[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 22253-22298]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006--Continued

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have a package we have approved as 
managers of the bill. I ask unanimous consent that the Chair lay before 
the Senate amendments 1996, 1887, 1895, 2017, 1925, and 1889. It sounds 
as though I am reading birthdays.
  When the Chair is ready, I will propound a unanimous consent request 
when those amendments are before us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to considering the 
amendments en bloc?
  Mr. STEVENS. We do not want to offer them en bloc. We want to offer 
them one by one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.


                           Amendment No. 1996

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Ms. Mikulski, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1996.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide that, of the amount made available under title III 
   for the Navy for other procurement, up to $3,000,000 may be made 
  available for the Joint Aviation Technical Data Integration Program)

       On page 220, after line 25, add the following:
       Sec. 8116. Of the amount appropriated by title III under 
     the heading ``Other Procurement, Navy'', up to $3,000,000 may 
     be made available for the Joint Aviation Technical Data 
     Integration Program.

  Mr. STEVENS. I send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 1996), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 220, after line 25, add the following:
       Sec. 8116. Of the amount appropriated by title III under 
     the heading ``Other Procurement, Navy'', up to $3,000,000 may 
     be made available for the Joint Aviation Technical Data 
     Integration Program.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is an amendment offered by Senator 
Mikulski for the Joint Aviation Technical Data Integration Program.
  Mr. INOUYE. No objections.
  Mr. STEVENS. There is no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? The 
question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1996, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 1996), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1887

  Mr. STEVENS. I call up amendment No. 1887.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Salazar, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1887.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To rename the death gratuity payable for deaths of members of 
             the Armed Forces as fallen hero compensation)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Renaming of Death Gratuity Payable for Deaths 
     of Members of the Armed Forces.--Subchapter II of chapter 75 
     of title 10, United States Code, is amended as follows:
       (1) In section 1475(a), by striking ``have a death gratuity 
     paid'' and inserting ``have fallen hero compensation paid''.
       (2) In section 1476(a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``a death gratuity'' and 
     inserting ``fallen hero compensation''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``A death gratuity'' and 
     inserting ``Fallen hero compensation''.
       (3) In section 1477(a), by striking ``A death gratuity'' 
     and inserting ``Fallen hero compensation''.
       (4) In section 1478(a), by striking ``The death gratuity'' 
     and inserting ``The amount of fallen hero compensation''.
       (5) In section 1479(1), by striking ``the death gratuity'' 
     and inserting ``fallen hero compensation''.
       (6) In section 1489--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``a gratuity'' in the 
     matter preceding paragraph (1) and inserting ``fallen hero 
     compensation''; and
       (B) in subsection (b)(2), by inserting ``or other 
     assistance'' after ``lesser death gratuity''.
       (b) Clerical Amendments.--
       (1) Such subchapter is further amended by striking ``Death 
     Gratuity:'' each place it appears in the heading of sections 
     1475 through 1480 and 1489 and inserting ``Fallen Hero 
     Compensation:''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such 
     subchapter is amended by striking ``Death gratuity:'' in the 
     items relating to sections 1474 through 1480 and 1489 and 
     inserting ``Fallen hero compensation:''.
       (c) General References.--Any reference to a death gratuity 
     payable under subchapter II of chapter 75 of title 10, United 
     States Code, in any law, regulation, document, paper, or 
     other record of the United States shall be deemed to be a 
     reference to fallen hero compensation payable under such 
     subchapter, as amended by this section.

  Mr. STEVENS. This is Senator Salazar's fallen hero compensation 
amendment, which we have agreed to.

[[Page 22254]]


  Mr. INOUYE. We support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1887.
  The amendment (No. 1887) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1895

  Mr. STEVENS. I call up amendment No. 1895.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Bingaman, 
     for himself and Mr. Domenici, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1895.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To make available $3,000,000 from Research, Development, 
     Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, for assurance for the Field 
                        Programmable Gate Array)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Of the amount appropriated by title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air 
     Force'', up to $3,000,000 may be used for research and 
     development on the reliability of field programmable gate 
     arrays for space applications.

  Mr. STEVENS. This is Senator Bingaman's amendment for field 
programmable gate array. I have a modification which I send to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification? If 
not, the amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 1895), as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Of the amount appropriated by title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air 
     Force'', up to $3,000,000 may be used for research and 
     development on the reliability of field programmable gate 
     arrays for space applications.

  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for approval of the amendment.
  Mr. INOUYE. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1895, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 1895), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2017

  Mr. STEVENS. I call up amendment No. 2017 and send a modification to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Bennett, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2017.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification? If 
not, the amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 2017), as modified, is as follows:

    (Purpose: To make available, from amounts appropriated for the 
    Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army account up to 
   $1,000,000 for the Chemical Biological Defense Material Test and 
                  Evaluation Initiative (PE 0605602A)

       In the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.   . Of the amount appropriated by title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test, And Evaluation, 
     Army'', up to $1,000,000 may be used for Chemical Biological 
     Defense Material Test and Evaluation Initiative.

  Mr. STEVENS. This is Senator Bennett's amendment for chemical 
biological defense. We have accepted it as modified.
  Mr. INOUYE. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2017, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2017), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1925

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1925.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Isakson, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1925.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide that, of the amount made available under title IV 
  for the Army for research, development, test, and evaluation, up to 
 $1,000,000 may be made available for an environmental management and 
                     compliance information system)

       On page 220, after line 25, add the following:
       Sec. 8116. Of the amount appropriated by title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army'', 
     up to $1,000,000 may be made available for an environmental 
     management and compliance information system.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is Senator Isakson's amendment for 
funds for environmental management. I ask for its consideration.
  Mr. INOUYE. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1925.
  The amendment (No. 1925) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1889

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1889.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Santorum, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1889.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide that, of the amount made available for research, 
 development, test and evaluation for the Army, $2,000,000 may be made 
    available for medical advanced technology for applied emergency 
         hypothermia for advanced combat casualty life support)

       On page 220, after line 25, insert the following:
       Sec. 8116. Of the amount appropriated by title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army'', 
     $2,000,000 may be made available for medical advanced 
     technology for applied emergency hypothermia for advanced 
     combat casualty life support.

  Mr. STEVENS. This is Senator Santorum's amendment for hypothermia 
life support. I send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Mr. INOUYE. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 1889), as modified, is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide that, of the amount made available for research, 
development, test and evaluation for the Army, up to $2,000,000 may be 
 made available for medical advanced technology for applied emergency 
         hypothermia for advanced combat casualty life support)

       On page 220, after line 25, insert the following:
       Sec. 8116. Of the amount appropriated by title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army'', 
     up to $2,000,000 may be made available for medical advanced 
     technology for applied emergency hypothermia for advanced 
     combat casualty life support.

  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for consideration of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. INOUYE. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If not, the question is on agreeing to 
amendment No. 1889, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 1889), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page 22255]]


  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside temporarily so that I may offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1992

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, more than 2,000 years have passed since 
Cicero said, ``Endless money forms the sinews of war.''
  Let me repeat what I have said. More than 2,000 years have passed 
since Cicero, a great Roman senator, said, ``Endless money forms the 
sinews of war.''
  How astute he was to point that out and how little the times have 
changed. Today, the United States is engaged not just in one war but 
two wars. The first of the two wars began 4 years ago when our country 
was invaded. Our country was attacked by 19 hijackers sent on their 
deadly mission by Osama bin Laden. That war continues today in 
Afghanistan. That is a war that was thrust upon us. That was a war in 
which the United States was invaded by 19 hijackers, not one of whom 
was from Iraq--not one. That war, as I say, was thrust upon us. The 
United States was invaded. The United States was attacked and thousands 
of Americans lost their lives. That is the war that I support. That is 
the war that I supported from the beginning.
  But there is also another war, a war which the United States started, 
a war in which the United States was the attacker. We didn't wait to be 
attacked; we attacked another nation. We invaded, the United States 
invaded another nation that did not pose a threat, a direct and 
immediate threat to our national security. We, the United States, 
invaded another country that did not act to provoke our invasion.
  Since March 19, 2003, our troops, Americans troops, have been sent 
into the breach in Iraq, a country which had no connection--none--no 
connection to the September 11 attacks on our country. I was against 
our policy with reference to the invasion of that country, Iraq. I was 
against that. That country did not pose an immediate threat to our 
national security, no. I said so then and I was right. No weapons of 
mass destruction were found. No weapons of mass destruction have been 
found to this day there in Iraq.
  I hold no grief for Saddam Hussein, but we acted under the 
unconstitutional doctrine of first strike. The first strike doctrine, 
that is the doctrine that we followed. That is the doctrine that got us 
into Iraq. It is unconstitutional on its face. Why? Because the 
Constitution says Congress shall have power to declare war.
  How can it be constitutional if a President, one man, Republican or 
Democrat or independent or whatever, can declare war if Congress has 
nothing to say about it, if Congress has no opportunity to debate it?
  I do not question the inherent power of any President to defend our 
country. Congress may be out of town. Congress may be in recess. If we 
are invaded, of course, he has the power to act. But that was not the 
case here.
  I and 22 other Senators voted against shifting that power to declare 
war, that constitutional power to declare war from the Congress to a 
President, and that law is still on the books. It has not been 
repealed.
  We can talk about that at another time, but let me say today, these 
two wars have cost the lives of many Americans. In the first war, the 
one being fought in Afghanistan and elsewhere against Osama bin Laden, 
243 American troops have given their lives in the line of duty. I 
support our efforts in that war. I have done so from the beginning.
  In the second war, the war in Iraq, 1,934 young men and women have 
perished. I disagree with the policy that sent our troops to Iraq, but 
I join with all other patriotic Americans in supporting the men and the 
women who have been sent to Iraq. I don't support the policy that sent 
them there, but I support those men and women. They went, they heeded 
the call, they did their duty, and they are still doing their duty. Of 
course I support them. I join with all other Americans in supporting 
them and honoring those men and women who have paid the ultimate price 
in service to the United States.
  In addition to lives lost, these wars have also cost our country a 
fortune, a colossal fortune in our national wealth. According to the 
Congressional Research Service, the Congress has already appropriated 
$310 billion to pay for these two wars. The Defense Appropriations 
Committee bill being debated now in the Senate adds another $50 billion 
to that figure. Most observers believe that tens of billions more 
dollars will be required in a matter of months. Who knows, before it is 
all over, we may find that the ultimate cost in Treasury may amount to 
$1 trillion. Who knows, when we think of all the things that must be 
done. We have to replenish the equipment that has worn out, that has 
rusted, that has been destroyed--the military equipment. Our own 
military people will have their requests in this year, next year and 
the next year and the next year, for money to replace that equipment.
  Could we fight another war if we should be invaded today? Would we be 
prepared to fight another war? Could we?
  If these estimates are accurate, the cost of the wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan could easily exceed $400 billion by early next year--$400 
billion. That is $400 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. 
That is a lot of money, isn't it?
  Once again, ``Endless money forms the sinews of war.''
  That is simply the visible part of the cost of the war. We are 
slowly, slowly but surely, coming to realize that there are financial 
costs to the war that are buried deep within the Government's ledgers. 
In June, the Department of Veterans Affairs admitted to a major 
shortfall in its budget. Working together with Senator Craig and 
Senator Murray, I supported an amendment to add $1.5 billion in 
emergency funds to the veterans health care budget. My colleagues and I 
then worked to add $1,977,000,000 to the VA budget for the fiscal year 
2006.
  Why? Why? Why is the VA running short of funds?
  Part of the reason lies in the fact that the administration did not 
budget enough funds to take care of troops coming home from these wars 
with serious injuries. But there is more. These injured veterans have 
earned compensation from the VA for their wounds.
  According to the Defense Department, more than 15,000 troops have 
been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress is yet to see a full 
estimate of the costs of these veterans' benefits.
  There is also the matter of revenue that the Government coffers will 
never see because of the deployment of our troops to these wars. Troops 
serving in combat zones are exempt from income taxes. National 
Guardsmen and reservists often must do without their higher civilian 
pay during their deployment. No one would argue that wounded veterans 
should not receive compensation from the VA or the troops in war zones 
ought to pay taxes while they are risking their lives for our country. 
But the American people are not being told about these hidden costs of 
these wars. Why? Why is that?
  The fact is, the administration has never provided the Congress with 
a budget estimate of what the war is costing the American taxpayers. 
Some may argue that the budget resolution passed in Congress by the 
thinnest of margins included $50 billion for the cost of the wars in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. That is true. That money is in there. The $50 
billion also appears in this appropriations bill. But that estimate is 
just a number made out of whole cloth. The President did not request a 
single dime for the wars in his budget estimate submitted to Congress 
in February--not one thin dime, not even one copper penny. Instead, 
Congress picked a number out of thin air--$50 billion--and stuck it in 
the budget resolution.
  That number is not backed up by any number crunching, any careful 
analysis, or any budgetary data. It doesn't

[[Page 22256]]

even match up with the numbers prepared by the Congressional Budget 
Office, which estimates that $85 billion will be required to fight 
these wars next year, nor is that $50 billion paid for. This $50 
billion is simply added to our national debt, a debt that will have to 
be paid by our children and our children's children.
  I say one more time, ``Endless money forms the sinews of war.'' I am 
quoting Cicero, of course.
  The administration needs to budget for the wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. It should not be sufficient for Congress to pick a number 
out of a hat, appropriate funds to match that number, and hope that our 
troops will be taken care of. The administration needs to step up to 
the plate and tell Congress and the American people how much it expects 
to spend on the war, what the money will be used for, and how our 
Nation is going to foot the bill. It may be easier said than done, but 
we ought to do our best.
  To some observers, the importance of budgeting for the war may seem 
like a furor over how much paper should be pushed around in Washington, 
DC. Although the terms used in this debate are arcane--how many people 
outside the beltway know anything, or much at least, about emergency 
supplementals, the budget process, or outlays and budget authority--the 
principles are vitally important to our country.
  There is an important principle that a country must share the burdens 
of war among its citizens. Think back to World War II and what was 
asked of the American people in that conflict: victory gardens, 
daylight savings, gasoline rationing, and on and on. We do not see 
anything like that today. Quite the opposite. For the first time in 
American history, our Nation has cut taxes during a time of war.
  The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have forced great sacrifice.
  Let me say that again.
  These wars--the war in Afghanistan, which I support, the war in Iraq, 
which I have never thought we should engage in--have forced great 
sacrifice among those who serve our country, and their families as 
well. Our troops risk life and limb while their spouses, their parents, 
and their children pray for their safety and for their return home. It 
is these troops and their families who have had so little relief from 
the burdens of these wars.
  Last year, Congress passed a law to compensate Americans for spending 
up to $1,000 out of their own pockets to send body armor, boots, 
gloves, and other equipment to troops serving overseas. But the 
Pentagon still has not implemented this law, giving short shrift to 
those who have done the most to support our troops. These families have 
not been recompensed for their support of the troops. Why is the 
Defense Department bureaucracy so slow to implement this law? Why? Why 
is the Defense Department bureaucracy so slow to implement this law? It 
ought to be a priority to help these Americans who have done so much to 
help our troops.
  The sacrifices demanded by the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are 
falling disproportionately on the few. The President has said our 
Nation is at war. No. Our Nation is not at war. Our military is at war. 
Yes. The National Guard, the men and women in the military, they are at 
war but not the Nation. We scarcely hear much about it.
  Our troops are shedding their blood, and their families are doing so 
much to support them. Meanwhile, the average American goes about his 
day-to-day business with little interruption, only to pause in solemn 
reflection upon the occasional news report about the tragic death of 
another soldier from his community.
  When Winston Churchill rallied his country in World War II, he urged 
the British to ``defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall 
fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall 
fight in the fields and in the streets.''
  It was a call not just to English soldiers to fight but for the 
country to share the burden of the struggle.
  What a stark contrast to the wars we are in today in which so little 
is asked of the American people compared to what is demanded of our 
military personnel. In light of the incredible toll of these wars on 
our country, it is time to rethink that unfair balance of sacrifice.
  Three times before, the Senate has voted to urge the administration 
to budget for the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so that 
there may be a debate about how the President intends to spread the 
sacrifice fairly among all Americans. Three times, the Senate has voted 
to urge the administration to budget for the cost of the wars in Iraq 
and Afghanistan, and three times that call has not been honored, it has 
been dismissed. The enormous cost of keeping hundreds of thousands of 
troops fighting in two wars, each of them half a world away, continues 
to be a black hole in the President's budget.
  Congress and the American people keep hearing the same old line: The 
administration cannot budget for the cost of the war because the true 
cost is unknowable. The Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, when he was 
asked about the cost, said the cost is unknowable. Of course, he is 
right. It is unknowable, but surely the administration has some 
estimate somewhere. Surely the Defense Department has some estimate, 
and it has had some estimate--some estimate of what the war was going 
to cost.
  We have heard that the cost is unknowable. We have heard that many 
times before. But it strains one's belief to argue that the Secretary 
of Defense, with legions of bureaucrats and accountants at his 
disposal, cannot make an estimate of how much it will take to support 
our troops for the fiscal year that began last week. With 18,000 
American troops in Afghanistan and 149,000 troops in Iraq who are 
risking their lives each and every day, one would think that the 
Pentagon could muster the courage to estimate how much money it will 
take to support our fighting men and women. We are talking about an 
estimate.
  The amendment that I offer to the Defense appropriations bill again 
states the sense of the Senate that the President should budget for the 
war. We have been at these two wars a long time now. I could understand 
how he might not be able to budget for the first few months of a war, 
but we have been at these wars a long time and we still see no budget 
for them. Still the American people do not know. Whatever is requested 
of the Congress, the administration does it with supplemental 
appropriations bills. There are not very thorough hearings on 
supplemental appropriations bills. They say: We spent this much and we 
have to appropriate.
  The American people do not realize the cost of these wars. So let me 
say again, the amendment I offer to the Defense appropriations bill 
states it is the sense of the Senate that the President should budget 
for these wars. President Roosevelt did it for World War II, President 
Johnson did it for Vietnam, President Clinton did it for Bosnia, 
President Bush did it for Kosovo, and it is time to do it for Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  Let the American people know how much of their hard-earned tax 
dollars will be needed for these wars. Let Congress debate how these 
costs must be borne. Let our Government take a responsible approach on 
how we pay for our troops in the field.
  I urge my colleagues to once again support the President, support my 
amendment, and urge the President to budget for the war.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feingold may have 
his name added as a cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1992

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1992.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1992.

