[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16592-16602]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report S. 1042 by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1042) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2006 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 such fiscal year for the Armed 
     Forces, and for other purposes.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise regarding the pending bill, 
provided that no other Senators seek recognition on another matter. 
Seeing none, I wish to accommodate my colleagues whenever possible.
  It is now my privilege to once again bring forward for consideration 
by the Senate the annual Defense authorization bill. I commend my 
colleagues on the Armed Services Committee. We have a magnificent 
committee. All members are very active. Our attendance is good and I am 
proud that this institution has such diligent and hard-working Senators 
to provide their input to our work on the Armed Services Committee.
  I also recognize what I view, and this may be slightly biased on my 
part, as one of the finest professional staffs of any committee of the 
Senate. We have had a long history of extraordinary, competent, fair-
minded, open-minded people who want to devote their careers to the men 
and women of the Armed Forces and the causes for which they offer their 
life and limb, and that of their families.
  Their work over the past several months has resulted in this 
important legislation. We completed the markup of this bill in record 
time and in the spirit of true bipartisanship. In particular, I am 
privileged to have the senior Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, a 
longtime, dear, and valued friend, as my ranking member and full equal 
working partner on this committee. He preceded me as the chairman of 
the committee, but we will not go back into those days, nevertheless.
  Mr. LEVIN. The glory days.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have the floor.
  We have served together on this committee for 27 years and we have, 
once again, with the other wonderful collection of Senators on this 
committee and the staff, produced a bill which clearly supports our men 
and women in uniform and their families, and strengthens the national 
security of our Nation.
  I also want to acknowledge the strong support that we have received 
from the Republican leader and the Democratic leader of the Senate. 
These two individuals have teamed up in years past to assist the 
managers in getting this bill through the Senate. I cannot ever recall 
stronger leadership by the Senate leaders. Maybe when our distinguished 
colleague from West Virginia was the leader of the Senate at the time, 
I know he supported getting this bill through. His membership on this 
committee for these many years has been of great help to all of us who 
have been privileged to serve as chairman and ranking member.
  The bill before the Senate was unanimously reported out of the 
committee on May 12. It reflects the strong support for the members of 
our Armed Forces. The bill provides $441.6 billion in budget authority 
for defense programs for the fiscal year 2006, an increase of $21 
billion, or 3.1 percent in real terms, above the amount authorized by 
the Congress for fiscal year 2005.
  At this juncture, I recognize the important contribution given by 
Senators Stevens and Inouye, the chair and ranking member, 
respectively, of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. It 
has been their hope that the Senate will act on this bill. Until such 
time as the Senate does act, it is not likely that they will proceed 
with the continuation of their deliberations, markup, and the like to 
bring their important bill to the floor. I say that because I want all 
Senators to recognize it is the intention of the Senate leadership and 
the managers of this bill, together with our two colleagues on the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, that this bill be acted upon by 
the Senate prior to the scheduled recess for the month of August.
  I mention that because one Senator had very politely said to me: I 
would like to offer an amendment, but I think I will wait until after 
the August recess. I politely informed him that it is the intention of 
all parties that this bill be enacted prior to the August recess. He 
appreciated my candor.
  This amount is consistent with the President's budget request and 
within the budget resolution adopted by the Congress. The bill also 
includes authorization for $50 billion in emergency supplemental 
funding for fiscal year 2006 to cover the cost of military operations 
in Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout the world, together with our 
coalition partners, on the global war against terrorism.
  I also acknowledge that while we put proper emphasis on Iraq, 
Afghanistan, and the war on terrorism, there are innumerable other 
missions undertaken night and day by the men and women of the Armed 
Forces for all aspects of the diverse security needs and requirements 
of this Nation. Many of them are on the far-flung outposts of the world 
performing those missions beneath the sea, above the sea, or in the 
air. We acknowledge with fervent gratitude their contribution, together 
with all of us who proudly served in uniform, and their families.

[[Page 16593]]

  The past 3\1/2\ years have been a time of great successes and 
enormous challenges for the U.S. Armed Forces. The mission of our men 
and women in uniform has never been executed with better skill and 
dedication. I myself am privileged to have had modest experience in 
uniform. I have had the privilege of having an association with the men 
and women in uniform for 60 years. That is a long period of time. 
Almost without exception, in all those years at some point in time I 
have had the opportunity to either serve alongside of, or be in support 
of, the men and women of our Armed Forces. I had a very brief career in 
World War II, inauspicious as it was, and I had the opportunity to 
serve in that historic period. I would say unequivocally that, while 
our generation of World War II was referred to as ``the greatest,'' 
this generation is every bit as great if not greater in the complexity 
of the threats posed against this Nation night and day and the 
sacrifices they are being called upon to make in the performance of 
their duties and those of their families.
  The rapid success, and it was a rapid success, of Operation Enduring 
Freedom in Afghanistan and the rather prolonged but nevertheless 
successful operation to date, Operation Iraqi Freedom, has evolved into 
the hard work of reconstruction and stability operations in both 
theaters, necessary to secure peace and stability in their respective 
regions. Such important work brings with it new challenges associated 
with an extraordinarily high operational tempo on people and equipment 
and the need to counter asymmetric threats, including improvised 
explosive devices and the ever increasing, tragic, tragic use of the 
suicide bomber. Further, the responsibility of the Nation is to 
properly care for those who volunteer to serve--active, National Guard, 
reserve, retired, and their families. They deserve nothing less than 
our total support. The bill, in my judgment, meets those challenges.
  This bill is being considered at a time when the United States 
continues to work with a coalition to defeat terrorism globally and 
defend freedom and democracy. The recent tragic aftermath of terrorist 
bombings in London reminds us once again, in this global war on 
terrorism, of the ruthless nature of the enemy we face. When I say 
``we,'' it is not only the United States, but freedom-loving people 
wherever they are in the world. It is a war we must and will win.
  Hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and 
Coast Guardsmen--active, reserve, and National Guard--and countless 
civilians who support military, diplomatic, and humanitarian operations 
are serving valiantly in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations to 
secure the hard-won military successes and to preserve peace and 
freedom. Successful elections in Iraq and Afghanistan in the past year 
are testament to the yearning of those people for a voice in their own 
destiny, the willingness of the United States to assist, and the 
professionalism of the brave Americans and their coalition partners who 
volunteer to serve. The U.S. Armed Forces serving around the world are 
truly the first line of defense in the security of our U.S. homeland.
  We are all mindful of the risks members of the Armed Forces face 
every day, and of the sacrifices made by the families and their 
communities. I repeat, the communities are so involved with the men and 
women of the Armed Forces stationed overseas, the men and women in 
uniform who have been asked to do much in the past year and who 
responded in the finest traditions of the generations of Americans who 
preceded them. The American people are proud of their men and women in 
uniform, and what they have accomplished to protect our freedom here at 
home and abroad.
  While recent successes have proven the value of past investment in 
the people and equipment of the U.S. Armed Forces, this is no time for 
any complacency. The recurring lessons of our military operations are 
that national security threats are ever changing and persistent. 
Victory and successes must be accomplished by vigilance and 
preparation. Such vigilance takes the form of enhanced readiness for 
today's Armed Forces, and preparation for future threats to the 
security of the United States, its interests, and its allies.
  In preparing this legislation, together with the members of our 
committee, we identified seven priorities to guide our committee's work 
on the national defense bill now before the Senate. The first priority 
is to provide our men and women in uniform the resources they need to 
win the global war on terrorism; second, to enhance the ability of the 
Department of Defense to fulfill its homeland defense responsibilities; 
third, to provide the resources and authorities needed to rapidly 
acquire the full range of force protection capabilities for deployed 
forces, particularly with regard to improvised explosive devices; 
fourth, to continue the committee's commitment to improve the quality 
of life for those who serve--active, reserve, National Guard, and 
retired, and their families, with particular emphasis on recruiting and 
retention and on the health care for those who bear the wounds of our 
war; fifth, to sustain the readiness of our Armed Forces to conduct 
military operations against all current and anticipated threats; sixth, 
to support the Department's efforts to develop the innovative, forward-
looking capabilities necessary to modernize and transform the Armed 
Forces; and, finally, to continue active committee oversight of 
Department programs and operations, particularly in the areas of 
acquisition reform to ensure proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars.
  With passage of the bill before us, the Senate has the opportunity to 
send a strong message in support of the men and women of the Armed 
Forces serving at numerous posts at home and abroad that America values 
and honors their service and that of their families.
  The bill contains much-deserved pay raises and benefits for military 
personnel and their families, enhanced survivor benefits for those 
whose loved ones have made the ultimate sacrifice, improved health care 
for both active and reserve components of personnel and their families, 
and prudent investments in the equipment and technology our military 
needs to address current and future threats.
  I urge my colleagues to debate this bill in a constructive spirit and 
to support its adoption.
  There is one issue I would like to highlight: My colleagues and I on 
the committee, and I think almost every member of the committee shares 
this view, and many of us in the Senate--we are all concerned about the 
declining state of the building of new ships for the U.S. Navy. We do 
not believe the current or projected level of funding for shipbuilding 
is adequate to build the numbers of ships our Navy needs to perform and 
continue to perform its global missions. Always remember, the 
Constitution of the United States directs this Congress to raise its 
armies, but ``maintain'' a Navy. The Founding Fathers were specific in 
that direction to the Congress and it is our duty to fulfill it. They 
had the foresight to realize that a navy can not be quickly constituted 
or reconstituted. It takes a decade or more from the concept of a new 
ship through the years to prepare the plans, to test the ship, to test 
the system, and to finally slip it down the ways of the shipyard, and 
then for a period of time to further test it before it gains its 
ability to join the fleet. That is a long time.
  In many respects that was as true years ago as it is today, so we 
must learn the lesson that it takes time to maintain our Navy. As a 
maritime nation, that presence of our Navy is often displayed in the 
form, not only of our ships, not only through ensuring open sealanes of 
communication and training in international waters, but also the 
inherent diplomatic mission of visiting our ports and proudly showing 
Old Glory, our flag. The Navy currently has 288 ships in the active 
fleet. This is the smallest number of ships in the Navy since before--I 
would like to repeat this--the smallest fleet since before World War 
II. That is before December 7, 1941.
  I believe the shipbuilding budget must be reviewed by the 
administration as a matter of utmost urgency in

