[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 17357-17369]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 1042, which the clerk will report.
  The 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.

  Pending:

       Frist modified amendment No. 1342, to support certain youth 
     organizations, including the Boy Scouts of America and Girl 
     Scouts of America.
       Inhofe amendment No. 1311, to protect the economic and 
     energy security of the United States.
       Inhofe/Kyl amendment No. 1313, to require an annual report 
     on the use of United States funds with respect to the 
     activities and management of the International Committee of 
     the Red Cross.
       Lautenberg amendment No. 1351, to stop corporations from 
     financing terrorism.
       Ensign amendment No. 1374, to require a report on the use 
     of riot control agents.
       Ensign amendment No. 1375, to require a report on the costs 
     incurred by the Department of Defense in implementing or 
     supporting resolutions of the United Nations Security 
     Council.
       Collins amendment No. 1377 (to Amendment No. 1351), to 
     ensure that certain persons do not evade or avoid the 
     prohibition imposed under the International Emergency 
     Economic Powers Act.
       Durbin amendment No. 1379, to require certain dietary 
     supplement manufacturers to report certain serious adverse 
     events.
       Hutchison/Nelson (FL) amendment No. 1357, to express the 
     sense of the Senate with regard to manned space flight.
       Thune amendment No. 1389, to postpone the 2005 round of 
     defense base closure and realignment.
       Kennedy amendment No. 1415, to transfer funds authorized to 
     be appropriated to the Department of Energy for the National 
     Nuclear Security Administration for weapons activities and 
     available for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator to the Army 
     National Guard, Washington, District of Columbia chapter.
       Allard/McConnell amendment No. 1418, to require life cycle 
     cost estimates for the destruction of lethal chemical 
     munitions under the Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives 
     program.
       Allard/Salazar amendment No. 1419, to authorize a program 
     to provide health, medical, and life insurance benefits to 
     workers at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, 
     Colorado, who would otherwise fail to qualify for such 
     benefits because of an early physical completion date.
       Dorgan amendment No. 1426, to express the sense of the 
     Senate on the declassification and release to the public of 
     certain portions of the Report of the Joint Inquiry into the 
     Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, and to urge the 
     President to release information regarding sources of foreign 
     support for the hijackers involved in the terrorist attacks 
     of September 11, 2001.
       Dorgan amendment No. 1429, to establish a special committee 
     of the Senate to investigate the awarding and carrying out of 
     contracts to conduct activities in Afghanistan and Iraq and 
     to fight the war on terrorism.
       Salazar amendment No. 1421, to rename the death gratuity 
     payable for deaths of members of the Armed Forces as fallen 
     hero compensation.
       Salazar amendment No. 1422, to provide that certain local 
     educational agencies shall be eligible to receive a fiscal 
     year 2005 payment under section 8002 or 8003 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
       Salazar/Reed amendment No. 1423, to provide for Department 
     of Defense support of certain Paralympic sporting events.
       Collins (for Thune) amendment No. 1489, to postpone the 
     2005 round of defense base closure and realignment.
       Collins (for Thune) amendment No. 1490, to require the 
     Secretary of the Air Force to develop and implement a 
     national space radar system capable of employing at least two 
     frequencies.
       Collins (for Thune) amendment No. 1491, to prevent 
     retaliation against a member of the Armed Forces for 
     providing testimony about the military value of a military 
     installation.
       Reed (for Levin) amendment No. 1492, to make available, 
     with an offset, an additional $50,000,000, for Operation and 
     Maintenance for Cooperative Threat Reduction.
       Hatch amendment No. 1516, to express the sense of the 
     Senate regarding the investment of funds as called for in the 
     Depot Maintenance Strategy and Master Plan of the Air Force.
       Inhofe amendment No. 1476, to express the sense of Congress 
     that the President should take immediate steps to establish a 
     plan to implement the recommendations of the 2004 Report to 
     Congress of the United States-China Economic and Security 
     Review Commission.
       Allard amendment No. 1383, to establish a program for the 
     management of post-project completion retirement benefits for 
     employees at Department of Energy project completion sites.
       Allard/Salazar amendment No. 1506, to authorize the 
     Secretary of Energy to purchase certain essential mineral 
     rights and resolve natural resource damage liability claims.
       McCain modified amendment No. 1557, to provide for uniform 
     standards for the interrogation of persons under the 
     detention of the Department of Defense.
       Warner amendment No. 1566, to provide for uniform standards 
     and procedures for the interrogation of persons under the 
     detention of the Department of Defense.
       McCain modified amendment No. 1556, to prohibit cruel, 
     inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment of persons 
     under the custody or control of the United States Government.
       Stabenow/Johnson amendment No. 1435, to ensure that future 
     funding for health care for veterans takes into account 
     changes in population and inflation.
       Murray amendment No. 1348, to amend the assistance to local 
     educational agencies with significant enrollment changes in 
     military dependent students due to force structure changes, 
     troop relocations, creation of new units, and realignment 
     under BRAC.
       Murray amendment No. 1349, to facilitate the availability 
     of child care for the children of members of the Armed Forces 
     on active duty in connection with Operation Enduring Freedom 
     or Operation Iraqi Freedom and to assist school districts 
     serving large numbers or percentages of military dependent 
     children affected by the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, or by 
     other Department of Defense personnel decisions.
       Levin amendment No. 1494, to establish a national 
     commission on policies and practices on the treatment of 
     detainees since September 11, 2001.
       Hutchison amendment No. 1477, to make oral and 
     maxillofacial surgeons eligible for special pay for Reserve 
     health professionals in critically short wartime specialties.
       Graham/McCain modified amendment No. 1505, to authorize the 
     President to utilize the Combatant Status Review Tribunals 
     and Annual Review Board to determine the status of detainees 
     held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
       Nelson (FL) amendment No. 762, to repeal the requirement 
     for the reduction of certain

[[Page 17358]]

     Survivor Benefit Plan annuities by the amount of dependency 
     and indemnity compensation and to modify the effective date 
     for paid-up coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan.
       Durbin amendment No. 1428, to authorize the Secretary of 
     the Air Force to enter into agreements with St. Clair County, 
     Illinois, for the purpose of constructing joint 
     administrative and operations structures at Scott Air Force 
     Base, Illinois.
       Durbin amendment No. 1571, to ensure that a Federal 
     employee who takes leave without pay in order to perform 
     service as a member of the uniformed services or member of 
     the National Guard shall continue to receive pay in an amount 
     which, when taken together with the pay and allowances such 
     individual is receiving for such service, will be no less 
     than the basic pay such individual would then be receiving if 
     no interruption in employment had occurred.
       Levin amendment No. 1496, to prohibit the use of funds for 
     normalizing relations with Libya pending resolution with 
     Libya of certain claims relating to the bombing of the 
     LaBelle Discotheque in Berlin, Germany.
       Levin amendment No. 1497, to establish limitations on 
     excess charges under time-and-materials contracts and labor-
     hour contracts of the Department of Defense.
       Levin (for Harkin/Dorgan) amendment No. 1425, relating to 
     the American Forces Network.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.


                                Schedule

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we come back for a final week before our 
recess with a number of important items, many of which are the 
culmination of many months of work. It will be a challenging week in 
order to accommodate the range of issues. I will mention a number of 
those that will be addressed. I do hope all of our colleagues will 
consider the importance of addressing each of these and doing it in a 
timely way that respects people's schedules and gets us out at the end 
of this week. It is going to be a real challenge, but it can clearly be 
accomplished if we all work together in a collegial and civil way as we 
go.
  This morning we will resume debate on the Defense authorization bill. 
Under the order, there will be 20 minutes remaining for debate to be 
used on the Collins and Lautenberg amendments on contracts. Following 
that time, we will proceed to a series of votes. We will be voting on 
the Collins amendment. Following that, we will vote in relation to the 
Lautenberg amendment. Following that, we will vote in relation to a Boy 
Scouts amendment. That will be followed by a cloture vote on the 
pending Defense authorization.
  If cloture is invoked, we will stay on the Defense bill until that is 
completed, something I am very hopeful we will be able to do shortly. 
If cloture is not invoked, we would proceed to a cloture vote with 
respect to the motion to proceed to the gun manufacturers liability 
bill which we also will address this week. These cloture votes will 
allow the Senate to complete these two important measures.
  In addition to that, we have a number of additional items, including 
the conference report on energy, the conference report on highways, and 
then there are a number of appropriations conference reports that may 
become available in addition to these measures. We are looking at the 
issue on Native Hawaiians and a death tax issue. We have a lot of work 
to do in a very short period of time. We clearly will be working 
through Friday of this week and, if it means going into the weekend to 
complete the work, we are prepared to do that.


                         The Boy Scout Jamboree

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, very briefly, I want to mention--I know the 
Senator from Alaska has a comment--our sympathy for the tragic events 
that have occurred at the Boy Scouts Jamboree. Our thoughts and prayers 
are with the many families who have been affected so directly. We will 
continue to reach out over the course of the day for the tragic event 
that occurred there.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority leader is recognized.