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

[[Page 22257]]

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on budgeting for ongoing 
   military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere overseas)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following 
     findings:
       (1) The Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2004 
     (Public Law 108-87), the Department of Defense Appropriations 
     Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-287), and the Emergency 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War 
     on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Public Law 109-13) each 
     contain a sense of the Senate provision urging the President 
     to provide in the annual budget requests of the President for 
     a fiscal year under section 1105(a) of title 31, United 
     States Code, an estimate of the cost of ongoing military 
     operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in such fiscal year.
       (2) The budget for fiscal year 2006 submitted to Congress 
     by the President on February 7, 2005, requests no funds for 
     fiscal year 2006 for ongoing military operations in Iraq or 
     Afghanistan.
       (3) According to the Congressional Research Service, there 
     exists historical precedent for including the cost of ongoing 
     military operations in the annual budget requests of the 
     President following initial funding for such operations by 
     emergency or supplemental appropriations Acts, including--
       (A) funds for Operation Noble Eagle, beginning in the 
     budget request of President George W. Bush for fiscal year 
     2005;
       (B) funds for operations in Kosovo, beginning in the budget 
     request of President George W. Bush for fiscal year 2001;
       (C) funds for operations in Bosnia, beginning in budget 
     request of President Clinton for fiscal year 1997;
       (D) funds for operations in Southwest Asia, beginning in 
     the budget request of President Clinton for fiscal year 1997;
       (E) funds for operations in Vietnam, beginning in the 
     budget request of President Johnson for fiscal year 1966; and
       (F) funds for World War II, beginning in the budget request 
     of President Roosevelt for fiscal year 1943.
       (4) In section 1024(b) of Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and 
     Tsunami Relief, 2005 (119 Stat. 252), the Senate requested 
     that the President submit to Congress, not later than 
     September 1, 2005, an amendment to the budget of the 
     President for fiscal year 2006 setting forth detailed cost 
     estimates for ongoing military operations overseas during 
     such fiscal year.
       (5) The President has yet to submit such an amendment.
       (6) The Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006, as 
     reported to the Senate by the Committion on Appropriations of 
     the Senate on September 28, 2005, contains a bridge fund of 
     $50,000,000,000 for overseas contingency operations, but the 
     determination of that amount could not take into account any 
     Administration estimate on the projected cost of such 
     operations in fiscal year 2006.
       (7) In February 2005, the Congressional Budget Office 
     estimated that fiscal year 2006 cost of ongoing military 
     operations in Iraq and Afghanistan could total 
     $85,000,000,000.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) any request for funds for a fiscal year after fiscal 
     year 2006 for an ongoing military operation overseas, 
     including operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, should be 
     included in the annual budget of the President for such 
     fiscal year as submitted to Congress under section 1105(a) of 
     title 31, United States Code;
       (2) the amendment to the budget of the President for fiscal 
     year 2006, requested by the Senate to be submitted to 
     Congress not later than September 1, 2005, by section 1024(b) 
     of Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the 
     Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005, is necessary 
     to describe the anticipated use of the $50,000,000,000 bridge 
     fund appropriated in this Act and set forth all additional 
     appropriations that will be required for the fiscal year; and
       (3) any funds provided for a fiscal year for ongoing 
     military operations overseas should be provided in 
     appropriations Acts for such fiscal year through 
     appropriations to specific accounts set forth in such 
     appropriations Acts.

  Mr. BYRD. I have indicated the purpose of the amendment and the 
intent of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, did the manager of the bill have something?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. It would be the intent of the managers of the bill to 
indicate to Senator Byrd that we would be pleased to accept that 
amendment when the time comes. We will leave up to Senator Byrd when he 
wants to have the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator indicated he would be willing to have the 
amendment considered at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1992) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. This is similar to an amendment we have carried in the 
bill before. We appreciate the Senator's position. It is the position 
of the Senate. The President has decided otherwise, but we hope next 
year the regular Defense bill will include the moneys for the ongoing 
war on terrorism.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished Senator from 
the great State of Alaska for his statement. I thank the very great 
Senator from the State of Alaska for his statement and his support. I 
also thank our colleague on this side of the aisle, the other manager 
of the bill, Senator Inouye, for his support.
  Incidentally, may I say I guess I am the only remaining person in 
Congress who voted for the entry of both Alaska and Hawaii into the 
Union. Praise God, I did that in each case. These are two fine 
Senators, two of the greatest.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me begin by paying my respect to the 
Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, who has for several years now on 
the subject of Iraq been perhaps the most forceful and eloquent and 
prescient Member of the Senate with respect to the events there. He has 
been consistent. He has been strong. All Members in the Senate are 
enormously respectful of his voice and his leadership on this issue.
  I know for the Senator from West Virginia, the years I have been 
here, there has been no more stalwart, dedicated, reliable defender of 
America's interests anywhere in the world. There has been no one who 
has stood up more for our young men and women in uniform. I know this 
journey he has taken with respect to his feelings about the war were 
not easy, and they were contrary in some ways to that long record on 
the surface. But it is when you get below the surface and look at some 
of the continuity of his thinking about the Constitution, about our 
obligations as Senators, and about the fundamental reasons why you send 
young men and women to fight anywhere that you see that, indeed, what 
he is fighting for now is as consistent with what he has fought for 
throughout his record and career in the Senate. I thank him for that 
and pay my respect to him.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts for his observations, for his loyalty to his country, for 
his service to his country, and for the costs to his human self. For 
that great service, I thank him. And I thank him for the statement he 
has just made.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator.


                           Amendment No. 2033

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we set aside 
the pending amendment, and I call up amendment numbered 2033.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], for himself, 
     Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Reed, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Jeffords, Ms. 
     Mikulski, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Bayh, 
     Mr. Durbin, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Reid, 
     and Mr. Schumer, proposes an amendment numbered 2033.

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

(Purpose: To provide for appropriations for the Low-Income Home Energy 
                          Assistance Program)

       At the end of title VII, insert the following:

                Administration for Children and Families


                   Low Income Home Energy Assistance

       For making payments under title XXVI of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of

[[Page 22258]]

     1981 (42 U.S.C. 8621 et seq.), $3,100,000,000, for the 
     unanticipated home energy assistance needs of 1 or more 
     States, as authorized by section 2604(e) of the Act (42 
     U.S.C. 8623(e)), which amount shall be made available for 
     obligation in fiscal year 2006 and which amount is designated 
     as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of H. 
     Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on 
     the budget for fiscal year 2006.
       Sec. __. Congress finds the following:
       (1) An imminent emergency is confronting millions of low-
     income individuals in the United States who are unable to 
     afford the cost of rising energy prices.
       (2) Prior to the devastation caused by Hurricanes Katrina 
     and Rita in the Gulf Coast region of the United States, 
     individuals in the United States were facing record prices 
     for oil, natural gas, and propane. Hurricane Katrina damaged 
     platforms and ports and curtailed production at refineries in 
     the Gulf of Mexico, the source of almost \1/3\ of United 
     States oil output, further raising energy prices.
       (3) The Short Term Energy Outlook report of the Energy 
     Information Administration of the Department of Energy states 
     that the ranges for expected heating fuel expenditure 
     increases for the winter heating season of 2005-2006 are--
       (A) 69 percent to 77 percent for natural gas in the 
     Midwest;
       (B) 17 percent to 18 percent for electricity in the South;
       (C) 29 percent to 33 percent for heating oil in the 
     Northeast; and
       (D) 39 percent to 43 percent for propane in the Midwest.
       (4) According to the National Energy Assistance Directors 
     Association, heating costs for the average family using 
     heating oil are projected to hit $1,666 for the 2005-2006 
     winter heating season. Those costs would represent an 
     increase of $403 over those costs for the 2004-2005 winter 
     heating season, and an increase of $714 over those costs for 
     the 2003-2004 winter heating season. For families using 
     natural gas, prices are projected to hit $1,568 for the 2005-
     2006 winter heating season, representing an increase of $611 
     over those costs for the 2004-2005 winter heating season, and 
     an increase of $643 over those costs for the 2003-2004 winter 
     heating season. States need additional funding immediately to 
     help low-income families and seniors to ensure that they can 
     afford to heat their homes.
       (5) The Mortgage Bankers Association expects that steep 
     energy costs could increase the number of missed mortgage 
     payments and lost homes beginning later this year.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this amendment is cosponsored by Senators 
Kennedy, Jack Reed, Dorgan, Jeffords, Mikulski, Lautenberg, Cor-
zine, Kohl, Bayh, Durbin, Cantwell, Clinton, Schumer, Baucus, Harry 
Reid, Dayton, Stabenow, Harkin, Coleman, Snowe, Dodd, Levin, and 
Bingaman. I ask unanimous consent that all of their names be added to 
the amendment as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I know there is a reluctance, and I 
understand it, by the managers of the bill to have an amendment on a 
subject that does not fit neatly and squarely and automatically under 
the bill. As they know, the number of legislative opportunities here 
are very few now, and we are on the appropriations track. This 
amendment has been authorized already, so it is authorized. The 
question is what we are going to do to effect it.
  This is an amendment to deliver $3.1 billion of emergency funding--I 
emphasize ``emergency'' funding--to the Low-Income Heating and Energy 
Assistance Program.
  The tight natural gas market and the devastating impact of the recent 
hurricanes have resulted in what everyone knows and feels in their 
pocketbooks are unusually high fuel prices and very high fuel price 
forecasts for the foreseeable future. According to the Energy 
Information Agency, families are going to pay about 77 percent more for 
natural gas in the Midwest, 18 percent more for electricity in the 
South, and 33 percent more for heating oil in the Northeast. Heating 
oil costs for the average family using heating oil are expected to hit 
about $1,066 during the upcoming winter. That is $403 more than last 
winter, and it is $714 more than the winter heating season of 2003-
2004.
  Rapidly rising energy costs have an incredibly negative impact on the 
ability of low- and even middle-income but fixed-income individuals to 
be able to meet their demands. High prices are forcing working families 
to choose warmth over other basic necessities, or in the South, in 
certain seasons, obviously, cool. Those are tough choices to make. The 
National Energy Assistance Directors' Association found that 32 percent 
of families sacrificed medical care last year in order to be able to 
meet those prices, 24 percent failed to make rent or meet mortgage 
payments, and 20 percent went without food for at least a day. We have 
a whole bunch of people in America who are giving up food or rent or 
medical care in order to be able to pay for the home heating oil.
  Hurricane Katrina is a stark reminder of precisely what happens when 
the Government does not prepare ahead of time for disaster. We have an 
opportunity now to prepare ahead of time. If we do not act now, 
families are going to be forced to choose between medical care and heat 
during the winter. That is just around the corner. In November, it 
begins to get cold in a lot of States. The fact is, having to choose 
between a warm house or a full stomach for your children is not a 
choice anyone in America, the wealthiest nation on the face of the 
planet, wealthiest industrial nation, ought to welcome.
  The number of households receiving what is known as the LIHEAP 
assistance has increased from about 4.2 million in fiscal year 2002 to 
more than 5 million this year, which is the highest in 10 years. LIHEAP 
applications are expected to increase very significantly this winter. 
Yet the funding levels for LIHEAP are not keeping pace. LIHEAP's buying 
power is significantly less than when it was established. According to 
the Government's Consumer Price Index, what cost $100 in 1982 cost just 
shy of $200 in 2004. Using the CPI calculation for inflation, that 
means that a $1.8 billion appropriation for LIHEAP in 1982 should have 
been a $3.7 billion appropriation in 2004. LIHEAP currently serves less 
than 15 percent of those people who are eligible in the country.
  I understand this amendment can be blocked procedurally. I know that. 
I hope that will not happen. It is a bipartisan amendment. It is not my 
preference to attach it to this bill, but it is our only option with 
the recess coming up in a few days. After the comments of the Secretary 
of Energy this week that the administration has no plans of asking 
Congress for more money, we have no choice but to say this is on the 
congressional agenda, this is on our radar.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment to add $3.1 
billion for LIHEAP in the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill. It is 
emergency funding. It does not require an offset as a result. It is an 
emergency. It is the amount we have authorized. It represents the 
amount we need. It is critical funding to avoid a looming but 
absolutely preventable crisis for millions of American families who 
have been hard hit by the additional costs of fuel oil and the 
diminishing affordability of home heating oil as the winter approaches.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. INOUYE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2005

 (Purpose: To curtail waste under the Department of Defense web-based 
                             travel system)

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be laid aside and call up Coburn amendment No. 2005.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2005.

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     obligated or expended for the further development, 
     deployment, or operation of any web-based, end-to-end travel 
     management system, or services under any contract for such 
     travel services that provides for payment by the Department 
     of Defense to the service provider above, or in addition to, 
     a fixed price transaction fee for

[[Page 22259]]

     eTravel services under the General Services Administration 
     eTravel contract.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this is an issue that came to my attention 
not long after I was sworn in as a Senator. I hope the American public 
pays attention to the system I am getting ready to describe because way 
too many things in the Federal Government are bought this way.
  The goal of the Defense Travel System was a worthy goal. It said: We 
travel so much, we ought to have a system that gets us the best fare 
and can do that on a routine basis so we can save money when Defense 
Department employees travel. They contracted with a firm to develop 
that system. It was not necessarily a competitive bid contract either.
  What this amendment does is prohibit money from being spent on 
operations and further development of the system because, quite 
frankly, it does not work. It works less well than any private travel 
system that is out there now. It works less well than the GSA's travel 
system.
  We are now close to $500 million being spent with one contractor to 
develop a system that does not work. The system did not work at the 
first development stage, which cost $47.3 million, and the Defense 
Department bailed them out. It did not work. It has never met the 
requirements or the efficiency or the savings that it was supposed to 
meet.
  It is kind of similar to one of those things you get into and you 
keep hoping it will work, keep hoping it will work, and then it does 
not work. Well, the American taxpayers are now on the hook for almost 
$500 million.
  The Defense Department does not even own this program. That was 
recently changed so the contracting law could be avoided, in terms of 
going after this contractor on it, because it was not competitively 
bid, because it was not managed properly.
  When you review the DTS system, in 2002, the DOD Inspector General 
said it should be shut down unless a cost-benefit analysis was prepared 
that showed the worthiness of its continuation. No analysis has ever 
been conducted. That was in 2002, and we had only spent about $100 
million on it. We are now at $500 million. There is no cost-benefit 
analysis that has been done. Every Defense Department employee can 
travel cheaper following some other system than this system. We do not 
own it. We keep paying for it. We keep paying for the development of 
it.
  The American taxpayers are getting hooked, and yet when we are 
finished with it, we are still not going to have a system that is as 
good as what is in the private sector. It is a boondoggle, at best.
  Program Assessment and Evaluation testified they were unable to 
complete an analysis because the DTS office had not even kept enough 
documentation of their own expenditures to make a reliable assessment.
  We have big contracting problems in the Defense Department, and this 
is the best example I know of that ought to be eliminated tomorrow.
  At the end of the seventh year of an 8-year contract, a cumulative 
total of 370,000 travelers had utilized DTS out of 5.6 million annual 
DOD travelers. So for $500 million, over the 7 years, we have had 
370,000 travelers. It has cost us $1,500 per ticket, not counting the 
price of the air fare.
  There is not anybody in America who would look at this, with any 
common sense, and say we ought to continue this boondoggle.
  The utilization rate for the current calendar year under the Defense 
Travel System is at 15 percent. That means only one in eight employees 
of DOD uses this system to buy a ticket. And then they do not always 
get the best price.
  In order to break even with the costs of DTS annualized--in other 
words, its annual cost--90 percent of DOD employees would have to use 
it. They are not using it. DTS costs $40 to $50 million per year in 
operations and maintenance. Orbitz does not come close to it. The GSA 
accounting system does not come close to it. None of them come close to 
it. Yet we are continuing to spend $50 million of the American people's 
taxpayer dollars before we get the first ticket. So it is a system that 
does not work. It is broken. The contracting mechanism is broken. Yet 
we still have people who are going to come to the floor to defend a 
system that is broken.
  Travel executive Robert Langsfeld testified at the hearing that DTS 
performed less effectively than any--any--civilian e-travel system. We 
have $500 million in it, and it is unending on what we are going to 
have, and it still works worse than any private e-travel system. We 
have spent half a billion dollars.
  The Federal Government has also spent this money on a system that is 
not even reliable. It might work one day and does not work the next. It 
might get you the best fare, it might not.
  Unlike DTS, GSA e-travel contracts do not pay operations and 
maintenance for the programs. They only pay a per-transaction fee.
  So for what was a good idea that turned sour, we continue to pour 
unspoiled milk on soured milk, and it becomes soured milk. So we 
continue to spend money on it.
  The Government still does not own DTS, as I said. It is an 
intellectual property--computer software and source codes. Last year, 
Judge George Miller of the Federal Court of Claims decided he would not 
even look into allegations of violations of the Competition in 
Contracting Act because the software and source codes are owned by the 
contractor. So if the contract were opened for bidding and another 
bidder was awarded the contract, the Government would have nothing left 
but a $500 million loss.
  But last week, before the hearing, the contractor promised to 
transfer ownership of this intellectual property to the Defense 
Department at the end of the contract period, if requested. The reason 
for this, obviously, is to maintain the fiction that the open bidding 
on the contract in 2006 is on the level. It is not. There is no open 
bidding. It violates the very laws that were put on the books to try to 
maintain competition in contracting. Ownership of DTS bounces around to 
wherever it is most convenient for avoiding serious scrutiny.
  One of the secret changes in the contract that was alleged to have 
violated the Competition in Contracting Act was the shift from a fee 
per transaction, as we do with all the civilian e-travel systems, to a 
cost plus guaranteed profit for the contractor. That has proven they 
are inept at developing a system. So now we have even changed the 
contract. Now that we spent $500 million on it, we are now going to 
change it. We are not going to hold them accountable. We are going to 
guarantee them a profit for incompetency and inefficiency. It is fair 
to have Defense contractors reimbursed on the same terms as civilian 
contractors and agency contractors who are doing the same thing. My 
amendment will permit that, and only that, a cost per service.
  Another secret contract change was an agreement by the Government to 
pay $43.7 million that had been spent in development costs by the 
original contractor. We got absolutely nothing for that money. It just 
covered the losses suffered by the contractor in trying to do something 
they were not capable of doing, and they are still not capable of 
doing, rather than to go into the private sector and buy one that was 
already developed.
  This is money the Government was not obliged to pay under the 
original contract, but we paid it anyway. We paid it anyway--$47 
million. We are trying to pay for Katrina now. We are trying to fund 
the war in Iraq. We have a $500 million boondoggle that does not work, 
and we will have people defend that on the Senate floor. The fact is, 
they can't compete. That is what the testimony of the GAO is. That is 
what the testimony of everybody is. They do not even compete. And now 
they are only at a 15-percent utilization rate.
  Failure carries no negative consequences when we contract this way. 
When we contract this way, we violate our oaths as the defender of the 
taxpayers of this country to spend their money wisely. I know I am up 
against a powerful defense contractor as I attack this process. I want 
to support our

[[Page 22260]]

defense contractors. I want to make sure they are there to help us 
fight and win and defend our freedoms, both here and abroad. But this 
is the kind of garbage that needs to come out of the contracting 
system. It is the kind of thing that we need to put on the floor and 
say: Defend this. Defend it. You cannot defend it. It is indefensible 
that we would spend a half a billion dollars trying to get an e-travel 
system, when they are out there working nine times better than anything 
this program has developed.
  I am hopeful the Members of this body, and the American public, more 
importantly, will call this body, will secure this body's attention on 
issues just like that. If we are going to not steal from our 
grandchildren, then we have to be about cleaning up the contracting 
process in the Pentagon. This is a good first step in doing that.
  With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested. 
Does the Senator withhold?
  Mr. COBURN. I withdraw my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I salute the Senator from Oklahoma. We 
have been in Iraq for over 3 years. We have been asking for 
investigations of these no-bid contracts to these large companies. We 
have to have Congress accept its responsibility with oversight 
hearings. More oversight hearings have been held by party caucuses in 
the Senate than by actual committees looking at these same companies we 
think are profiteering and ripping off taxpayers.
  Congress has a responsibility, too, not just the Department of 
Defense. We have a responsibility in the Senate. We ought to bring this 
message to both of our caucuses and say, When are we going to have 
oversight hearings on those contracting with the Pentagon and making 
millions of dollars and not making us stronger as a nation?
  I salute the Senator from Oklahoma. It is a delicate subject. He has 
the courage to bring it before us.


