in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')


                  Dedication of World War II Memorial

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, before my distinguished colleague departs, 
a little later this morning I am going to talk about the agenda of the 
forthcoming ceremonies regarding the dedication of the World War II 
Memorial. The distinguished Senator from Hawaii, both Senators in fact, 
served in our military during World War II. My recollection is one 
Senator went to the European theater; that is, Senator Inouye, and this 
distinguished Senator went to the Pacific theater. I thank him for his 
participation in this memorial. It was first legislated in the Congress 
and then through the years, when Senator Dole and others were involved 
in raising non-Federal funds, close to $100 million, to erect the 
magnificent memorial which will be dedicated a week from tomorrow. I 
wanted to thank him first for his service on the Armed Services 
Committee, his enormous interest in the men and women in the Armed 
Forces, and in our national security.
  I have great recollections of when he and I went down with Senator 
Dole the other day to the memorial.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia. He has 
been a great leader in our country for our Armed Forces. He has served 
our country well. He has been a Secretary of the Navy, now chairman of 
the Armed Services Committee. I tell him, as one member of that 
committee, that I respect what he is doing. He is doing a great job for 
the country. He has been up with the sensitive issues that our country 
faces and has called these hearings that have been very important in 
clarifying what is happening with our armed services in Iraq and around 
the world. I commend him highly for what he is doing. I thank him for 
all of that.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. The hearings, yes, they were 
important. We had 100-percent attendance at the three hearings; perhaps 
one Senator here and there for a while had to depart. It showed 
bipartisan, tremendous interest, assuming responsibility on behalf of 
the institution of the United States, our committee developing the 
facts. It is extremely important because it displayed to the world, 
particularly the Muslim and Arab world, how America works openly to 
address its problems to hold those responsible accountable. It is a 
process that has been begun by the Department of Defense, specifically 
the Department of the Army. I thank Senator Akaka for his participation 
in those hearings.
  I rose primarily to say that a week from Saturday will be an 
important day to both of us. My service in World War II was very modest 
compared to those of the others. I was simply in a training command, 
ready to go into the Pacific theater where the Senator from Hawaii was 
already present. Who knows, I might have been his replacement so he 
could come on home. Fortunately, the war ended for both of us. I thank 
the Senator.
  My distinguished colleague from Michigan is on other matters. 
Therefore, until he joins me, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Allard pertaining to the introduction of S. 2474 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. ALLARD. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant 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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my distinguished colleague and I will now 
propound a series of cleared amendments to the Senate.


                           Amendment No. 3240

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I offer a technical amendment that would 
delete a provision from the bill that would modify a portion of the 
Internal

[[Page 10770]]

Revenue Code and has raised jurisdictional concerns.
  The amendment has been cleared on the other side.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner), for himself and Mr. 
     Levin, proposes an amendment numbered 3240.

  The amendment is as follows:


                           amendment no. 3240

 (Purpose: To strike an amendment to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986)

       Beginning on page 105, strike line 21 and all that follows 
     through page 106, line 2.

  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared on this side.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3240) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3227

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Graham, I offer an 
amendment that would clarify the Reserve officers on voluntary extended 
active duty are not prohibited from accepting payment of any part of 
salary or wages that a private employer paid to the Reserve officer 
before his or her call or order to active duty.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Graham of 
     South Carolina, proposes an amendment numbered 3227.

  The amendment is as follows:


                           amendment no. 3227

 (Purpose: To except from criminal offense the receipt of pay from an 
employer by a Reservist on active duty in connection with a contingency 
                               operation)

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

     SEC. 1068. RECEIPT OF PAY BY RESERVES FROM CIVILIAN EMPLOYERS 
                   WHILE ON ACTIVE DUTY IN CONNECTION WITH A 
                   CONTINGENCY OPERATION.

       Section 209 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(h) This section does not prohibit a member of the 
     reserve components of the armed forces on active duty 
     pursuant to a call or order to active duty under a provision 
     of law referred to in section 101(a)(13) of title 10 from 
     receiving from any person that employed such member before 
     the call or order to active duty any payment of any part of 
     the salary or wages that such person would have paid the 
     member if the member's employment had not been interrupted by 
     such call or order to active duty.''.

  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared on this side, Mr. 
President.
  Mr. WARNER. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3227) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3171

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Landrieu, I offer an 
amendment that would authorize the veterans service organizations to 
participate in preseparation counseling provided to service members and 
to brief members of Reserve units after release from active service 
regarding VA benefits.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Ms. Landrieu, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3171.

  The amendment is as follows:


                           amendment no. 3171

      (Purpose: To authorize representatives of veterans service 
  organizations to appear at preseparation counseling provided by the 
                         Department of Defense)

       At the end of subtitle H of title V, insert the following:

     SEC. 574. APPEARANCE OF VETERANS SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS AT 
                   PRESEP-
                   ARATION COUNSELING PROVIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT 
                   OF DEFENSE.

       (a) Appearance to Counseling for Discharge or Release from 
     Active Duty.--Section 1142 of title 10, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Appearance by Veterans Service Organizations.--(1) 
     The Secretary concerned may permit a representative of a 
     veterans service organization to appear at and participate in 
     any preseparation counseling provided to a member of the 
     armed forces under this section.
       ``(2) For purposes of this subsection, a veterans service 
     organization is any organization recognized by the Secretary 
     of Veterans Affairs for the representation of veterans under 
     section 5902 of title 38.''.
       (b) Meeting With Reserves Released from Active Duty for 
     Further Service in the Reserves.--(1) A unit of a reserve 
     component on active duty in the Armed Forces may, upon 
     release from active duty in the Armed Forces for further 
     service in the reserve components, meet with a veterans 
     service organization for information and assistance relating 
     to such release if the commander of the unit authorizes the 
     meeting.
       (2) The time of a meeting for a unit under paragraph (1) 
     may be scheduled by the commander of the unit for such time 
     after the release of the unit as described in that paragraph 
     as the commander of the unit determines appropriate to 
     maximize the benefit of the meeting to the members of the 
     unit.
       (3) For purposes of this subsection, a veterans service 
     organization is any organization recognized by the Secretary 
     of Veterans Affairs for the representation of veterans under 
     section 5902 of title 38, United States Code.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on this 
side, and I ask to be made a cosponsor of this very important 
amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3171) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. 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.


                    Amendment No. 3228, As Modified

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Graham of South 
Carolina, I offer an amendment which adds $3 million for critical 
infrastructure system security engineering.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Graham of 
     South Carolina, proposes an amendment numbered 3228, as 
     modified.

  The amendment is as follows:


                    amendment no. 3228, as modified

    (Purpose: To increase by $3,000,000 the amount authorized to be 
  appropriated by section 201(2) for research, development, test, and 
      evaluation for the Navy and make the increase available for 
infrastructure system security engineering development, and to provide 
                               an offset)

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

     SEC. 217. INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEM SECURITY ENGINEERING 
                   DEVELOPMENT FOR THE NAVY.