                             Cloture Votes

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would, through the Chair, ask the 
distinguished majority leader if the majority leader would agree that 
we would continue on the Defense bill, vitiate cloture on it and the 
gun bill, and finish the Defense bill by a time certain, say Thursday 
at 7 o'clock in the evening? We would try to work through our 
amendments. We would have time agreements on amendments. We would have 
the two managers of the bill set us up so we could vote on these, 
Republican and Democratic amendments, work through all these. I have a 
more extended statement I am going to give in a little bit, if we can't 
work something out on this. I will ask unanimous consent, but I would 
ask the distinguished Senator from Tennessee if he would consider a 
unanimous consent agreement that will allow us to finish this bill by a 
time certain on Thursday and, following that, in fact, what I think 
would be most appropriate is we finish the very important Defense bill 
this week, and the second we get back in September move to the gun 
legislation.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Through the Chair in response to the Democratic leader, we 
laid out a plan at the end of last week where we can stay on the 
Department of Defense authorization bill. We have filed cloture to 
bring some order to that process. We will have the opportunity to vote 
on cloture this morning. I expect cloture to be invoked. We should 
finish the Defense authorization bill. I have also made it clear from 
this desk and on the floor that we are going to finish the gun 
manufacturers liability bill before we leave. That makes it challenging 
because we have the very important Department of Defense authorization 
bill, but we have a plan and a way to finish that by invoking cloture 
this morning, finishing with that issue, and then moving directly to 
the gun manufacturers liability bill. Therefore, I do not believe we 
need--in fact, I know we don't need a unanimous consent agreement in 
order to accomplish that. So at this juncture we will stay on the plan, 
the Department of Defense cloture vote this morning--and I expect it 
would be invoked--finish that bill and then proceed to the gun 
liability bill.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask through the Chair if the Senator from 
Tennessee, the distinguished majority leader, has a statement to make. 
Otherwise, I have a statement I am going to make this morning.
  Mr. FRIST. I do not have a statement this morning. Following the 
Democratic leader's statement, I believe the Senator from Alaska has a 
brief statement to make as well.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I heard the Senator from Alaska say he 
needed a minute or two. I would be happy, if he wants to do that at the 
present time, to allow the President pro tempore of the Senate, the 
most senior Member of the Senate, to give a statement. Then I will give 
mine.
  Before the leader leaves the floor, I will use leader time. I don't 
think I will need to use more than the 10 minutes, but that would push 
the votes back 10 minutes. I think everyone should be entitled to the 
time they have. Is that OK with the leader?
  Mr. FRIST. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Vitter). The Senator from Alaska is 
recognized.


                      Boy Scouts Jamboree Tragedy

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, let me thank the two leaders for their 
courtesy.
  Last Thursday it was my privilege to meet on the Capitol steps with a 
group of Boy Scouts from my State, 71 young Scouts and 9 adults, which 
included 5 distinguished Boy Scout leaders. As we all know, we have 
heard the news, a tragic accident occurred at Fort A.P. Hill, and four 
of those leaders have passed away. Another is seriously injured. It has 
been a shock to the Alaska community, certainly a shock to the 
Jamboree. We are working with the Army. This occurred on an Army base, 
and there is a CID investigation going on, as well as a Virginia State 
investigation, to determine the cause of this tragedy. Clearly, there 
are 71 young men down there who are very shocked and very disturbed 
over this tragedy.
  I want to thank the leader for his comments and the Chaplain for the

[[Page 17359]]

mention of these men in his opening prayer. It is impossible for us to 
fathom a tragedy of this sort. In any event, I want to say to the 
Senate and to the Alaskan people we will do everything we can to help 
these young men and to comfort them and make certain they are cared for 
in this period of mourning the loss of these distinguished Boy Scout 
leaders.
  I ask unanimous consent that statements that appeared in the 
Anchorage Daily News this morning about this incident and from the 
Washington Post reporting on the incidents be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Anchorage Daily News, July 26, 2005]

                   Alaska Scout Leaders Die Near D.C.

                  (By Katie Pesznecker and Lisa Demer)

       Four Boy Scout leaders were killed in Virginia on Monday, 
     the opening day of the organization's national Jamboree, when 
     a metal tent pole they were holding hit a power line and 
     apparently ignited the canvas tent above them, according to 
     Scout officials and witnesses.
       Officials late Monday confirmed the leaders who died are 
     Ron Bitzer, Michael Lacroix and Michael Shibe of Anchorage 
     and Scott Powell, who moved to Ohio last year.
       A fifth Alaska Scout leader, Larry Call, and an 
     unidentified contractor were hospitalized with injuries, 
     according to Boy Scout officials. Call is being treated at a 
     Virginia hospital burn unit, said his wife, Paula Call.
       No children were seriously injured, but about 30 Alaska 
     Scouts saw the accident happen some time between 12:30 p.m. 
     and 1 p.m. Alaska time at Fort A.P. Hill, an Army base about 
     one hour south of the nation's capital.
       Karl Holfeld, an Anchorage father, said his 15-year-old 
     son, Taylor, witnessed the accident. Taylor was on his cell 
     phone talking to his mother in Anchorage when the accident 
     occurred.
       ``They all started screaming,'' Holfeld said. ``He said, 
     `Oh my God, oh my God, the tent is on fire, they're being 
     burned!' And she told him to stay away, to not touch 
     anything, because there could be a live wire.''
       Paula Call spoke to her husband and others after the 
     accident. The group of men was erecting a large tent, like a 
     circus tent, she said. She didn't know what it was for.
       ``As they got it up, this pole started to lean and it 
     touched a utility live wire,'' Paula Call said.
       She hadn't heard about the fire but said her husband 
     suffered electrocution burns on his hands, hips and feet. His 
     condition improved during the day and he will recover, she 
     said.
       The Calls' son Kendell, 15, saw the accident but is too 
     upset to talk about it in detail, Paula Call said. A second 
     son was also there. Witnesses told her Kendell reacted 
     quickly to help his father.
       Her husband ``was just concerned about the boys. It was the 
     most horrific thing he knows they will ever witness,'' she 
     said.
       The Scouts were taken from their camp to meet with grief 
     counselors and a chaplain, said Renee Fairrer, director of 
     National News and Media for the Jamboree.
       Seventy-one boys and nine adults were traveling with the 
     Jamboree contingency representing the Western Alaska Council 
     of Boy Scouts of America. Bill Haines, executive director of 
     the council here, said others came from Juneau and Fairbanks.
       Jamboree leaders are ``the cream of the crop,'' he said. 
     ``They were the best we had.''
       Of the men who died, Shibe had two sons at the Jamboree, 
     and Lacroix, who runs an Anchorage vending machine company, 
     had one son in attendance, Haines said.
       Holfeld had known both Bitzer and Shibe for years. Shibe 
     and Holfeld earned their Eagle ranks together in the 1970s.
       ``We crossed paths at Scout things all the time,'' Holfeld 
     said. ``They were just phenomenally effusive and so dedicated 
     to the youth. They were enthusiastic gentlemen that totally 
     believed in the Boy Scouts and showed that through their 
     efforts and commitment.''
       Bitzer and his wife, Karen, had recently sold their 
     Anchorage home, and Haines said he believes they were 
     preparing to move to Reno. He worked a couple of years as a 
     Scout executive, Haines said. Bitzer was a retired 
     administrative law judge and an assistant scoutmaster of 
     Troop 129 in Anchorage, said family spokesman Ken 
     Schoolcraft, the troop's scoutmaster.
       Bitzer spent years running the Junior Leader Training 
     Conference, a summer event at Camp Gorsuch on Mirror Lake, 
     said Dylan O'Harra, 19, a former Anchorage Boy Scout who went 
     to Bitzer's program.
       ``He was another guy who was dedicated to spending his time 
     helping Scouts, helping kids advance and appreciate the 
     outdoors,'' O'Harra said.
       Powell was single and retired last year after a career in 
     Boy Scouts. He had moved to Ohio but attended Jamboree at the 
     last moment after a boy was unable to go, Haines said.
       Powell had devoted years to Alaska Scouts, including more 
     than 20 years as program director at Camp Gorsuch.
       ``For every kid who ever went to the camp, Scott Powell was 
     the most inspirational and exciting guy that you've ever 
     met,'' said O'Harra, who attended and worked at Camp Gorsuch. 
     ``When you wanted to be on staff, you wanted to be on staff 
     so you could be on Scott's team. He's the reason a lot of 
     kids came back to the camp as counselors for years and 
     years.''
       Jamboree is a decades-old event and one of the biggest 
     gatherings of Boy Scouts worldwide. The first, in Washington, 
     D.C., in 1937, drew more than 27,000 people. Scout officials 
     said attendance at this one, the 16th Jamboree, is expected 
     to top 43,000 Scouts and leaders from the United States and 
     20 countries.
       This is the seventh Jamboree at Fort A.P. Hill, nestled in 
     the rolling hills of Caroline County, Virginia. Scouts swarm 
     3,000 acres. Within hours on Monday, cadres from various 
     cities and states were expected to stake down some 17,000 
     tents and put up 3,500 patrol kitchens. The Scouts who attend 
     are at least 12 years old and younger than 18.
       Boys at the 10-day event do all things Scout-related--from 
     biking to archery to kayaking. They earn merit badges and 
     cook many of their own meals. Camp highlights include blow-
     out opening and closing arena shows that include Army Rangers 
     parachuting in, fireworks exploding, folks singing and 
     dancing. President Bush is scheduled to speak Wednesday 
     night.
       Alaska leaders split the kids into two groups: Troop 711 
     and Troop 712. They spent four days together touring 
     Washington before arriving at Jamboree for opening day 
     Monday.
       Several adults from Alaska's group helped put up a large 
     tent. It might have been a mess hall for the group or the 
     sleeping quarters for the leaders, said Mike Sage, an 
     Anchorage father who chaperoned Alaska Scouts at the last 
     Jamboree four years ago.
       The tent has a large metal pole as its center support and 
     also poles at its corners. Men were reportedly holding on to 
     those, Paula Call said.
       It's unclear how the pole came in contact with the wire.
       ``They either hit the power line with the pole, or a truck 
     went by and knocked the pole over,'' Holfeld said. ``Either 
     way, the pole hit the power line, electrocuted them, set the 
     tent on fire, the tent fell on them, and they were trapped 
     underneath,'' with Scouts watching.
       In interviews and press releases all day, Boy Scout 
     officials referred to the incident as ``an electrical 
     accident.''
       A statement on the official Jamboree Web site said: ``Our 
     prayers and sympathies are with the families of each of the 
     victims. It is a tragic loss that is shared by everyone in 
     the BSA. Counselors and chaplains are at the jamboree and 
     available to any Scout or leader. A thorough investigation 
     into this accident is under way.''
       Fairrer said Boy Scouts of America is leading the 
     investigation and working with the military.
       People have died or been seriously injured before at 
     Jamboree, Fairrer said. But she could not recall a 
     catastrophe of this magnitude.
       ``And any time there's a death, it hurts all of us,'' 
     Fairrer said. ``Within scouting, we are one big family.''
       Gov. Frank Murkowski said in a statement early Monday 
     evening that he was ``very saddened today to learn of the 
     deaths of these four Scout leaders in such a tragic and 
     unexpected accident. . . . These individuals were killed 
     while serving Alaska's young people, and I admire and thank 
     them for that service.''
       The three boys whose fathers died are returning to Alaska, 
     Haines said.
       ``The other boys who didn't lose their fathers are going to 
     make a decision with their leaders about what to do.''
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, July 26, 2005]