[[Page 16594]]

the coming year, and I respectfully urge the President to establish a 
special shipbuilding fund, to direct the OMB to provide a dedicated 
fund for the building of ships rather than each year make the 
allocation--so much to the Department of the Navy, so much to the 
Department of the Air Force, so much to the Department of the Army. 
Keep those allocations as they are devised each year, but superimpose 
on the allocation of funding for the Navy a sum of dollars to turn 
around this declining curve of shipbuilding.
  America has much to be thankful for in terms of its patriotic young 
Americans who volunteer to serve and who have individually and 
collectively performed with such professionalism and distinction in 
defense of the United States. The efforts of the U.S. Armed Forces have 
been remarkable, but they are not without cost--the loss of priceless 
lives that must be honored and remembered; the responsibility to care 
for the survivors and their families; the cost of ongoing operations 
and related refurbishment or replacement of heavily used equipment; and 
the responsibility to assure that those who serve, and their families, 
receive the quality of life and the benefits they need and to which 
they are entitled.
  I believe the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006 
prudently addresses the defense needs of our Nation and recognizes the 
service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform and their 
families, provides the resources necessary to win the global war on 
terrorism, and makes the necessary investment to provide for the 
security of our Nation in the years to come.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in sending a strong message of 
bipartisan support for our troops at home, their families, and to the 
other nations in the world--America is committed to freedom.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time? The Senator from Michigan is 
recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I join with the chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee, Senator Warner, in bringing S. 1042, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006, to the Senate floor. I 
do so proudly. I am always proud to stand next to Senator Warner and 
with Senator Warner and our staffs in bringing this bill forward. It 
has been many years that we have done this together, and we always look 
forward to it because it is a time we, together with our staffs, can 
spend time trying to strengthen the security of this country in a 
bipartisan way.
  This bill, to my memory, has always been a bipartisan bill. Our 
staffs work together on a bipartisan basis. The way they have worked 
together should be a role model for how we in the Senate should be 
working. I congratulate Senator Warner for his leadership of our 
committee. He sets the right pattern for all of us. Again, it is an 
honor to be standing here with him.
  The bill we bring before the Senate is the product of 3 days of 
markup. I do not believe we needed a single recorded vote. There may 
have been some voice votes where there were some differences, but I 
don't even remember that. I think we worked out all of our differences. 
Where there were differences that remained, I think we actually were 
able to address them, if not resolve them, but without actually a 
recorded vote, if my memory is correct. That is quite a tribute to the 
leadership of Senator Warner as well.
  We have a common interest in providing the support the men and women 
in uniform need and deserve. We are unanimous on that, regardless of 
our positions--which differ. As Members of the Senate we don't all have 
the same position on events in Iraq--how we got there and how we 
proceed from here. There is no unanimity on that issue. And on a number 
of other issues there is not unanimity. But where there is unanimity is 
that once that decision is made democratically to send our men and 
women to war, in harm's way, we stand behind them. And on that there is 
no dissent regardless of the positions of different Senators on the 
underlying issues. The men and women in uniform deserve our support. 
They are entitled to the support. During the Vietnam era, we had times 
when men and women in uniform did not receive the support they 
deserved. That has not been true since Vietnam. And finally, I think 
our people recognize that the men and women we put in harm's way, who 
are in the uniform of the United States, when the Commander in Chief, 
the Congress make a decision that they go to war, they are entitled to 
the full support of the people and of the Congress of the United 
States.
  We are proud of these troops. Senator Warner and I have done many 
things together in the Senate, and one of them has been to travel to 
visit our troops. We have seen some of the most amazing men and women 
this country can produce who are in uniform, some of the most 
professional, dedicated, committed, patriotic people you will ever find 
representing the United States in uniform. We have been to far-flung 
places of the world. We have traveled long distances, but whenever we 
arrived where we were going, we have had that kind of feeling that 
whatever the thousands of miles were that we traveled to get there, it 
was worth it just to be inspired literally by the men and women who 
represent this country and take the risks for all of us.
  The bill that is reported by the Armed Services Committee will 
improve the quality of life of the men and women in uniform, provide 
funding needed to continue ongoing military operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, make needed improvements to the management of the 
Department of Defense, and authorize critical investments that are 
needed to reduce the risks the United States will face in the 21st 
century.
  First and foremost, the bill before us continues the increases in 
compensation, in the quality of life our service men and women and 
their families deserve as they face the hardships that are imposed by 
continuing military operations around the world. Those demands have 
increased significantly over the years, and we have tried to respond to 
those demands and to those increased hazards which the men and women 
face.
  In particular, the bill would authorize a 3.1-percent across-the-
board pay raise for military personnel, authorize a $70 million 
increase in childcare and family assistance, services for military 
families, and authorize additional funds for supplemental education aid 
to local school districts affected by the assignment or location of 
military families.
  We have increased the death gratuity to $100,000 for survivors and 
military members who die in a combat zone, and we are going to have an 
amendment which will broaden that further. We have increased from 
$250,000 to $400,000 the maximum amount of coverage available under the 
Service Members Group Life Insurance Program.
  Second, the bill would provide funding needed to continue ongoing 
military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and help address the 
challenges our military faces around the world. For instance, the bill 
would authorize a $50 billion supplemental to cover part of the cost of 
ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan over the coming 
years. We know that supplemental is going to be needed. We on the Armed 
Services Committee asked the Budget Committee to add this money for our 
authorization bill because we have to plan on this expenditure. We know 
it is going to take place, and we should authorize it as part of a 
regular budget process and not just simply leave it to supplemental 
funding.
  So we are authorizing a $50 billion supplemental for 2006 to cover 
ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is far more 
realistic budgeting than we have too frequently not done in the past.
  Our bill authorizes an increase in the Army's active-duty end 
strength by 20,000 people to a total of 52,400 soldiers for fiscal year 
2006. It is going to be a challenge to meet that new end strength just 
in terms of recruitment, but we are determined that we are going to try 
to respond to the demand of our members of the military by increasing 
the size of the Army's active-duty end strength. We have added 20,000 
to that and added $1.4 billion