                                  Iraq

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to talk about 
Iraq as well. I come each and every week. The reason I came the first 
week was that back home in Illinois someone said: I watch a lot of C-
SPAN. Why don't you talk about the war in Iraq? Why doesn't anybody 
come to the floor and talk about the men and women dying over there? 
Shouldn't that be brought up every day in the Senate--our sons and 
daughters, husbands and wives, the bravest and best are dying every day 
in Iraq?
  I thought to myself: How can we be in the middle of a war and go 
about business as usual on Capitol Hill? We should be talking about 
this every single day because the war goes on every single day.
  This morning, the Pentagon released these figures as of 10 o'clock: 
1,942 Americans have been killed in Iraq; 14,902 have been wounded. I 
have been to these hospitals--Walter Reed, the veterans hospitals back 
in the Midwest--and I have seen these brave men and women who have come 
home wounded and, trust me, many of those wounds are extremely serious. 
They have come home with amputations, serious head injuries, and 
psychological scars.
  Since the Iraqi elections last January, which were greeted by all of 
us with a great deal of praise for the bravery of the Iraqi people, 
since those elections took place, 507 of these American soldiers have 
died, 507 funerals in America. The numbers keep climbing. Some days it 
is one at a time. Other terrible days it is five or six. Mr. President, 
1,942 Americans killed in Iraq; almost 15,000 wounded.
  So I will keep coming to the floor to address this issue, to make 
sure we never forget these men and women and the sacrifice that they, 
their families, and people who love them make every single day.
  I don't want to pretend for a moment this was brought up to me over 
the weekend. I don't want to pretend for a moment this is the only 
death and suffering in Iraq. There are innocent Iraqi people who die 
every day as well. We cannot even put a number on it. I said to my 
staff: Go to the United Nations, go to the Red Cross, go to some group 
and tell me how many Iraqis have died since our invasion of Iraq.
  They cannot come up with a number. Some estimates are very different. 
The Brookings Institution, which is recognized as a nonpartisan 
research organization, puts the estimate between 14,000 and 24,000 
Iraqis who have been killed since the start of the war. Others have 
estimates that go much higher. We don't know. We don't know how many 
innocent people have died as a result of this war or how many died 
because of criminal violence.
  Iraqis still die every day. Just this last week, we had three 
coordinated car suicide bombs that went off in a single marketplace. 
You have seen the photos. You have seen the people, crushed with 
grief--the mothers, the friends, and fathers, standing next to the 
mutilated corpses of these victims. These bombs that were detonated 
recently were staggered to explode at different times so they killed as 
many innocent people as possible. This is a tactic we have seen over 
and over again in Israel. Now it has come to pass in Iraq on a regular 
basis. It is despicable, it is depraved conduct. It is an example of 
inhumane cruelty.
  These attacks on American soldiers and on the innocent Iraqis 
underline the importance of our mission there and the need for us to be 
prepared to bring this to the right conclusion. We need to have better 
training and equipment of the Iraqi security forces and Iraqi police. 
They must not only have the capability to defend themselves, they must 
have the will to defend themselves.
  Last week, General Abizaid, Commander of the Central Command, and 
General Casey, Commander of United States and coalition forces in Iraq, 
testified before Congress. They disclosed a piece of information that 
had been classified for a long period of time, but they finally brought 
it out to the American people, and we can speak to it on the floor. It 
is a piece of information we have known from our classified briefings 
for some time, and it is this: Of over 100 battalions of Iraqi Army 
forces in existence today in Iraq, exactly 1 battalion is ready to 
fight independently--1 out of over 100. That is an incredible number. 
Billions of dollars that we put in there, promises to the American 
people that Iraqi soldiers will stand and fight so our soldiers can 
come home, and as of last week, these two generals testified in open 
session that one battalion is combat ready as an independent force.
  President Bush has said over and over: As Iraqi forces stand up, we 
will stand down. There is only one Iraqi battalion. That is about 1,000 
soldiers. Only 1 battalion standing up; 146,000 American soldiers 
standing up. They are trying to bring peace to a country that is 
obviously not ready to defend itself and may not be for a long time.
  Many Members on this side of the aisle and the other side are stating 
very clearly that we need assessments, not platitudes, when it comes to 
the situation in Iraq. We need to know how many Iraqi forces must be 
trained so we can start bringing home American troops. We need to know 
when this administration expects we will reach that number. The fact is 
over the last 6 months, despite all the promises that have been made, 
still only one battalion is ready to fight, and the American people 
need to know the cost, not just in these graphic human terms, but in 
terms of dollars being spent: $5 billion a month in Iraq. We 
appropriated $18 billion for the reconstruction of war-torn Iraq, and I 
remind my colleagues that when we debated that, I don't recall a single 
Senator coming to the floor and saying: We have to cut spending in some 
other area before we rebuild Iraq. No, they save that argument for the 
rebuilding of America after Hurricane Katrina. But we put the $18 
billion in place.
  Yet when you read the press accounts of the average families in Iraq 
today, they tell you that life is so much worse than it was a few years 
ago--no electricity, no sewage, no regular water, no security on the 
streets, fears that their children will be kidnapped on the way to 
school. They are trying to leave if they can find a way out. That is 
the

[[Page 22261]]

real situation in Iraq on the ground today despite the heroic efforts 
of our men and women in uniform. Our men and women in uniform have not 
failed; the political leaders have failed--failed to come up with a 
plan which said after Saddam Hussein is gone, this is how we will end 
this war. Sadly, we were not prepared to answer that question, and our 
soldiers have paid the price.
  I am told the President this week will be giving a speech to America 
about Iraq. It is time for some answers, specific answers, and it is 
time for accountability. Let's get beyond the generalities. We are 
talking about real human lives--our sons and daughters--and we need 
specific answers.
  I respectfully suggest the President ought to address four issues: 
First, how many Iraqi forces must be capable of operating on their own 
before we can start bringing American soldiers back home, and how soon 
will we reach those goals?
  Second, what specific measures will the Bush administration take 
before and after the October 15 constitutional referendum to forge the 
necessary political consensus and reconcile the growing sectarian and 
religious differences?
  Three, what efforts has President Bush made or will he make to bring 
in broader international support? The coalition of the willing has been 
shrinking ever since the invasion of Iraq. It is American soldiers and 
some British soldiers and a few others willing to stand and fight and 
secure this country. What is this administration doing, if anything, to 
bring in Muslim forces so we can blunt the criticism that we are 
somehow a force of occupation, unwelcome in this Muslim country?
  Fourth, how should the American people assess the progress in 
reconstructing Iraq? What are the tangible results of the billions of 
dollars American taxpayers have provided for Iraq? How is this money 
being accounted for?
  I made the point earlier to the Senator from Oklahoma that we have 
yet to have a serious oversight hearing about the no-bid contracts in 
Iraq. Haliburton, all of the names we have heard over and over again, 
multimillion and billion-dollar contracts, and we won't even ask the 
hard questions as to whether the money is being well spent. We are 
shirking our responsibility, our congressional oversight 
responsibility.
  I hope the President goes beyond generalities in his speech. Let's 
get down to specifics. Let's say to the American people and the 
soldiers they love: This is our plan for bringing our troops home from 
Iraq.
  I hope this speech is an announcement that we have a new strategy, a 
strategy for success, a strategy for our soldiers to come home. Staying 
the course is not a new strategy. I hope on Thursday the President 
speaks truth to the American people. I hope he offers honest and 
realistic assessments of what we face.
  On October 15, the people of Iraq will vote on a constitution. If it 
passes, there will be parliamentary elections in December. If it is 
rejected, the constitutional process will start all over again in 
December.
  There is a lot of speculation about what might happen. A constitution 
alone is not going to stop the violence, but if the constitution can 
lead to a unified country or the notion of nationhood making any sense, 
then that constitution is a step in the right direction.
  Sadly, this nation of Iraq is a nation of many different groups who 
have yet to show us they can come together, and until they do, it is 
unlikely we can bring our troops home.
  There were 23 of us in the Senate who voted against the use-of-force 
resolution; 23 of us--1 Republican and 22 Democrats who had serious 
questions about this decision by this administration to invade Iraq. 
Many of us felt we needed a broader alliance. Many of us felt the 
information given to the American people prior to the invasion was 
misleading about weapons of mass destruction, nuclear threats, and 
alliances with al-Qaida.
  Sadly, in the 3 years since, we found that information was just plain 
wrong. Information given to the American people to ask them to give 
their sons and daughters in combat was just plain wrong. And here we 
stand today.
  Iraq is a diverse place. The war has made the differences among 
religious and ethnic groups so much more than they were even before our 
invasion. To add to these internal tensions, I know there are many 
neighbors of Iraq who don't want to see that nation succeed. It is a 
mean neighborhood, no question. Syria, Iran, and others clearly are 
fomenting trouble, making a terrible situation even worse.
  The enemies of Iraqi progress in unity would like to see this 
division and chaos continue. The Sunnis, the Shi'as, the Kurds, and 24 
other recognized groups have the future of Iraq in their hands. The 
question is whether they believe they have the possibility of becoming 
a nation and defending themselves.
  Many Sunnis did not participate in the last election to choose those 
who wrote the constitution. We have been told as late as today that 
they are rewriting the constitution 10 days before the election in the 
hopes of winning Sunni support.
  It is hard to believe this is going to result in what we hope for, 
but I pray it will. A stable Iraq, moving forward, controlling its own 
destiny, is the best thing for that country and the best thing for 
America.
  There are a lot of reasons why the Sunnis oppose the constitution. 
They represent 20 percent of the population, but they represent about 
90 percent of these insurgents who are causing these attacks every day, 
killing innocent Iraqis and our men and women in uniform. Most Sunnis 
are not insurgents; they are peace-loving people. But they are being 
overrun by forces they cannot control.
  There is a fight over oil. The oil is primarily in Shi'a and Kurdish 
territory. The Sunnis resent that fact. They want to make certain the 
riches of that country are shared.
  The constitution postpones a lot of critical decisions to a later 
date, but this constitution is the fundamental underlying law that 
could guide Iraq in its future.
  I am told that when we take a look at the militias and forces in 
Iraq, we find they are basically split into different factions. Only 
one battalion combines Iraqis. The others are Kurdish battalions and 
Shi'a battalions and Sunni battalions. It does not give a positive 
feeling about this nation moving forward toward one common country.
  I hope we can see the changes that are being proposed in this 
constitution result in its passage and support by all of the different 
forces that can make Iraq a nation on its own feet.
  Secretary of State Colin Powell told President Bush before the war: 
You break it, you buy it. That is not entirely true. We may well have 
broken Iraq from what it once was, but we cannot and do not own it. We 
are unwelcome tenants at this moment in that country, but we need to 
start thinking about when we will return, and we need to have the hope 
and the aspirations of the people of Iraq in our minds and be prepared 
to accept them.
  President Bush has a chance tomorrow to tell us that there is a new 
course, a course that will stop the killing of innocent American 
soldiers, a course which will avoid those who are wounded and suffering 
as a result of this war in Iraq, and a course which will bring to an 
end quickly the insurgency which kills so many innocent Iraqis.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 7:30 
today, the Senate proceed to votes in relation to the following 
amendments in the order listed, provided further that no second-degree 
amendments be in order to the amendments prior to the votes. The first 
is the Warner amendment No. 1955, which is defense of germaneness; the 
second is Bayh amendment 1933; the next is McCain amendment 1977. 
Provided further that there be 6 minutes equally divided for debate 
prior to each of the above ordered votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 22262]]


  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator from Illinois.
  (Several Senators addressed the Chair.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. If I might just make a parliamentary inquiry of the 
Chair. Our distinguished colleague from Connecticut has been waiting 
for a period of time. I wish to respect that, but I ask following his 
remarks if the Senator from Virginia could be recognized for the 
purposes of a colloquy with the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I am not sure if I still have the floor. I say to my 
colleague from Connecticut that I will speak for about 10 or 12 minutes 
and then will yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that I follow my distinguished 
colleague from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the understanding of the Chair.
  Mr. WARNER. Did we understand that the Senator from Illinois wants 
another 15 minutes?
  Mr. DURBIN. That is right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator had the floor and has that right.
  Mr. WARNER. Yes, of course, I recognize that. I was just trying to be 
informed as to how the rest of us can plan our schedules. The Senator 
from Connecticut might well desire what period of time?
  Mr. DODD. I would say to my colleague, I hope maybe it is 15 minutes 
or so. Depending upon the reaction of the chairman and the ranking 
member of the committee, maybe even less time than that. I will try to 
be brief because I know the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from 
Michigan are interested in having a colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in the interest of keeping business 
moving, I am going to yield the floor at this point and return at a 
later moment. I will let the Senator from Connecticut take the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1970

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois for his 
graciousness. I thank my colleague from Virginia as well for his 
consideration, and I will try to be brief.
  I call up amendment No. 1970 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1970.

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

 (Purpose: To improve the authority for reimbursement for protective, 
safety, and health equipment purchased for members of the Armed Forces 
                   deployed in Iraq and Central Asia)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Reimbursement for Certain Protective, Safety, 
     or Health Equipment Purchased by or for Members of the Armed 
     Forces for Deployment in Operations in Iraq and Central 
     Asia.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to subsections (d) and (e), the 
     Secretary of Defense shall reimburse a member of the Armed 
     Forces, or a person or entity referred to in paragraph (2), 
     for the cost (including shipping cost) of any protective, 
     safety, or health equipment that was purchased by such 
     member, or such person or entity on behalf of such member, 
     before or during the deployment of such member in Operation 
     Noble Eagle, Operation Enduring Freedom, or Operation Iraqi 
     Freedom for the use of such member in connection with such 
     operation if the unit commander of such member certifies that 
     such equipment was critical to the protection, safety, or 
     health of such member.
       (2) Covered persons and entities.--A person or entity 
     referred to in this paragraph is a family member or relative 
     of a member of the Armed Forces, a non-profit organization, 
     or a community group.
       (3) Regulations not required for reimbursement.--
     Reimbursements may be made under this subsection in advance 
     of the promulgation by the Secretary of Defense of 
     regulations, if any, relating to the administration of this 
     section.
       (b) Protective Equipment Reimbursement Fund.--
       (1) Establishment.--There is hereby established an account 
     to be known as the ``Protective Equipment Reimbursement 
     Fund'' (in this subsection referred to as the ``Fund'').
       (2) Elements.--The Fund shall consist of amounts deposited 
     in the Fund from amounts available for the Fund under 
     subsection (f).
       (3) Availability.--Amounts in the Fund shall be available 
     directly to the unit commanders of members of the Armed 
     Forces for the making of reimbursements for protective, 
     safety, and health equipment under subsection (a).
       (4) Documentation.--Each person seeking reimbursement under 
     subsection (a) for protective, safety, or health equipment 
     purchased by or on behalf of a member of the Armed Forces 
     shall submit to the unit commander of such member such 
     documentation as is necessary to establish each of the 
     following:
       (A) The nature of such equipment, including whether or not 
     such equipment qualifies as protective, safety, or health 
     equipment under subsection (c).
       (B) The cost of such equipment.
       (c) Covered Protective, Safety, and Health Equipment.--
     Protective, safety, and health equipment for which 
     reimbursement shall be made under subsection (a) shall 
     include personal body armor, collective armor or protective 
     equipment (including armor or protective equipment for high 
     mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicles), and items provided 
     through the Rapid Fielding Initiative of the Army, or 
     equivalent programs of the other Armed Forces, such as the 
     advanced (on-the-move) hydration system, the advanced combat 
     helmet, the close combat optics system, a Global Positioning 
     System (GPS) receiver, a gun scope and a soldier 
     intercommunication device.
       (d) Limitation Regarding Amount of Reimbursement.--The 
     amount of reimbursement provided under subsection (a) per 
     item of protective, safety, and health equipment purchased by 
     or on behalf of any given member of the Armed Forces may not 
     exceed the lesser of--
       (1) the cost of such equipment (including shipping cost); 
     or
       (2) $1,100.
       (e) Ownership of Equipment.--The Secretary shall identify 
     the circumstances, if any, under which the United States 
     shall assume title or ownership of protective, safety, or 
     health equipment for which reimbursement is provided under 
     subsection (a).
       (f) Funding.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     amounts for reimbursements under subsection (a) shall be 
     derived from any amounts authorized to be appropriated by 
     this Act.
       (2) Exception.--Amounts authorized to be appropriated by 
     this Act and available for the procurement of equipment for 
     members of the Armed Forces deployed, or to be deployed, to 
     Iraq or Afghanistan may not be utilized for reimbursements 
     under subsection (a).
       (g) Repeal of Superseded Authority.--Section 351 of the 
     Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375; 118. Stat. 1857) is 
     repealed.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this is old business in the sense of what I 
am bringing up was a matter considered a little over a year ago on 
similar legislation. I regret that I have to come back again this year. 
My colleagues voted unanimously a year ago to adopt this amendment or 
an amendment very much like it. The other body as well agreed to this 
amendment during conference between the two bodies. It became the law 
of the land.
  The amendment basically said that for those men and women in uniform 
serving in Iraq and Afghanistan who purchased--or family members, 
neighbors, or others--essential equipment that they needed in their 
role as service men and women, it would be reimbursed up to a maximum 
amount of $1,100 over a relatively limited period of time. The 
amendment was straightforward, clear-cut, and enjoyed the strong 
support, I might add, of the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, 
Senator Warner, as well as others who believed this was the right thing 
to do.
  At the time, the Pentagon objected to the amendment, offered talking 
points against it, and said it was unmanageable to have a reimbursement 
program for equipment that our service men and women were having to 
either buy themselves or having bought for them by family members or 
others.
  Over the last year and almost a half, I have had some 15 or 16 
exchanges and correspondence with the leadership of the Pentagon. Up 
until today, and I mean literally this afternoon, there

[[Page 22263]]

had been almost no response to this requirement of law. As of today--
and I will get to this in a minute--they have decided to issue some 
regulations. It is not a coincidence that they are offering those 
proposed regulations the very day I am offering the amendment again on 
the floor. There is an old expression, ``I was born at night but not 
last night,'' and I would love to believe that this was strictly a 
matter of timing, but I am concerned that basically there is still a 
resistance to the idea that our service men and women ought to be 
receiving the kind of equipment they need, particularly in a war zone.
  As we all know, and again I am stating the obvious, we are at war. 
The safety and protection of our troops in the field could not be a 
more serious issue for every single one of us. So why is it that the 
Pentagon has repeatedly failed to adequately equip these men and women? 
As far back as June of 2003, the military was regularly reporting that 
up to a quarter of the troops deployed to Iraq were short of critical 
body armor needed to protect themselves from shrapnel and AK-47 fire.
  Just this last June, the Marine Corps Inspector General estimated 
that 30,000 marines in Iraq needed twice as many heavy machine guns, 
more fully protected armored vehicles, and more communications 
equipment to perform their operations successfully than they were 
getting. Let me repeat: 30,000 marines in Iraq need twice as much heavy 
equipment in some areas as they are getting.
  The Army has had so many troubles mass-producing body armor that it 
eventually lost as many as 10,000 armored plates as reported by the 
Army Inspector General's Office.
  Most frustrating of all is that as casualties mounted due to roadside 
bombs or, in DOD parlance, the improvised explosive devices, IEDs, we 
found that the Pentagon had gravely underestimated the necessary armor 
needed to protect Army and Marine ground vehicles.
  At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in March of 2004, Acting 
Army Secretary Les Brownlee--a good friend of mine, I might add--
testified that the Army had not made fortifications of humvees a 
priority, saying:

       We simply were not prepared for that kind of 
     counterinsurgency that attacked our convoys.

  As a result of all of these failures, our soldiers, our sailors, our 
airmen and marines, were forced to take matters into their own hands in 
far too many cases.
  As early as 2003, the Army's own Soldier Systems Command reported 
that soldiers, particularly infantrymen, were paying an average of $400 
each out of their own pockets for their equipment that their civilian 
leaders had failed to provide them. Again, the Soldier Systems Command 
reported those statistics and that the figure did not even include 
personal body armor that was being purchased. Because they saw the 
Pentagon failing our troops, servicemembers and their families have all 
pitched in to pay for protective gear, even vehicle armor, so they did 
not have to see their own people going off to war without the equipment 
they need to keep safe.
  Things seemed to come to a head when in December of 2004 a soldier 
asked Secretary Rumsfeld about having to sift through garbage dumps for 
scrap metal for Army vehicle armor. The Defense Secretary cavalierly 
replied:

       You have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army 
     you want.