                 Four Scout Leaders Die in Va. Accident

                  (By Karin Brulliard and Martin Weil)

       Fort A.P. Hill, VA.--Four adult Scout leaders from Alaska 
     were killed Monday afternoon at the Boy Scout Jamboree in an 
     electrical accident that apparently occurred when a pole from 
     a tent they were setting up struck an overhead power line, 
     officials said.
       Three others, a Scout leader and two contract workers, were 
     injured in the accident, which happened a few hours after the 
     official noontime opening of the jamboree. The gathering 
     draws thousands of Scouts every four years from across the 
     United States and many foreign countries.
       No Boy Scouts were injured.
       The leaders were from the Anchorage area and represented 
     the Scouts' Western Alaska Council, an official of that 
     council said. Bill Haines said two of those killed and the 
     injured leader had children with them at the jamboree, about 
     75 miles south of the District.
       ``It's a very tragic loss for all of us,'' Haines said.
       The children, he said, were coping. ``They are all being 
     taken care of,'' he said.
       Sheriff A.A. ``Tony'' Lippa Jr. of Caroline County said a 
     preliminary investigation indicated that the pole had struck 
     the power

[[Page 17360]]

     line but that authorities had not determined how it happened. 
     ``We're not sure if the poles shifted,'' he said.
       Scout officials gave no details of how the accident 
     occurred, other than to say that it was between 4:30 and 5 
     p.m. while the camp for the Alaskans was being set up. One 
     person with knowledge of jamboree operations, who spoke on 
     condition of anonymity because an investigation is underway, 
     confirmed that a tent-support pole touched an electric line.
       After the accident, witnesses saw a slender pole that 
     protruded through the apex of a pyramid-shaped tent and 
     appeared to be touching one or more overhead lines. The tent 
     was one of two at the Alaskans' site that appeared to be 
     intended for use as a group gathering place rather than for 
     sleeping.
       One of the two light-colored tents apparently had been 
     fully erected. The other tent, where the accident apparently 
     occurred, was cordoned off with yellow tape. The Scouts who 
     might have stayed in that area had been moved.
       Haines, in a telephone interview from Alaska, said the four 
     men who died ``were leaders in the Scouting community, 
     longtime Alaskans. They were very instrumental in the 
     council'' It was the first jamboree for one of the men.
       Lippa said the ages of three of the four were 42, 47 and 
     58.
       All those injured were in stable condition at hospitals, 
     the sheriff said. None of the men's names was released last 
     night.
       Officials said late last night that they expected the 
     jamboree to continue but were not certain whether any 
     adjustments to the schedule or participation might be made. 
     Bob Dries, volunteer chairman of the event's national news 
     and media operation, said: ``I would expect the jamboree is 
     going to carry on. Certainly, our sympathy is with the 
     families. It's a sad day. The jamboree is about kids and 
     having fun.''
       Renee Fairrer, director of national news and media for the 
     jamboree also said the event would go on. She said the Alaska 
     contingent had been separated from the others.
       Gregg Shields, a spokesman for the Boy Scouts, said 
     chaplains and grief counselors were meeting with the Scouts 
     from the Western Alaska council. Those Scouts are ``our 
     primary concern right now,'' he said.
       Haines said he did not know whether they would stay for the 
     duration of the jamboree, which runs through Aug. 3. ``We're 
     going to do what the troop wants,'' Fairrer said.
       Other Scouts from the general area in which the accident 
     occurred appeared to be taking part late yesterday in planned 
     activities. Some were seen setting up cots or reading. A 
     Scout-run camp radio station interrupted its normal broadcast 
     to report the accident.
       Fairrer said the accident was being investigated by the Boy 
     Scouts and the U.S. Army, which operates the base in Caroline 
     County, about 10 miles east of Interstate 95 on Route 301, 
     just south of the Rappahannock River.
       She said late Monday that 32,000 Scouts and an additional 
     3,500 leaders had assembled to live for 10 days in what is 
     essentially a huge tent city on the grounds of the base. 
     President Bush is scheduled to address the gathering 
     Wednesday night.
       The accident, Fairrer said, occurred at the eastern edge of 
     the campsite, which she estimated at seven to 10 miles from 
     the fort's main gate. The base is about 76,000 acres; the 
     Scouts are using about 5,000. Jamboree representatives said 
     as many as 17,000 two-man tents might be pitched.
       The site is supplied with electricity by the Rappahannock 
     Electric Cooperative, Fairrer said. The utility last night 
     said it was assisting in the investigation.
       Over the past weekend, some of the Scouts have been in 
     Washington, swarming over the Mall and through the monuments, 
     a blur of khaki and neckerchiefs and patch-covered shoulders.
       Hundreds of buses pulled into the military base yesterday 
     to disgorge Scouts by the thousands. Officials said they came 
     from 50 states and 20 foreign countries. At least 400 Scouts 
     from the Washington region were scheduled to be on hand.
       The jamboree has been held at the military base since the 
     1980s.

  Mr. STEVENS. Again, I thank the Senate and the leaders for their 
courtesy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.