[[Page 16595]]

over the President's request for force protection gear for our soldiers 
in Iraq and Afghanistan. We authorize almost $350 million for up-
armored vehicles to provide additional force protection for our troops 
in the field. That represents an increase of $120 million over the 
President's budget request.
  We direct that $500 million be dedicated to the joint improvised 
explosive device, IED, task force to facilitate the rapid development 
of technology to counter the top threat to our men and women in Iraq 
and Afghanistan. The chairman of our committee described the threat in 
terms of those IEDs and what we are doing to respond to that threat, 
which is everything we possibly can do given its nature and the fact 
that threat is really, if not the top threat, one of the top threats to 
our service personnel.
  Our bill authorizes up to $500 million for the continuation of the 
Commanders Emergency Response Program. This program enables our 
military commanders in the field to respond quickly and flexibly to 
urgent requirements in fiscal years 2006 and 2007. They have told us 
that this authorization and appropriation which follows is one of the 
most effective actions we can take to increase their capability in the 
field, and that Commanders Emergency Response Program continued at $500 
million for these 2 years is provided.
  Third, the bill contains a number of important provisions to improve 
the efficiency and the transparency of the Department's operations. For 
instance, the bill contains provisions that would prohibit the 
inappropriate use of contracting techniques that result in the 
heightened risk of fraud and abuse by limiting the Government's insight 
into contractor cost and performance in the acquisition of major 
weapons systems.
  It addresses continuing awareness of interagency contracts by 
requiring the inspector general to review major interagency contracts 
which have been used by the Department of Defense. There have been real 
abuses in these interagency contracts, and we have, indeed, had a 
number of hearings over the years into some of these abuses where one 
agency uses the contract of another agency in order to carry out some 
function, but there is no transparency. Nobody knows it is done. You 
can do it noncompetitively. There is too much opaqueness in that 
process, and we are trying to make sure the abuses in the interagency 
contract area are addressed, and so we require the inspector general to 
review the major interagency contracts the Department of Defense is 
using or has used.
  Our bill strengthens the defense ethics oversight by requiring major 
defense contractors to identify former Department of Defense officials 
on their payrolls and by requiring a review of ethics rules that are 
raised by the increased use of contractors to perform Government 
acquisition functions, and we establish a contract fraud risk 
assessment team to assess the vulnerability of Department of Defense 
contract fraud, waste, and abuse and require the Secretary of Defense 
to develop an action plan to address these areas of vulnerability.
  Finally, the bill contains a number of critical provisions that 
should help reduce some of the risks our country will face in the 
coming century. We are particularly pleased that the bill authorizes 
the budget request for the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat 
Reduction Program and related Department of Energy nonproliferation 
programs. The greatest probable threat we face as a nation would be if 
a terrorist or terrorist group could get their hands on a nuclear 
weapon or weapon of mass destruction.
  There are too many loose nukes in this world. We have to do more to 
address the proliferation threat. I don't believe the funding in this 
bill is adequate. I hope we can find a way to increase the amount of 
funding that goes into this threat reduction program and the other 
nonproliferation programs that are funded in this bill. Other than 
giving all the support we possibly can to our troops, there is probably 
nothing in this bill that directly addresses the greatest threat we 
face, which is the threat of a nuclear weapon in the hands of a 
terrorist, than this threat reduction program and the nonproliferation 
programs which are aimed at securing nuclear weapons and other weapons 
of mass destruction.
  Our bill provides the President permanent authority to waive on an 
annual basis the condition that must be met before the Cooperative 
Threat Reduction Program money can be provided to countries of the 
former Soviet Union. This is an authority which the administration has 
requested. Instead of having to come to us each year for this 
authority, we believe it should be made permanent. Our bill enhances 
the authority of the Secretary of Defense to use cooperative threat 
reduction funds to address risks of proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction outside the countries of the former Soviet Union. We not 
only have nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction inside those 
countries, we have those risks outside, and we ought to use this 
program to address again what is surely the most, or one of the most, 
serious risks any nation can face.
  We in our bill earmark $100 million of missile defense money 
specifically for enhanced ground and flight testing to require 
objective testing and evaluation of the operational suitability of each 
block of missile defense that is produced.
  There hasn't been enough testing in this program. There has been too 
much buying before we fly, and we are trying to see if we can't take 
some of the risk out of this program, to see, if we are going to 
proceed, whether we can't proceed in a way which would guarantee a 
system which is effective and workable and useful rather than just 
plowing billions of dollars into a system procuring missiles that may 
never be usable. So we take some of this money, specifically $100 
million of that program, and we address it specifically to ground and 
flight testing in addition to what was previously planned.
  We add $20 million to the President's budget to accelerate chemical 
demilitarization activity and to enable the United States to meet 
obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention.
  While this bill takes many important steps to fund the national 
defense and support our men and women in uniform, there is more that we 
can and should do. I would like to just mention a few areas that I hope 
we can revisit as our bill is considered in the Chamber.
  First, the bill contains a provision that would increase the military 
death gratuity from $12,000 to $100,000, but it is restricted to 
combat-related deaths. That means that the families of soldiers, 
sailors, airmen and marines who die in the line of duty outside of the 
combat area will still receive only $12,000. Our top military officers 
have uniformly testified that the amount of the death gratuity should 
not be dependent on the circumstances of somebody who is on active 
duty. The death of a family member in an accident, for instance, while 
on active duty can be every bit as hard on a family as a death in Iraq 
or Afghanistan. Somebody who is killed while being trained for duty in 
Iraq or Afghanistan should surely have his or her family provided with 
the same kind of benefit as somebody who is killed in combat. From the 
family perspective and I think morally, there is no significant 
difference. They are on active duty, they are taking risks, and they 
are killed while taking those risks on active duty.
  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified before our 
committee the following:

       When you join the military, you join the military. You go 
     where they send you. It's happenstance that you are in a 
     combat zone or at home. And I think we in the past held 
     treating people universally foremost and consistently and 
     that's how I come down on that.