       (a) Increase in Amount for Research, Development, Test, and 
     Evaluation, Navy.--The amount authorized to be appropriated 
     by section 201(2) for research, development, test, and 
     evaluation, Navy, is hereby increased by $3,000,000.
       (b) Availability of Amount for Infrastructure System 
     Security Engineering Development.--Of the amount authorized 
     to be appropriated by section 201(2) for research, 
     development, test, and evaluation, Navy, as increased by 
     subsection (a), $3,000,000 may be available for 
     infrastructure system security engineering development.
       (c) Offset.--(1) The amount authorized to be appropriated 
     by section 101(5) for other procurement, Army, is hereby 
     reduced by $1,000,000, with the amount of the reduction to be 
     allocated to Buffalo Landmine Vehicles.
       (2) The amount authorized to be appropriated by section 
     102(b) for procurement for the Marine Corps is hereby reduced 
     by $500,000, with the amount of the reduction to be allocated 
     to Combat Casualty Care.
       (3) The amount authorized to be appropriated by section 
     201(1) for research, development, test, and evaluation, Army, 
     is hereby reduced by $1,000,000, with the amount of the 
     reduction to the allocated to Active Coating Technology.

[[Page 10771]]

       (4) The amount authorized to be appropriated by section 
     201(4) for research, development, test, and evaluation, 
     Defense-wide activities, is hereby reduced by $500,000, with 
     the amount of the reduction to be allocated to Radiation 
     Hardened Complementary Metal Oxide Semi-Conductors.

  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared on this side, Mr. 
President.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3228), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3241

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Ben Nelson of 
Nebraska, I offer an amendment which would increase funding for 
neurotoxin research.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Nelson of 
     Nebraska, proposes an amendment numbered 3241.

  The amendment is as follows:

                           amendment no. 3241

    (Purpose: To increase by $2,000,000 the amount authorized to be 
 appropriated for research, development, test, and evaluation, Defense-
    wide activities, and make the increase available for neurotoxin 
             mitigation research, and to provide an offset)

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

     SEC. 217. NEUROTOXIN MITIGATION RESEARCH.

       (a) Increase in Amount for Research, Development, Test, and 
     Evaluation, Defense-Wide.--The amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 201(4) for research, development, 
     test, and evaluation, Defense-wide activities, is hereby 
     increased by $2,000,000.
       (b) Availability for Neurotoxin Mitigation Research.--Of 
     the amount authorized to be appropriated by section 201(4) 
     for research, development, test, and evaluation, Defense-wide 
     activities, as increased by subsection (a), $2,000,000 may be 
     available in Program Element PE 62384BP for neurotoxin 
     mitigation research.
       (c) Offset.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 301(1) for operation and maintenance for the Army is 
     hereby reduced by $2,000,000, with the amount of the 
     reduction to be allocated to Satellite Communications 
     Language training activity (SCOLA) at the Army Defense 
     Language Institute.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on this 
side.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3241) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. 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.


                           Amendment No. 3242

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Grassley of Iowa, I 
offer an amendment that improves the ability of Army industrial 
facilities to enter into public-private partnerships.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Grassley, 
     for himself, Mr. Fitzgerald, and Mr. Sessions, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3242.

  The amendment is as follows:

                           amendment no. 3242

       On page 58, after line 24, insert the following:

     SEC. 364. CONSOLIDATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF AUTHORITIES FOR 
                   ARMY WORKING-CAPITAL FUNDED FACILITIES TO 
                   ENGAGE IN PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS.

       (a) Public-Private Partnerships Authorized.--Chapter 433 of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new section:

     ``Sec. 4544. Army industrial facilities: public-private 
       partnerships

       ``(a) Public-Private Partnerships Authorized.--A working-
     capital funded Army industrial facility may enter into 
     cooperative arrangements with non-Army entities to carry out 
     military or commercial projects with the non-Army entities. A 
     cooperative arrangement under this section shall be known as 
     a `public-private partnership'.
       ``(b) Authorized Partnership Activities.--A public-private 
     partnership entered into by an Army industrial facility may 
     provide for any of the following activities:
       ``(1) The sale of articles manufactured by the facility or 
     services performed by the facility to persons outside the 
     Department of Defense.
       ``(2) The performance of--
       ``(A) work by a non-Army entity at the facility; or
       ``(B) work for a non-Army entity by the facility.
       ``(3) The sharing of work by the facility and one or more 
     non-Army entities.
       ``(4) The leasing, or use under a facilities use contract 
     or otherwise, of the facility (including excess capacity) or 
     equipment (including excess equipment) of the facility by a 
     non-Army entity.
       ``(5) The preparation and submission of joint offers by the 
     facility and one or more non-Army entities for competitive 
     procurements entered into with a department or agency of the 
     United States.
       ``(c) Conditions for Public-Private Partnerships.--An 
     activity described in subsection (b) may be carried out as a 
     public-private partnership at an Army industrial facility 
     only under the following conditions:
       ``(1) In the case of an article to be manufactured or 
     services to be performed by the facility, the articles can be 
     substantially manufactured, or the services can be 
     substantially performed, by the facility without 
     subcontracting for more than incidental performance.
       ``(2) The activity does not interfere with performance of--
       ``(A) work by the facility for the Department of Defense; 
     or
       ``(B) a military mission of the facility.
       ``(3) The activity meets one of the following objectives:
       ``(A) Maximize utilization of the capacity of the facility.
       ``(B) Reduction or elimination of the cost of ownership of 
     the facility.
       ``(C) Reduction in the cost of manufacturing or maintaining 
     Department of Defense products at the facility.
       ``(D) Preservation of skills or equipment related to a core 
     competency of the facility.
       ``(4) The non-Army entity partner or purchaser agrees to 
     hold harmless and indemnify the United States from any 
     liability or claim for damages or injury to any person or 
     property arising out of the activity, including any damages 
     or injury arising out of a decision by the Secretary of the 
     Army or the Secretary of Defense to suspend or terminate an 
     activity, or any portion thereof, during a war or national 
     emergency or to require the facility to perform other work or 
     provide other services on a priority basis, except--
       ``(A) in any case of willful misconduct or gross 
     negligence; and
       ``(B) in the case of a claim by a purchaser of articles or 
     services under this section that damages or injury arose from 
     the failure of the Government to comply with quality, 
     schedule, or cost performance requirements in the contract to 
     carry out the activity.
       ``(d) Methods of Public-Private Partnerships.--To conduct 
     an activity of a public-private partnership under this 
     section, the approval authority described in subsection (f) 
     for an Army industrial facility may, in the exercise of good 
     business judgment--
       ``(1) enter into a firm, fixed-price contract (or, if 
     agreed to by the purchaser, a cost reimbursement contract) 
     for a sale of articles or services or use of equipment or 
     facilities;
       ``(2) enter into a multiyear partnership contract for a 
     period not to exceed five years, unless a longer period is 
     specifically authorized by law;
       ``(3) charge a partner the amounts necessary to recover the 
     full costs of the articles or services provided, including 
     capital improvement costs, and equipment depreciation costs 
     associated with providing the articles, services, equipment, 
     or facilities;
       ``(4) authorize a partner to use incremental funding to pay 
     for the articles, services, or use of equipment or 
     facilities; and
       ``(5) accept payment-in-kind.
       ``(e) Deposit of Proceeds.--(1) The proceeds of sales of 
     articles and services received in connection with the use of 
     an Army industrial facility under this section shall be 
     credited to the appropriation or working-capital fund that 
     incurs the variable costs of manufacturing the articles or 
     performing the services. Notwithstanding section 3302(b) of 
     title 31, the amount so credited with respect to an Army 
     industrial facility shall be available, without further 
     appropriation, as follows:
       ``(A) Amounts equal to the amounts of the variable costs so 
     incurred shall be available for the same purposes as the 
     appropriation or working-capital fund to which credited.
       ``(B) Amounts in excess of the amounts of the variable 
     costs so incurred shall be available for operations, 
     maintenance, and environmental restoration at that Army 
     industrial facility.
       ``(2) Amounts credited to a working-capital fund under 
     paragraph (1) shall remain available until expended. Amounts 
     credited to an appropriation under paragraph (1) shall remain 
     available for the same period as the appropriation to which 
     credited.