                    Cloture on Defense Authorization

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Members heard the colloquy between the 
distinguished majority leader and this Senator. I ask unanimous consent 
that the time I use not apply to any of the order now before the Senate 
with regard to the four votes that are pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I was in Chicago over the weekend at an event. I talked to 
a well-dressed, very articulate man. I didn't realize he was as old as 
he was, but I learned later he was 83 years old. His name is Green. He 
had served in the South Pacific for 3 years during World War II. All 
those islands we hear so much about, he was on all of them, carrying a 
rifle, fighting for our country.
  This morning I thought about Mr. Green. In World War II, do you think 
the Senate would have spent a matter of a few hours on the Defense 
bill? I don't think so. During World War II, Senator Truman, among 
others, debated very vociferously whether there should be an 
investigation into how money was being spent by the military and the 
Government generally. It was controversial, but it was debated. Senator 
Truman's actions carried.
  What are we doing here today? What are we doing here today? A bill 
involving 1.4 million active-duty men and women serving in uniform for 
our country and a million Guard and Reserve, approximately 2.5 million 
men and women serving this country in Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, 
Germany, all over the world, a bill that is costing the American 
taxpayer during this year approximately $450 billion--that doesn't 
count the usual emergency supplementals that are not part of this 
process involving tens of billions of dollars--we are going to spend on 
this bill a few hours. To this point we have not had a single vote on a 
Democratic amendment. It is unconscionable to do this, to end debate on 
these amendments that help our country.
  Just a few of them. Concurrent receipt is something I have worked on 
with the two managers of this bill for 4 years. What is concurrent 
receipt? Is it important to the military? It absolutely is. Prior to 
the 4 years this Senate worked on it, a person who retired from the 
U.S. military who was disabled could not draw his disability benefits 
and his retirement benefits. If you are retired from the military with 
a disability and you worked at Sears, you could draw both, or if you 
worked at the Department of Interior, you could draw both. But not from 
the military. We have changed it. We have not changed it enough, but we 
have changed it a lot and it is helpful. But we need to continue to 
work with these disabled American veterans to get them the money they 
have earned and they deserve and which this country is obligated, in my 
opinion, morally to pay them. We won't have an opportunity to do that 
on this bill because in an hour or so cloture will be invoked.
  Senator Nelson from Florida wants to offer an amendment authorizing 
surviving spouses to receive both survivor benefit plan annuity 
benefits and indemnity compensation, and they should be able to get 
both.
  Senator Kerry wants to make permanent the temporary authority, 
including the emergency supplemental for dependents of service members 
who die on active duty to remain in military housing for 1 year after 
the person has been killed in the line of duty. That is not asking too 
much. We would like that amendment to be offered. We want to improve 
this bill. We are not trying to tear the bill apart. We want to improve 
it.
  Senator Lieberman and others want to increase the size of the 
military by 20,000 a year for the next 4 years. I believe in this 
amendment, but we very likely will not have the opportunity to have 
that voted on.
  Senator Murray has a childcare amendment that would help members of 
the U.S. military have their children taken care of while they are on 
active duty.
  Senator Durbin has an amendment to require Federal agencies to pay 
the difference between military and civilian compensation for National 
Guard and Reserve. This is something we very likely will not have the 
chance to vote on.
  Senator Levin has an amendment that would provide $50 million to 
cooperative threat reduction to meet the new opportunity to provide 
security upgrades to 15 key Russian nuclear weapons sites.
  Last week a report was issued by former Secretary Bill Perry that 
said the No. 1 problem the world faces is loose nukes. That is what 
this is all about.
  This is a bill that is so vitally important. It is important in 
dealing with veterans health care benefits. It is important in dealing 
with Guard and Reserve, base closure, our war on terror,

[[Page 17361]]

impact of sustained military operations to our troops and their 
families, detainee abuse.
  Republicans have joined with Democrats in saying let's take a look at 
what has gone on with how we treat prisoners of war--a bipartisan 
amendment. We can read in any paper in the United States that last week 
the Vice President of our country had been calling people at the White 
House, Members of the Senate, to tell them not to do that. Why? What 
are we afraid of? This is an open society. This is the United States. 
We won't be able to offer that amendment. Is that why this bill is 
being taken away from us? Because the administration has said we don't 
want you to look at what has gone on in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and 
other such places? This majority leader, apparently under pressure from 
this administration, decided we were not going to deal with these 
important issues this year. Rather than putting our troops and our 
Nation's security first by letting the Senate work its will on these 
important issues, the majority leader and this administration decided 
to prematurely cut off debate.
  It is unheard of to do what is being done here. The hue and cry will 
go forth from this majority we have here saying these awful Democrats 
are trying to hold up the Defense bill. Hold up the Defense bill for a 
couple of days?
  We believe we have an obligation, we Democrats believe we have an 
obligation to face difficult issues and not run from them, including 
the embarrassment of what went on in our prisons at Guantanamo and Abu 
Ghraib. We believe it is important to deal with weapons of mass 
destruction in this bill. Unfortunately, that is precisely the choice 
the majority leader is forcing this body to make today. If we do not 
invoke cloture on this bill and forego our right to offer these 
important amendments, the bill is gone. We are not going to be able to 
take these things up.
  This work period is ending. We are going to go home. We are going to 
come back in September. The fiscal year is on top of us. We have the 
Roberts nomination that will take a little time on the Senate floor 
after the Senate Judiciary Committee completes its important work. What 
are the Republicans afraid of?
  There is more to this than the administration simply wanting to cut 
off debate because of embarrassment to them about talking to these 
issues. The Republican leadership is also engaged in a very cynical 
ploy here today. They have pitted the interest of a very powerful 
special interest group against this Nation's security needs. Rather 
than spending the time needed to carefully consider critical national 
security issues--and I think that is something that again we need to 
focus on, national security issues--the Republican leadership has 
decided it is more important that the Senate instead take up gun 
legislation. I support the legislation, but let's be realistic about 
this. Legislation that would trump the men and women of America who 
wear the uniform of our country? I don't think so. I don't think it is 
a fair match. No matter how you may feel about gun legislation, it is 
not a match to allowing us to proceed on the Defense bill as we have 
done traditionally in this body.
  I recognize we have wasted a lot of time in the Senate, spending one-
third--one-third--of the Senate's time on voting on three judges. Every 
one of the people who was made a judge had jobs already. One-third of 
the Senate's time was spent on three judges. So I know we are crimped 
for time around here because of that. But we are going to take gun 
legislation and compare it to the men and women who I visited out at 
Walter Reed laying in those hospital beds. Think of my friend, my new 
friend, Mr. Green from Chicago, World War II veteran, proud of the 
service he made to this country. He gave to this country. What we are 
doing here today, would it ever have happened during World War II? No. 
I think it would be unfortunate if the Senate were to vote to end 
debate today, but this is a position individual Senators can pick. I 
haven't twisted any arms. Senators can do what they want to do.
  What would be the best of all worlds is we could have a bipartisan 
opposition to this invocation of cloture today. That is what should 
happen. There should be a revolt by my friends on the Republican side 
to cut off debate on this bill at this time.
  This is an embarrassment to this body. It should be an embarrassment 
to the majority. This is something that is going to be around for a 
long time. What is going to be around for a long time is how we have 
been treated on this legislation. Who is we? The American people.
  I have only mentioned a few. I don't know how many amendments we have 
pending--probably 30 amendments already that have been laid down. We 
have had several others. The last time cloture was invoked on this bill 
we had already acted on 80 amendments, after days and days of debate. 
That is what it is supposed to be. And we are not asking for days and 
days. We are saying we will finish the bill by Thursday. Today is 
Tuesday.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to clarify what we face at this moment. If I 
understand what the minority leader has said to the Senate, we have 
pending amendments before the Senate on the Department of Defense 
authorization bill which will not survive, are not likely to survive, 
cannot even be considered because of this procedural decision by the 
majority leader, by Senator Frist. And if I understand what the Senator 
from Nevada has said, he has said that included in the amendments which 
will fall, will not be considered this week, would be an amendment he 
wants to offer to help totally disabled veterans, an amendment by 
Senator Nelson of Florida to provide funds for the widows and orphans 
of those who die in combat, an amendment by Senator Kerry to provide 
for housing for 1 year for the family of a soldier who dies in combat, 
the amendment by Senator Murray to provide childcare for soldiers' 
families when the soldier is deployed overseas, and my amendment to 
make up the pay difference for National Guard and Reserve who are 
activated and lose money from their civilian pay. And if I understand 
the Senator from Nevada, he is saying these amendments, these five or 
six I have read, we have been told we won't have time to consider this 
week.
  If I understand the Senator from Nevada, he has said we don't have 
time to deal with the totally disabled veterans, the widows and orphans 
of those who fall in combat, and those Guard and Reserve members who 
are activated, we don't have time for that because we have to move to a 
bill for the gun lobby, for the National Rifle Association.
  If I understand what the Senator from Nevada says, it is more 
important for us to do our best for the gun lobbyists in their three-
piece suits than for the men and women in uniform who are fighting and 
dying for our country. That seems to me to be the agenda and the 
priority of the majority leader who has come to the floor today.
  Is that my understanding of what the Senator from Nevada has said?
  Mr. REID. I say through the Chair to the distinguished Senator from 
Illinois, yes. We have been reasonable. I believe there is no jury you 
could have in the world that would think we are doing other than the 
right thing, asking for a couple days to improve a bill that will give 
benefits to 2\1/2\ million Americans serving in uniform and a bill that 
is going to cost the taxpayers $450 billion in 1 year. We want to spend 
a couple days on this bill and we are not being allowed to because the 
administration is pushing them and the gun lobby is pushing them.
  Look, I am not opposed to everything the administration does. I am 
not opposed to everything the gun lobby does. But I am opposed to what 
the administration is doing in this instance and the gun lobby in this 
instance because it is wrong for the people of our country.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask further if I could ask a question of the Senator 
from Nevada through the Chair. Is it my understanding the Senator from 
Nevada