  So our top uniform folks support the uniform application of that 
benefit to $100,000 for people who are on active duty.
  Earlier this year, the Senate adopted that position. We adopted an 
amendment to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act which would 
have made the families of all soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines 
who die in the

[[Page 16596]]

line of duty eligible for the full death benefit. The appropriations 
amendment was dropped in conference, but we should try again. I hope 
the Senate will stand strong on this issue and adopt a similar 
amendment to our bill.
  Second, while the bill takes many positive steps to improve 
compensation and benefits for our men and women in uniform and their 
families, we have to do more for Guard and Reserve forces who are 
bearing so much of the burden in our current military operations.
  Never before have we relied so heavily on the Guard and Reserve to 
serve on active duty over such an extended period of time. All members, 
representing different States, understand that. The families of the men 
and women who are in our Guard and Reserve forces have reminded us 
about how overly stretched those forces are. We do not get many 
complaints from the men and women themselves. They are too professional 
to do the complaining. We hear from families. We hear from employers.
  Again, we have never before relied as heavily on our Guard and 
Reserve forces to serve on active duty for extended periods of times as 
we do now. Studies have shown that 40 percent of our junior enlisted 
members in the Reserve components nonetheless have no health insurance 
except when they are on active duty. I hope we can develop an approach 
to this problem that uses the military's TRICARE health care program to 
ensure that members of the Reserve component have adequate health 
insurance and are medically ready when called upon to serve.
  Third, the bill earmarks $100 million of missile defense money 
specifically for enhanced ground and flight testing and requires 
objective testing and evaluation of the operational capability of each 
block of missile defense which is produced. Those are positive steps, 
as I have said, which will move us in the direction of the ``fly before 
you buy'' approach that we insist on with other major acquisitions.
  However, the bill also authorizes more than $60 million in long-lead 
funding for more interceptors on top of the 30 we already are buying, 
even though those interceptors are not subject to operational testing 
and evaluation. If we want a missile defense that works, rather than 
one that sits on the ground and soaks up money, we should insist on 
testing the missiles that we already have before we go out and buy 
more.
  Finally, the administration requested $8.5 million for research and 
development of the robust nuclear earth penetrator, even though 
Congress canceled this program last year. Although the bill does cut 
$4.5 million of the Air Force money from this program, it authorizes 
the Department of Energy to spend $4 million to resume the feasibility 
study. Instead of being a leader in the effort to prevent the 
proliferation of nuclear weapons, we, ourselves, pursue the development 
of a new nuclear weapon. It is exactly the wrong message to send to the 
rest of the world.
  We are trying to persuade the rest of the world, don't go nuclear. We 
are telling some of those countries, if you do go nuclear, we may take 
very serious action to prevent you from crossing certain red lines. Yet 
we, ourselves, again are on the verge of putting in money to resume a 
feasibility study for a new nuclear weapon to be developed. I know it 
is only a study, but it is a message. It is a loud message. It is a 
dramatic message. It is a compelling message. It is a persuasive 
message, and it is used against us when we go to other countries and 
say: Don't go down that nuclear road.
  They say: Wait a minute. You are considering the possibility of going 
further and you already have thousands of nuclears and you are trying 
to persuade us that we should not be using nuclear weapons to defend 
ourselves when you are studying an additional use or additional weapon 
yourself? It weakens our argument and it weakens the argument that we 
must make against the most serious threat we face, which is the 
proliferation of nuclear weapons.
  Finally, as our chairman has said, as we begin consideration of this 
bill, the men and women of our Armed Forces, both Active and Reserve, 
are deployed in harm's way in many areas of the globe that are 
subjected to daily armed attack in Iraq and Afghanistan. We joined 
together in standing behind our troops in expressing pride the 
extraordinary accomplishments on the battlefield. This bill will do 
much to provide them with the equipment they need and the compensation 
and benefits they deserve. If we can do more, we ought to do more. They 
deserve it, and their families deserve it.
  We have important issues to debate. Again, I conclude by thanking 
Chairman Warner for his leadership, bringing this bill to the floor and 
having this bill in the fairly complete shape it is in coming to the 
Senate. I thank him for his leadership of our staffs. We have wonderful 
staff, as he mentioned, and we have a wonderful committee.
  We are blessed to have members on our committee who all contribute in 
such important ways to the production of the bill. One of those members 
just walked off the floor. I, as Senator Warner did, want to recognize 
Senator Byrd although he is not here. He is stalwart in his commitment 
to this Senate and to this Nation. There are times when his plate is so 
overly full and his heart is so heavy, but nonetheless he performs his 
duty, and he is an inspiration to all members. All members of our 
committee deserve praise for the contribution they made to the bill.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I certainly concur in those observations 
about our highly esteemed colleague from West Virginia. I thank the 
Senator for his kind remarks.
  I think this is No. 27 for us--a quarter of a century. It is a pretty 
good record.
  I am quite anxious, as I know the Senator is, that Senators bring 
forth amendments.
  I will propose an amendment for deliberation. Moments ago, I notified 
your staff about it. I am perfectly willing to procedurally take it up 
because I know two colleagues on that side of the aisle are interested 
in the same subject. We notified our offices this amendment would be 
brought up. They may have some views on it. I hope they will address 
their views.


                           Amendment No. 1314

  I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia, [Mr. Warner], proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1314.

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

(Purpose: To increase amounts available for the procurement of wheeled 
   vehicles for the Army and the Marine Corps and for armor for such 
                               vehicles)

       On page 303, strike line 3 and all that follows through 
     page 304, line 24, and insert the following:
       (3) For other procurement $376,700,000.
       (b) Availability of Certain Amounts.--
       (1) Availability.--Of the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by subsection (a)(3), $225,000,000 shall be 
     available for purposes as follows:
       (A) Procurement of up-armored high mobility multipurpose 
     wheeled vehicles (UAHs).
       (B) Procurement of wheeled vehicle add-on armor protection, 
     including armor for M1151/M1152 high mobility multipurpose 
     wheeled vehicles.
       (C) Procurement of M1151/M1152 high mobility multipurpose 
     wheeled vehicles.
       (2) Allocation of funds.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the Secretary 
     of the Army shall allocate the manner in which amounts 
     available under paragraph (1) shall be available for the 
     purposes specified in that paragraph.
       (B) Limitation.--Amounts available under paragraph (1) may 
     not be allocated under subparagraph (A) until the Secretary 
     certifies to the congressional defense committees that the 
     Army has a validated requirement for procurement for a 
     purpose specified in paragraph (1) based on a statement of 
     urgent needs from a commander of a combatant command.
       (C) Reports.--Not later than 15 days after an allocation of 
     funds is made under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall 
     submit to the congressional defense committees a report 
     describing such allocation of funds.

     SEC. 1404. NAVY AND MARINE CORPS PROCUREMENT.

       (a) Navy.--Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated 
     for fiscal year 2006 for the

[[Page 16597]]