  Of course, we all recall the reaction of the public to that 
statement. It was very negative, to put it mildly.
  Two weeks ago, my office received a call from a constituent I will 
call Gordon, his first name. Gordon is a good American. He is a former 
mayor of a small town in Connecticut and a Vietnam veteran. He asked 
that he be identified only by his first name because he is afraid of 
retribution against his son. His only son is a lance corporal, recently 
deployed in Iraq, in the U.S. Marine Corps.
  A loyal Republican, Gordon is not looking for Government handouts or 
to be challenging the President of the United States. He just wants his 
son to be safe. That is why last month he contacted the online store 
Diamond Back Tactical and ordered combat gear for his son totaling 
$683.36. His purchase included lower back double-plated body armor, CAT 
NAPP body armor for the lower torso and pelvis area. He willingly paid 
for the order in full, as would any parent, I suggest. But why is it 
that this family had to place a purchase order on their own? And how 
can we bear to let good Americans such as Gordon pay this price when 
there should be regulations on the books providing reimbursements for 
these kinds of purchases if we are not going to make them on behalf of 
these young men and women ourselves?
  Last week, I met another marine, SGT Todd Bowers, now a reservist 
attending George Washington University, who has already pulled two 
tours in Iraq. On his last deployment, Sergeant Bowers said he was 
fired on by a sniper. It was not the gear provided by the Marine Corps 
that saved his life but, rather, a $600 rifle scope that his father had 
just purchased at a gun show in Arizona and a pair of goggles he 
himself bought for $100. The bullet from the insurgent's gun lodged 
into Sergeant Bowers' scope rather than his skull, and the goggles 
guarded his eyes from scattering shrapnel. Thank goodness Sergeant 
Bowers' father made these purchases. But why is it these concerned 
parents had to make these purchases on their own? And what about the 
hundreds of military families without the resources to buy these items? 
Are we going to allow these sons and daughters, husbands and wives in 
uniform to go without the battlefield equipment that is essential for 
their safety?
  This is not a new issue. In fact, we have been sounding the alarm to 
Secretary Rumsfeld and the Pentagon's leadership for several years now. 
To address inadequate equipment supplies, in 2003, I proposed an 
amendment to the emergency supplemental appropriations bill to resolve 
$322 million in shortfalls in critical health and safety gear, 
identified by the Army itself, including body armor, camelback 
hydration systems, and combat helmets. Unfortunately, the 
administration opposed this legislation, and the amendment was defeated 
along party lines.
  Last year, we tried a different approach--requiring the Pentagon to 
reimburse military personnel, their families, and charities that bought 
equipment for military servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fortunately, 
in June of 2004, despite ardent objections, I might add, of the 
Department of Defense, this body approved that amendment 91 to 0.
  On October 9, 2004, this body approved the final version of that 
bill, and the President signed it into law, including a requirement for 
the Secretary of Defense to implement a reimbursement program by 
February 25 of this year. It is now October 5, 2005, nearly a year 
after this provision became the law of the land, over 7 months after 
the Defense Department was required by law to set up a system for the 
troops to receive compensation for the protective gear they purchase 
for use in combat, equipment they bought because the Government failed 
to provide it. All of this time has passed and still the administration 
has failed to comply with the law.
  My office has made dozens of contacts to the Pentagon, both in phone 
calls and in letters, and still we heard nothing back and still little 
action has been taken. Maybe they thought they could just ignore the 
law or that I might just go away. Instead, under pressure from renewed 
press interest on this issue, the Defense Department finally issued 
early guidelines--guess when. Today--for implementing the reimbursement 
program just over 7 months late.
  The regulations are incomplete, with provisions for reimbursement for 
only a select few items. If one needs any proof that DOD is once again 
coming up short, all one needs to do is look at the list of 
reimbursement items. It does not include the gun scope that saved Todd 
Bowers' life. It does not include the gear that Gordon bought for his 
son. It does not even include items that were purchased in an attempt 
to protect humvees with what has been

[[Page 22264]]

called ``hillbilly armor,'' as depicted by this New York Times story in 
May of 2004.
  In this story, a community in New Jersey went out as a community and 
bought a lot of this body armor to use on the floor of humvees to 
protect the young men and women from their own State from those 
problems, such as bombs going off that were taking so many lives. This 
goes back to that date. They would not be included in the list provided 
by the Pentagon.
  As I understand it, there are still no plans for each of the military 
services to actually enforce these regulations. The Pentagon's 
leadership has done everything in its power, unfortunately, to stop 
this measure from being implemented, either by circulating talking 
points against my amendment last year or merely failing to implement 
the statute as it was enacted a year ago. Why should they stop now, I 
ask?
  In their talking points to Congress last year, the Department of 
Defense actually said that it ``set an unmanageable precedent,'' and 
that it would actually ``encourage servicemembers and their loved ones 
to purchase equipment on their own.''
  Such arguments seem absolutely appalling to me. It is the Pentagon's 
failure to equip our soldiers that is causing servicemembers to go out 
and buy equipment, not legislation promoting reimbursement for gear 
that should have been provided anyway. If only the Defense Department's 
leadership had kept its commitment to protect our troops, I would not 
be taking the measures I am taking today.
  I regret to say I am telling only part of the story. It seems not 
only the Pentagon miscalculated what the needs are of our troops, but 
it also underestimated the need to fix the problem in short order. At 
the time I originally introduced my amendment, in June of 2004, the 
Pentagon leadership pledged they would have all the equipment needs 
addressed by July 31, 2004. All troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan 
would have adequate protective gear, they claimed. All appropriate 
vehicles would have the necessary body armor, they said. And according 
to the Pentagon, all our deployed soldiers, sailors, airmen, and 
marines could rest assured that their equipment needs would be met. We 
therefore crafted our amendment to reimburse troops for purchases only 
made between September 11, 2001, and July 31, 2004.
  But, as many military members and their family members such as Gordon 
or Todd Bowers will tell you, private purchases of critical gear are 
still occurring every day. We owe it to our troops to make sure that 
they are adequately compensated for these purchases. For all of those 
reasons, I introduced this additional legislation that I hope will move 
this Government into action.
  Let me briefly describe what it does. First, since Secretary Rumsfeld 
has demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to comply with the law, 
we take out of his hands the requirement to devise the reimbursement 
program, and instead we leave it up to the individual troops' unit 
commanders to decide which equipment need is worthy of reimbursement. 
If the unit commander thinks it is necessary, they can say reimburse 
for it. If they say no, you don't get reimbursed. Leave it to your unit 
commanders. No one knows the needs of our troops better than the 
commanders deploying alongside our fighting men and women.
  Rather than waiting for some bureaucrat at the Pentagon to decide 
what kind of armor our soldiers and marines should be entitled to, it 
is far more appropriate, in my view, to leave that up to their company 
commanders or squadron leaders.
  My colleagues should have no objections to this requirement, since 
they endorsed the unit commanders' discretion in the original version 
of the amendment that was unanimously passed by this body in 2004.
  Second, as I have already stated, in spite of the Pentagon's 
assurances, the military has not yet met the troops' armor and 
equipment needs so the legislation I am offering today will allow 
reimbursement for equipment purchases made at any time in support of 
operations Iraqi Freedom or Enduring Freedom, not just the period 
between September 11, 2001, and June 31, 2004, as originally 
recommended by the Department of Defense.
  Words cannot adequately express this Senator's frustration that in 
the year 2005, the most powerful nation on Earth cannot even see to it 
that its military personnel have the safety equipment they need while 
deployed in harm's way. I believe we owe it to our troops to do the 
right thing and to pass this measure. This legislation has already 
received the endorsement of several national military organizations, 
including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Military Officers 
Association of America, National Guard Association of the United 
States, and the Enlisted Association of the National Guard.
  I particularly thank Retired Brigadier General Green for his strong 
endorsement of this bill, along with Retired Master Sergeant Kline of 
the Enlisted Association of the National Guard for their strong 
endorsement. They appeared with me a few days ago at a press conference 
in which I announced I was going to offer this amendment and gave very 
strong statements in support of this effort.
  Again, I do not want to take up a lot of time. We have already 
adopted this amendment a year ago, virtually the same amendment. I 
regret I am back again more than a year later urging similar action. 
But, again, I point out it has taken far too long for some response to 
this. Again, if the problem were over with, if it were not ongoing, I 
would not offer the amendment. I would be disappointed the 
administration or Pentagon did not comply with last year's law but, as 
I testified, we have problems every single day in this area. The 
Pentagon needs to get to business on this.
  Today they have all of a sudden come up with a proposed set of 
regulations, but I point out no gun scopes, no humvee protection, no 
GPS receivers, no radios. These and other items that are being 
purchased by our troops are included on our list. It is a step in the 
right direction but occurring on the very day I am offering the 
amendment is not mere coincidence, in my view. I thank them for their 
action today, but we need to do more.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment. I hope my colleagues will make 
this a unanimous vote here to support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I commend my colleague from Connecticut.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield for a procedural matter?
  Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Just to correct an error to the Record.
  Mr. WARNER. Certainly.


                    Amendments Nos. 1895, 1996, 2017

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have sent modifications to the desk on 
amendments 1895 for Senator Bingaman, 1996 for Senator Mikulski, and 
2017 for Senator Bennett. I didn't know the amendments had already been 
sent to the desk.
  I ask unanimous consent these amendments, as submitted, be agreed 
upon and not the modifications I sent to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1895) was agreed to.
  (The amendment is printed in the Record of September 29, 2005.)
  The amendment (No. 1996) was agreed to.
  (The amendment is printed in the Record of October 4, 2005.)
  The amendment (No. 2017) was agreed to.
  (The amendment is printed in the Record of October 4, 2005.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.


                           Amendment No. 1970

  Mr. WARNER. I commend our distinguished colleague from Connecticut. I 
would say, knowing him through these many years and enjoying a warm and 
cordial friendship, his indignation was in full control and modest in 
comparison to other periods, but he is absolutely right. Were I in his 
position, I would be indignant about the fact that

[[Page 22265]]

you have tried assiduously to urge the Department to follow the law 
which I was privileged to work with you in putting into effect last 
year. That law was Section 351 of the Defense bill last year. It set 
forth, as the Senator has in this bill, much the same relief for the 
men and women of the Armed Forces who, on their own initiative, have 
gone out and expended, and indeed their families have contributed, sums 
of money.
  I am very much in favor of this. I hope the managers of the bill will 
see fit to accept it. But I do urge upon the managers and my colleague 
from Connecticut that consideration be given to a clause which was in 
the law last year. I will read it:

       The protective safety or health equipment was purchased by 
     the member during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, 
     and ending on July 31, 2004.

  That enables some period of time within which we have an 
understanding of what was involved in the expenditures. We, in the 
legislative body, call that a sunset provision. It is not found in the 
pending amendment.
  Having had modest service myself, as a sailor and so forth, 
inconsequential though that be, I know a little bit about the life of a 
service person. The modern GI, this generation, I guess as great as any 
generation we have ever witnessed in the history of the country--
believe me, leave it to them and they can figure out a lot of things 
that presumably are better than provided by the military.
  The Senator pretty well restricted himself to those essential things 
with which I agree. But if we leave this open, we enable these young 
men and women, proudly wearing the uniform today, to buy a whole lot of 
things. Next thing you know we are going to have an open door for a lot 
of things to be purchased.
  A wrong, in my judgment, was done in the early procurement system of 
this equipment, failure to have it, failure to deliver it in a timely 
way to some of our troops, and you have made that clear today, as have 
other Senators on the floor. But I say, I do believe consideration 
should be given to some terminal date--maybe through 2006--in which to 
give the military the chance to make certain that everything that can 
protect the life is there, and there is no requirement for these young 
people to go out and purchase it on their own.
  Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield.
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. I thank my friend, the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, for his support. You were tremendously helpful. At a time 
when the Pentagon was resistant, the chairman of the committee and 
others stood up and said we should do this--regrettably, we should be 
doing this.
  We have done two things a little differently in this amendment. The 
chairman pointed it out. One, we removed the decision from the Pentagon 
to the field commander to make a decision on what is reimbursable or 
not, on the theory, as a squadron leader or platoon leader, field 
commander, they are in a better position to decide whether or not an 
item a soldier may purchase should be reimbursable, rather than someone 
at the Pentagon who would not have a firsthand knowledge of the kind of 
equipment.
  Second, we limit the amount that can be collected. This is not an 
unlimited amount. Some of these items would be in excess of the 
limitations we put in the amendment. That is what we had last year.
  Third, I am willing to consider some outlying date. The reason we 
limited it last year was because of the assurances we had been given 
that, in fact, the problem no longer existed. In fact, it still exists. 
I am prepared to accept an appropriate time, 2006 or something.
  I hope we do not have to come back to this amendment, but the idea of 
having some outside date as a parameter, I am willing to accept that.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I could regain the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I urge the adoption of the amendment in hopes that the 
distinguished colleague from Connecticut, with two extraordinary 
veterans of military life, can sit down and work this out in a mutually 
satisfactory manner.
  Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement, we have been 
recognized, the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Michigan, to 
conduct a colloquy?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we would like to dispose of this 
amendment if it is possible.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Virginia yield?
  Mr. WARNER. We yield for the parliamentary desire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am constrained to say that even back in World War II 
we bought some of our own stuff and thought the Government should pay 
for it. No one did. The question is, How much should we be able to 
spend? We will work it out. I urge the Senator to allow us to adopt 
this now by voice vote so it will not be involved in the cloture 
process tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1970) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DODD. 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 is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1955

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I note the presence on the floor of my 
distinguished colleague, the ranking member of the Armed Services 
Committee.
  During the course of yesterday, the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee on appropriations, Mr. Stevens, and myself participated in 
a parliamentary situation, whereby the Senator from Virginia sent an 
amendment to the desk. It was actually filed. I asked it be called up 
and it was.
  At that time, there was an objection interposed by the Senator from 
Alaska, referring to the Congressional Record of today, at page S10967.
  We went through the parliamentary situation, whereby I desired to 
have the amendment considered. The Senator from Alaska objected. 
Whereupon, I raised the question of germaneness to the amendment, and 
it was referred to the Parliamentarian.
  I would like to read exactly what the Parliamentarian stated on this 
occasion. I stated: ``the Parliamentarians have advised,'' and I stress 
that word ``advised''--``the Parliamentarians have advised'' that in 
the Parliamentarians' opinion ``there is sufficient language in the 
House bill to permit Senator Warner to assert the defense of 
germaneness with respect to his amendment numbered 1955.''
  I ask, at this moment in time, a parliamentary inquiry. Has the 
Senator from Virginia correctly stated what was put forth to the Senate 
through the Chair? And, if so, what is the nature of the vote that is 
now before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has adequately stated the 
statement that was made with respect to that issue.
  The Senate will vote whether or not the amendment is germane under 
the provisions of rule XVI.
  Mr. WARNER. Would that be as requested by the Senator from Alaska?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer. I thank the 
Parliamentarian.
  I took this action, frankly, on behalf of the men and women in the 
Armed Forces. Our Nation is engaged in war--a war on terror with two 
very major engagements, one in Afghanistan and the other of larger 
proportions in Iraq.
  We have men and women in far-flung posts all over the world, men and 
women on the high seas, men and women back here training, and the men 
and women of the Armed Forces and their families look to the Congress 
of the United States to provide for their needs. That is clearly set 
forth as our responsibility in the Constitution.
  The Committee on the Armed Services was established by this body for

[[Page 22266]]

the purpose of examining the President's budget, examining a wide realm 
of other issues that come before us, and preparing each year a bill 
known as the authorization bill for a certain year--in this case it is 
2006. Our committee did that and unanimously reported out favorably to 
the floor that bill. That bill was taken up by this body and debated 
for a series of days. Some 30 amendments by colleagues were accepted. 
They are part of the amendment that is now pending and is the subject 
of this vote this evening.
  There came a time when it was the judgment of the majority leader and 
the Democratic leader that this bill would be taken down to give a 
higher priority to appropriations bills. That is a leadership decision. 
Thereafter, Senator Levin and I worked with our leadership in an effort 
to get our bill back at a specific place on the calendar so that it 
could be considered by the Senate. It had been our hope that that 
opportunity would have been given to us prior to the appropriations 
bill. All of us who have been privileged to work on these bills through 
the years--this is the 27th year in which I have been privileged to 
work. The same number of years of my colleague--recognize the value of 
the authorization bill being passed prior to the enactment of the 
appropriations bill.
  Given that situation, realities are such that we were not able to get 
it up. We are now faced with the need to exercise every option under 
the rules to get our bill considered. Although it is an extraordinary 
procedure and it has only been done once in 1988, I think we at this 
juncture, given the indefinite time in which our bill could be taken 
up, and the short period in which, presumably, the Congress is going to 
remain in session, have to seize this opportunity at this time to have 
our bill considered in conjunction with the appropriations bill.
  For that purpose, I filed the amendment, amended it to take out 
section B which relates to the Department of Energy, and section C 
which relates to MILCON, leaving section A which is those provisions 
which dovetail and support many provisions of this appropriations bill 
which is pending here today.
  I have heard the distinguished managers of the appropriations bill 
time and time again in previous years, as in this year, explain the 
desirability of having the authorization bill acted upon prior to the 
appropriations bill.
  I readily acknowledge to the managers of the appropriations bill the 
essential requirement to get passed as quickly as possible--hopefully, 
before this recess--the requirements for the ongoing financial needs of 
the Department of Defense. They are critical.
  I have not put this on to that bill as a dilatory measure. And to 
expedite consideration of the authorization bill, I carefully selected 
a series of amendments, originally numbered 110 amendments, and filed 
them at the desk in two managers' amendments, the purpose of which was 
to say to our colleagues they are your amendments. Senator Levin and I 
have reconciled such differences as existed such that we both now 
agree--the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Virginia--that 
they are ready for enactment on our bill through the vehicle 
traditionally used of a managers' amendment requiring just one single 
vote, if necessary. We can perhaps incorporate them into the underlying 
bill--but one vote on these packages.
  Given the changes in circumstances of germaneness, it was necessary 
for the Senator from Virginia to prepare a third amendment, which I 
will now file with the clerk. It is permissible under the unanimous 
consent, and I send to the desk about 100 amendments, which, in the 
judgment of myself and others, are germane to the bill. Therefore, I 
send that to the desk.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am not 
sure that is in order. I would like to reserve the right to object to 
this when the Senator is finished.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at this point in time, parliamentary 
inquiry: Does not the standing unanimous consent allow a Senator to 
file an amendment in the second degree?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendments in the second degree may be 
filed. They are not subject to----
  Mr. STEVENS. Parliamentary inquiry: I thought we had an understanding 
that there would be no amendments filed after a specific time. This is 
a second-degree amendment. We did not permit second-degree amendments 
at that time.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have to say in fairness that I have 
checked with the Parliamentarian each step of my procedure yesterday 
and today. I have checked, and it was the interpretation given to me, 
as frequently given to Members of this body by the Parliamentarians, 
that the unanimous consent did not prohibit, as the Chair just 
announced, the filing of second-degree amendments.
  Mr. STEVENS. That was not my understanding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises that the transcript will be 
reviewed, and the Chair also advises that he is not aware of a 
prohibition of filing second-degree amendments at this time.
  Mr. WARNER. Could the Chair repeat that a little louder, please?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator from Virginia 
that the transcript will be reviewed, and the Chair, as of this moment, 
prior to reviewing that, is unaware of the prohibition on second-degree 
amendments.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Against the filing of second-degree 
amendments.
  Mr. WARNER. Yes. That is precisely what I asked the Presiding Officer 
to accept, and I think your ruling is consistent with the request of 
the Senator from Virginia.
  We can proceed.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. In terms of the content of the package----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield for a question.
  Mr. LEVIN. Without losing his right to the floor, I want to see if I 
can clarify what I understand to be in the package which was sent to 
the desk. My understanding is on the underlying amendment which the 
Senator filed and which I cosponsored that the sections of our Defense 
authorization bill relating to energy and to military construction have 
been removed.
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. And that the purpose of this package is to remove any 
amendments relating to those two subjects from the managers' package.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator is correct. I would add that it was for the 
purpose, at a subsequent time if the Senate enables this amendment of 
the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Michigan jointly put up, 
which is our annual authorization bill, that we would then ask this 
amendment be brought up of 101 amendments by our colleagues and be 
attached to our authorization bill by having one vote, if necessary, on 
one amendment, which encompasses by management procedure 100 amendments 
by our colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is still recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. I yield for a question.
  Mr. STEVENS. There is still a unanimous consent request before the 
Senate.
  Mr. WARNER. No. I have not made one, I say to the Presiding Officer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a unanimous consent request before 
the Senate. The Senator from Alaska is reserving the right to object, 
and that unanimous consent is asked for. Is there objection to the 
unanimous consent by the Senator from Virginia?
  Mr. STEVENS. I still reserve the right to object because I don't 
understand what the Senator is doing. The Senator filed a portion of 
the Defense authorization bill as an amendment. He then filed a 
separate package of amendments--some 80 amendments--to that amendment. 
Now he has filed another set of amendments--as amendments to what?