[[Page 10772]]

       ``(f) Approval of Sales.--The authority of an Army 
     industrial facility to conduct a public-private partnership 
     under this section shall be exercised at the level of the 
     commander of the major subordinate command of the Army that 
     has responsibility for the facility. The commander may 
     approve such partnership on a case basis or a class basis.
       ``(g) Commercial Sales.--Except in the case of work 
     performed for the Department of Defense, for a contract of 
     the Department of Defense, for foreign military sales, or for 
     authorized foreign direct commercial sales (defense articles 
     or defense services sold to a foreign government or 
     international organization under export controls), a sale of 
     articles or services may be made under this section only if 
     the approval authority described in subsection (f) determines 
     that the articles or services are not available from a 
     commercial source located in the United States in the 
     required quantity or quality, or within the time required.
       ``(h) Exclusion From Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair 
     Percentage Limitation.--Amounts expended for depot-level 
     maintenance and repair workload by non-Federal personnel at 
     an Army industrial facility shall not be counted for purposes 
     of applying the percentage limitation in section 2466(a) of 
     this title if the personnel are provided by a non-Army entity 
     pursuant to a public-private partnership established under 
     this section.
       ``(i) Relationship to Other Laws.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to affect the application of--
       ``(1) foreign military sales and the export controls 
     provided for in sections 30 and 38 of the Arms Export Control 
     Act (22 U.S.C. 2770 and 2778) to activities of a public-
     private partnership under this section; and
       ``(2) section 2667 of this title to leases of non-excess 
     property in the administration of a public-private 
     partnership under this section.
       ``(j) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `Army industrial facility' includes an 
     ammunition plant, an arsenal, a depot, and a manufacturing 
     plant.
       ``(2) The term `non-Army entity' includes the following:
       ``(A) An executive agency.
       ``(B) An entity in industry or commercial sales.
       ``(C) A State or political subdivision of a State.
       ``(D) An institution of higher education or vocational 
     training institution.
       ``(3) The term `incremental funding' means a series of 
     partial payments that--
       ``(A) are made as the work on manufacture or articles is 
     being performed or services are being performed or equipment 
     or facilities are used, as the case may be; and
       ``(B) result in full payment being completed as the 
     required work is being completed.
       ``(4) The term `full costs', with respect to articles or 
     services provided under this section, means the variable 
     costs and the fixed costs that are directly related to the 
     production of the articles or the provision of the services.
       ``(5) The term `variable costs' means the costs that are 
     expected to fluctuate directly with the volume of sales or 
     services provided or the use of equipment or facilities.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new item:

``4544. Army industrial facilities: public-private partnerships.''.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I believe the amendment has been cleared.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend. The amendment has been cleared on this 
side.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3242) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3243

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Feinstein, I offer an 
amendment which would authorize the Air Force to convey a parcel of 
property at March Air Force Base to the local redevelopment authority 
at fair market value.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mrs. Feinstein, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3243.

  The amendment is as follows:

                           amendment no. 3243

  (Purpose: To provide for the conveyance of land at March Air Force 
                           Base, California)

       On page 365, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:

     SEC. 2830. LAND CONVEYANCE, MARCH AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Air Force 
     may convey to the March Joint Powers Authority (in this 
     section referred to as the ``MJPA'') all right, title, and 
     interest of the United States in and to a parcel of real 
     property, including any improvements thereon, consisting of 
     approximately 15 acres located in Riverside County, 
     California, and containing the former Defense Reutilization 
     and Marketing Office facility for March Air Force Base, which 
     is also known as Parcel A-6, for the purpose of economic 
     development and revitalization.
       (b) Consideration.--(1) As consideration for the conveyance 
     of property under subsection (a), the MJPA shall pay the 
     United States an amount equal to the fair market value, as 
     determined by the Secretary, of the property to be conveyed 
     under such subsection.
       (2) The consideration received under this subsection shall 
     be deposited in the special account in the Treasury 
     established under section 572(b) of title 40, United States 
     Code, and available in accordance with the provisions of 
     paragraph (5)(B)(ii).
       (c) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal 
     description of the real property to be conveyed under 
     subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory 
     to the Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by 
     the MJPA.
       (d) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require such additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United 
     States.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on this 
side.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3243) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. 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.


                    Amendment No. 3166, As Modified

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Santorum, I offer an 
amendment which requires a report on the maturity and effectiveness of 
the global information grid network.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Santorum, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3166, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

                    AMENDMENT NO. 3166, AS MODIFIED

(Purpose: To require a report on the maturity and effectiveness of the 
     Global Information Grid-Bandwidth Expansion (GIG-BE) network)

       On page 25, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:

     SEC. 142. REPORT ON MATURITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE GLOBAL 
                   INFORMATION GRID BANDWIDTH EXPANSION (GIG-BE) 
                   NETWORK.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later that 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense 
     shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate 
     and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of 
     Representatives a report on a test program to demonstrate the 
     maturity and effectiveness of the Global Information Grid-
     Bandwidth Expansion (GIG-BE) network architecture.
       (b) Contents of Report.--The report under subsection (a) 
     shall--
       (1) determine whether the results of the test program 
     described in subsection (a) demonstrate compliance of the 
     GIG-BE architecture with the overall goals of the GIG-BE 
     program;
       (2) identify--
       (A) the extent to which the GIG-BE architecture does not 
     meet the overall goals of the program; and
       (B) the components that are not yet sufficiently developed 
     to achieve the overall goals of the program;
       (3) include a plan and cost estimates for achieving 
     compliance; and
       (4) document the equipment and network configuration used 
     to demonstrate real-world scenarios within the continental 
     United States.

  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment has been cleared on this side, Mr. 
President.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3166), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.

[[Page 10773]]


  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ALLARD. I ask to speak as in morning business for the purpose of 
my remarks only and then return to regular business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Supporting The Bush Administration