     procurement accounts of the Navy in amounts as follows:
       (1) For aircraft, $183,800,000.
       (2) For weapons, including missiles and torpedoes, 
     $165,500,000.
       (3) For other procurement, $30,800,000.
       (b) Marine Corps.--Funds are hereby authorized to be 
     appropriated for fiscal year 2006 for the procurement account 
     for the Marine Corps in the amount of $429,600,000.
       (c) Navy and Marine Corps Ammunition.--Funds are hereby 
     authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2006 for the 
     procurement account for ammunition for the Navy and the 
     Marine Corps in the amount of $104,500,000.
       (d) Availability of Certain Amounts.--
       (1) Availability.--Of the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by subsection (b), $340,400,000 shall be 
     available for purposes as follows:
       (A) Procurement of up-armored high mobility multipurpose 
     wheeled vehicles (UAHs).
       (B) Procurement of wheeled vehicle add-on armor protection, 
     including armor for M1151/M1152 high mobility multipurpose 
     wheeled vehicles.
       (C) Procurement of M1151/M1152 high mobility multipurpose 
     wheeled vehicles.
       (2) Allocation of funds.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the Secretary 
     of the Navy shall allocate the manner in which amounts 
     available under paragraph (1) shall be available for the 
     purposes specified in that paragraph.
       (B) Limitation.--Amounts available under paragraph (1) may 
     not be allocated under subparagraph (A) until the Secretary 
     certifies to the congressional defense committees that the 
     Marine Corps has a validated requirement for procurement for 
     a purpose specified in paragraph (1) based on a statement of 
     urgent needs from a commander of a combatant command.
       (C) Reports.--Not later than 15 days after an allocation of 
     funds is made under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall 
     submit to the congressional defense committees a report 
     describing such allocation of funds.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, there has been tremendous effort of our 
committee on both sides of the aisle with respect to the equipment 
being used, primarily in Iraq at this time, but could well be used 
elsewhere. We refer to them as the up-armored high mobility 
multipurpose wheeled vehicles; humvees are part of that. There is a 
range of these vehicles.
  The purpose of this amendment is to add $105 million to the Army and 
$340 million to the Marine Corps for emerging up-armored HMMWV 
requirements that the United States Central Command, under General 
Abizaid, has established.
  In the last few days, I was down at Quantico where they have a 
magnificent research and development and forward-looking contingent. I 
looked on the parade grounds at a series of vehicles being modified in 
certain ways to provide a greater degree of protection to the 
occupants--namely, our soldiers or Marines--who must use these vehicles 
in the face of this insidious, frightful threat of suicide bombers, 
implanted bombs which are activated by different devices, even a simple 
cell phone. This is tough going.
  I commend a number of Senators--Senator Kennedy, Senator Bayh, a 
number of Senators on my side--who have been working this issue for 
some years. The hour and the time has come to add significant sums of 
money.
  At some point in this debate on the amendment I will go into further 
detail, but the Committee on the Budget allocated to the Committee on 
Armed Services a very significant amount of money to be authorized at 
our discretion for the purposes of the immediate requirements of the 
military in connection with their missions today, primarily in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  The Army's current global war on terror requirement for up-armored 
HMMWVs is 10,000 vehicles. The Marine Corps current global war on 
terrorism requirement for up-armored HMMWVs is approximately 500 
vehicles.
  The markup of the fiscal year 2006 Defense bill, the one we are on, 
recommends that $120 million be provided to the Secretary of the Army 
to address the emerging up-armored HMMWV requirements toward its 
10,000-unit requirement. The Secretary of the Army was provided the 
authority and flexibility to procure up-armored HMMWV's tactical wheel 
add-on armor, the M1151, the M1152 HMMWVs, once the Army received a 
validated requirement from a combatant commander. The amendment is 
funded for 11,693 up-armored HMMWVs, and the Marine Corps is funded for 
498 up-armored HMMWVs through December 2005.
  Since the markup of the fiscal year 2006 authorization bill, the 
committee has received new information that justifies, in our judgment, 
the increase of the Army and the Marine Corps requirement for dollars 
to meet the up-armored HMMWV goals. The Army has an emerging 
requirement for up-armored HMMWVs for Afghanistan which may increase 
the overall requirement by 300 up-armored HMMWVs.
  The Marines Expeditionary Force Forward Commander recently requested 
that all HMMWVs in his area of operation be upgraded to the up-armored 
HMMWV variant. This could potentially increase the Marine Corps 
requirement to 2,814 up-armored HMMWVs, of which 988 are now funded.
  In keeping with the commitment of the Committee on Armed Services to 
meet all force protection requirements, this amendment proposes to add 
$105 million to the Army budget authorized and $340 million to the 
Marines Corps to allow the Department to respond quickly to the 
commander's request. It is there.
  This is quite a complicated amendment. A number of Senators have 
expressed an interest in this amendment. I would like to debate this 
tonight. I request the leadership consider having a record vote in due 
course. I urge Senators who have an interest in this matter to 
communicate with me or Senator Levin.
  I would like to have Senators' views. I propose to put it to one 
side; thereby giving a full opportunity for all members to express 
their views. Again, I will seek the authority of the leadership to have 
a record vote on this. Each Senator will want to vote on this 
amendment. I cannot think of any equipment issue more important to the 
men and women from your States than this.
  I want to accommodate my colleagues, and I will yield the floor so my 
distinguished colleague, Senator Levin, can make such comments as he 
wishes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, this amendment addresses a very 
significant issue, which took up a lot of time of the committee. We 
have, in the bill itself, added some additional money to what the 
administration requested because their request was so inadequate to the 
threat. We have found over the period of time we have been in Iraq and 
Afghanistan a totally inadequate response to our armor needs.
  We have had I don't know how many hearings in the Armed Services 
Committee--the chairman says about five; and that would be about my 
recollection, too--where we have pressed our military leaders, the 
Secretary of Defense, as to why there has been such a slow response to 
such an obvious need. So we have been pressing very hard to provide all 
of the adequate resources. We get different answers from the people who 
run the Defense Department than we get from the people who are 
providing the vehicles.
  We were told, for instance, by the manufacturer that they never got a 
request for an increased amount. On the other hand, our military 
leaders said: Well, sure, we pressed for an increase in the amount.
  We have a total conflict on the subject of whether there was ever a 
time when funding was short, because the committee was determined that 
we provide all of the resources--all of the resources--that are 
necessary to provide the armor. It is inexcusable we have men and women 
who are subject to these devices on the side of the road who do not 
have the best armor.
  Hearing after hearing, we put pressure on our civilian and uniformed 
leaders to provide the equipment our men and women deserve, and the 
armor our men and women deserve.
  There has been a number of Members of our committee, particularly 
Senator Kennedy, Senator Bayh, and others, who have had not only a 
major interest in and made a major effort to press for additional 
funding and for additional armor but who I know are interested in this 
subject on this bill.

[[Page 16598]]

  So I suggest to my friend from Virginia that we give them an 
opportunity to read what he has now offered because I think it would be 
very possible they may want to either go in a slightly more increased 
direction or in a different direction. And I am not sure, they may want 
to offer a second-degree amendment to this amendment or they may be 
perfectly happy to cosponsor it. But I would like to give them an 
opportunity, since this does come at this hour, to read to see exactly 
what is being proposed since they have such an interest in this issue 
and I know they were planning on offering language on this bill.
  I would join in the suggestion that this language be available 
promptly to the members of the committee or any Member of the body 
because I think every Member of this body has had an interest in trying 
to press the Defense Department to provide greater armor at greater 
speed.
  I have been very dissatisfied, publicly, as to an issue having to do 
with the fact that our military leaders tried to get the manufacturer, 
as we understand it, to have a second source. That would have required 
the manufacturer to share some technology with the second producer. 
According to one story, they refused to share the technology with a 
second producer. If that is true, as I said publicly before, it would 
be pretty shocking we would have a contractor who produces material for 
the Defense Department, who knows we desperately need more, who would 
not share the technology with a second source so we could produce the 
armor a lot faster.
  There is a lot of significant background. I think we ought to give 
every member of our committee and every Member of the Senate an 
opportunity to take a look at the approach the chairman is proposing to 
see whether this meets the various needs and thoughts of Members of the 
Senate. I welcome the chairman's willingness to lay this amendment 
aside to give those Members an opportunity.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is a perfectly reasonable request. I 
fully wish to accommodate my colleague's wishes. We will lay this 
amendment aside. But I would like to draw attention to the fact that 
the subject is one which has been under constant review, the subject of 
five hearings in committee over a period of time. It is so important, I 
would like to have this bill start off with the amendment. I am 
hopeful, with the concurrence of the leadership, we can address this 
amendment this evening.
  I am perfectly willing to lay it aside now and let colleagues come 
over and speak to it, as you say, and take such parliamentary steps as 
they so desire.
  So at this time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment of the Senator from Virginia be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1315

  Mr. WARNER. Now, Mr. President, I have, I think, discussed with our 
colleague another amendment. It relates to a subject that one of our 
distinguished Members of the House of Representatives, Congressman 
Skelton, sent. He actually brought this up as a freestanding issue in 
the House of Representatives. It was considered by the House and 
adopted. So it is now, presumably, before the Senate as a freestanding 
item. But it would be my desire, subject to the viewpoints of my 
colleague, Senator Levin, that it be incorporated in this bill, 
identical to what Congressman Skelton wishes to do.
  The essence of it is as follows: The National Defense University and 
the Joint Forces Staff College do an extraordinary job of preparing our 
military and, indeed, a number of civilian personnel for greater 
responsibility. The Joint Advanced Warfighting School, which is part of 
the Joint Forces Staff College, has created and is now presenting a 
course on Joint Campaign Planning and Strategy.
  The first class graduated recently, and it was composed of an 
impressive group of global war on terrorism officers, in other words, 
officers who are devoting, at this time, their professional attention 
to this subject.
  The amendment authorizes the award of a Master of Science degree, and 
it is one I think is deserving of the consideration of this body and, 
hopefully, adoption by this body. It is an amendment which I will now 
send to the desk for immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for himself and Mr. 
     Levin, proposes an amendment numbered 1315.