[[Page 22267]]

  In any event, we thought we had an understanding that there would be 
no second-degree amendments filed under this procedure.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I may try----
  Mr. STEVENS. I would prefer the Chair rule.
  Mr. WARNER. I say to the distinguished Senator from Alaska that the 
Chair has ruled that the----
  Mr. STEVENS. Then I object. I just object.
  Mr. WARNER. If I could clarify what I am trying to do----
  Mr. STEVENS. Does the Chair understand that I object to the unanimous 
consent request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair's understanding is that the Senator 
from Virginia has the right to file amendments for printing and that 
they be called up.
  Mr. WARNER. The Chair is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. He is not proposing those amendments at this 
time. Therefore, it does not require unanimous consent to have that 
done.
  Mr. STEVENS. What the procedure is doing is making sure that an 
amendment is offered by every Senator in the place. The two Senators 
who are not managers of the present bill are offering their package as 
managers of their bill in order to get support of the Senate to attach 
this amendment in the first place. It is a procedure I have not seen in 
my 38 years here in the Senate, and I object to their procedure. But I 
may not be able to be heard on it. I believe this is a very odd 
procedure. Now the two Senators are saying they are the managers of the 
bill and they are going to accept 108 amendments to our bill. We 
haven't even read them. We don't know what they are. We don't know how 
many more amendments will likely come to these amendments.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for an inquiry 
without losing his right to the floor?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes. I yield for a question.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if I could inquire----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has a perfect right 
to submit amendments to be printed. They have not been called up. 
Therefore, they are not in order at this time to be offered, but they 
may be submitted for printing.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that is the request of the Senator from 
Virginia. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield for a question without losing 
his right to the floor, my understanding of the amendments which have 
just been printed is those are amendments to the Senator's amendment, 
not to the bill.
  Mr. WARNER. I beg your pardon?
  Mr. LEVIN. Is my understanding correct that the amendment which was 
just sent to the desk to be printed are amendments to Senator Warner's 
amendment, not amendments to the bill itself?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that is correct. In the event the Senate 
concurs in the position of both of us with regard to the forthcoming 
vote and the Senate agrees as to germaneness, it is my intention to 
call up my amendment, which is the 2006 armed services bill, and at 
that time to put on it a managers' amendment--jointly, the two of us--
which is the third pending amendment at the desk. We will discard the 
other two amendments because this third amendment has been carefully 
drawn to have those amendments, as the Senator from Michigan said, 
those amendments relative to part A, which constitutes the amendment at 
the desk at this time. It will be the subject of a vote, and not parts 
B and C.
  Mr. STEVENS. Parliamentary inquiry: Are not these amendments that the 
Senator struck from the amendment as he offered it--there is a section 
B and C now of the authorization bill, which was struck from the 
amendment? That was the understanding. They would not be offered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has no knowledge of the substance of 
the amendments.
  Mr. WARNER. Fine.
  This third amendment I have filed is simply a consolidation drawing 
from the first amendment of 80-some amendments, and the second, I 
think, was 18 to 20. Only those amendments in this third filing are 
ones relative to part A. All amendments relative in the earlier 
packages--the first and the second I filed--basically were part A, but 
there were some relevant to parts B and C, so I removed those. Because 
if there is a challenge at the time I bring it up--assuming the Senate 
in its vote sustains the judgment of the Senator from Virginia and 
others that there is germaneness in our underlying amendment--then I 
seek to amend that with this third package which constitutes only 
amendments related to part A, such as if there is another challenge on 
germaneness I will not be burdened down by sections B and C.
  In no way does this third filing in any way try to restore parts B or 
C. To the contrary, it takes out all amendments which are related to B 
and C, so hopefully if I have a further challenge on germaneness, it 
can be sustained, that they are germane.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. To try to clarify this, what the Senator from Virginia 
calls part 3 is a skinned-down version of 1 and 2, eliminating from 1 
and 2 those provisions which might violate the understanding which 
existed that there would not be any provisions in this package that 
related to the energy piece and to the MILCON piece. The effort being 
made by the Senator from Virginia, as I understand it, is not to add 
something into this part in violation of an understanding, but is to 
make sure that parts 1 and 2--that this modification complies with the 
understanding that the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from 
Virginia had; is that correct?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the statement is correct.
  I would not use the word ``understanding.''
  Mr. LEVIN. I apologize for that statement.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator is exercising his rights in a very courteous 
way throughout.
  Mr. LEVIN. But in terms of the representation of what was in the 
package, it did not contain in packages 1 and 2 anything relative to 
the Energy and MILCON bills. The effort of this printed package is to 
make sure the proposed amendments to your amendment comply with your 
representation.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that is correct. The third filing consists 
of amendments only relative to part A in the hopes--if we have another 
challenge at the time we try to amend it. So now the Senate is faced 
with a tough call on this vote. I fully appreciate for my colleagues 
the difficulty of trying to evaluate how Members should vote.
  In all fairness, this Nation is at war. The men and women of the 
Armed Forces are watching ever so carefully what the Congress is doing. 
I am fearful if we do not avail ourselves of this opportunity to put 
our bill on--which has been done once before--and hopefully add those 
amendments which are very important to many Senators, that this could 
be misconstrued not only at home, not only abroad by the men and women 
of the Armed Forces, but indeed there could be some puzzlement 
throughout the world as to where is the Congress in supporting the men 
and women of the Armed Forces.
  This is a critical time. We must do it. I say to my good friend, it 
is not an effort in any way to undermine the Senator's efforts to get 
this appropriations bill through. By the incorporation of these 100 
amendments, together with the 30-some amendments which have already 
been adopted by the Senate the previous time we had this bill on the 
floor, there will not be forthcoming a massive number of amendments 
which in the end could result in a further drawing out of the time 
needed to have this body exercise its judgment on the appropriations 
bill.
  I plead with my colleagues to have an understanding of the imperative 
nature to act upon this bill promptly. It underlies much of what the 
Senator is trying to do in the appropriations bill. It is needed 
authorization language.
  I see my colleague who has joined me in this, if the Senator wishes 
to go

[[Page 22268]]

ahead. Does the Senator have a question?
  Mr. LEVIN. I thought the unanimous consent request would be a 
colloquy.
  Mr. WARNER. That is what we have, a colloquy.
  Mr. STEVENS. How long will the colloquy go on? It has been going on 
30 minutes--20 minutes, anyway.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No time has been offered.
  Mr. LEVIN. I assure the Senator from Alaska I will be brief. I simply 
join in the plea.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Virginia yield the 
floor?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. I join the Senator from Virginia in making a plea to our 
appropriators here, the managers on the bill, to understand the 
situation in which we find ourselves. That is, we had a bill in the 
Senate which the Republican leader decided for reasons which were very 
clear at the time that the bill would be pulled down. It was left in 
limbo. And the request is whether we will now have an opportunity to 
vote on a bill which does so much for the men and women in the 
military. We cannot think of any other way we can bring up the 
authorization except by offering it as an amendment to the 
appropriations bill, which is pending.
  It has met the threshold of germaneness, we are assured. The Senate 
will decide whether it is germane. But the Parliamentarian has advised 
the Senator from Virginia that it meets the threshold.
  So now with the provisions in this bill--the pay provisions, the 
special pay provisions, the bonuses, the death gratuity enhancement, 
the increased life insurance, the health care provisions, the TRICARE 
provisions--we could go on and on--there are critically important 
provisions in this bill to the men and women in the military.
  We have men and women in the military with their lives at risk in 
Iraq and Afghanistan and now we have an additional responsibility in 
the gulf. We have so much at stake. Usually appropriators and the 
authorizers have been able to work together. I hope that will continue 
now. Somehow or other I hope we will be able to figure out a way----
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. If I can finish the sentence.
  I hope we can find a way consistent with the wonderful relationship 
which has existed between appropriators and authorizers in the defense 
area, that we can find a way to get this authorization bill before the 
Senate. We have tried to get it freestanding, without success. This is 
an opportunity to bring this bill to the Senate.
  As the Senator from Virginia said, we have over 100 items which have 
been cleared. That is not done for any sinister reason. That is done 
for a very simple way to expedite this bill so that the appropriators 
are not confronted with 100 amendments. The appropriators should not be 
confronted with an authorization bill where there are 150 amendments 
pending.
  The Senator from Virginia and this Senator have tried very hard to 
accommodate Senators on both sides of the aisle so we could help the 
appropriators, so we could represent to the appropriators that we would 
not be confronted with 100 or 150 amendments, but that a managers' 
package would be able to resolve most of those amendments. That has 
been done. It has been done in good faith.
  I hope that somehow or other the managers of this bill can find a way 
to help us bring this bill to the floor. There will not be more than 
perhaps a dozen amendments that would be offered to this bill, we 
think, because we believe we can work out most of the other amendments. 
That is my plea to the appropriators and to our good friends, the 
Senators from Alaska and Hawaii.
  Mr. WARNER. I will be glad to yield for a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan maintains the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague.
  We have worked these many years together and we have tried to work in 
the spirit of what is best, as our managers of the appropriations bill, 
for the men and women of the Armed Forces. I plead, give not just the 
managers a chance, but give the Senate, I say to our managers, the 
chance to show that they are not going to come up here with a whole lot 
of amendments to drag this appropriations bill down, trying to attach 
those amendments to our amendments.
  We have worked hard for weeks to compile this list of 100 amendments. 
We do not know of any others out there--there are some, but not massive 
numbers--that are going to come in and literally capsize this 
appropriations bill. Give it a chance. After a day or so here, if the 
leadership finds factually that the Senate is taking steps, and is 
within their right to try and put second degrees on, and that is an 
impediment to finishing the bill by Friday, I am sure we can sit down 
with the two leaders and work out a solution.
  I simply say, give us not just a chance but give the Senate as a body 
a chance to show responsibility to enact the annual authorization bill.


                           Amendment No. 1977

  Mr. President, I endorse strongly the McCain amendment. I have been a 
cosponsor from the beginning. I have looked into this situation. At one 
time when I was privileged to be Secretary of the Navy when the war in 
Vietnam came to an end, I dealt extensively with the prisoner issue and 
their families in that tragic era of our history. I have had some 
insight into this situation which enables me to give the strongest 
possible endorsement to this amendment by the Senator from Arizona, a 
very respected member of this Senate and a man with an extraordinary 
record in the armed services of the United States.
  The McCain amendment provides us with the opportunity to better 
ensure our Nation's military does not repeat the errors, faults and 
misdeeds we have seen occur at military detention facilities overseas 
as we fight this war on global terrorism.
  As General Abizaid told us last week this will be a long war against 
terrorists and our Armed Forces must have clear and understandable 
standards.
  The McCain amendment has two parts of equal vital importance, both 
critical. The first establishes clear rules for the conduct of our 
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines involved in interrogation 
operations. It does not add new approaches or techniques, it merely 
takes Army doctrine which is our clearest guidance on conduct of 
interrogations and makes it our military standard as set forth in the 
Army Manual.
  Clearly the Constitution gives Congress a role to play in the 
creation of rules pertaining to the treatment of detainees. Article 1, 
section 8 provides that the Congress shall have power to make rules 
concerning captures on land and water, and also to make rules for the 
government and regulation of the land and naval forces. Rules for 
treatment and interrogation of detainees clearly falls within this 
authority given to Congress by the Constitution.
  The second part of the McCain amendment speaks to American values. It 
tells our soldiers, sailors, airman, and marines, our allies, and the 
rest of the world that the cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or 
punishment are not part of the American character. Our standards 
against cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment are 
deeply rooted in our Bill of Rights. Ultimately it is our uniquely 
American character that must be embedded in our American way or war.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent I be listed as a cosponsor of the 
McCain amendment relative to the treatment of detainees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support the McCain amendment on 
interrogation standards because it protects our troops. Major General 
Fay, in his investigation into the role of military intelligence in the 
prisoner abuses at

[[Page 22269]]

Abu Ghraib, found that DoD's development of multiple policies on 
interrogation operations for use in different theaters or operations 
confused Army and civilian interrogators at Abu Ghraib.'' This 
confusion over what standards applied contributed to the horrific 
abuses of detainees. This confusion has put our troops at risk of being 
subjected to abusive treatment should they ever be captured.
  Senator McCain's amendment would protect our troops by establishing a 
single, uniform standard for interrogations. This is consistent with 
the recommendations of Major General Fay. Senator McCain's amendment 
also requires that detainees in U.S. custody shall not be subjected to 
cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment. This is 
consistent with the high standards to which our military is trained, 
with how we expect our soldiers to be treated if they fall into enemy 
custody, with our international obligations, and with our cherished 
values as Americans. I urge my colleagues to support the McCain 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. If I could make certain I still remain a cosponsor of the 
McCain amendment that is now the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the majority leader laid out a plan for 
the consideration of the Defense authorization bill. It was before the 
Senate for 4 days or a little bit longer. There were over 200 
amendments offered to that bill and it was brought down.
  The Senator from Virginia, the chairman of the Committee on Armed 
Services, came to me and asked if I would object if they put their bill 
on this bill with a time agreement, with specific amendments with time 
limits on each amendment. Senator Inouye and I discussed that and we 
said we would have no objection.
  We were then informed that was not possible. The Senator from 
Virginia said he would like to offer his amendment to this amendment 
for the purpose of putting pressure on the majority leader to make an 
arrangement to call up this bill.
  I urged him not to do that, as a matter of fact. We met off the floor 
and he said he was going to do it. He indicated he was going to delete 
a portion of that bill as he offered it. He did not inform me that the 
reason for that deletion was because the Parliamentarian had advised 
him that the bill would be subject to a point of order on the basis of 
germaneness if he did it. So he eliminated the two provisions of the 
bill that might be subject to germaneness. The Parliamentarian has now 
advised that the Senator from Virginia has a right to raise the defense 
of germaneness and the Senate will vote on that at 7:30.
  Beyond that, the concept now of bringing in 108 amendments to the 
bill when there are still amendments outside--I ask unanimous consent 
that we adopt the amendments offered by the Senator from Virginia and 
that no further amendments from the authorization bill be permitted to 
this bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. I object.
  Mr. STEVENS. That proves it. The Senators do not know how many of the 
other 200 amendments are going to come out here on this bill. I have 
stated time and time again this bill must be passed and sent to 
conference before we leave this week. We will not leave this week until 
we finish this bill. I have told the Senate time and time again the 
emergency supplemental is attached to this bill for Iraq and the war on 
terror and Afghanistan. Those items must be approved by the President 
no later than November 15.
  We had a supplemental for the past fiscal year, 2005. This is the 
supplemental for 2006, and 2006 started October 1. We have a continuing 
resolution we are operating on for the basic operations of the Defense 
Department, but there is no continuing operation for the supplemental 
for Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terror.
  This must be passed. The Committee on Armed Services knows this. The 
Senator from Virginia, I must correct. Never before in history has a 
bill been offered to the appropriations bill and been subject to 
amendment.
  We have taken the authorization bill twice during my time on the 
Appropriations Committee in full, already agreed to by the committee, 
and taken it to conference. We have never accepted a portion of a 
Defense authorization bill and left it open to amendment. Why? The 
Senate can see right now why. The managers have not reached an 
agreement on their bill. The committee has not reached an agreement on 
their bill.
  The bill is subject to amendment, and there are over 200 amendments 
at the desk now that were filed against the armed services bill. They 
have picked out 108 of them, and they have approved them. They never 
consulted with us on what they did, but they have approved them and 
offered them now as an amendment. As they offer the amendment, there 
are other amendments that come in now because of the circumstance of 
how many they have picked out and the ones they have not picked out.
  Does the Senator believe Senators who offered other amendments that 
you will not accept will not come here and ask us to accept them? No. 
They know that. And Senator Levin said there may be some out there, 10 
or 12. Well, how long are 10 or 12 amendments going to take when you 
are on the authorization bill and we are not handling that bill; they 
are.
  I think the Senate has to realize the procedure we are in now. If we 
start down this road, then every time there is a Defense appropriations 
bill someone who has not gotten a bill passed in terms of another 1 of 
the 12 subcommittees--there are 13 on appropriations--is going to come 
in and say: We want to put our bill on your bill, but, by the way, it 
will be subject to amendment. You can call up your bill. We can't call 
up our bill because it is not ready to be called up.
  Now, an armed services bill, when it comes here, is a great bill. It 
takes a long time. We know how long it takes. Our bill usually takes--
one year it took 3 hours. Most years it takes less than a day. Why? 
Because we are a bipartisan subcommittee. When this bill came out of 
the subcommittee, it came out unanimously. Not one Senator voted 
against it. When it came out of the full committee, it was unanimous. 
Not one Senator voted against it.
  The two of us have run a bipartisan team now since 1981. This is the 
first year that this has been done. I hope the Senate says: We do not 
want to do it this way because this is opening the door to an entirely 
new process of using a bill that must be passed as a vehicle to take on 
a bill that cannot be passed. If they could pass their bill, they would 
have done it. They would have proved to the majority leader they had 
amendments, and they could have agreed to them.
  That is not our problem. That should not be the appropriators' 
problem. We have a timeframe. We have 13 bills. We are supposed to get 
them all done once each year. We have had years when we did not even 
have an authorization bill, and we survived it. We have had many years 
where they passed their bill months after we passed the Defense 
appropriations bill, and we survived it.
  But this year--this year--because we are at war, this is absolutely 
wrong, absolutely wrong. I hope the Senate listens to me. We have to 
pass this bill before we leave to go home for this recess for these 
holidays next week. If we do not, we do not have the ability, once we 
get back, to pass it and then get to conference and then get it to the 
President in time for the money to be available to use to support our 
people in the field.
  Now, people say: Well, wait a minute, you can reprogram money. We are 
in a period of a continuing resolution. There is no money that can be 
reprogrammed. You cannot reprogram money now. We do not have 2006 money 
to reprogram. There is no emergency money to reprogram. The emergency 
money is in part of this bill that has to be passed.
  Now, I am getting a little mad. I do not mean to be too mad, but I 
mean to