[[Page 17362]]

came to the floor and gave the Republican leader his assurance that 
these amendments would be considered in a timely fashion and that we 
would agree that this bill, the Department of Defense authorization 
bill, would be passed from the Senate this week, no later than Thursday 
evening, in plenty of time so that it will be there for the 
administration and for the conference committee to consider, so there 
would be no delay, so we could take up in a timely fashion amendments 
to help the totally disabled veterans, amendments to help the widows 
and orphans of those who have fallen in combat, amendments to help the 
Guard and Reserve when they are activated so their families can stay 
together? Did the Senator from Nevada give that assurance to the 
Republican leader, Senator Frist, that we are not trying to delay this 
unreasonably but want to move it through quickly, consider these 
amendments in a timely fashion, vote up or down and move to final 
passage this week?
  Mr. REID. The answer is yes. I also say, Mr. President, so there is 
no problem later on, so everyone understands the quandary we are in--
but we didn't get us there, we didn't spend a third of our time on 
three judges--here is the quandary we are in. As I understand the 
rules, if cloture is invoked on the Defense authorization bill, we will 
finish it sometime Wednesday evening. Then there will be a vote that 
will occur automatically on the gun handling bill legislation and then 
there will be 30 hours to debate the motion to proceed on the gun 
legislation. Senator Reed from Rhode Island has told me he wants to use 
all that 30 hours, he or some combination of Senators, so that will end 
sometime around midnight on Thursday. And then if the majority leader 
wants to continue the presentation of the gun legislation, there would 
have to be cloture filed again for a Saturday vote or maybe even have a 
Friday vote if he does it Friday before midnight, and then there is 
another 30 hours to go forward on the gun legislation. And during that 
period of time no other business can be conducted.
  I have spoken with the majority leader about this issue. There will 
be a small window of time on Wednesday between whatever time the 30 
hours runs out at midnight, if he decides to continue on the gun 
legislation, that we can in the few hours do the Energy conference 
report, Interior conference report, highway conference report, 
legislative branch conference report, and whatever else is available.
  The time spent on judges has put this Senate in a real difficult 
position, notwithstanding that the majority leader promised the 
Senators from Hawaii they can do the Native Hawaiian bill.
  I want everyone to understand what they are walking into. The best 
would be to defeat cloture. Senators from the majority side should join 
with us to defeat cloture, finish the bill in the ordinary course, and 
do whatever would come naturally after that, which would be a motion to 
proceed to the gun liability legislation.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. Yes, I yield for a question.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. I have yielded to the Senator from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, let me raise an issue and ask a 
question. We have spent time in this Chamber trying to address an 
immediate shortfall in veterans health care funding. Senator Murray has 
brought this to our attention. We have yet to see this resolved. We 
have gone back and forth about whether we are going to provide adequate 
funds now for our veterans.
  Is it not true that one of the amendments--and I know this is true 
because I offered an amendment that would address this situation long 
term--where instead of coming back and forth constantly trying to 
figure out whether we are going to have the veterans funding year to 
year so our veterans do not stand in lines, wait months to see a 
doctor, and not receive what they need, isn't it also the understanding 
of the Democratic leader that my amendment that would address 
permanently the issue of veterans funding, therefore guaranteeing that 
when our brave men and women come home from the wars, end their 
service, and become veterans, that they would be assured we will keep 
our promise to them as it relates to full funding of veterans health 
care, is it the Senator's understanding that this amendment would also 
fall, we would not have the opportunity to address this issue in this 
bill?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have been told that this amendment would 
fall. This amendment, which has already been filed, would fall postclo-
ture. People would not have an opportunity to vote on this amendment.
  I will also say, one of the points I mentioned during my statement is 
the Interior bill is coming up. We promised that would come up before 
we leave because there is $1.5 billion in that bill for veterans' 
benefits for this fiscal year because they have been so shortchanged.
  I yield for a question from my distinguished chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend and 
Democratic leader. I ask a very narrow question. He has pointedly 
raised three or four amendments that address the benefits that could go 
to veterans or active.
  The Senator from Nevada has been a leader every year that this bill 
has been brought up on a variety of issues, and no one takes the place 
to his fervor in trying to provide particularly for the concurrent 
receipt legislation. But I have to say to my good friend, and my 
question is, am I not correct that this bill came up Wednesday night, 
and Senator Levin and I were on the Senate floor into the evening, this 
bill was on the floor Thursday right up until early evening and again 
Friday morning? Every one of those bills--concurrent receipts, I 
remember specifically asking Senator Nelson of Florida: Could you not 
bring up that bill early? He said: No, I am going to wait until 
Tuesday. That is all he said.
  I have to say, I believe I am correct that all of those pieces of 
legislation that were mentioned could have been brought up Wednesday, 
Thursday, Friday, and addressed by the Senate.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my distinguished friend, I have sat 
side by side with him in the Environment and Public Works Committee for 
many years now and have the greatest respect for him. In this instance, 
he is just absolutely wrong.
  On Wednesday, this bill was taken up late in the afternoon, with time 
for opening statements. On Thursday, there were no votes after 6 
o'clock in the evening. Friday, no votes. Monday, no votes. As has been 
mentioned here on the floor of the Senate by me, among others, on many 
different occasions, we cannot have work done here when we cannot have 
votes on amendments. Fridays have become no-work days. If there are no 
votes, we do not get anything done here. So I say to my distinguished 
friend, I don't know when they should have offered amendments. I don't 
know when Senator Nelson should have offered them. The point is, we 
have said we will finish this bill by Thursday at 7 o'clock. Pretty 
good time. It would give us today, tomorrow, and Thursday to complete 
this bill. This would be far shorter than the time we normally spend on 
this bill. Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays is when we vote around 
here. I think we should vote on Fridays and Mondays, but we do not. The 
Monday vote is a meaningless vote, in my opinion, to get people back 
here.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. LEVIN. Is it not also true that these amendments, plus many 
others, have been offered, and people would have been perfectly happy 
to have votes on them if they were permitted, but votes were not 
permitted, so they had to be temporarily laid aside so others could be 
offered? But the idea that those people who offered those amendments 
would not have been happy to have votes on those amendments is not 
right.

[[Page 17363]]


  Mr. REID. I say to my friend through the Chair, not only is it true 
that those amendments have been filed, they were required by the rules 
of the Senate to have been filed because there was a 2 o'clock cutoff 
for the amendments to be filed.
  Mr. LEVIN. And are pending; is that correct?
  Mr. REID. Yes. I don't know how many.
  Mr. LEVIN. Over 40.
  Mr. REID. In addition to that, I think there are a couple hundred 
amendments filed by both sides. As happens here, with the cooperation 
of these two fine managers, we work down the number of these amendments 
and only go to the most important ones. That is what we said we would 
do. I think it is a shame that we are going to be taken off this bill 
in about an hour. It is not good for this body, it is certainly not 
good for this country, and it is certainly not good for the 2.5 million 
people we respect so much who serve our military.