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

  (Purpose: To authorize the National Defense University to award the 
  degree of Master of Science in Joint Campaign Planning and Strategy)

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

     SEC. 596. AUTHORITY FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY AWARD OF 
                   DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN JOINT CAMPAIGN 
                   PLANNING AND STRATEGY.

       (a) Joint Forces Staff College Program.--Section 2163 of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 2163. National Defense University: master of science 
       degrees

       ``(a) Authority to Award Specified Degrees.--The President 
     of the National Defense University, upon the recommendation 
     of the faculty of the respective college or other school 
     within the University, may confer the master of science 
     degrees specified in subsection (b).
       ``(b) Authorized Degrees.--The following degrees may be 
     awarded under subsection (a):
       ``(1) Master of science in national security strategy.--The 
     degree of master of science in national security strategy, to 
     graduates of the University who fulfill the requirements of 
     the program of the National War College.
       ``(2) Master of science in national resource strategy.--The 
     degree of master of science in national resource strategy, to 
     graduates of the University who fulfill the requirements of 
     the program of the Industrial College of the Armed Forces.
       ``(3) Master of science in joint campaign planning and 
     strategy.--The degree of master of science in joint campaign 
     planning and strategy, to graduates of the University who 
     fulfill the requirements of the program of the Joint Advanced 
     Warfighting School at the Joint Forces Staff College.
       ``(c) Regulations.--The authority provided by this section 
     shall be exercised under regulations prescribed by the 
     Secretary of Defense.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The item relating to section 2163 
     in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 108 of 
     such title is amended to read as follows:

``2163. National Defense University: master of science degrees.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--Paragraph (3) of section 2163(b) of 
     title 10, United States Code, as amended by subsection (a), 
     shall take effect for degrees awarded after May 2005.

  Mr. WARNER. In brief, the amendment would amend section 2163 of title 
10, United States Code, to authorize the president of the National 
Defense University to confer the degree of Master of Science in Joint 
Campaign Planning and Strategy on those students attending the Joint 
Advanced War
fighting School at the Joint Forces Staff College who pursued the 
particular course.
  The Joint Forces Staff College initiated a new advanced course of 
study in Joint Campaign Planning and Strategy in 2004. The program 
received its full accreditation from the Department of Education in the 
fall of 2004. As I said, the first class graduated in 2005. So the 
legislation would authorize conferral of the degree retroactively to 
that class of 2005 and prospectively to the future classes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the pending amendment which I sent to the 
desk, I ask unanimous consent that it be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 16599]]


  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the bill before us, S. 
1042, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006. I am 
pleased to serve under Chairman Warner and Ranking Member Levin on the 
Armed Services Committee. It is a particular thrill for me to have that 
honor.
  I am privileged to serve as the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Strategic Forces. In that capacity, I have worked hard, our staff has 
worked hard, in cooperation particularly with my ranking member on the 
Strategic Forces Subcommittee, Senator Nelson of Florida. Our efforts 
have been to contribute our part to the bill that is now before the 
Senate.
  Under the leadership of Senator Warner, we believe we have achieved 
our goal of bringing forward legislation that serves the national 
security needs of this country, protects the interests of our fighting 
men and women, and does so while making deliberate and judicious use of 
precious taxpayer dollars. We simply have to be frugal. There is no 
money to waste.
  The Strategic Forces Subcommittee exercised oversight for the 
Department of Defense budget request for missile defense, strategic 
forces, space, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and 
intelligence support activities. The DOD budget request in these areas 
included $9.5 billion in procurement, $27.2 billion in research and 
development, and $3 billion in operations and maintenance. The 
administration budget request also included $14.8 billion for the 
Department of Energy nuclear weapons and environmental management 
programs and activities.
  The bill reflects a net increase of $40 million in procurement, a net 
decrease of $16 million in research and development, and a net increase 
of $11 million in the amount requested in operations and maintenance, 
for a total net increase of $35 million--not a lot of increase. It also 
reflects the requested level of funding for the Department of Energy 
programs and activities.
  The bill fully funds the request for missile defense, but it does so 
in a way that reduces some funding for longer term developmental 
efforts to support near-term capabilities and enhanced testing. 
Overall, $8.8 billion was requested for missile defense activities, of 
which $7.8 billion is for the Missile Defense Agency.
  Significant funding actions in the markup include an increase of $100 
million for the ground-based midcourse defense system to enhance ground 
and flight testing, and an increase of $75 million for the Aegis BMD 
system to improve system performance and to accelerate SM-3 missile 
delivery in 2007. Both of these systems, while continuing to undergo 
development and testing, are available today for use in an emergency to 
protect the United States and its allies against limited ballistic 
missile attacks. By focusing on near-term capabilities, this bill sends 
a strong message to potential adversaries that the United States is no 
longer vulnerable to ballistic missile threats or coercion.
  The bill makes significant adjustments to the President's budget 
request for military satellite programs. The bill recommends a $200 
million reduction in the Transformational Satellite Program, TSAT, to 
put the program on a healthier developmental track; an increase of $100 
million for the Advanced Extremely High Frequency Satellite Program, 
AEHF, to begin procuring a fourth AEHF communications satellite; and a 
reduction, however, of $75 million for the Space Radar Program due to 
insufficient programmatic and cost definition. We expect this Space 
Radar Program to be successful as time goes by.
  Related to the Department of Energy, the bill includes $14.8 billion 
for nuclear weapons and environmental management programs for the 
fiscal year 2006, the amount requested by the administration. Of this 
amount, $6.6 billion is for the National Nuclear Security 
Administration nuclear weapons activities.
  The bill includes a few modest increases to help reduce deferred 
maintenance and to support the infrastructure of the nuclear weapons 
complex. The bill also increases funding for security at Department of 
Energy sites. This is a reflection of the need to enhance security at 
these sites in response to the potential threats that exist after 9/11.
  The bill also includes authorization at the budget request to 
continue the feasibility study of the robust nuclear earth penetrator, 
RNEP. This bill does not, however, provide any funding for Air Force 
activities to integrate RNEP into a delivery platform. The committee 
has honored the balance struck 2 years ago when Congress enacted a 
provision prohibiting the administration from proceeding beyond a 
feasibility study of RNEP without explicit authorization from Congress. 
No such authorization was sought by the administration this year, and 
none is provided. The $4.0 million provided for RNEP is for 
continuation of the feasibility study and nothing beyond that.
  The bill also funds the Department of Energy Environmental Management 
Program at $6.6 billion. The Environmental Management Program is 
addressing the environmental cleanup needs at Department of Energy 
nuclear sites. This environmental contamination is an unfortunate and 
highly expensive legacy of our victory in the Cold War. Our bill 
provides appropriate funding to continue this cleanup program.
  Again, I thank the ranking member on the Strategic Forces 
Subcommittee, Senator Nelson, for working with me on this legislation 
and throughout our hearings and in the markup leading up to this point. 
The Armed Services Committee takes a lot of time and deliberation to 
produce this bill. It is the product of a lot of hard work, a lot of 
hard choices, and a fair amount of compromise. I hope my colleagues 
will support the bill that our committee has produced. I again express 
my appreciation to Chairman Warner for his leadership, for the fact 
that we have been able to move this bill promptly this year. I think 
our Nation is going to benefit from many of the important provisions 
that are contained in it.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to thank my longtime friend and 
committee member, the Senator from Alabama. We have worked together. We 
have traveled together. We have been to Iraq together. We went down 
last Friday to Guantanamo to inspect the detention facilities down 
there. He has always responded to the request of the chairman, pack a 
bag, will travel, take on any mission. I thank him.
  I also thank him for working as subcommittee chairman and getting the 
work done in his subcommittee.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman. There is no 
committee on which I serve that is more of a pleasure to work and has a 
better bipartisan spirit. Chairman Warner and Senator Levin deserve 
much credit for that. We get to make a number of trips. Nobody makes 
more trips than Chairman Warner, but it is a thrill to visit our fine 
men and women in uniform in the highly dangerous areas that we many 
times get to visit.
  It is an honor to be on the committee whose responsibility it is to 
support them.
  I thank the chairman.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. President, we are working with the other side. I think we have a 
package of cleared amendments, but maybe the Senator wishes to address 
something else.