[[Page 22270]]

be very angry and disturbed at the process. The Senator from Virginia 
and the Senator from Michigan know better than to do this. You know 
better than to do this. It is time for us to realize we have soldiers 
and sailors, marines, the Coast Guard in the field now. The money to 
support them is running out. The reason it has not run out is because 
we did reprogram some money before September 30 we had available then. 
There is no more money to reprogram to take care of this war.
  Now, I do not know how I can express it any more bluntly than that. I 
hope the Senate will listen to us and vote against this concept that 
this bill is germane to this bill to start with. It is not germane. It 
is a whole authorization bill minus the MILCON and energy portions. But 
it is still the whole authorization bill, which is subject to 
amendment. As I said, there are over 100 amendments out there that 
Members have filed already against this bill.
  Now, I will be pleased to take this, if there are no more amendments. 
That was the understanding to start with: We would take their bill if 
they had a time agreement, a time to vote for certain on it. I think we 
have gone too far.
  My friend from Hawaii--I do the shouting; he does the thinking--may 
want to say something more. But I tell you, I am really basically 
deeply concerned about the future of our men and women in uniform if we 
treat their money portion of this process this way. This is the 
authorization process. This is policy. We went into that on another 
amendment today. I don't know much about all the precedents in terms of 
the Geneva Conventions and what is in the Army Field Manual. Those 
amendments--I respect the Senator from Arizona. The Armed Services 
Committee people do. We know what is in here for money.
  The Senator's bill does not pertain to money. It does have some 
authorizations, but that is all right. They can be passed later after 
we pass our bill. No one is going to be harmed. But there is going to 
be a great deal of harm if we do not get this bill passed and sent to 
conference and get it to the President soon after we get back from this 
recess.
  Now, I do not know how we can do anything more than just say, once 
again, the Senator from Virginia has embarked on a course that has 
never been done before. He said it had been done before. It has never 
been done. Never before has a part of an authorization bill been 
introduced to this bill, or any other bill for that matter, that was 
subject to amendment. We do not operate that way. I can remember taking 
a bill that stood off the floor that far because it had so many 
authorization bills in it that could not get through, but we took them 
because they were ready, complete. They were complete. They were ready 
to go, and they took them in an omnibus bill.
  But this is not an omnibus bill. This is one bill. This is a bill for 
the appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year 
2006, plus the emergency supplemental funding for the war in Iraq, 
Afghanistan, and the war on terror. Under those circumstances, I am 
appalled that the two Senators would proceed this way. And I tell the 
Senator from Virginia, our friendship is very close to the brink--very 
close to the brink--because I believe my job is to get this bill 
passed, and get it passed as a bill we know we can go to conference on, 
and get it done and be ready when we get back.
  If we were to take this portion of this bill, the Defense bill, to 
conference, we could not finish the conference until they were 
finished. And that is definitely not proper.
  I yield to the Senator from Hawaii.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, much as I would prefer to have amity and 
comity on this floor and be able to accommodate the concerns of my dear 
friend from Virginia, I must say that I fully agree with my chairman, 
Mr. Stevens of Alaska. This procedure will set a terrible precedent, 
one that we will regret in the years to come.
  If you look at it very carefully, it will take away some of the 
rights of people with minority views. So I would hope that another step 
be taken--I do not know what it is--where we can resolve this matter. I 
would hope the leadership of the Senate realizes the seriousness of 
what we are confronting at this moment. It affects the future of this 
land, and I am not being dramatic.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my two very dear and old friends, 
I tender any apologies, but I have acted strictly in accordance with 
the rules, exercising the right that any Senator has. I feel it is 
imperative because we are a nation at war. We have diligently tried to 
get up our bill, and this is an option I felt under the rules was open 
to me, and I have followed it.
  There was a time, as Senator Stevens did correctly state--and he was 
correct in his statements--that we had hoped there would be an 
agreement between the two sides on what few remaining amendments to our 
bill, over and above the 100-plus that are in the amendment up here, 
could be acted upon expeditiously. I still feel there are but a few 
amendments out there and that we can--Senator Levin and I--resolve 
them.
  I know parts B and C are essential to be enacted into law before this 
session concludes. I would assume at some point in time the leadership 
will enable us to bring up sections B and C, at which time such other 
amendments as colleagues may have can be brought forth and resolved at 
that point in time.
  But I think it is imperative to act now on the core section of the 
armed services bill. I would hope our colleagues would see that we are 
giving the whole Senate a chance--not just the managers of the bill but 
the whole Senate a chance--to show the men and women of the Armed 
Forces, the people of this Nation, that we can, in these times of 
emergency, act in a bipartisan way to reconcile a problem such as this, 
and that if our amendment remains, after the vote at 7:30, and is 
brought up, that there will not be forthcoming a deluge of amendments 
which, in effect, would impair the ability of these two managers to get 
this essential piece of legislation acted upon prior to the 
commencement of the recess, and that there will be a future time with 
parts B and C, when they will be able to bring forth such additional 
amendments as they believe are necessary to be enacted in the 2006 
armed services bill; that is, sections B and C would be the tree on 
which those amendments could be affixed.
  So I say to my good friend, I have acted as I feel duty calls. You 
have stated very clearly the facts. And now I entrust the Senate to 
make the decision that is right for the country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, my last word on this, before we come on 
the 6 minutes before the vote at 7:30, will be this: There are two 
packages of amendments before the desk. Under any normal procedure, 
Senator Inouye and I would review those amendments. We have not seen 
them. We have not even gotten a copy of them. Normally we would have 
had a copy of them, at least. But we do not know how many of those are 
in conflict with our own bill.
  The two Senators have acted as managers of a part of our bill because 
they offered their bill as an amendment. What procedure is this? How 
can we assure the Senate what is in this bill? How can we even be 
prepared to go to conference on this bill when we do not know what is 
in those two packages? There are three portions here. We know what is 
in the part A, which was part of the authorization bill, but these 
amendments, we don't know what they are. We may have already accepted 
some of them. I do not know.
  But I think it is really a strange procedure that anyone would 
suggest, by offering an amendment, that control over the bill go to 
members from other committees and, in doing so, they clear amendments 
that we will have to defend in conference, theoretically, as Members of 
the Senate, but we do not know what is in them. No one knows what is in 
them. Normally, a package like that, if they had their bill out here, 
the Defense authorization bill,

[[Page 22271]]

they would have a bill in front of us, wouldn't they? As a matter of 
fact, I think the rules require it. But now there are amendments 
offered at the desk, and I do not think they have given anyone a copy 
of the amendments.
  I think this procedure violates the rules of the Senate. I am not 
going to get into the problem of that yet because we are going to vote 
on germaneness. Germaneness does not eliminate the points of order we 
may have against those amendments later. But as a practical matter, 
this is a really odd procedure, and one that is bound to, as the 
Senator from Hawaii said, lead to processes in the future that will be 
totally unmanageable.
  I urge the Senate to think about this as we approach the vote at 7:30 
p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Parliamentary inquiry: Did not the Senator from Virginia 
on Monday file an amendment in the nature of a managers' amendment with 
60 amendments and they have been at the desk since that period of time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That would be a matter of public record. The 
Chair does not keep a record.
  Mr. WARNER. A matter of public record. Then yesterday I filed a 
second amendment with about 18 in the nature of a managers' amendment, 
and they were in the public record.
  I say to my good friends, the amendment I filed today, the third one, 
is nothing more than taking from each package only those amendments 
which have been at the desk, filed, and consolidating them in a third 
package.
  I say to my friend, I am in no way trying to be devious at all. Those 
amendments have been a matter of public record Monday, Tuesday, and 
today's amendment simply is a consolidation of all of those that have 
been at the desk in that period of time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Rhode Island is 
waiting, and I will be very brief. First, it is not a happy day for 
this body when we are in this kind of imbroglio where we are unable to 
accept as an amendment on an appropriations bill the authorization for 
the men and women who are fighting in our Nation's defense around the 
world. It seems to me the least we can do, however this is sorted out, 
is to have the distinguished leaders--Senators Stevens, Inouye, Levin, 
and Warner--sit down and see if there is a way to work this out. It may 
require the participation of the respective leaders. But we should not 
be in a situation where the best option is to attach an entire 
authorization bill as an amendment to an appropriations bill. It is a 
sad commentary on the way we do business.


                           Amendment No. 1977

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, if I can ask the indulgence of my friend 
from Rhode Island for 1 minute, I would like to read a statement into 
the Record.
  It reads:

                           GEN Colin L. Powell, USA (Retired),

                                  Alexandria, VA, October 5, 2005.
       Dear Senator McCain: I have read your proposed amendment to 
     the Defense Appropriations Bill concerning the use of the 
     Army Field Manual as the definitive guidance for the conduct 
     of our troops with respect to detainees. I have also studied 
     your impressive statement introducing the amendment.
       I fully support this amendment. Further, I align myself 
     with the letter written to you by General Shalikashivili and 
     a distinguished group of senior officers in support of the 
     amendment.
       Our troops need to hear from the Congress, which has an 
     obligation to speak to such matters under Article I, Section 
     8 of the Constitution. I also believe the world will note 
     that America is making a clear statement with respect to the 
     expected future behavior of our soldiers. Such a reaction 
     will help deal with the terrible public diplomacy crisis 
     created by Abu Ghraib.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Colin Powell.

  I hope my colleagues will pay very careful attention to our former 
Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I do not 
have to tell any of my colleagues of his outstanding and superb record 
of service to this Nation and the depth of his knowledge as it pertains 
to this and many other national security issues.
  I am very grateful he has come forward with this statement, and I 
hope my colleagues will pay attention to it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I want to 
commend my long-time friend, Senator McCain, for the initiative he has 
taken. It has been a privilege for me and many others to join him in 
this effort. I think what he stated here should be taken into 
consideration by every Senator tonight as they cast his or her vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                           Amendment No. 2033

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, rising energy prices could financially wipe 
out working-class families and seniors this winter. We are about to see 
an extraordinary runup in prices that imperil the ability of many 
families simply to keep their homes warm during this coming winter.
  In New England, the average cost for a family using heating oil is 
projected to hit $1,666 during the upcoming winter. This represents an 
increase of $403 over last winter's prices and $714 over the winter 
heating season of 2003-2004. That is an extraordinary increase in the 
cost families have to spend to heat their homes.
  For a family using natural gas in the Midwest, prices are projected 
to hit $1,568, representing an increase of $611 over last year's prices 
and $643 over the price of the 2003-2004 heating season.
  The Mortgage Bankers Association, looking at this data, expects steep 
energy costs could increase the number of missed payments and lost 
homes this year. So we have observers who are fearful that this huge 
energy shock could cause families to, indeed, lose their homes.
  In America, no family should be forced to choose between heating 
their home or putting food on the table for their children. No senior 
citizen should have to decide to either buy lifesaving pharmaceuticals 
or pay their electric bill. But, unfortunately, low-income working 
Americans are facing these decisions this winter.
  In some respects, this is a tidal wave, not of rising water but of 
rising energy prices which is a consequence of Hurricanes Katrina and 
Rita.
  For this reason, Senator Kennedy, Senator Kerry, and I offered an 
amendment to the Defense Department appropriations bill to provide $3.1 
billion in emergency funds for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program, known as LIHEAP. This funding will provide our Nation's most 
vulnerable--low-income families, seniors, and disabled individuals--
with affordable energy this winter. Again, we saw and were shocked as a 
nation to see rising waters imperil the most vulnerable in our society 
on the gulf coast. Well, these rising energy prices will do the same 
thing by threatening the most vulnerable people through the Northeast, 
through the Midwest, through every area of the country that anticipates 
cold weather this winter.
  I urge my colleagues to join us to secure $3.1 billion in additional 
LIHEAP funding.
  In September, I, along with over 20 of my colleagues, both 
Republicans and Democrats, sent a letter to the President urging that 
he include additional funding for LIHEAP in a supplemental 
appropriations bill for Hurricane Katrina. We sensed, as he sensed, 
that one of the consequences of Katrina was a severe shock to our 
energy sector with complementary increases in prices. So I believe it 
is appropriate to deal with this issue now. We are waiting not only for 
the supplemental for Katrina, but also dealing with it on this 
particular appropriations bill.
  On Monday, I was dismayed to learn that President Bush currently does 
not have plans to request additional LIHEAP funds this year. States are 
bracing for a crisis caused by a lack of affordable energy, and this 
funding will ensure low-income families and seniors will have safe, 
warm homes this winter.
  President Bush, I strongly urge that you reconsider. The warning has 
been issued. Will you once again ignore a looming crisis facing 
America?

[[Page 22272]]

  In addition to LIHEAP funding, there are other steps that Congress 
and the administration need to take to address our Nation's high energy 
costs. First, we need to pass Senator Cantwell's Energy Emergency 
Consumer Protection Act to ban price gouging at the gas pump in the 
wake of natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina.
  Second, we need to pass Senator Dorgan's Windfall Profits Rebate Act 
which imposes a temporary windfall profits tax on big oil companies and 
uses the revenues to provide a rebate to American consumers to help 
offset the higher cost of oil and gasoline products.
  Total energy spending for the Nation this year will approach $1 
trillion, 24 percent higher than in 2004. Energy will claim the biggest 
share of U.S. output since the end of the oil crisis 20 years ago. Oil 
and natural gas companies are making record profits, while energy 
prices are overcoming and overtaking workers' salary increases. This is 
wrong.
  We also must fix those bankrupt energy policies that provide oil and 
gas companies with billions of dollars from the Federal Treasury for 
production. These tax breaks should be repealed to pay for LIHEAP and 
conservation programs that help American energy consumers, not big 
business.
  The Federal Government must lead by example also. The President 
called on Americans to reduce their energy consumption and conserve 
oil. I know American families are up to this challenge and will 
respond. But Americans have the right to expect that their President 
and their Government will also make sacrifices.
  The President should implement a Federal savings target to 
demonstrate a serious commitment to improving our Nation's energy 
security. He should set a 40-percent savings target for Federal 
agencies by 2020. Over the past few years, the Federal Government has 
reduced its petroleum consumption by less than 1 percent. We can and we 
must do better.
  As a nation, we must step back and evaluate our priorities. Now is 
not the time to cut funding for social programs such as LIHEAP, 
Medicaid, and food stamps that support working families and seniors 
while the President and Members of the Senate continue to push for 
irresponsible tax breaks. We must prioritize, and the most vulnerable 
among us must be considered first.
  Millions of Americans are struggling each day to make ends meet. They 
deserve our support. I hope the President and this Congress will heed 
this warning and help build an energy safety net for all Americans.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1963

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, in behalf of the Senator from New Jersey, 
Mr. Lautenberg, I send to the desk an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for Mr. Lautenberg, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1963.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to maintain a website 
 listing information on Federal contractor misconduct, and to require 
  reports on Federal no-bid contracts related to Iraq reconstruction)

       On page 220, after line 25, add the following:

     SEC. 8116. ENSURING TRANSPARENCY IN FEDERAL CONTRACTING.

       (a) Publication of Information on Federal Contractor 
     Misconduct.--The Secretary of Defense shall maintain a 
     publicly-available website that provides information on 
     instances of improper conduct by contractors entering into or 
     carrying out Federal contracts, including instances in which 
     contractors have been fined, paid penalties or restitution, 
     settled, plead guilty to, or had judgments entered against 
     them in connection with allegations of improper conduct.
       (b) Reports on Federal No-Bid Contracts Related to Iraq 
     Reconstruction.--
       (1) Reports required.--Not later than 7 days after entering 
     into a no-bid contract to procure property or services in 
     connection with Iraq reconstruction, the head of an executive 
     agency shall submit to the Secretary of Defense a report on 
     the contract.
       (2) Content.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1) 
     shall include the following information:
       (A) The date the contract was awarded.
       (B) The contract number.
       (C) The name of the contractor.
       (D) The amounts awarded and obligated under the contract.
       (E) The scope of work under the contract.
       (3) Publication.--The Secretary of Defense shall maintain a 
     publicly-available website that lists the information 
     provided in reports submitted under paragraph (1).
       (4) Executive agency defined.--In this subsection, the term 
     ``executive agency'' has the meaning given such term in 
     section 4 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 
     U.S.C. 403).

  Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Chair.


                           Amendment No. 2016

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk on behalf 
of Senator Shelby.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Shelby, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2016.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prohibit the transfer from the Army of authority relating 
               to the tactical unmanned aerial vehicles)

       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Prohibition on Transfer of Authority On 
     Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.--None of the funds 
     appropriated by this Act may be used to transfer research and 
     development, acquisition, or other program authority relating 
     to current tactical unmanned aerial vehicles (TUAVs) from the 
     Army.
       (b) Extended Range Multi-Purpose Unmanned Aerial 
     Vehicles.--The Army shall retain responsibility for and 
     operational control of the Extended Range Multi-Purpose 
     (ERMP) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) in order to support the 
     Secretary of Defense in matters relating to the employment of 
     unmanned aerial vehicles.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, regarding the two amendments that were 
sent to the desk, I ask that they be considered en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments will be 
considered en bloc.
  The question is on agreeing to amendments Nos. 1963 and 2016.
  The amendments (Nos. 1963 and 2016) were agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Has the Senator called up an amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is about to identify the amendment 
she wishes to call up.
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1942

  Ms. LANDRIEU. I call up amendment No. 1942.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1942.

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

[[Page 22273]]



(Purpose: To make available $10,000,000 for Operation and Maintenance, 
 Air Force, and $20,000,000 for Other Procurement, Air Force, for the 
     implementation of IMT-2000 3G Standards Based Communications 
 Information Extension capability for the Gulf States and key entities 
          within the Northern Command Area of Responsibility)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Implementation of IMT-2000 3G Communications 
     Capabilities.--Of the amount appropriated by title II under 
     the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', up to 
     $10,000,000 may be used by the United States Northern Command 
     for the purposes of implementing IMT-2000 3G Standards Based 
     Communications Information Extension capabilities for the 
     Gulf States and key entities within the Northern Command Area 
     of Responsibility (AOR).
       (b) Implementation of IMT-2000 3G Communications 
     Capabilities.--Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by title III under the heading ``Other Procurement, 
     Air Force'', up to $20,000,000 may be used by the United 
     States Northern Command for the purposes of implementing IMT-
     2000 3G Standards Based Communications Information Extension 
     capabilities for the Gulf States and key entities within the 
     Northern Command Area of Responsibility (AOR).