                    Amendment No. 1377, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 20 
minutes equally divided between the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, 
and the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg.
  The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Senator from New Jersey has shed much 
needed light on a disturbing problem, and that is the improper use of 
foreign subsidiaries by U.S. firms to conduct business in certain rogue 
nations where they might otherwise be barred from doing business by 
U.S. sanctions laws.
  Like the Senator from New Jersey who has been a real leader on this 
issue, I have been very disturbed to read of allegations that foreign 
subsidiaries of some of the best known American corporations have been 
conducting operations in countries such as Iran and Syria, even though 
U.S. sanctions laws prohibit their U.S. parents from doing so directly. 
There are allegations that some of the subsidiaries in question are not 
even real companies but, rather, they are shell corporations that were 
created just for the purpose of evading the law.
  These reports highlight that our sanctions laws are not as tough and 
as effective as they should be. In seeking a solution to this problem 
during the past year, I have consulted extensively with the Treasury 
Department, the State Department, and other experts. It turns out to be 
very complicated and presents a technical set of legal and foreign 
policy issues to accomplish the goals that both the Senator from New 
Jersey and I share.
  Let me try to frame the choice that is now before our colleagues.
  We have before the Senate two proposals designed to extend the reach 
of U.S. law, specifically the International Emergency Economic Powers 
Act, or IEEPA, to cover companies doing business with countries covered 
by U.S. sanctions laws.
  Let me explain what my proposal would accomplish. It does four 
things. First, it would extend IEEPA to prevent U.S. companies from 
trying to evade the law by moving operations overseas.
  Second, my amendment would prohibit U.S. companies from approving, 
facilitating, or financing actions that are illegal under IEEPA.
  Third, it ratchets up the penalties for violations of the law from 
$10,000 per civil violation and $50,000 per criminal violation to 
$250,000 and $500,000 respectively.
  And fourth, it ensures that the Treasury Department has the subpoena 
power it needs to enforce the new sanctions.
  Let me explain what it would not do. Most important, my proposal 
would not jeopardize our working relationships with key allies by 
attempting to assert U.S. jurisdiction on companies that operate and 
are incorporated elsewhere.
  Second, it will not provide yet another incentive for American 
companies to move their jobs overseas through corporate inversions.
  These are the main problems with the approach of my colleague from 
New Jersey. Again, I emphasize that I share the same goal as my 
colleague from New Jersey, and I salute him for focusing much needed 
attention on a very real problem.
  Let me explain further. My colleague's amendment attempts to impose 
sanctions on businesses operating and incorporated in foreign 
countries. So, for example, if a U.S. firm has a subsidiary in Great 
Britain, my colleague's amendment proposes to extend U.S. law to that 
subsidiary, even if U.S. law is inconsistent with British law.
  This is a dangerous and imperious approach to foreign policy. If 
other countries tried to impose similar rules on us, imagine how we 
would respond. For example, imagine if Saudi Arabia tried to impose 
criminal and civil penalties on a Saudi firm's U.S. subsidiary operated 
and incorporated under the laws of our country because that firm was 
doing business in Israel, or imagine if Germany attempted to impose 
sanctions on a German firm's American subsidiary, again operating here 
under our laws and regulations, for not meeting German labor laws that 
are inconsistent with our laws.
  Moreover, my colleague's amendment would create the perverse 
incentive for American firms to invert or move overseas in order to 
avoid the onerous and extraterritorial application of our sanctions 
laws. We must not choose that path.
  There is a very real problem here with some American companies 
exploiting an exception that is in the current law, but I believe that 
the proposal I have advanced would greatly strengthen our laws, would 
provide new tools for enforcement, and would enormously increase 
penalties for violations.
  It would make crystal clear that a U.S. company is prohibited from in 
any way approving, facilitating or financing actions of a subsidiary 
that would be illegal under the sanctions law.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I extend my thanks to the Senator from 
Maine for her graciousness, in terms of describing an effort we are 
both very much interested in, in solving a problem that exists before 
us. Very soon, the Senate is going to vote on the two amendments, both 
of them aimed at foreign subsidiaries doing business with terrorist 
nations. But only one of these amendments--and it may not come as a 
surprise, mine--gets the job completely done.
  I have great respect for the Senator from Maine. She works very hard 
to chair a committee on which I sit, the Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee, and accomplishes a lot. But 
unfortunately, in this case, the amendment she offered will not close 
the loophole we are concerned about, nor will it stop American 
businesses from doing business with terrorist nations such as Iran.
  It recognizes the seriousness of the problem but unfortunately, as it 
is presented, does not solve the problem. Iran is one of the world's 
largest state sponsors of terrorism. Nobody doubts that. Every year, 
the Iranian Government funnels tens of millions of dollars to Hamas and 
Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, to name a few. These organizations turn 
around and use that money to murder Americans and others who are trying 
to live their lives. No American company should be permitted to help 
them in any way, either directly or with a sham corporation.
  Iran also uses its oil revenues to fund its nuclear weapons program. 
Once again, through sham corporations, American companies are helping 
them develop those oil revenues. Revenues, for what purpose? The 
purpose is to attack our people and other innocents across the world. 
That is why we do subject Iran to one of the strongest sanction regimes 
that we have. But some American companies exploit a loophole in our 
sanctions laws. They go offshore, open a sham foreign subsidiary and 
use that foreign subsidiary to do business with the Iranian regime with 
impunity and help create profits for them to be used for any purpose 
they choose.
  This has to stop. In the past, I believe the Senator from Maine 
agreed

[[Page 17364]]

 with me that this has to stop. In fact, last year she supported my 
amendment. So I am hopeful that she will once again vote for my 
amendment. I am going to vote for hers.
  I want to be clear. I have no objection to the Collins amendment, and 
I am going to vote for it, as I said, as a signal that we must do 
something to stop supporting these avowed enemies of America. The 
Collins amendment is not a bad amendment, but it only codifies existing 
regulations that, frankly, are not enough. It confirms what we have now 
and permits companies to escape sanctions.
  In the case of Cuba, we do not allow, any American company to use a 
sham to do business there. We ought not permit Iran to do the same 
things.
  If we want to close this loophole, my amendment is the only one that 
accomplishes it. Under the Collins amendment, the scenario on this 
placard is still possible. Here is a U.S. corporation. Here is a 
foreign subsidiary of the U.S. corporation. They can do business with 
Iran, who then sends funds to Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist 
organizations. They have their subsidiaries operating in other places. 
But they should not have subsidiaries that are allowed to do business 
in this way.
  We want to strengthen existing law. The way we do it is to explicitly 
say that any foreign subsidiary, controlled by an American company, 
must obey our sanctions.
  The senior Senator from Michigan pointed out last week that the 
standard we have, the sanctions standard, already applies to foreign 
subsidiaries that do business in Cuba. I repeat what I said before. My 
amendment simply applies the same rules to terrorist states such as 
Iran.
  I ask my colleagues, is fighting al-Qaida really less important than 
fighting Castro? If you vote no on this amendment, that is what you are 
saying.
  My amendment is simple and straightforward. It makes clear we will 
not allow foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies to provide funds to 
Iran. It is common sense. That is why a conservative group, the Center 
for Security Policy, supports my amendment. Frank Gaffney, who is 
president of the Center for Security Policy, said in the Washington 
Times today:

       If the Senate is serious about truly closing this loophole, 
     it must adopt the Lautenberg amendment.

  That is from Frank Gaffney, president of the organization.
  We have to stop U.S. companies from doing business with terrorists 
when they intend to murder innocent Americans. I ask my colleagues, 
please support my amendment. Families across this country do what they 
can to protect their loved ones and we can do no less. Every day we 
wait to close this loophole, more and more money flows into the hands 
of terrorists. For the sake of our troops, for the sake of our 
citizens, we have to shut down this source of terrorist funding.
  I again restate my intent. My intent is to support the Collins 
amendment because it does open our eyes a little bit further to the 
problem. But I hope, if we really want to solve this problem, the 
Lautenberg amendment is the one that will finally be voted for.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, again I commend the Senator from New 
Jersey for focusing attention on what is a very real problem, and that 
is that the current law is not tough enough and there are reports that 
subsidiaries of some very well-known American corporations are doing 
business in states where U.S. sanctions laws apply. But I think when 
you deal with this area, you need to be very careful to not craft a 
proposal that has unintended consequences.
  Moreover, my colleague's amendment does not do what the Treasury 
Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control, OFAC, has specifically 
named as the legislative step that would be of most benefit to them, 
and that is substantially increasing the penalties in the current law.
  My proposal would do that. Senator Lautenberg does not include 
increases in the penalties.
  In addition, my proposal explicitly grants the Treasury statutory 
subpoena power to ensure that it has all of the enforcement tools it 
needs.
  But let me go back to the underlying issue. The Collins amendment 
would be very specific in barring any action by a U.S. firm in 
approving, facilitating or providing financing for any action by its 
foreign subsidiary that would be unlawful for the parent company to 
engage in.
  It would also prevent U.S. companies from evading the law by setting 
up a subsidiary overseas, a shell corporation. So I think the proposal 
that I have set forth greatly strengthens the current law.
  We do not, however, want to create a perverse incentive that would 
encourage American companies to invert and reincorporate overseas, and 
I fear that could well be the result of the amendment of Senator 
Lautenberg.
  I am concerned about something else, and I have given these examples. 
We don't want to open the door to foreign governments trying to impose 
on the American subsidiaries of firms incorporated in their countries, 
their countries' laws.
  Let me give the example again. What if the Saudi Government tried to 
impose a restriction on doing business in Israel on the American 
subsidiary of a Saudi firm? We would be outraged about that.
  This proposal raises many complex technical questions, and that is 
why the Treasury Department and the State Department have urged caution 
and much prefer the approach embodied in the Collins amendment.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Maine is expired. 
The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I appreciate that clarification.
  I ask the Senator from Maine, under your amendment, is it possible 
for a foreign subsidiary owned and controlled by a U.S. company to do 
business with Iran?
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield from his time, 
I would be happy to answer that question.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I respect the Senator from Maine and do allow time 
for an answer, if it is a short answer, please.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, under my amendment, it is very clear that 
an American parent could not in any way be involved in a subsidiary's 
decision to do business in a prohibited nation. It could not approve 
it. It could not facilitate it. It could not direct it. It also could 
not set up a subsidiary for the purpose of evading the law.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. If the Senator would yield for a question on my time. 
Can a subsidiary do business with Iran?
  Ms. COLLINS. The subsidiary could not do business if it were in any 
way directed to do so, approved, financed, in any way, by the American 
parent. The language is very clear on that.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I think the conclusion is in error. Rather than have 
the debate about the precision with which the Collins amendment is 
drawn, I point out two things. AIPAC and the Cuban American National 
Foundation support my amendment. That is very specific.
  In the reference used about a Saudi company doing business with 
Israel, Saudi Arabia already boycotts Israel, so that question is taken 
care of.
  I fail to see, I must say, why we are going through these gyrations 
explaining a perverse effect when, in fact, what I want to do is stop 
any--by the way, the practice is taking place, currently.
  What the Senator from Maine has done is codify regulation. I want to 
stop any possibility for a sham corporation that wants to evade our 
laws to do business. That is where we are.
  I hope my colleagues will support my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired on the amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask for the yeas and nays.