                           Amendment No. 1315

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the amendment which was just offered has 
now been cleared on this side relative to the degree at the university. 
We support it. Senator Nelson is our ranking member. We wanted to 
doublecheck with him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on amendment No. 1315?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1315) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.

[[Page 16600]]


  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Jon 
Kyl as a cosponsor of amendment No. 1314.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


    Amendments Nos. 1318, 1319, 1320, 1321, 1322, and 1323, En Bloc

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, with the attention of my distinguished 
ranking member, we ask that a series of amendments, which I will now 
send to the desk, which have been cleared, be considered, and I ask 
that any statements relating to the individual amendments be printed 
the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes amendments 
     numbered 1318, 1319, 1320, 1321, 1322 and 1323 en bloc.

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


                           amendment no. 1318

   (Purpose: To authorize a pilot program on expanded public-private 
               partnerships for research and development)

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

     SEC. 846. PILOT PROGRAM ON EXPANDED PUBLIC-PRIVATE 
                   PARTNERSHIPS FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) Pilot Program Authorized.--The Secretary of Defense may 
     carry out a pilot program to authorize the organizations 
     referred to in subsection (b) to enter into cooperative 
     research and development agreements under section 12 of the 
     Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 
     3710a) in order to assess the benefits of such agreements for 
     such organizations and for the Department of Defense as a 
     whole.
       (b) Covered Organizations.--The organizations referred to 
     in this subsection are as follows:
       (1) The National Defense University.
       (2) The Defense Acquisition University.
       (3) The Joint Forces Command.
       (4) The United States Transportation Command.
       (c) Limitation.--No agreement may be entered into, or 
     continue in force, under the pilot program under subsection 
     (a) after September 30, 2009.
       (d) Report.--Not later than February 1, 2009, the Secretary 
     shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report 
     on the pilot program under subsection (a). The report shall 
     include--
       (1) a description of any agreements entered into under the 
     pilot program; and
       (2) the assessment of the Secretary of the benefits of the 
     agreements entered into under the pilot program for the 
     organizations referred to in subsection (b) and for the 
     Department of Defense as a whole.


                           amendment no. 1319

 (Purpose: To modify the requirements for reports on program to award 
              prizes for advanced technology achievements)

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

     SEC. 244. MODIFICATION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTS ON PROGRAM 
                   TO AWARD PRIZES FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 
                   ACHIEVEMENTS.

       Subsection (e) of section 2374a of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(e) Annual Report.--(1) Not later than March 1 each year, 
     the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Armed 
     Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a 
     report on the activities undertaken by the Defense Advanced 
     Research Projects Agency in the preceding year under the 
     authority of this section.
       ``(2) The report for a year under this subsection shall 
     include the following:
       ``(A) The results of consultations between the Director and 
     officials of the military departments regarding the areas of 
     research, technology development, or prototype development 
     for which prizes would be awarded under the program under 
     this section.
       ``(B) A description of the proposed goals of the 
     competitions established under the program, including the 
     areas of research, technology development, or prototype 
     development to be promoted by such competitions and the 
     relationship of such areas to the military missions of the 
     Department.
       ``(C) The total amount of cash prizes awarded under the 
     program, including a description of the manner in which the 
     amounts of cash prizes awarded and claimed were allocated 
     among the accounts of the Defense Advanced Research Projects 
     Agency for recording as obligations and expenditures.
       ``(D) The methods used for the solicitation and evaluation 
     of submissions under the program, together with an assessment 
     of the effectiveness of such methods.
       ``(E) A description of the resources, including personnel 
     and funding, used in the execution of the program, together 
     with a detailed description of the activities for which such 
     resources were used.
       ``(F) A description of any plans to transition the 
     technologies or prototypes developed as a result of the 
     program into acquisition programs of the Department.
       ``(G) For each competition under the program, a statement 
     of the reasons why the competition was a preferable means of 
     promoting basic, advanced, or applied research, technology 
     development, or prototype development projects to other means 
     of promoting such projects, including contracts, grants, 
     cooperative agreements, or other transactions.''.


                           amendment no. 1320

   (Purpose: To make a technical correction relating to the Science, 
Mathematics, and Research for Transformation (SMART) Defense Education 
                                Program)

       On page 289, line 25, strike ``during such periods'' and 
     insert ``in the case of the period after completion of the 
     degree''.


                           amendment no. 1321

(Purpose: To establish certain qualifications for individuals who serve 
             as Regional Directors of the TRICARE program)

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

     SEC. 718. QUALIFICATIONS FOR INDIVIDUALS SERVING AS TRICARE 
                   REGIONAL DIRECTORS.

       (a) Qualifications.--Effective as of the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, no individual may serve in the 
     position of Regional Director under the TRICARE program 
     unless the individual--
       (1) is--
       (A) an officer of the Armed Forces in a general or flag 
     officer grade; or
       (B) a civilian employee of the Department of Defense in the 
     Senior Executive Service; and
       (2) has at least 10 years of experience, or equivalent 
     expertise or training, in the military health care system, 
     managed care, and health care policy and administration.
       (b) TRICARE Program Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``TRICARE program'' has the meaning given such term in 
     section 1072(7) of title 10, United States Code.


                           amendment no. 1322

     (Purpose: To make technical corrections to authorizations of 
                            appropriations)

       On page 27, line 21, strike ``$18,843,296,000'' and insert 
     ``$19,011,754,000''.

       On page 305, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
       (6) For the Naval Reserve, $2,400,000.


                           amendment no. 1323

 (Purpose: To clarify the amendment relating to the grade of the Judge 
                     Advocate General of the Army)

       On page 77, strike lines 22 through 25 and insert the 
     following:

     Section 3037(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking the last sentence and inserting the following new 
     sentences: ``The Judge Advocate General, while so serving, 
     has the grade of lieutenant general. An officer appointed as 
     Assistant Judge Advocate General who holds a lower regular 
     grade shall be appointed in the regular grade of major 
     general.''.

  Mr. LEVIN. We have no objection on this side.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I urge adoption of these amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 1318, 1319, 1320, 1321, 1322, and 1323) were 
agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1324

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send an amendment on behalf of Senators 
McConnell, Bunning, Allard, and Salazar, which would provide the 
Secretary of Defense authority to use research and development funds 
available for chemical weapons demilitarization activities under the 
Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternative Program to carry out 
construction projects for facilities necessary to support chemical 
demilitarization at

[[Page 16601]]

Pueblo Army Depot in Colorado and Bluegrass Army Depot in Kentucky. I 
believe it has been cleared.
  Mr. LEVIN. It has been.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. McConnell, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1324.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To authorize the construction of chemical demilitarization 
                              facilities)

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

     SEC. 213. CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION FACILITIES.