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise this morning to talk about the 
remarkable record of leadership and achievement we have seen from this 
administration over the past 3 years in keeping America prosperous, 
safe, and secure. During this time our Nation and our President have 
confronted a series of crises and challenges that I believe are 
unmatched during any administration in recent history. Whether the 
challenge has been to our economic, social, or national security, 
President Bush has demonstrated courage, vision, and decisiveness in 
addressing these threats and challenges.
  At the outset of his term in office the President faced a significant 
threat to our economic security requiring immediate action. On January 
20, 2001, the day President Bush was sworn into office, our economy was 
several months into a recession, what I call the ``Clinton recession.'' 
Later, over the next few months, America faced extraordinary adversity 
from the terrorist attacks of 9/11. This devastating event, combined 
with the unprecedented crises in corporate governance and 
accountability, demanded action on numerous levels. The President acted 
swiftly and decisively by securing from the Congress a series of tax 
cuts to stimulate business investment, preserve consumer confidence, 
and expand today's economic recovery into lasting prosperity for all 
Americans.
  The President's actions averted disaster. We experienced one of the 
shortest and shallowest recessions of modern American history. By all 
accounts, the economy is on very solid footing now because of the 
President's actions.
  For example, today we see 10 consecutive quarters of strong economic 
growth relative to gross domestic product. In fact, our economy 
averaged an annualized 5.5 percent growth over the last 3 quarters, the 
strongest three-quarter performance in 20 years. Manufacturing activity 
is rebounding. Since this time last year, the United States has led all 
major economies of the world with the highest manufacturing output 
expansion. This is in addition to our service economy, which also 
continues to outperform every other service economy around the globe. 
Recent corporate earnings reports are bullish, and investor confidence 
is rebounding, reflected by the 35 to 50 percent gains in major market 
indices since the fall of 2002. This includes a $4 trillion increase in 
the total market capitalization of the New York Stock Exchange. 
Inflation remains low by historical standards, at or below a very 
manageable 3 percent annual rate. Business investment is rising 
steadily, fueled largely by double-digit growth in equipment and 
software spending, and by growing inventory investment. Consumer 
spending growth is accelerating due to real gains in wages, salaries, 
and in disposable personal income, boosted largely by lower taxes. And, 
residential construction spending remains strong, and as of March 2004, 
both existing and new home sales accelerated to record levels. This 
translates into the highest national homeownership rate in our Nation's 
history, a record 69 percent.
  Moreover, looking at the lagging indicator of job creation, recent 
data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics now confirm the recovery. The 
payroll survey shows over a million jobs created over the past 8 
months.
  More importantly, the household survey, which is not often cited in 
the public media, shows that over 2 million new jobs have been created 
since November 2001, when the ``Clinton'' recession was finally 
reversed. Just in the last 2 months, more than 600,000 new jobs have 
been created.
  The President now faces new economic challenges, this time from many 
Members on the other side of the aisle who believe we need to undo 
President Bush's tax cuts. As we move closer to the November 
Presidential election, the political rhetoric from the other side is 
trying to convince us that the economy is much worse off than the facts 
demonstrate. Reversing the Bush tax cuts, as the Democrats propose, 
will only serve to reverse the economic growth we are now experiencing 
and that we project through the decade. We must all support the 
President in fending off increased ``tax-and-spend'' proposals.
  This President has also recognized and acted decisively to turn back 
significant threats to our families and our values. I believe the 
previous administration neglected several major challenges to the 
security of our seniors, our families, and our children. President 
Bush, on the other hand, is moving aggressively and decisively to 
defeat these challenges and make our families more secure.
  Our senior citizens are threatened by increasing health care costs 
and limited access to affordable medicines they need. The President 
developed and enacted historic Medicare modernization and prescription 
drug reforms. These initiatives enable seniors to get the medicines 
they need at discounted prices, and expand freedom for Americans to 
choose among healthcare providers and plans based on their individual 
needs. Further, the President's action makes sure low-income seniors 
receive additional financial assistance so they will not have to pay 
more to receive better benefits than they currently do under Medicare.
  Our families, more specifically the parents, are under assault by 
activist courts around the country undermining the sanctity of 
marriage. Not only are these courts overstepping their constitutional 
authority, but also they are trampling fundamental values and 
institutions held dear by the vast majority of Americans. The President 
stepped forward and joined several of us from the Congress to put down 
this assault decisively. While I do not take the amending of the 
constitution lightly, the proposed Constitutional amendment is our only 
recourse in preserving marriage in the United States as the union of 
only a man and a woman.
  Dumbed-down educational standards and sub-par learning institutions 
threaten the well-being and development of our children. The President 
brought forward another major reform with his No Child Left Behind 
initiative to instill higher, modern standards for performance in 
reading and math. The President has increased education spending nearly 
25 percent over his predecessor--an $11 billion increase. This includes 
an increase of more than 30 percent for disadvantaged student programs, 
as well as tripling resources for effective reading programs for our 
youth.
  Moreover, the President's leadership restores to local officials the 
power and resources to establish programs and practices that work in 
their respective communities.
  Again, another example of extraordinary leadership backed by 
resources, compassion, and commitment. The President has been nothing 
but visionary and steadfast in protecting our families and our way of 
life.
  Today, the President is leading our Nation through another major 
crisis in the fight against Muslim extremists seeking to destroy our 
people, our livelihoods, and our liberties at home and abroad. We are a 
Nation at war--a global war on terror. This is not a war we started, 
but a war we will finish.
  Unlike his predecessor, President Bush has demonstrated to this 
Nation, indeed to the world, that he has the vision, the courage, and 
the fortitude to lead a global coalition to fight this

[[Page 10774]]

enemy whenever and wherever is needed. The President will not shirk his 
duties to guarantee the safety and security of Americans or freedom-
loving peoples around the globe.
  The enemy in this war did not mysteriously appear for the first time 
on September 11, 2001. Rather, this enemy has been consistently 
attacking the United States for over two decades. Unfortunately, over 
this period of time, our country's response to this growing threat was 
entirely inadequate, inconsistent, and inexcusable. Let me describe for 
you the evolution of our enemy in this global war on terror.
  In 1979, a band of Islamic fundamentalists, led by the Ayatollah 
Khomeini, successfully overthrew the Shah's government of Iran as 
America stood by and watched. Nearly a year later, these 
fundamentalists stormed the U.S. Embassy and took the American staff 
hostage for 444 days. President Carter's response at the time: cancel 
Iranian travel visas and seek UN diplomatic assistance.
  In 1982, Muslim extremists bombed our Embassy in Beirut. The U.S. did 
not respond against the extremists. Six months later, the extremists 
bombed the U.S. marines' barracks and 241 U.S. servicemen were killed 
and another 80 were seriously wounded. This time, the U.S. response 
came from the Democratic-controlled Congress in the form of a 
resolution to withdraw all troops from the area. Unfortunately, as the 
1983 presidential election drew near, President Reagan acquiesced. 
There was, and remains, an important lesson to be learned here for all 
Members of this body: our enemy perceives vulnerability during U.S. 
presidential election years. During this time we must redouble our 
vigilance and resist the internal sniping for mere political 
expediency.
  In 1985, Muslim extremists hijacked an Italian cruise ship, the 
Achille Lauro. In a specific act of defiance toward the United States, 
the terrorists murdered 69-year-old Leon Klinghoffer, tossing his dead 
body and wheelchair overboard into the sea. The terrorists were offered 
a deal by ``our allies'' for safe passage by ending the hijacking. When 
the hijackers were traveling to their new destination, President Reagan 
launched our military fighters to intercept and redirect their airliner 
to Sicily, Italy. After a few years in prison, the Italians set them 
free. The Muslim extremists then took up sanctuary with Saddam Hussein 
in Iraq.
  In 1986, Muslim extremists affiliated with Libya's Colonel Qadhafi 
bombed a West Berlin nightclub frequented by American servicemen. Two 
American soldiers were killed. Ten days later, President Reagan 
authorized an air strike in Tripoli and Benghazi, Libya, from bases in 
England. The mission was somewhat complicated by the French denying us 
use of their airspace during the mission.
  In 1988, Muslim extremists, again sanctioned by the Libyan 
government, destroyed Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. No 
direct action was taken by either the U.S. or British governments.
  In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded oil-rich Kuwait. President George 
Herbert Walker Bush moved U.S. forces quickly to block further Iraqi 
advances while mobilizing a large international coalition force that 
ultimately expelled a decimated Iraqi military from Kuwait. Most 
Democrats in Congress voted against this use of force. Now, many of the 
same are saying that we did not go far enough at that time.
  One of our key allies during the 1991 Gulf War was the Kingdom of 
Saudi Arabia. Following hostilities, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia forged 
closer military, economic, and political relations. One wealthy Saudi 
extremist took exception to this relationship and vowed to ``wage war 
against the American crusaders.'' This Saudi's name was Osama bin 
Laden.
  From that point forward, we have been victimized by a string of 
direct attacks by bin Laden's al-Qaida network--both at home and 
abroad.
  In 1993, al-Qaida exploded bombs in the garage of the World Trade 
Center towers, killing 5 Americans and injuring hundreds. President 
Clinton, at this time being advised by national security staff official 
Richard Clarke, did nothing in response.
  Later in 1993, 18 American soldiers were killed in Somalia, and the 
body of one soldier was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu before 
a cheering band of Somalis and al-Qaida. President Clinton's immediate 
response was the withdrawal of all troops from Somalia. No action was 
taken against those responsible. ABC News reported Osama bin Laden 
saying that al-Qaida soldiers:

     realized more than before that the American soldier was a 
     paper tiger and after a few blows ran in shame and disgrace.

  In 1995, in Saudi Arabia, al-Qaida killed 5 and injured 30 Americans 
in a homicide bomb attack. A few months later, homicide car-bombers 
attacked U.S. military facilities at the Khobar Towers, killing 19 and 
injuring nearly 500 Americans. The perpetrators of these cowardly 
attacks all escaped. The U.S. did not respond.
  In 1998, al-Qaida bombed the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, 
killing 224 people, including 12 Americans, and injuring over 5,400 in 
all. The U.S. did not respond.
  In 2000, al-Qaida bombed the USS Cole, killing 17 and wounding 
another couple dozen of American sailors. The U.S. did not respond.
  Over the course of these 7 years, al-Qaida carried out multiple 
attacks against the United States. As the current National Security 
Advisor recently testified, it was clear that ``the enemy was at war 
with the United States.'' However, President Clinton, and his top 
counter-terrorist advisor Richard Clarke, did not go to war with the 
enemy.
  It is reasonable to conclude that our failed history to deal promptly 
and decisively with al-Qaida, at any point during this period, only 
served to embolden Bin Laden and his criminal band of extremists.
  Perhaps our failure emboldened others in the same way. During the 
latter part of the 1990s, Saddam Hussein began a campaign of actions 
increasingly more defiant of U.S. and UN imposed sanctions.
  In 1996, Saddam unleashed his forces on the Kurdish city of Erbil 
destroying U.S.-sponsored resistance organizations and executing U.S.-
backed resistance fighters. In 1997, Hussein bullied UN inspectors, 
preventing them from performing their mission. He also threatened to 
shoot down American surveillance planes aiding the inspection program.
  In 1998, President Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq, but he did not 
follow through after the United Nations urged restraint. Later that 
year, Hussein kicked the UN inspectors out of Iraq all together. Over 
the next several years, Iraqi air defense units repeatedly shot at our 
military aircraft enforcing the UN sanctioned ``no fly'' zones.
  On more than one occasion, President Clinton launched limited, and 
arguably ineffective, aircraft and cruise missile strikes in Iraq to no 
avail.
  By the time President Bush took office in 2001, the determination and 
sophistication of our enemies were already well established. 
Unfortunately, our reputation of standing up to these criminal terror 
organizations and despots had decayed to a dangerous level.
  President Bush immediately set forth new policy and strategies, 
scrapping the ``containment'' policy in favor of a more comprehensive 
and decisive course of action to eliminate the al-Qaida enemy 
completely. The horrendous events of 9/11, barely seven months into his 
administration, demanded urgent and unambiguous action from the 
President. Without hesitation, President Bush directed his cabinet to 
prepare a decisive response against the murderous al-Qaida 
organization, including terrorist affiliates, and those foreign 
governments that sponsor and shelter the terrorists.
  As I said earlier, we didn't start this war--the global war on terror 
but we are going to finish it. Under President Bush's leadership over 
the past two-plus years, the United States has dealt a crippling blow 
to world terror organizations. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld summarized 
it best for us earlier this year when he reported that our armed forces 
have overthrown two terrorist regimes, rescued two nations, and 
liberated some 50 million people; captured

[[Page 10775]]

 or killed close to two-thirds of known senior al-Qaida operatives; 
captured or killed 45 of the 55 most wanted in Iraq, including Iraq's 
deposed dictator, Saddam Hussein; hunted down thousands of terrorists 
and regime remnants in Afghanistan and Iraq; disrupted terrorist cells 
on most continents; and likely prevented a number of planned attacks. 
This is an astounding record of accomplishment for our commander-in-
chief, his national security staff, and the phenomenal men and women of 
our military services.
  I believe we are already seeing huge dividends from our actions in 
Operation Iraqi Freedom. We have demonstrated to the Middle East 
region, and indeed to the world, that the U.S. is willing to go to war 
over weapons of mass destruction, even at the risk of significant loss 
of life. This action sent an extraordinarily powerful message to all--
there will be significant consequences of possessing, or attempting to 
acquire, weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. This 
increased risk perception among potential adversaries, or threat of 
U.S. action, is now opening the door to diplomatic action to roll back 
illicit weapons and ballistic missile development programs.
  This is evident in Libya, where Colonel Qadhafi is now voluntarily 
turning over his weapons and secrets to the United Kingdom and United 
States intelligence officers. It turns out that Egypt was a major 
supplier to Libya, so now Egypt is getting out of the ballistic missile 
trade as well. This is evident in Syria, which is now engaged with U.S. 
Defense and State Department officials in divesting its ballistic 
missile enhancement programs while secretly trying to relocate their 
ballistic missile inventory in neighboring countries. Further, this is 
evident in Iran, which has now ``come clean'' in reporting its military 
nuclear programs and is opening up to more stringent inspections.
  We are seeing encouraging results with the decline of trans-national 
terrorism as well. Recently, the U.S. State Department released its 
annual report on Patterns of Global Terrorism, prepared by the Office 
of the Coordinator for Counter-Terrorism. The findings and conclusions 
are promising and further evidence that President Bush's vision and 
decisiveness are bringing about positive change.
  For example, in 2001, during the President's first year in office, 
there were 346 terrorist attacks world-wide. In 2003, that number was 
down to 190--a 45% reduction in just two years. In 2001, there were 219 
anti-U.S. attacks worldwide. In 2003, there were 82--a 62% reduction in 
just two years.
  I believe these dramatic results are a direct result of George Bush's 
decision to declare war--not declare a police action or declare a 
negotiating strategy--but a global war against terrorists and those who 
harbor them. U.S.-led efforts are successfully attacking terrorists' 
training facilities, hideouts, weapons centers, financial institutions, 
and travel and logistics routes. Of course, this is in addition to our 
recent destruction of the two largest terrorist-sponsoring regimes in 
Afghanistan and Iraq.
  However, we cannot rest on our laurels. The war continues. We must 
capture or destroy Osama bin Laden and his comrades-in-hiding. We must 
defeat the terror and criminal elements that continue to kill 
indiscriminately in Iraq. We must finish the reconstruction of the 
political and municipal infrastructure for both the Afghani and Iraqi 
people. We are on the verge of seeing new democracies take root, 
offering the promise of lasting peace and stability for this region 
that has grown accustomed to tyranny after decades of oppression and 
terror.
  Equally important, we must continue the offensive against other 
Muslim extremist organizations around the globe, denying these 
potential killers the opportunity to plan, prepare, or execute further 
acts of terror. President Bush is the visionary, the proven leader, and 
the commander-in-chief who will see this through and keep America safe 
and secure.
  The facts are in. The results are conclusive. We are winning the war 
against terror with persistence and will. We are keeping America 
prosperous with pro-growth tax and business policies. We are enriching 
our families with commonsense social and educational reforms. I believe 
most Americans recognize this record of extraordinary accomplishment. 
And I believe that Americans are extremely proud of the leadership, 
courage, commitment, and results of President George W. Bush.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, the pending business is the Defense 
bill, but to accommodate Senators for matters that are not directly 
related, Senator Levin and I are perfectly willing to have other 
speakers.
  I see my distinguished colleague, the Senator from North Dakota. How 
much time does the Senator desire?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, let me request 10 minutes in morning 
business. If I see the Senator from Virginia desiring the floor, I 
certainly will not continue.
  Mr. WARNER. Go right ahead for 10 minutes.
  Whatever flexibility the Senator may desire, Senator Levin and I are 
pleased to accommodate the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                               Gas Prices