[[Page 17365]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The first question is on the amendment of the 
Senator from Maine.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 202 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Craig
     Rockefeller


                           Amendment No. 1351

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At this time, there will be 2 minutes equally 
divided on the Lautenberg amendment, amendment No. 1351, on which the 
yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we have just had a vote on the Collins 
amendment that confirms we have a problem. There is no denying there is 
a problem out there, but there is only one way to solve it; and that is 
to say that any American company cannot form a sham corporation and do 
business with Iran as is presently being done. We do not permit it in 
Cuba, and we should not permit it in any other place in the world. So I 
hope now I will get the same kind of support we have just seen because 
we want to cure the problem. This is the best way to do it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time in opposition?
  The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I respect the intentions of my colleague 
from New Jersey, but his proposal is overbroad. It is strongly opposed 
by the administration. I urge opposition to the Lautenberg amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been yielded back, the 
question is on agreeing to the amendment. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 203 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Isakson
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Craig
     Rockefeller
       
  The amendment (No. 1351) was rejected.
  Ms. COLLINS. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Chair advise the Senate as to the 
pending business.


                    Amendment No. 1342, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, a vote will now 
occur on the Frist amendment No. 1342. There will now be 2 minutes 
equally divided for debate. This will be a 10-minute vote. The 
subsequent cloture vote that has been scheduled will also be a 10-
minute vote.
  Who seeks time?
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, who is 
participating in a ceremony in the Rotunda, the Support Our Scouts Act 
of 2005--and I am a cosponsor--is a very important piece of 
legislation, particularly in the wake of the tragic events that 
occurred last night. It will help ensure that the Defense Department 
continues to provide the Scouts the type of support it has lawfully 
provided in the past, to include supporting the Scouts at their 
jamborees.
  In this context, I thank Senator Durbin for helping to refine the 
amendment's language to provide flexibility to the agencies that 
provide like support.
  This amendment also ensures the Scouts have equal access to public 
facilities, forums, and programs that are open to other youth and 
community organizations. Boy Scouts, like other nonprofit 
organizations, depend on the ability to use public facilities and 
participate in these programs.
  The Scouts are a youth organization, well known to every Member of 
this body, that is committed to developing qualities such as 
patriotism, integrity, honesty, and other values in our Nation's boys 
and young men. The amendment by the distinguished majority leader makes 
that goal clear.
  As such, the amendment of the majority leader also makes clear that 
Congress believes the Boy Scouts should be treated the same as other 
national youth organizations.
  I hope that all of my colleagues will join the 50-plus cosponsors of 
this legislation and vote with me and other supporters of Scouting.
  Yesterday, July 25, tens of thousands of Scouts from around the 
country began arriving at Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia. Tennesseans, such 
as Bill and Diane Goins from Soddy Daisy, TN, have traveled great 
distances to participate. Vote for this amendment and let them know 
that Congress wants the Pentagon's support to the Scouts at their 
jamborees to continue.
  Let's also let them know that not only is Defense Department 
participation helpful to the Scouts, it is also beneficial to the 
training of our armed forces.
  Mr. President, I urge all of my Senate colleagues to vote for the 
young boys and girls who are following in the worthy Scouting 
tradition. A vote for this amendment is a vote for them.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as I noted earlier when the majority 
leader offered this amendment, I support the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, 
and other

[[Page 17366]]

youth organizations. The Frist amendment seeks to ensure that 
government resources are not arbitrarily denied to youth organizations, 
while, at the same time, not limiting judicial review of the 
constitutionality of government actions.
  I want to thank the distinguished majority leader for working with me 
to address my concerns regarding section 2, in which his amendment had 
provided a guaranteed funding level for youth organizations.
  Together, we now have added flexibility to address cases where youth 
organizations no longer deserve the funding level they had previously 
received. For example, if a youth organization is convicted of a 
criminal offense or a senior officer of a youth organization is 
convicted of a criminal offense relating to his or her official duties, 
under this modification, the head of a Federal agency would be able to 
waive the guaranteed funding level. Federal agencies also would have 
the ability to waive this funding level if the youth organization is 
the subject of a criminal investigation relating to fraudulent use or 
waste of Federal funds. It is my expectation that Federal agencies will 
use ths discretion wisely.
  Our modification also clarifies that the support that a Federal 
agency is required to provide youth organizations is subject to the 
availability of appropriations, which Congress can revisit each year.
  I also want to take this opportunity to reaffirm the importance of 
our Nation's strong tradition of religious liberty, our tolerance of 
the religious beliefs of all people, and our respect for those who do 
not believe in God or a higher authority. This amendment respects the 
significance of religious liberty by not limiting the jurisdiction of 
Federal courts in determining the constitutionality of government 
support for youth organizations.
  Therefore, I support this amendment, as modified.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, yesterday, tens of thousands of Scouts 
began arriving at Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia to attend the National 
Scout Jamboree.
  Held every 4 years at the Army base, the jamboree draws Scouts, 
leaders, and volunteers from around the world.
  The Scouts will spend the next 10 days participating in outdoor 
activities like archery; fishing; and geocoaching, a GPS-based 
scavenger hunt.
  One Scout told the Washington Post:

       It's just a lot fun. There's so much to do here. You get to 
     see so many people from all around and they have all sorts of 
     activities.

  For the local community, the jamboree has been a great financial 
boost. Just this year alone, the event has pumped $26 million into the 
community. The Scouts have spent $20 million on base improvements, 
including road paving and plumbing upgrades.
  Unfortunately, this great summer Scouting tradition may come to an 
end. The reason? Because the Scouting oath includes an oath of duty to 
a higher power. Despite decades of public support for Scouting, one 
Federal judge has ruled that the Pentagon can no longer provide its 
facilities as a matter of church and state.
  Because of this lawsuit by the ACLU, 40,000 Scouts are in danger of 
being denied permission to hold their jamboree at Fort A.P. Hill, or 
any other publicly supported venue.
  That is why I am offering the Support Our Scouts Act of 2005. These 
young people need our help and our voices to protect a great tradition.
  Since 1910, Scouting has taught and enriched millions of boys and 
girls, and drawn generations of Americans together.
  Boy Scout membership has totaled more than 110 million young 
Americans--including myself, my three boys, and over 40 current Members 
of the Senate.
  Today, more than 3.2 million youths and 1.2 million adults are 
members of the Boy Scouts and Scout organizations such as the Tiger 
Cubs and Cub Scouts.
  These Americans are all dedicated to fulfilling the Boy Scouts' 
mission of instilling in our young people solid values such as honesty, 
integrity, patriotism, and character.
  The Support Our Scouts Act of 2005 will help ensure that the Defense 
Department continues to support the Scouts, as it has lawfully done for 
years, including the summer National Scout Jamboree.
  This amendment also ensures the Boy Scouts have equal access to 
public facilities, forums, and programs that are open to a variety of 
other youth or community organizations.
  Boy Scouts, like other nonprofit youth organizations, depend on the 
ability to use public facilities and participate in these programs and 
forums. My amendment ensures the Scouts have fair and equal access to 
these facilities.
  My amendment also makes clear that the Congress regards the Boy 
Scouts to be a youth organization and that the Boy Scouts--and the Girl 
Scouts--should be treated the same as other national youth 
organizations.
  I hope that all of my colleagues will join the 50-plus cosponsors of 
this legislation and vote with me and other supporters of Scouting.
  I want to thank Senator Durbin for helping to refine the amendment's 
language. The Durbin modification will allow agencies to waive the 
``mandatory floor of support'' included in my proposal--but not 
necessarily the support itself--if some senior officer of a youth 
organization or the organization itself is convicted of a serious 
criminal offense.
  We would expect agency heads to use this waiver sparingly and 
judiciously, and only for the most serious of offenses that are 
connected to their official duties.
  And once an organization has remedied the problem, we expect the 
baseline of support to be fully restored by the federal agency to its 
previous level.
  The Scouts are committed to developing the best qualities in our 
Nation's young people--qualities such as patriotism, integrity, 
honesty, and compassion. This long-honored organization helps prepare 
our young people to be leaders in the communities, and leaders of the 
future.
  A vote for the Support Our Scouts Act will let them know that 
Congress continues to support this worthy endeavor.
  Mr. President, I urge all of my Senate colleagues to vote for the 
young boys and girls who are following in the great Scouting tradition. 
A vote for this amendment is a vote for them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time in opposition?
  Without objection, the Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we support this amendment, as modified. It 
has been modified to address a problem it had which did not relate to 
the Boy Scouts but which had to do with the wording which made it 
overly broad. The language clearly depends upon an appropriate agency 
making either a grant or an appropriation. We support the amendment. We 
thank Senator Durbin, particularly, for his modification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, all time is yielded back.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  All time having been yielded back, the question is on agreeing to 
amendment No. 1342, as modified. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 204 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd

[[Page 17367]]


     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Craig
     Rockefeller
       
  The amendment (No. 1342), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  Under the previous order and pursuant to rule XXII, the clerk lays 
before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will 
state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows.