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as we consider many important amendments 
to this underlying bill, I will take just a moment to speak about this 
amendment which I offer that will call the attention of my colleagues 
to the important investments that we should be making in 
interoperability and communications.
  As my colleagues know, we have had a very recent disaster along the 
gulf coast that has made quite apparent the lack of a communications 
system that is adequate to handle natural disasters of this magnitude 
and even manmade disasters that we could contemplate. So this is quite 
serious. I know there are many committees of the Senate and the House 
that are working very hard on this issue right now.
  Since Katrina and Rita and even before these terrible hurricanes and 
the subsequent flooding of this region, which has been devastating, we 
have known for some time that we have to get a better system of 
communication. Our military has some interesting and very promising 
initiatives underway that could truly help us at this time. That is 
basically what this $30 million amendment will do, is dedicate or 
allocate $30 million to U.S. Northern Command for the purposes of 
implementing IMT-2000 3G Communications Capabilities. The IMT-2000 3G 
Standards will be used for the Gulf States and key entities within the 
Northern Command Area of Responsibility, AOR.
  We have many needs that have shown themselves out of this storm and 
out of the subsequent disaster. It would be hard even for the Senator 
from the State that was most directly hit to have to list them in an 
order of priority because they are overwhelming and they are so great: 
water, food, electricity, housing, direct help to our local 
governments. We will debate that as these days unfold, and we will 
debate that as these weeks and months unfold.
  One thing I am positively sure of is that the communications system 
we had in this country did not work well in 9/11. It did not work well 
for the hurricanes that hit the Presiding Officer's State in such a 
devastating way only a year or two ago, and it did not work well for 
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, which experienced one of the worst 
natural disasters in the history of the country.
  To address the devastating problems caused by the lack of 
communication, $30 million is a small investment. I offer this 
amendment and ask, as we move through the next few days of 
consideration of this Defense bill, if we would please take a very 
careful look at the importance of this amendment.
  I submit the amendment for the Senate's consideration.
  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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment pending which I would 
like to speak to. I will not call up this amendment at this time.
  Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. The unanimous consent agreement was to set aside the 
quorum call. I wanted to find out if the Senator is going to be 
offering it now. I wanted to get the floor if he is. If not, I will not 
object.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I am only going to 
speak to my amendment and will offer it at a later time, and I will 
probably take in the range of 10 or 15 minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. I will not object.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, military personnel are under tremendous 
pressure to be physically fit. The conditions under which they work and 
train are often harsh and demanding, making physical strength and 
endurance essential.
  This pressure makes dietary supplements particularly attractive to 
members of our Armed Services, especially products marketed for weight 
loss and performance enhancement.
  Finding these products on base is easy. A 2004 report on dietary 
supplements in the journal Military Medicine notes that a newly 
deployed U.S. Air Force base had eight different dietary supplements 
stocked on its shelves that were marketed for weightlifting and energy 
enhancement just 5 months after it opened. Six of these products 
contained the notorious supplement ephedra.
  This article appeared in Exchange and Commissary News last month. It 
describes a store where the ``supplement category is located on the 
main aisle at the front of the store, indicative of its importance to 
our customers.''
  Thermogenic's Extreme Thermo Rush is one of the most popular items. 
Extreme Thermo Rush contains 200 mg of caffeine. That is the equivalent 
caffeine in five cans of Coca-Cola. In addition, this drink contains 
200 mg of Citrus Aurantium, which is an ephedra-substitute that was 
found by a group of University of California scientists to increase 
heart rate among healthy people. It is a stimulant. These scientists 
released a report in April saying that dietary supplements containing 
Citrus Aurantium could have some of the same adverse health effects 
associated with ephedra products.
  Let's look at just how many service members are taking supplements.
  As you can see from this chart, a 1999 study by the U.S. Army 
Research Institute for Environmental Medicine found that 85 percent of 
the 2,200 male soldiers surveyed reported use of dietary supplements.
  A similar study conducted by the Department of the Navy found that 89 
percent of Marines have used supplements. When broken down by category, 
the survey showed that 26 percent of Marines took supplements 
containing stimulants.
  Most dietary supplements are safe and provide health benefits to 
those who take them.
  I am not on the warpath against a daily vitamin tablet. I take my 
vitamins every day. I don't know if it helps to make me healthy, but it 
makes me feel better to take them and I do, and I think everyone should 
have the right to make that decision. But we are talking about a 
different category of dietary supplements. We are not talking about 
multivitamins or minerals, we are talking about stimulants.
  Some of these supplements, these stimulants, can cause serious harm. 
Of greatest concern are those containing stimulants such as ephedra and 
citrus aurantium, which are often marketed for energy promotion, 
performance-enhancement, and weight loss. The Navy released a list of 
serious problems they had encountered among sailors and officers 
related to dietary supplements recently. The list includes health 
events such as death, rapid heart rate, shortness of breath, severe 
chest pain, and becoming increasingly delusional. These are over-the-
counter products sold nominally to make you more energetic or to lose 
weight which when taken result in these conditions: shortness of 
breath, rapid heart rate, severe

[[Page 22274]]

chest pain, and becoming delusional, and in one or two cases, probably 
more, actual death. Unfortunately, most of the time adverse events such 
as these are never known to the Food and Drug Administration or to the 
public because not only is there no premarket safety review of these 
products, there is not even a mandatory adverse-events reporting to the 
FDA.
  Consider this: If you walk into a drugstore to fill a prescription 
the doctor has given you, the prescription is filled, you go home, you 
have a bad reaction to that drug, and you go back to the hospital or 
doctor because of that reaction. That is reported to the Food and Drug 
Administration. The FDA can then look across America and say: Wait a 
minute, we are finding people who have adverse reactions to this drug 
over and over again. We better take a closer look at it or take it off 
the shelf because it could be dangerous. So the prescription drugs you 
buy have an adverse-event report requirement. In other words, if you 
sell the product in America and somebody gets sick or dies, you have to 
tell somebody. You have to report it to the Government. So if, in fact, 
it is a dangerous product, it is removed from the shelf.
  Then let's go back to the beginning. In order to put a product on the 
shelf like a prescription drug, they have to be tested in advance by 
the Food and Drug Administration for two things: safety and efficacy. 
In other words, if you take the normal dosage, would the normal person 
be safe in taking it? I think we want to know that. And second, is that 
drug which you just took for arthritis really helpful when it comes to 
the condition of arthritis? Efficacy.
  But the dietary supplements we are talking about are never tested in 
advance. They are not tested as to whether they are safe. There is no 
FDA review of clinical data. There is no requirement manufacturers 
produce it. And when it comes to efficacy, we find time and again that 
these companies, many of them fly-by-night operations by people with 
limited resumes and limited talent selling so-called supplements with 
all sorts of health claims, turn out be not even close to effective for 
what they charge or what they say they can achieve. Here you have a 
whole category of dietary supplements without testing as to their 
safety, without testing to make sure they actually do what they say 
they are going to do, for sale. Where? All over America, in every 
drugstore you walk into, and some gas stations. If you go into a 
convenience store or gas station, don't be surprised to see dietary 
supplements on the counter. I bet you think as a consumer they couldn't 
sell those in America if they were not safe. Yes, they could. There is 
no requirement they be safe. There is no requirement they be tested.
  So you think, I guess if somebody ever got sick, they would be 
reported to the Government, and the Government would take them off the 
shelf. There is no requirement in the law to report, even if a person 
drops dead from taking a dietary supplement. It is, in fact, the 
biggest gamble a consumer can take for many of these dietary 
supplements. There has been no testing. There are very few, if any, 
quality standards to certify what they say on the label happens to be 
what is inside the bottle. There is no testing to determine if it is 
effective. There is no report if it turns out it is harmful.
  I referred several times in this statement to ephedra, supplements 
containing ephedra. The military across the United States took ephedra 
off its shelf at the end of 2002 because between 1997 and 2001 at least 
30 Active-Duty personnel died after taking it. Ephedra is something 
most people are aware of. Ephedra was this dietary supplement, this 
naturally occurring substance similar to the drug ephedrine, which 
people took and which was a stimulant. Over the years, we found out it 
was dangerous to a lot of people. Thirty Active-Duty military personnel 
died. Many others did as well. It turns out that ephedra was then 
banned in Canada. You cannot buy it in Canada.
  The American Medical Association suggested we ban it here in the 
United States, too, because it is too dangerous to be sold as a dietary 
supplement. But the industry that makes these products is extremely 
powerful. As I recount to you what happened with ephedrine, you will 
find out why.
  After 7 years of effort, the FDA finally banned ephedra in 2004. At 
that time, 150 deaths were linked to that product. But one Federal 
court in Utah this past April called into question the FDA procedure, 
and marketers of these products have hit the street with advertising: 
Ephedra Is Back. Look at this. Natural Life Nutrition Center in 
Cincinnati, OH, days after this court decision in Utah: ``Ephedra Is 
Back.'' You can buy your ephedra products again. They put up the sign 
to try to lure customers back. The court in Utah said the FDA had 
failed to justify its rule banning ephedra, particularly at lower 
doses, particularly 10 milligrams or less per day.
  The FDA has said it will continue to enforce its ban except for doses 
10 milligrams or lower, but less than 2 weeks after the ruling, just to 
show you how toothless the Food and Drug Administration is when it 
comes to dietary supplements, I had one of my staffers get on the 
Internet and see if we could buy some ephedra in larger doses. This 
staffer bought 30 pills containing 200 milligrams each from a company 
with a post office box in Boonville, MO.
  The Federal Drug Administration, after this Utah court decision, 
said: OK, we will let you sell ephedra, but it can't be in doses in 
excess of 10 milligrams. It turns out that there is no enforcement 
whatsoever. You can continue to buy this ephedra over the Internet in 
200-milligram doses, which could be very dangerous, if not lethal.
  The FDA has announced it is appealing this ruling on ephedra, but 
clearly its hands are tied as it waits for a decision. That is why we 
need to step in. Congress needs to address this problem. We may not 
solve it with this bill, but we can do something to protect our men and 
women in uniform. We should be protecting everyone in America, but this 
bill addresses our men and women in uniform, and that is what my 
amendment addresses.
  The intent of my amendment is to protect American soldiers from 
dietary supplements containing stimulants that have unknown adverse 
effects. This amendment will disallow funds from being used by military 
stores to sell dietary supplements containing stimulants in cases where 
it is made known to the Department of Defense that the manufacturer 
does not have a policy of reporting their serious adverse events to the 
FDA's Special Nutritional Adverse Event Monitoring System.
  We know this happens. Manufacturers collect information, and we know 
it because of this infamous Metabolife case. You maybe remember the 
Metabolife brand. It was all over television, magazines, newspapers, 
selling Metabolife. It was something that was going to make you 
healthier and thinner and give you more energy.
  About 5 years ago, Metabolife, a dietary supplement company 
specializing in diet products containing ephedra, told Congress it had 
received no reports of people taking their products who experienced 
serious injury or death. Guess what. They lied. After the company was 
sued, it was revealed that Metabolife had actually received over 16,500 
adverse events of Metabolife with ephedra. Many reports were serious. 
They knew that more than 100 people had died from their product. They 
misled Congress. They told us they had not received any information of 
people taking their product and experiencing serious injury or death. 
Finally, when they were sued, the information came out.
  The FDA collects that kind of information on prescription drugs and 
over-the-counter drugs. If they learned that something was being sold 
in America that killed 100 people or injured 16,000 people, they 
clearly would take action. But this industry is so powerful here in 
Washington that they conceal this information. They will not share it 
unless they are forced in a lawsuit.
  You think to yourself, Why hasn't Congress risen to its 
responsibility of protecting consumers? Why don't we at a minimum 
require these companies to report it when these dietary supplements 
harm people seriously or kill them?

[[Page 22275]]

  Frankly, this Congress is in the thrall of this industry, and it has 
shown for so many years. I went to the floor, this floor, last year to 
address the same issue. Some of my colleagues came to the floor and 
said: Oh, we can't wait to join you. This is a great idea, adverse-
event reporting. Here we are again a year later and nothing has 
happened. The same Senators who said, ``We can't wait to work with 
you'' can't return phone calls when it comes to this issue.
  My challenge to them is this: If you truly want to keep dangerous 
products off the market, if you happen to believe they are healthy 
products and don't hurt anybody, why are you afraid of adverse-event 
reporting? If it is good enough for the major pharmaceutical companies, 
why isn't it good for the nutritional supplement industry?
  I hope my colleagues will come to the Chamber and understand that we 
are putting our men and women in uniform at risk by selling these 
dietary supplements which are being used by so many men and women in 
uniform and are dangerous. They are dangerous to their health.
  The Institute of Medicine issued a report last year recommending that 
adverse-event reporting become mandatory for dietary supplement 
manufacturers--the Institute of Medicine. Here is what they said:

       [W]hile spontaneous adverse event reports have recognized 
     limitations, they have considerable strength as potential 
     warning signals of problems requiring attention, making 
     monitoring by the FDA worthwhile.

  The Institute of Medicine recommended that Congress amend the 1994 
supplement act, DSHEA, to require manufacturers of supplements to 
report to the FDA in a timely manner any serious adverse event 
associated with the use of their products.
  The supporters of the amendment which I offer include the American 
Dietetic Association, the American Osteopathic Association, Consumers 
Union, Center for Science in the Public Interest, the American Society 
for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, and the American Society of 
Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.
  It wasn't that long ago that a starting pitcher for the Baltimore 
Orioles dropped dead. He was a man trying to lose some weight taking 
the ephedra stimulant, and obviously it cost him his life.
  The same thing happened in my part of the world in central Illinois, 
where a 16-year-old boy getting ready for a football game wanted to 
have performance enhancement and goes down to the local gas station and 
buys over the counter an ephedra product, takes it and washes it down 
with a Mountain Dew and ends up dying from a heart attack--a healthy 
16-year-old boy.
  Now we have our men and women in uniform all across the United States 
walking into these base exchanges wanting to make sure they are at peak 
physical condition to serve this country and buying these dietary 
supplements which claim to enhance performance and give them new energy 
or perhaps lose some weight not realizing they are risking their lives 
every time because the shoddy manufacturers who sell these products do 
not report to the Government when people get sick and die because of 
these dietary supplements.
  How long is it going to take us? How many Americans have to die 
before we accept responsibility for the consumers of this country? They 
trust us. They expect the Food and Drug Administration to be there, 
when it is needed, to report on these dangerous supplements. But we 
have let them down for more than 10 years since it was passed. We 
should not let them down when it comes to this bill. Let us start by 
protecting our men and women in uniform. Let us start by not letting 
them be in danger by buying the products on the shelves in these PXs or 
commissaries that are not good for them. That is, I think, the least we 
can do, and then let us not stop there. Let us move across America to 
say we are going to stand behind consumers; that we are going to stand 
behind children and families so that when they buy something in a 
drugstore in America that is supposed to be good for their health, they 
know their Government has at least the interest and has taken the time 
to make sure it is safe.
  This is not some wild, crazy idea I have. It is an idea backed up by 
the leading medical organizations in America, and it is one that 
reflects the reality of the danger of these products.
  I invite my colleagues to support amendment No. 2035, which I have 
introduced, when it comes up for consideration at a latter point in 
this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today with mixed feelings on what I 
heard because this was brought up under the Defense authorization bill. 
I talked to the Senator from Illinois, and we agreed that we would work 
on something--that would actually do something. We have been doing 
that, but with a slight interruption from Katrina. Now it is being 
offered again. And in the same way, I have mixed emotions because I 
probably ought to suggest to the Senator from Alaska to take this 
amendment because it will not achieve anything. We have an opportunity 
to do something and to achieve something. But this amendment will not 
do that.
  Of course, it brings some attention to the fact that there may be 
some adverse reaction to dietary supplements. That is important. The 
discussion is important. If we had more time for discussion, we ought 
to have a lot of discussion on it, but we don't have a lot of time. I 
will try to keep my remarks brief on this.
  This amendment would withhold funding from any store on a military 
installation or a commissary store--most of those are on military 
installations as well--that sells any dietary supplement containing a 
stimulant unless the manufacturers of the supplement submits reports on 
serious adverse events associated with the supplement. If they don't, 
we shut down the action on the base. But that is definitely not the 
only place you can buy dietary supplements. What we merely do is invite 
military people to go off base to get their dietary supplements--and 
they will.
  It is important that we get reporting done so people will know if 
something is having an adverse effect on their health.
  I recognize the Senator from Illinois has strong concerns about 
adverse reporting for dietary supplements, and so do several other 
Senators. Senator Hatch and Senator Harkin have been working diligently 
on this. Both of them are on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions 
Committee, and that is the committee of jurisdiction on this particular 
issue.
  We have been working on it. I share his interest on the issue. It is 
important that we maintain the safety of dietary supplements that 
benefit so many Americans. I mention that this isn't the first time 
this has been offered.
  I hope he will withdraw his amendment, and we may move on without 
having to go through the difficulty of a vote.
  As I said, I question the effectiveness of achieving such reporting 
by withholding legal products only from men and women in uniform and 
their families while the same products are available to the civilian 
population. That is unfair to our soldiers and we should not support 
it. Punishing our soldiers is not the way to ensure the safety of 
dietary supplements. A piecemeal approach does nothing to protect the 
civilian population from products that are being withheld from the 
military population.
  This amendment places the regulation of dietary supplements in the 
hands of the Secretary of Defense and cuts the Food and Drug 
Administration out of the loop.
  I would like to point out that the FDA is already taking aggressive 
steps to regulate stimulants that are dietary supplements, including 
the banning of ephedra.
  We should be sure that requiring additional reporting does not 
inadvertently derail those enforcement efforts.
  Finally, the Appropriations Committee has included for fiscal year 
2006 funding of approximately $5.5 million

[[Page 22276]]

for the Center for Food Safety and Nutrition Adverse Events Reporting 
System. That includes approximately $1.7 million for dietary 
supplements. That is over $1 million more than the amount in the budget 
request. The Senate is already moving in the right direction on this 
issue.
  I wish to point out that the Dietary Supplement Health and Education 
Act is squarely within the HELP Committee's jurisdiction.
  I know that Senator Durbin has worked with Senators Hatch and Harkin 
and myself to develop a proposal on mandatory adverse events reporting 
for dietary supplements. I wish to work with the Senator from Illinois 
and my fellow committee members, especially Senators Hatch and Harkin, 
to see how we might address the issue in my committee through regular 
order.
  I respectfully ask the Senator from Illinois to withdraw his 
amendment and work with the HELP Committee on this issue. If not, I 
will have to oppose the amendment. I think it will take up unnecessary 
time when we can do it considerably more effectively and without 
punishing in a big way the servicemembers in uniform while we allow the 
civilian population to do whatever they want.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question 
without losing his right to the floor?
  Mr. ENZI. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Last year when I offered this amendment, Senator Hatch 
came to the floor. Senator Harkin joined afterwards. They conceded that 
they thought it was not a bad idea, if you sell dietary supplements in 
America, and somebody is harmed, seriously injured or dies as a result, 
that the manufacturer of that dietary supplement should report that 
event to the FDA so that they can see if there is a pattern, if it is 
something that might lead to a decision to take something off the 
market.
  I would like to ask the Senator from Wyoming: Does he agree with 
that? Does he think that is a reasonable standard to ask the dietary 
supplement manufacturers to report truly adverse events such as is 
required of the pharmaceutical companies today?
  Mr. ENZI. I said before that I think it is very important for us to 
come up with a piece of legislation that does that on and off military 
bases, so there is a reporting of adverse events so that FDA can take 
action when it is affecting people, and have enough information to be 
able to tell whether they are acting properly or not. We do have an 
agency that is designed to do that. It is not the Department of 
Defense.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield for another question, I agree 
with the Senator. This is not the way to address it. I thought it was 
the only way to bring the subject up before the Senate. I wish to ask 
the Senator from Wyoming, whom I respect and I have worked with and we 
have been able to work out some very serious difficulties in the past 
and I know he genuinely wants to reach solutions, can the Senator from 
Wyoming give me his assurance that he will try to schedule hearings in 
the consideration of this issue on a timely basis before his committee 
so that we can raise this issue in a thoughtful way and address it 
beyond the Department of Defense?
  Mr. ENZI. I can give the Senator assurances that we will deal with 
this issue. If you check with members of my committee, you will find 
that because of Katrina and pensions and all of the health issues that 
we have now, and all of the education, higher education and Head Start 
we are trying to work our way through, that we have gone to a system of 
roundtables instead that allows us to bring in more people with more 
information so we can learn more from them in order to be able to deal 
with these issues in a knowledgeable way.
  It has been working. I appreciate the cooperation of Senator Kennedy, 
who is ranking member on my committee, for this approach of being able 
to gather information so that we can do effective legislation quicker. 
As the Senator probably noticed, we have a lot of bills which we are 
working on, and it is because we have gone through a mechanism where we 
are working in a very bipartisan way to gather information. This is a 
bill of some priority for us.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will further yield for a question, I 
salute the Senator. What he says is true. He has done an excellent job 
in joining both sides of the aisle with bipartisanship in finding 
solutions and getting things done. I am sorry we can't say that for all 
of us in the Senate. We could probably learn a lot the way the Senator 
from Wyoming approaches it. I don't want to suggest that the Senator 
change his approach. If the Senator from Wyoming will give me his 
assurance that this is a priority, that he will try to bring it up 
before his committee in a timely way when appropriate, I understand he 
has other priorities, if he will give me that assurance, I will 
withdraw this amendment. I hope we can work together from this point 
forward.
  Mr. ENZI. I assure the Senator that we can work together, and it will 
be put into the prioritization. It is already in the prioritization of 
the committee. We are handling the emergencies first.
  I apologize for the 2-week delay we had while we are working on 
Katrina. Staff is working on this one, along with the staff of the 
Senator from Illinois. We will do it.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, at this point, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw my amendment No. 2035.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, before my colleague and friend from 
Illinois leaves the floor, I want to thank him for his leadership on 
this very important issue, in fact, for so many people in our country. 
I also wish to thank Senator Enzi for indicating his desire to make 
this a priority within his committee.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1937

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I call up my amendment which is at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Ms. Stabenow], for herself, Mr. 
     Johnson, Mr. Thune, Mr. Akaka, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Dayton, Mr. 
     Nelson of Florida, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Salazar, Mrs. Lincoln, 
     Mr. Corzine, Mr. Baucus, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. 
     Bayh, and Mr. Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 1937.