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, this week the Congress and the White 
House have spent a fair amount of time talking about the subject of 
gasoline prices. Gas prices are now averaging over $2 a gallon across 
the country. It is a serious problem for American families, for 
American businesses, and for industries such as the airlines. I will 
talk a bit about that.
  Elbows and wrists and hands are nearly out of joint from every side 
of the political spectrum pointing fingers during the last week about 
who is responsible for this or that or the other thing, who is 
responsible for high oil prices. That is counterproductive.
  However, we cannot, all of us, decide that this is not happening on 
our watch. It is. We cannot decide that it is not of consequence. It 
certainly is of great consequence to our country, to our economy, and 
to American families.
  I pulled up behind an old Chevrolet one day at a 40A stop in North 
Dakota some while ago. This 15- or 20-year-old Chevrolet had a bumper 
sticker on the back bumper, half of which was sort of tilted downward 
from previous beatings. The bumper sticker said ``I fought the gas war 
and gas won.''
  I thought to myself, that is a prophetic bumper sticker. It is hard 
to fight a gas war and win when we have all of these events conspired 
against us. We have OPEC countries that control a substantial amount of 
product which have formed a cartel and they decide what they are 
pumping and what they will send to the oil pipelines around the world.
  In addition to that, the oil companies themselves have gotten bigger 
and bigger and bigger, behemoth companies that control substantial 
amounts of product.
  Then we have the consumer at the end of the line. They take the gas 
hose out of the socket at the gas station, they put it in the gas tank 
and start pumping, and there is not a thing they can do except pay the 
price, whatever the price is.
  Why is this important, especially for rural States? I come from a 
rural State in this country. In rural States, we drive a lot more. We 
use a lot more fuel. I come from a State that is 10 times the size of 
Massachusetts in landmass. North Dakota is 10 Massachusetts in 
landmass. Yet we have 642,000 people spread out in that big old 
landmass. It is not much of anything to drive 50 miles or 100 miles or 
200 miles to do a piece of business or to see relatives. Do that on the 
east coast,

[[Page 10776]]

and they want to pack a tent in case they have trouble driving 50 
miles.
  But in our State we drive a lot, and we have a farming industry that 
uses a lot of fuel. So in the State of North Dakota, for example, per 
capita, we use twice as much gasoline as they would in New York per 
capita. That means the burden of these increased gas prices is double 
in a rural State such as ours what it is on other drivers in some of 
the more populous States where they use less and drive less.
  I am not saying all Americans are not having problems pulling up to 
the gas pump and paying $2 a gallon, but I am saying this especially 
hurts rural States whose consumers per person pay a much higher amount 
of the gas tax because they use more gasoline.
  So what do we do about all this? Well, we can do as we have done for 
the last week or two, and keep pointing back and forth, or we can 
decide to take some action. A couple obvious things we ought to do are: 
One, we are putting nearly 150,000 barrels of oil a day underground in 
Louisiana in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that is 96-percent full. I 
support what is called SPR, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We ought 
to have that in case of an international problem, a national emergency. 
That is why we are putting that oil away. But in times of tight 
supplies, when the price of gasoline has gone to $2 a gallon, it makes 
no sense to take 150,000 barrels off the supply and put it underground 
in Louisiana.
  Step one, I think the President ought to immediately--right now, 
today--stop that. That will add to supply, take some of the pressure 
off increasing prices. That ought to happen now--right now.
  Second, there is a meeting this week in Amsterdam. The Secretary of 
Energy is going to Amsterdam. We need to jawbone--really jawbone--the 
OPEC countries and say to them: You need to increase production during 
this intermittent period. During this summer period, you need to 
increase production, get more oil into that pipeline.
  The Saudis have called for that. But I must say, the Saudis have also 
been part of the problem in the past. When you have the amount of oil 
that is controlled by a few countries, which control a substantial 
amount of the oil in this world, and they make decisions about supply, 
it can have a profound impact on this country.
  We ought to have, immediately, the President jawboning these OPEC 
countries. The Secretary of Energy ought to apply diplomatic pressure 
to these countries to say we need additional oil in that pipeline now.
  Let me also say this. This is about the tenth wake-up call we have 
had on this issue of being held hostage to the OPEC countries. We get 
much of our oil to fuel the American economy from very troubled parts 
of the world. God forbid some morning we wake up and terrorists have 
severed the oil pipelines that send a substantial amount of oil to our 
country and our economy becomes flat on its back.
  We need to understand this cannot work. Sixty percent of the oil we 
need to run this country's economy comes from off our shores, and much 
of it from very troubled parts of the world.
  We need a project--I don't care; I call it an ``Apollo'' project, 
some call it a ``Manhattan'' project--we need a project that says: In 
the coming years we need to find a way to stop running gasoline through 
American carburetors. We have been driving cars for 100 years, and 100 
years ago, you pulled up to a gas pump and put gasoline in your car the 
same way you do with a 2004 Ford or a 2002 Chevy. Nothing has changed. 
New cars are fueled the same way old cars were fueled. Nothing has 
changed in a century.
  Everything about us has changed except we are still dependent, we 
still have this addiction to oil that comes from the OPEC countries. 
Why? Because we need to run it through a carburetor someplace in order 
to make our car go.
  Well, look, hydrogen fuel cells are in our future. Do you know what 
you put out the tailpipe of a hydrogen fuel-cell car? Water vapor. You 
don't pollute the air. You put water vapor out the tailpipe. You have 
twice the effective power going to the wheels with hydrogen fuel cells. 
Why aren't we doing it? Because this country has not ratcheted up the 
energy and the decision to say, on a ``Manhattan'' project basis or an 
``Apollo'' project basis: We are going to do this.
  This ought to be equivalent to saying we are going to send a person 
to the moon. But somehow we are not there. So we need to take short-
term steps and longer term steps, but we need to understand this is 
urgent, this is an emergency.
  There are few things as important to this country as an energy policy 
that works, one that incentivizes production, one that provides for 
conservation, one that provides for renewable forms of energy, greater 
efficiency of all the things we use in our daily lives.
  While I do not want to point the finger here today, I do want to say 
that which I have heard all week is a little disturbing. The White 
House spokesman comes out every day and says: Well, the problem is down 
there. They did not pass an energy bill. Well, everyone knows why we 
did not pass an energy bill. It failed by 2 votes in the Senate. We did 
not pass an energy bill because of a pernicious provision put in that 
bill, put in by the majority leader of the House, which he knew would 
derail that bill in the Senate, providing a retroactive waiver of 
liability for MTBE.
  That provision was put in in a manner that he knew would cause the 
Energy bill to fail in the Senate. So that yoke of responsibility ought 
to lay where it is appropriate, in my judgment.