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on S. 1042, an 
     original bill 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.

         Bill Frist, John Warner, Michael Enzi, John Cornyn, Jon 
           Kyl, Richard Burr, Kit Bond, Lindsey Graham, John E. 
           Sununu, Chuck Grassley, Mike DeWine, Lamar Alexander, 
           James Talent, Pat Roberts, Johnny Isakson, Conrad 
           Burns, Richard G. Lugar.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is 2 minutes 
equally divided for debate before the vote on cloture.
  Who yields time?
  The minority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to make sure the record is spread 
with the fact that we have offered everything. All we want is to finish 
this bill tomorrow at 11 o'clock at night. We even backed it off to 
10:30. And the only amendments that would be in order would be those 
that are within the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee. We 
would have a Republican amendment, Democratic amendment, and we would 
go through the process by these two fine managers.
  What is wrong? What picture am I missing? Why can't we go forward and 
do at least a little bit of work for the men and women in uniform of 
our country, namely 2\1/2\ million of them, plus taxpayers dollars, 
$450 billion for 1 year? Could not we at least spend 1 extra day on 
that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, very briefly, both sides have talked about 
the importance of the Defense authorization bill. We both feel the 
importance of that bill. Cloture being invoked here shortly, which I 
believe it will, will allow us to have a Defense authorization bill in 
about 30 hours. So we will complete our objective of having a bill if 
cloture is invoked, and I encourage people to vote for cloture.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would just say briefly we would finish the 
bill at the same time if we entered into the agreement that I submitted 
to Senator Warner and the Republicans. Time is of no difference.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is vital that we complete action on the 
National Defense Authorization Act. It is an important piece of 
legislation that we must pass with all due haste to meet the needs of 
the men and women of the U.S. military.
  Defense bills are always serious matters--but this year Congress 
works against a background of prolonged combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
worrying indicators of a force under strain, and with obligations to 
care for a new generation of combat veterans and their families.
  By virtually any measure, the American military is a force under 
strain. It is a simple statement of fact--and a fact every one of us 
must acknowledge and address so that this most magnificent military is 
not irreparably harmed. Just 2 months ago, General Richard Myers, 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reported to Congress that the 
American military is not as ready as it could be to meet new 
contingencies beyond Iraq and Afghanistan. Units and personnel are 
facing repeated deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. So-called ``low-
density-high-demand'' units and personnel are maxed-out. The Army has a 
dwindling number of Army Reserve and National Guard personnel available 
to perform combat support roles such as military police and civil 
affairs.
  In recent weeks, two reports--one by the GAO, the other by RAND--
highlighted shortages in the Army Reserve. It is becoming increasingly 
difficult for the Army Reserve to continue to provide ready forces in 
the near term due to worsening personnel and equipment shortages. There 
are three primary causes for these shortages: the practice of not 
maintaining Army Reserve units with all of the personnel and equipment 
they need to deploy, personnel policies that limit the number of 
reservists and the length of time they may be deployed, and a shortage 
of full-time staff to develop and maintain unit readiness. As of March 
2005, the number of Army Reserve eligible for mobilization under 
current policies had decreased to about 31,000 soldiers, or about 16 
percent of Army Reserve personnel. But numbers don't tell the whole 
story as those still available for mobilization may not have the skills 
and ranks needed to support ongoing operations. We must all be 
concerned that the Army Reserve be able to provide forces that are 
ready and relevant to ongoing operations.
  But these issues--as serious as they are--will not be addressed by 
simply rubber-stamping an important piece of legislation. I will vote 
against cloture because there are too many important amendments that 
would improve this legislation and help the men and women of the 
American military and their families. If we do invoke cloture, dozens 
of amendments that deserve a vote--up or down--would fall away, 
including amendments to protect the pay of mobilized reservists 
employed by the Federal Government and to create mandatory funding of 
veterans healthcare. My own amendments to extend survivor housing 
benefits beyond the end of the fiscal year, to increase funding for a 
vital weapons system sought by commanders in Iraq, and to begin the 
process of improving the GI Bill of Rights would never have received a 
vote.
  I urge my colleagues to complete the defense authorization bill as 
quickly as possible and to consider the amendments which Members have 
offered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to express my disappointment that 
the majority leader has decided to postpone further action on this 
year's Defense authorization bill. This is an extremely important piece 
of legislation that deserves the Senate's full and careful 
consideration right away. I have several worthy amendments to the bill, 
as do many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle. We have an 
obligation to our men and women in uniform and to the American people 
to thoroughly debate these important amendments and come up with the 
best legislation possible for our Nation's security. If cloture is 
invoked on this bill prematurely, the Senate will not have been able to 
take up many of the essential amendments on which the Senate should be 
spending time, addressing such issues as pay and benefits for military 
personnel, nonproliferation, and our detention policies. I am therefore 
hopeful that the Senate will reject attempts to cut off debate on this 
bill prematurely. Unfortunately, rather than allowing debate and action 
on the Defense authorization bill to continue,

[[Page 17368]]

the majority leader has decided to move to a special interest bill 
instead. I am hopeful, however, that the Senate will soon be able to go 
back to working on a bill that is so important to our national 
security.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on S. 1042, the Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 
2006, shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays are mandatory 
under the rule. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any Senator in the Chamber who 
desires to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 205 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Alexander
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--48

     Akaka
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Collins
     Corzine
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Thune
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Craig
     Rockefeller
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are 
48. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. I have a parliamentary inquiry. I would be happy to yield 
to my friend from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I was just going to ask the Presiding Officer the regular 
order.
  Mr. REID. That is what I was going to do. I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
  Mr. REID. Now that the Senate has defeated cloture on the Defense 
bill, will the Senate remain on this bill, which is the bill that is to 
pay for our troops and protect our troops and our country, the Defense 
bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator would be informed that under the 
previous order--under the regular order, the Senate is to proceed to a 
motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 397.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, then I have a unanimous consent request. 
That request is that the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the 
gun liability bill be vitiated and that the Senate remain on the 
Defense bill and complete the Defense bill this week and the Senate 
begin the very minute it gets back on September 6 with the gun 
liability bill, on cloture on the motion to proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I made it 
clear about 3 weeks ago to this body that we had a number of issues we 
were going to address before leaving for recess. We listed a number of 
them this morning. One of them was the gun liability bill. There are 
lots of roadblocks right now, barriers being thrown up to prevent us 
from addressing a very important bill that I believe we will show here 
shortly we have over 60 votes for. Thus, I will say one more time that 
we intend to complete the gun liability bill before we leave, complete 
addressing it. I am very disappointed in the last vote, the fact that 
we are not going to be proceeding with the Department of Defense 
authorization bill. I do look forward to coming back and looking at 
that bill and passing that bill. It is a very important bill, and that 
is why we filed cloture to complete that. In all likelihood, what will 
happen, we will proceed to the bill on gun liability, and the objective 
will be to complete that this week, and thus I do object.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, another parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
  Mr. REID. When we finish the gun legislation, do we automatically 
come back to the Defense bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator should know that if the motion to 
proceed is passed, it displaces the Defense authorization bill.
  Mr. REID. But that does not respond to my question. It is put back on 
the calendar, is that right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senate proceeds to the gun liability 
bill motion, then it would displace the DOD bill and place it back on 
the calendar.
  Mr. FRIST addressed the chair.
  Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. I would ask unanimous consent that at any time determined 
by the majority leader, the Senate resume the Department of Defense 
bill at that time.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator restate it.
  Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that at the time determined by the 
majority leader, we will return to the Department of Defense 
authorization bill.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object.
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank you. The majority leader said something here 
today that really surprised me. He said he is going to prove that the 
gun liability bill was one of the most important things we were going 
to do, and I want to know from the majority leader, does he think that 
bill is more important than the Defense authorization bill?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Regular order.
  Mrs. BOXER. Does he think that the Defense authorization bill is not 
as important as gun liability?
  Mr. BUNNING. Regular order, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has the floor.
  Is there objection to the unanimous consent request?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would suggest and ask if the distinguished 
leader would modify his request to say that when we finish the gun 
legislation, we would return to the Defense bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the majority leader----
  Mr. FRIST. I object and I once again state my request that at a time 
determined by the majority leader, we return to the Department of 
Defense authorization bill.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the majority leader's 
request?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, if we go 
to cloture and cloture is invoked, do we not displace the Defense 
authorization bill for consideration in this Chamber this afternoon and 
for the next days, if we pass it? Is that not the case?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If cloture is invoked on the motion to 
proceed, we will remain on the motion to proceed until time is used or 
yielded back.
  Mr. KENNEDY. So the answer is affirmative, that we are displacing the 
Defense authorization bill by voting on cloture on the motion to 
proceed. Am I not correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the motion were to pass, the Senate would 
continue on that motion.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I hope the distinguished majority leader 
will

[[Page 17369]]

bring this bill back at the earliest possible time. This is such an 
important piece of legislation. It should not be added to the tail end 
of things we do around here.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.

                          ____________________