       (a) Authority To Use Research, Development, Test, and 
     Evaluation Funds To Construct Facilities.--The Secretary of 
     Defense may, using amounts authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 201(4) for research, development, test, and 
     evaluation, Defense-wide and available for chemical weapons 
     demilitarization activities under the Assembled Chemical 
     Weapons Alternatives program, carry out construction 
     projects, or portions of construction projects, for 
     facilities necessary to support chemical demilitarization 
     operations at each of the following:
       (1) Pueblo Army Depot, Colorado.
       (2) Blue Grass Army Depot, Kentucky.
       (b) Scope of Authority.--The authority in subsection (a) to 
     carry out a construction project for facilities includes 
     authority to carry out planning and design and the 
     acquisition of land for the construction or improvement of 
     such facilities.
       (c) Limitation on Amount of Funds.--The amount of funds 
     that may be utilized under the authority in subsection (a) 
     may not exceed $51,000,000.
       (d) Duration of Authority.--A construction project, or 
     portion of a construction project, may not be commenced under 
     the authority in subsection (a) after September 30, 2006.
       (e) Notice and Wait.--The Secretary may not carry out a 
     construction project, or portion of a construction project, 
     under the authority in subsection (a) until the end of the 
     21-day period beginning on the date on which the Secretary 
     notifies the congressional defense committees of the intent 
     to carry out such project.

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak with respect to 
amendment No. 1326. to the Defense authorization bill, which was 
adopted by the Senate today, that directly affects the citizens of 
Pueblo, CO, and the cleanup of those chemical weapons stockpiled at the 
Pueblo Chemical Depot. I thank my colleagues, Senator Warner and 
Senator Levin, and their staffs, for their help on this measure. I 
thank, too, Senators McConnell and Bunning and my colleague from the 
great State of Colorado, Senator Allard. We have maintained an 
important alliance on this issue, and I appreciate their efforts.
  This bipartisan Pueblo amendment, which I am proud to cosponsor, 
moves $51 million from the Department of Defense's Research, 
Development, Test and Evaluation budget to the Military Construction 
budget for the Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives program. This 
program, known as ACWA, is the authority for chemical weapons 
destruction at both the Pueblo Chemical Depot and the Bluegrass, KY, 
site.
  More than three-quarters of a million chemical weapons--mustard agent 
rounds--are stockpiled in the Pueblo Chemical Depot. These weapons are 
a threat to the security of the surrounding community. The United 
States has sworn to safely destroy these weapons before the 2012 
deadline established by the Chemical Weapons Convention. Progress has 
been slow in the past but has recently been moving forward.
  Unfortunately, under the President's budget request, there was no 
money allotted for Military Construction at the Pueblo Chemical Depot 
facility for fiscal year 2006. The program was on hold at the time the 
budget was released. But now that the dedication and hard work of the 
citizens of Pueblo, along with a strong bipartisan effort here in DC, 
has resulted in forward progress, money needs to be designated 
specifically for MilCon so the Department of Defense can spend money 
for ACWA construction projects. Without money being designated for 
MilCon, the progress at Pueblo Chemical Depot could be halted once 
again.
  The amendment adopted today was cosponsored by the Senators from 
Colorado and Kentucky. It ensures that money will be available to be 
spent in fiscal year 2006 for construction, planning, and design work 
at both the Pueblo Chemical Depot in Colorado and at the Bluegrass, KY, 
site.
  This amendment is an essential step forward for the destruction of 
the tons of chemical weapons still stored at the Pueblo Chemical Depot. 
I hope this is another indication that the Pentagon recognizes the 
urgency this situation demands--an urgency the people of Pueblo and all 
of Colorado are right to expect.
  I am proud to be part of such a strong coalition of concerned 
citizens and Senators from the communities impacted by these terrible 
weapons. But even though I am cautiously optimistic that today's 
amendment signals positive action in the future, there is still much 
work to do. I hope that this upcoming work will go forward in a similar 
manner: with good communications, with utmost concern for the safety of 
the citizens of Pueblo and Bluegrass, and with our eye always fixed on 
the goal of the safe destruction of these chemical weapons by 2012.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to adopt this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1324) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1325

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Collins, I 
offer an amendment that would require the Department of Defense to 
develop a strategic plan for the civilian workforce of the Department 
of Defense, and I believe the amendment has been cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for himself, and Ms. 
     Collins, proposes an amendment numbered 1325.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To require a strategic human capital plan for civilian 
                employees of the Department of Defense)

       At the end of title XI, add the following:

     SEC. 1106. STRATEGIC HUMAN CAPITAL PLAN FOR CIVILIAN 
                   EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

       (a) Plan Required.--(1) Not later than six months after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense 
     shall develop and submit to the appropriate committees of 
     Congress a strategic plan to shape and improve the civilian 
     employee workforce of the Department of Defense.
       (2) The plan shall be known as the ``strategic human 
     capital plan''.
       (b) Contents.--The strategic human capital plan required by 
     subsection (a) shall include--
       (1) a workforce gap analysis, including an assessment of--
       (A) the critical skills and competencies that will be 
     needed in the future civilian employee workforce of the 
     Department of Defense to support national security 
     requirements and effectively manage the Department over the 
     next decade;
       (B) the skills and competencies of the existing civilian 
     employee workforce of the Department and projected trends in 
     that workforce based on expected losses due to retirement and 
     other attrition; and
       (C) gaps in the existing or projected civilian employee 
     workforce of the Department that should be addressed to 
     ensure that the Department has continued access to the 
     critical skills and competencies described in subparagraph 
     (A); and
       (2) a plan of action for developing and reshaping the 
     civilian employee workforce of the Department to address the 
     gaps in critical skills and competencies identified under 
     paragraph (1)(C), including--
       (A) specific recruiting and retention goals, including the 
     program objectives of the Department to be achieved through 
     such goals; and
       (B) specific strategies for development, training, 
     deploying, compensating, and motivating the civilian employee 
     workforce of the Department, including the program objectives 
     of the Department to be achieved through such strategies.
       (c) Inapplicability of Certain Limitations.--The 
     recruitment and retention of civilian employees to meet the 
     goals established under subsection (b)(2)(A) shall not be 
     subject to any limitation or constraint under statute or 
     regulations on the end strength of

[[Page 16602]]

     the civilian workforce of the Department of Defense or any 
     part of the workforce of the Department.
       (d) Annual Updates.--Not later than March 1 of each year 
     from 2007 through 2012, the Secretary shall update the 
     strategic human capital plan required by subsection (a), as 
     previously updated under this subsection.
       (e) Annual Reports.--Not later than March 1 of each year 
     from 2007 through 2012, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress--
       (1) the update of the strategic human capital plan prepared 
     in such year under subsection (d); and
       (2) the assessment of the Secretary, using results-oriented 
     performance measures, of the progress of the Department of 
     Defense in implementing the strategic human capital plan.
       (f) Comptroller General Review.--(1) Not later than 90 days 
     after the Secretary submits under subsection (a) the 
     strategic human capital plan required by that subsection, the 
     Comptroller General shall submit to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress a report on the plan.
       (2) Not later than 90 days after the Secretary submits 
     under subsection (e) an update of the strategic human capital 
     plan under subsection (d), the Comptroller General shall 
     submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on 
     the update.
       (3) A report on the strategic human capital plan under 
     paragraph (1), or on an update of the plan under paragraph 
     (2), shall include the assessment of the Comptroller General 
     of the extent to which the plan or update, as the case may 
     be--
       (A) complies with the requirements of this section; and
       (B) complies with applicable best management practices (as 
     determined by the Comptroller General).
       (g) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' 
     means--
       (1) the Committees on Armed Services and Homeland Security 
     and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; and
       (2) the Committees on Armed Services and Government Reform 
     of the House of Representatives.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the amendment is acceptable to this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? Without objection, 
the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1325) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I believe, unless my distinguished 
colleague has a need to further address the Senate, we have concluded 
the opening round of our bill. My understanding is that the pending 
business will be amendment No. 1314 to S. 1042, am I correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct, that is the pending question.

                          ____________________