                              Partisanship

  Madam President, I have been talking about gasoline and gasoline 
prices. We have a lot of challenges in our lives at the moment. We have 
a war in Iraq. We have a continuing war in Afghanistan. We have a range 
of both domestic and international issues that require our attention.
  I was distressed yesterday to read in a newspaper a little piece that 
kind of describes the dilemma we have. We have this problem, and the 
problem is an incessant amount of partisanship around here. We have 
people who come to this town and say: We are going to bring people 
together. I see no evidence of it. The suggestion is the only way we 
can do business is to have one party do it, and exclude the other 
party.
  We made some progress this week. It is interesting, the highway bill 
is a very important piece of legislation for our country. It should 
have been done last year. It was not. It is going to be done this year, 
I hope. Only yesterday we appointed conferees.
  I want to show you what bothered me yesterday about all of that. 
Quoting the article, it says:

     . . . conservative leaders said the White House and the 
     Senate leadership committed a tactical error by compromising 
     with Daschle, which they say has undermined what had been 
     their strategy on judges. . . .

  The spokesperson, Connie Mackey, is the vice president of government 
affairs at the Family Research Council.

       ``We don't see the point,'' said Mackey, who declined to 
     discuss the specifics of the meeting. ``The strategy all 
     along has been to show the obstructionist tactics of the 
     Democrats. [Now] we've lost that tactic.''

  What are we going to do? Our goal has been to be able to call 
somebody obstructionist, but all of a sudden we have this cooperation 
going on, and we have lost this ability. What are we going to do?
  This describes the rancid partisanship that exists around here, and I 
hope it will stop.
  My colleague, Senator Warner from Virginia--I don't know that I have 
ever heard anyone ever call him partisan. He and my colleague from 
Michigan, who bring this bill to the floor of the Senate to manage, are 
models of what we ought to do in this Congress, in this Senate.
  The Senate is almost evenly divided. So is the House. This President 
won by a whisker in 2000. So we have a divided Government, almost right 
down the middle. And those who suggest that what we ought to do, in 
terms of the way we run things around here, is to have the majority 
party decide what happens, and then say to the minority party, you do 
not count, you are excluded, get lost--which is what happened all of 
last year, by the way, in

[[Page 10777]]

these conferences; we appoint conferees, and then we are told the 
Democrats are not welcome to participate in the conferences, despite 
the fact they were a conferee--the fact is, we need to do better than 
that. This country deserves the best of what all of us have to offer, 
the best of what both parties can offer, instead of the worst of what 
each will offer.
  There is a lot to be gained, it seems to me, by bipartisanship, by 
working together, by deciding that good ideas are not the exclusive 
property of whatever party is in the majority at the moment. There is a 
lot to be gained by that. My hope is what happened yesterday is the 
first step of a long trail of bipartisanship and the first step in 
developing consensus on issues, in which we all understand we are 
serving the same interests.
  We want what is best for our country. But there are some--there are 
some--who have no interest in trying to find ways to work together. 
They want open, partisan warfare.
  I brought to the floor last week a couple of charts that showed the 
origin of that, charts an organization put together that said: Oh, by 
the way, here is the way you do this. If you have an opponent, here is 
what you should say about your opponent because we have tested these 
words. This organization, called GOPAC, said: Use words like ``liar,'' 
``sick,'' ``pathetic,'' ``traitor,'' ``treason,'' ``antichild,'' 
``antifamily,'' ``antiflag,'' when you describe your opponent. Be sure 
and use those words because we have tested them, and they work. That 
was the kind of rancid partisan ignorance that represented the 
foundation of what has been built for too long.
  My hope is that perhaps we can reject all of that. Understanding that 
when a country is at war, when a country has energy problems, when a 
country has fiscal policy problems, that it makes good sense to get the 
best of what Republicans have to offer and the best of what Democrats 
have to offer and form a consensus to govern and achieve the goals that 
all of us aspire to. That is what the American people expect. I don't 
think aggressive debate at all hinders or hurts this country. In fact, 
I think it strengthens us. But aggressive partisanship, having as a 
goal not just winning but making sure the other side is destined to 
lose, that does hurt this country.
  My hope is that yesterday, as we created a conference for a highway 
bill which is very important--it is important in the context of jobs 
and progress for the economy--I hope that was the first step in moving 
towards this consensus. Senator Daschle, Senator Reid, so many others 
want to play a constructive role in good public policy. That has always 
been our goal. I believe this country deserves better than we have seen 
in recent months, especially in the last several years. I hope what 
happened yesterday might put us on that road.
  I will come back at another time and talk about the specific bill we 
are considering, the Defense authorization bill. It is very important. 
We tried this week, Senator Lott and myself, to alter some of the base-
closing provisions so that we could force a responsible result in what 
we are going to do with overseas bases first and then make a judgment 
about domestic bases. We came up two votes short on that. But while we 
were two votes short, there were four votes missing that we expect 
would have voted for us. So I think there is a majority in the Senate 
who actually support that position.
  There are some provisions in this bill that we must have an 
aggressive and full debate on. They have to do with the authorization 
of the spending of money to begin producing a new category of nuclear 
weapons, low-yield, bunker-buster, earth-penetrator nuclear weapons. A 
series of discussions need to be held, aggressive discussions around 
that subject. Should we begin developing new nuclear weapons with the 
understanding that they are just like other weapons and perfectly 
usable tactically? I don't believe that is the case, but some in this 
Chamber do believe that we just ought to have nuclear weapons available 
so we can drop one of them on a cave someplace, and if Osama bin Laden 
is holed up in the cave, we can deal with him with a nuclear weapon.
  Our goal as a nuclear power needs to be to try to make certain that 
never again is a nuclear weapon used in anger, and our job as a leader 
is to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to other countries that don't 
now have them and try to find a way to reduce the number of nuclear 
weapons that exist. Some 30,000 nuclear weapons now exist. The absence 
of one of them, the stealing of one nuclear weapon or the access to one 
nuclear weapon by a terrorist would make 9/11 seem small by comparison 
in terms of what a nuclear weapon could do in the hands of a terrorist.
  This is a provision about which I speak more. It is an important 
provision, one I would like to see removed in support of an amendment 
to be offered by one of my colleagues.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Are we in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are not. We are on the bill.
  Mr. COLEMAN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Memorial Day

  Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, as we approach Memorial Day, it touches 
us all as an important moment. This is the first Memorial Day for 
hundreds of American families who have recently lost loved ones in the 
Middle East. For others, it is the first such day for families of 
veterans of World War II and other conflicts who have passed away 
during the last year.
  My father-in-law Bob Casserly passed away a few weeks ago. He was one 
of four brothers. They all signed up, served in World War II, four 
boys. Bob was the youngest. They all made it home. He is the first of 
that family and that generation to pass away. How deeply significant 
and necessary it is for us to pause here and honor their precious gift 
of sacrifice for the lives we get to enjoy and they don't.
  One of the poet's wrote that ``God gave us memory that we might have 
roses in December.'' We remember the brave and strong young lives that 
were lost to give strength and courage to our own lives.
  As all of my colleagues do, I travel back and forth by air from this 
city to my home State. I see the same sight on both ends of my trip. 
Arlington National Cemetery spreads out across many acres on the 
Potomac River near the airport. In the Twin Cities, Fort Snelling 
Cemetery sits near the bank of the Minnesota River. You can see it as 
you fly into the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport.
  They are both beautiful places, but they carry a staggering message. 
We have paid an enormous price for liberty around the world. Each cross 
or monument is a person and a family and a home town. And there are 
thousands upon thousands of them.
  I have never been there, but I am told that there is a pilgrim 
graveyard near Plymouth Rock in Massachusetts, where the remains of the 
first colonists lie. Somewhere in that cemetery there is a small sign 
which reads, ``That which our forefathers at such a great price 
secured, let us not idly slip away.''
  That is the message of this Memorial Day to me. Freedom is precious 
and constantly endangered. The world is such that, as Edmund Burke 
said, ``the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good 
men to do nothing.''
  What is mind-boggling is the constant supply of good men and women 
willing to step forward to do something.
  Addicted as most of us are to security and convenience, it is 
astonishing that regular folks in great numbers step forward to enter 
into a hostile environment and risk their lives. For

[[Page 10778]]

fame? No. For riches? No. For vengeance? No. They do it for their 
country and what America stands for.
  As has been said many times, America will remain the ``land of the 
free'' only so long as it is the ``home of the brave.''
  A hundred and forty one years ago this November, Abraham Lincoln 
dedicated the cemetery at Gettysburg, PA. A large number of soldiers 
from the Minnesota First Volunteer Infantry Division, who had played a 
decisive role in the battle, were buried there.
  Lincoln spoke the heart of the whole country, and speaks our heart 
today, when he concluded:

       It is for us, the living, to be dedicated here to the 
     unfinished business which they who fought here have thus so 
     nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be dedicated to the 
     great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead 
     we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave 
     the last full measure of devotion: that we here highly 
     resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that 
     this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; 
     and that government of the people, by the people and for the 
     people shall not perish from the earth.

  We in Minnesota especially grieve with the families who have lost 
young men in the conflict in Iraq. They join a long, brave column of 
patriots who laid down their lives. We can never repay the debt we owe 
them. But we dare not forget them, or fail to recognize their 
extraordinary service.
  Chief Warrant Officer Patrick Dorff of Elk River, on the banks of the 
Mississippi. He died in Iraq on January 25, 2003. He was 32 years old. 
He died trying to rescue a fellow soldier from a patrol boat that had 
capsized in the Tigris River.
  He left behind a wife, a daughter, his parents and siblings in Elk 
River.
  From an early age, he always wanted to fly. He brought his passion to 
his military service. He called himself a ``sky cop'' over Iraq. Who 
knows how many lives he saved by providing air support.
  He was a great man. Now he is a great hero.
  SSG Brian Hellerman was from Freeport, MN, home of Charlie's Cafe. He 
was 35 when he died on August 6, 2003, in Baghdad. He lost his own dad 
as a teenager and joined the military to honor his memory. He left 
behind a wife and two kids, who have also lost their dad. He wrote in 
an e-mail, ``I am still in because I want to provide freedom for those 
I love and care about.'' He was a great man. Now he is a great hero.
  PFC Edward Herrgott, age 20, was from Shakopee, MN on the Minnesota 
River. He died the day before Independence Day last year. He was killed 
by a sniper as he guarded the Iraqi National Museum from looters. He 
joined the military to prepare for a career in law enforcement. He was 
dedicated to a keeping others safe, even if it meant putting himself in 
danger. He was a great man. Now he is a great hero.
  SSG Dale Panchot, 26, was from Northome, in Minnesota's north woods. 
He died on November 17, 2003 north of Baghdad in a grenade attack. He 
wanted to be a soldier as far back as his parents could remember. He 
idolized his World War II veteran grandfather, and joined the Minnesota 
National Guard in high school. At his funeral, the whole town came 
together to honor his faithful service. He was a great man. Now he is a 
great hero.
  LCpl Levi Angell, age 20, was from Cloquet of Minnesota's Northland 
near Duluth. He was killed on April 8, 2004, in a rocket-propelled 
grenade attack. He joined the Marines after graduating from high 
school. He completed a tour in Kuwait and then volunteered to be 
redeployed to the region. He leaves behind his parents and eight 
brothers and sisters. He was a great man. Now he is a great hero.
  Cpl Tyler Fey, aged 22, was from Eden Prairie in the Southwest area 
of the Twin Cities. He died on April 4, 2004, in Anbar Province, west 
of Baghdad. He was a combat engineer and a proud soldier who served 2 
tours in Iraq. He was remembered as a kind and loveable person by his 
friends at Holy Angels High School in Richfield, MN. He was a great 
man. Now he is a great hero.
  PFC Moises Langhorst, 19, of Moose Lake, died April 5 in Iraq. Moy, 
as he was called, aspired to a military career from a young age, 
wearing camo clothing and even driving a truck with a camouflage 
pattern. A few weeks before he died, he wrote to his church, ``Between 
my good training and my faith in God, I have noting to worry about.'' 
He joined the Marines right out of high school with his buddy Matthew 
Milczark of Kettle River, just down the road. He was a great man. Now 
he is a great American hero.
  PFC Milczark, 18, died in Kuwait on March 8, six weeks before his 
friend. He was the Moose Lake Homecoming King 2 years ago this month. 
His grandfather and three uncles have also served in the U.S. military. 
He was a great man. Now he is a great American hero.
  SP James Holmes, of East Grand Forks, died in Germany on May 8 from 
injuries he sustained in Iraq. He had suffered shrapnel wounds after an 
improvised explosive device detonated near his military vehicle while 
he was on patrol in Baghdad. Holmes was 28. He grew up in Arizona. He 
had been living in East Grand Forks, MN, and worked for Valley 
Petroleum across the border in Grand Forks, ND. His best friend, Howard 
McDonald recalled, ``He felt he had a bigger part to play and answered 
the call to duty without hesitation. He was doing exactly what he 
wanted to do, and he died with honor.'' He was a great man. Now he is a 
great American hero.
  Those are 9 young men. Nine families. Nine home towns. How incredibly 
sad it is that the promise of their lives was snuffed out. But we take 
comfort in the knowledge that they were doing what they wanted to do, 
many of them from an early age.
  ``Greater love has no man than this,'' the Scriptures tell us, ``than 
to lay down his life for his friends.'' Though we never knew them, they 
laid down their lives for us. They laid down their lives for a free 
Iraq and generations who will live free because of their sacrifice.
  As we remember them and pray for them, together we hope for a new 
birth of freedom and a time of peace in the Middle East. Thank God for 
the memory of these and all our veterans. Thank God we live in a Nation 
of great American heroes such as these.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, it is my understanding that we are in 
morning business at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering the bill, S. 2400.

                          ____________________