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

  (Purpose: To ensure that future funding for health care for former 
 members of the Armed Forces takes into account changes in population 
                             and inflation)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Funding for Veterans Health Care to Address 
     Changes in Population and Inflation.--Chapter 3 of title 38, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 320. Funding for veterans health care to address 
       changes in population and inflation

       ``(a) By the enactment of this section, Congress and the 
     President intend to ensure access to health care for all 
     veterans. Upon the enactment of this section, funding for the 
     programs, functions, and activities of the Veterans Health 
     Administration specified in subsection (d) to accomplish this 
     objective shall be provided through a combination of 
     discretionary and mandatory funds. The discretionary amount 
     should be equal to the fiscal year 2005 discretionary funding 
     for such programs, functions, and activities, and should 
     remain unchanged each fiscal year thereafter. The annual 
     level of mandatory amount shall be adjusted according to the 
     formula specified in subsection (c).
       ``(b) On the first day of each fiscal year, the Secretary 
     of the Treasury shall make available to the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs the amount determined under subsection (c) 
     with respect to that fiscal year. Each such amount is 
     available, without fiscal year limitation, for the programs, 
     functions, and activities of the Veterans Health 
     Administration, as specified in subsection (d). There is 
     hereby appropriated, out of any sums in the Treasury not 
     otherwise appropriated, amounts necessary to implement this 
     section.

[[Page 22277]]

       ``(c)(1) The amount applicable to fiscal year 2006 under 
     this subsection is the amount equal to--
       ``(A) 130 percent of the amount obligated by the Department 
     during fiscal year 2004 for the purposes specified in 
     subsection (d), minus
       ``(B) the amount appropriated for those purposes for fiscal 
     year 2005.
       ``(2) The amount applicable to any fiscal year after fiscal 
     year 2006 under this subsection is the amount equal to the 
     product of the following, minus the amount appropriated for 
     the purposes specified for subsection (d) for fiscal year 
     2005:
       ``(A) The sum of--
       ``(i) the number of veterans enrolled in the Department 
     health care system under section 1705 of this title as of 
     July 1 preceding the beginning of such fiscal year; and
       ``(ii) the number of persons eligible for health care under 
     chapter 17 of this title who are not covered by clause (i) 
     and who were provided hospital care or medical services under 
     such chapter at any time during the fiscal year preceding 
     such fiscal year.
       ``(B) The per capita baseline amount, as increased from 
     time to time pursuant to paragraph (3)(B).
       ``(3)(A) For purposes of paragraph (2)(B), the term `per 
     capita baseline amount' means the amount equal to--
       ``(i) the amount obligated by the Department during fiscal 
     year 2005 for the purposes specified in subsection (d), 
     divided by
       ``(ii) the number of veterans enrolled in the Department 
     health care system under section 1705 of this title as of 
     September 30, 2004.
       ``(B) With respect to any fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
     provide a percentage increase (rounded to the nearest dollar) 
     in the per capita baseline amount equal to the percentage by 
     which--
       ``(i) the Consumer Price Index (all Urban Consumers, United 
     States City Average, Hospital and related services, 
     Seasonally Adjusted), published by the Bureau of Labor 
     Statistics of the Department of Labor for the 12-month period 
     ending on the June 30 preceding the beginning of the fiscal 
     year for which the increase is made, exceeds
       ``(ii) such Consumer Price Index for the 12-month period 
     preceding the 12-month period described in clause (i).
       ``(d)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the purposes 
     for which amounts made available pursuant to subsection (b) 
     shall be all programs, functions, and activities of the 
     Veterans Health Administration.
       ``(2) Amounts made available pursuant to subsection (b) are 
     not available for--
       ``(A) construction, acquisition, or alteration of medical 
     facilities as provided in subchapter I of chapter 81 of this 
     title (other than for such repairs as were provided for 
     before the date of the enactment of this section through the 
     Medical Care appropriation for the Department); or
       ``(B) grants under subchapter III of chapter 81 of this 
     title.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new item:

``320. Funding for veterans health care to address changes in 
              population and inflation.''.

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Murray, Kerry, Kennedy, Dayton, and Biden be added as cosponsors of my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to thank both the chairman and 
ranking member, Senator Inouye, for their leadership on this 
legislation. I am very supportive of the Defense appropriations bill. 
And I appreciate all of the hard work and leadership they have brought 
to this point in this important legislation.
  I come to the floor this evening to fix a broken promise to our 
veterans, a promise our country made to the men and women who serve our 
country in the armed services. They put their lives on the line to 
protect us, as we know, and in exchange we have a sacred obligation to 
extend to them the honors and benefits and the health care benefits 
they have earned through their service.
  I have met with men and women from Michigan and across the country 
who are recovering at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, as many of my 
colleagues have. Some have suffered minor injuries that will not have a 
dramatic impact on the rest of their lives. Others though, because of 
their injuries, will need years of rehabilitation and face considerable 
obstacles as they return to their civilian lives.
  We owe these men and women our continued support so that they can 
recover from their injuries and lead productive lives.
  Today's soldiers are tomorrow's veterans--and America has made a 
promise to these brave men and women to provide them the care they 
deserve. They deserve the respect and support of a grateful nation when 
they return home.
  We also owe it to the men and women who have fought in America's 
prior conflicts to maintain a place for them in the VA system so they 
can receive the care they need, as well. We need to keep our promise to 
our veterans, young and old.
  Together we can do better for our men and women who have served our 
country. We must consider the ongoing costs of medical care for 
America's veterans as part of the continuing cost of our national 
defense. The long-term legacy of the wars we fight today is the care of 
the men and women who have worn the uniform and are willing to pay the 
ultimate price for their nation.
  Senator Johnson, Senator Thune, and I are offering an amendment today 
to provide full funding for VA health care to ensure the VA has the 
resources necessary to provide quality health care in a timely manner 
to our Nation's disabled veterans. The Stabenow-Johnson-Thune amendment 
provides guaranteed funding for America's veterans from two sources.
  First, the legislation provides an annual discretionary amount that 
will be locked in for future years at the 2005 funding level. Second, 
in the future, the VA receives a sum of mandatory funding that is 
adjusted year to year based on changes in demand from the VA health 
system and the rate of health care inflation.
  This funding mechanism will ensure that the VA has the resources it 
needs to provide a steady and reliable stream of resources to care for 
America's veterans. It will also ensure that Congress will continue to 
be responsible for the oversight of the VA health system as it does 
with other Federal programs funded directly from the U.S. Treasury.
  This amendment will bring funding for veterans health care into line 
with almost 90 percent of Federal health care spending which is 
mandatory rather than discretionary. One of our greatest 
accomplishments as a nation is that every American knows when they 
enter their golden years, when they reach 65 or if they are disabled, 
they receive the health care they need. Medicare is a universal and 
comprehensive system that benefits a person for their life's work. Our 
veterans deserve the same. We can do better for them by ensuring that 
their service is repaid with reliable health care benefits.
  I thank the cosponsors of this amendment for their support: Senators 
Johnson, Thune, Akaka, Dayton, Nelson, Lautenberg, Salazar, Lincoln, 
Cor-
zine, Baucus, Landrieu, Jeffords, Bayh, Bingaman, Murray, Kerry, 
Kennedy, and Biden.
  In July, I offered this amendment to the 2006 Defense authorization 
bill. Unfortunately, the Defense authorization bill was pulled from the 
Senate at that time. While we are working out whether this will be 
included in this particular bill, it is important to offer my amendment 
again at this time. The amendment has been endorsed by the Partnership 
for Veterans Health Care Budget Reform, a group of major veterans 
service organizations that has been working to provide a reliable 
stream of health care for America's veterans over the last 2 years. It 
includes the American Legion, the AMVETS, the Blinded Veterans 
Association, Disabled American Veterans, Jewish War Veterans of the 
United States, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Veterans of 
Foreign Wars, all of them together asking us to get this right for our 
veterans.
  The problem we face today is that resources for veterans health care 
are falling behind demand. We have more veterans being created, more 
men and women coming home from the wars. Yet the funding is falling 
behind. Shortly after coming into office, the President created the 
task force to improve health care delivery for our Nation's veterans. 
The task force found historically there has been a gap between the 
demand for VA care and the resources to meet the needs of our veterans. 
The task force also found that:


[[Page 22278]]

       The current mismatch is far greater . . . and its impact 
     potentially far more detrimental both to the VA's ability to 
     furnish high quality care and to the support that the system 
     needs from those it serves.

  The task force released its report in May of 2003, well before we 
understood the impact of the men and women fighting in Iraq and 
Afghanistan and the impact that would have on our VA system.
  If the mismatch between demand and resources was bad in May of 2003, 
imagine what it is today. Over 360,000 brave soldiers have returned 
from Iraq and Afghanistan, and over 86,000 have sought health care from 
the VA. There are an additional 740,000 military personnel who served 
in Iraq and Afghanistan who are still in the service. This next 
generation of veterans will be eligible for VA health care and will 
place additional demands on a system that is already strained. These 
are promises we need to keep.
  In addition, each reservist and National Guard member who has served 
in Iraq is eligible for 2 years of free health care at the VA. The 
administration has in its own way admitted they do not have sufficient 
resources to provide adequate care for our veterans. While they would 
not until recently admit there were shortfalls, they have for years 
attempted to ration care and cut services at the expense of our 
veterans. We can do better than that.
  In 2003, the VA banned the enrollment of new priority 8 veterans. For 
the past 3 years, I fought attempts by the administration to charge 
middle-income veterans a $250 enrollment fee to join the VA health care 
system and a 100-percent increase in prescription drug copays. This 
year, the administration also proposed slashing Federal support for the 
State veterans homes from $140 million to $12 million. The head of the 
Grand Rapids Home for Veterans and the D.J. Jacobetti Home For Veterans 
in Marquette tells me these cuts would be devastating.
  The fiscal year 2005 and 2006 VA health care budgets are a case study 
in why Congress should guarantee reliable and adequate resources 
through direct spending.
  Last March, the President submitted an inadequate fiscal year 2005 
budget request for VA health care to Congress that fell $3.2 billion 
short of the recommendation of the independent budget, an annual 
estimate of critical veterans health care needs by the coalition of 
leading veterans organizations.
  In fact, in February 2004, Anthony Principi, then the Secretary of 
VA, testified before Congress that the request the President submitted 
to Congress fell $1.2 billion short of the amount he had recommended. 
It then fell to Congress to again increase the amount provided to the 
VA for health care. The final amount Congress provided to the VA for 
health care was $1.2 billion over the President's request, but it was 
still not enough to meet their immediate needs.
  In April of this year I cosponsored an amendment with Senator Murray 
to the fiscal year 2005 supplemental appropriations bill for Iraq and 
Afghanistan to provide $1.9 billion for veterans medical care, 
especially for those soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. 
During the debate on the amendment we were again told that the 
President's budget was sufficient but, in fact, on April 5, Secretary 
of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson sent a letter to the Senate that 
said:

       I can assure you that the VA does not need supplemental 
     funds for FY2005 to continue to provide timely, quality 
     service that is always our goal.

  I was proud to cosponsor an amendment in June, however, to provide an 
additional $1.5 billion for veterans health care because they finally 
admitted there was a gap in funding for this year. Finally, they 
admitted, in fact, the veterans health care system was not adequately 
funded this year. I was pleased we were able to add dollars under an 
emergency spending measure, to be able to fill the gap this year.
  As it turned out, we received more bad news from the administration 
on July 14, when the administration requested another $300 million for 
this year and a whopping $1.7 billion for next year. The total 
shortfall for this year and next was nearly $3 billion, 3 billion short 
of where we should be in adequately funding health care for our 
veterans.
  At the end of July, I was pleased to support the conference report 
for the Interior appropriations which included the $1.5 billion this 
year that the Senate has twice unanimously supported. Further, in 
September, I supported the Senate's Military Construction and Veterans 
Affairs appropriations bill which provided a total of $33 billion for 
veterans health care. This is $1.1 billion more than the administration 
requested and $2.5 billion more than the House version of the 
legislation for veterans health care.
  I tell this to make two points: First, it is clear that the demand 
for veterans health care is increasing, and a good portion of this 
increase can be attributed to men and women seeking care after they are 
returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. The second is to show despite the 
best intentions of the VA and Congress, the VA does not have a reliable 
and dependable stream of funding to provide for veterans health care 
needs. We should not have to pass an emergency funding bill to give our 
veterans the health care they need and deserve.
  In 1993, there were about 2.5 million Americans in the VA health care 
system. Today there are more than 7 million veterans enrolled in the 
system, over half of which receive care on a regular basis. Despite the 
increase in patients, the VA has received on average a 5-percent 
increase in appropriations over the last 8 years. My amendment will fix 
this problem and ensure that each year we provide the funding necessary 
to care for our veterans in a timely manner that is separate from the 
uncertainty and the ups and downs of the congressional calendar.
  At last count, at least 86,000 men and women have returned from Iraq 
and have sought health care from the VA. We can safely assume that this 
number will reach hundreds of thousands. This bill provides the 
resources our troops need to prepare and defend our country in Iraq. We 
must not forget about them when they return home and put on a veteran's 
cap. We must ensure that we keep our promises to them when they come 
home as veterans. Let's stop this up-and-down roller coaster of 
emergency spending measures, of budgets that do not match with need 
year to year. We owe our veterans better than that. Together, we can do 
better than that.
  I urge the support of my colleagues for this very important 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I regret to do this, but as we have 
examined this amendment of the Senator, we find this requires this 
spending to become a part of the mandatory process of expenditures. It 
requires funds to come out of the Treasury to implement this section, 
and in effect it becomes a matter that we believe is subject to a point 
of order under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that 
provides spending in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation 
under the fiscal year 2006 concurrent resolution of the budget. I make 
that point of order.
  Ms. STABENOW. I move to waive the applicable sections of the 
Congressional Budget Act for the purpose of considering my amendment, 
and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we will have a request for votes to 
commence at 7:30, but first I offer a managers' package, as we call it, 
with modifications.


Amendments Nos. 1914; 1972; 1962; 1979, as Modified; 1976; and 1945, En 
                                  Bloc

  Mr. President, I send to the desk, for Senator Nelson of Florida, 
amendment No. 1914, for surface sonar dome windows; for Senator Dodd, 
amendment No. 1972, for countermeasures to nerve agents; for Senator 
Lieberman, amendment No. 1962, for defense manufacturing technology; 
for Senator Cham-
bliss, amendment No. 1979, as modified, for environmental cleanup; for 
Senator Lott, amendment No. 1976, for

[[Page 22279]]

lightweight ammunition; and for Senator Roberts, amendment No. 1945, 
for intelligence scholars. I send those amendments to the desk and ask 
that they be considered en bloc, with Senator Chambliss's amendment 
modified according to my submission.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for other Senators, 
     proposes en bloc amendments numbered 1914; 1972; 1962; 1979, 
     as modified; 1976; and 1945.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 1914

       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       Sec.  . Of the amount appropriated in title III under the 
     heading ``OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY'', up to $2,000,000 may be 
     made available for the Surface Sonar Dome Window Program.


                           Amendment No. 1972

(Purpose: To make available $700,000 from Research, Development, Test, 
   and Evaluation, Army for Medical Countermeasures to Nerve Agents)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Of the amount appropriated by title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 
     Army'', up to $700,000 may be used for Medical 
     Countermeasures to Nerve Agents.


                           Amendment No. 1962

  (Purpose: To make available $5,000,000 from Research, Development, 
   Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, for High Performance Defense 
           Manufacturing Technology Research and Development)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Of the amount appropriated by title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 
     Defense-Wide'', up to $5,000,000 may be used for High 
     Performance Defense Manufacturing Technology Research and 
     Development.


                    Amendment No. 1979, as Modified

(Purpose: To provide that, of the amount made available under title II 
    for Operation and Maintenance, Army, up to $600,000 may be made 
 available for removal of unexploded ordnance at Camp Wheeler, Georgia)

       On page 220, after line 25, add the following:
       Sec. 8116. Of the amount appropriated by title II under the 
     heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', up to $600,000 
     may be made available for removal of unexploded ordnance at 
     Camp Wheeler, Georgia.


                           Amendment No. 1976

(Purpose: To make available $4,000,000 from Research, Development Test, 
  and Evaluation, Army, for the development of light-weight rigid-rod 
                              ammunition)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Of the amount appropriated by title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 
     Army'', up to $4,000,000 may be used for the development of 
     light-weight rigid-rod polyphenylene ammunition.


                           amendment no. 1945

       On page 220 after line 25, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Of the amounts appropriated by title VII under the 
     heading ``Intelligence Community Management Account'', up to 
     $2,000,000 may be used for the Pat Roberts Intelligence 
     Scholars Program.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendments en 
bloc? If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendments.
  The amendments (Nos. 1914; 1972; 1962; 1979, as modified; 1976; and 
1945) were agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 1979

  Mr. CHAMBLIS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of my amendment, 
No. 1979, as modified, to H.R. 2863.
  Camp Wheeler, near Macon, GA, was a World War II Army facility which 
has a proud history of training American soldiers. Unfortunately, and 
like many formerly used defense sites in the United States, there is 
unexploded ordnance on the former Camp Wheeler site that, today, 
threatens the safety of people who live in the vicinity. This amendment 
would earmark $600,000 to clean up Camp Wheeler.
  The unexploded ordnance at Camp Wheeler was found during an 
inspection sponsored by the Savannah District of the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers. The Corps has indicated that cleanup of Ordnance Operable 
Unit No. 1 at Camp Wheeler, which is in a neighborhood in Twiggs 
County, GA, is the No. 1 munitions cleanup program in the State of 
Georgia.
  I have worked with the Corps over the past several months on this 
project, and my staff has received briefings and updates from the Corps 
on a regular basis.
  Since filing my amendment, the Corps has announced that $1.5 million 
in fiscal year 2005 funds will be used to conduct cleanup at Camp 
Wheeler. Additionally, the Corps of Engineers has assured me that there 
are funds available in their budget to work toward completion of 
cleanup of Ordnance Operable Unit No. 1 at Camp Wheeler in the fiscal 
year 2006 budget.
  This amendment will ensure that the necessary funds are spent on this 
project and that the Camp Wheeler cleanup is completed as the Corps of 
Engineers has promised.
  I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that at 7:30 we 
will start with the vote on Senator Warner's submission of the Defense 
authorization bill as an amendment. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. We already have an agreement to have 3 minutes on each 
side on that amendment, Senator Bayh's amendment No. 1933, and Senator 
McCain's amendment No. 1977, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. We are working on a modification to Senator Reed's 
amendment. We then also have Senator McCain's amendment, which is 
amendment No. 1978. And we have Senator Graham's amendment, which is 
2004.
  I say to the Senator, are you prepared to accept that amendment now?


                           Amendment No. 2004

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Graham's 
amendment No. 2004 be laid before the Senate so we might consider it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. It is 
pending.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I withdraw that request.


                           Amendment No. 2033

  Mr. President, is it in order for me, as manager of the bill, to move 
to table Senator Kerry's amendment No. 2033 at this time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is not presently pending. The 
Senator may ask for the regular order with respect to the amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order with respect 
to that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to table Senator Kerry's amendment 
which deals with LIHEAP and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that be put into 
the schedule to be developed by the leadership as to the time at which 
that vote will occur.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, as to the amendment offered by Ms. 
Stabenow, I have made the point of order. At what time would that vote 
occur?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time for the vote has not yet been 
scheduled.
  Mr. STEVENS. Would it be all right with the Senator if we ask for it 
to be scheduled according to the leadership in this process this 
evening?
  Ms. STABENOW. Yes. That is fine.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment be 
added to the list for a vote this evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield the floor to the Senator from 
West Virginia.

[[Page 22280]]

  I suggest the absence of a quorum first.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
the votes already scheduled at 7:30 today, the Senate proceed to vote 
in relation to the following amendments, in the order listed, provided 
no second-degree amendments be in order to the amendments prior to the 
votes: first is Senator McCain's amendment No. 1978; the next is 
Senator Kerry's amendment No. 2033, for which I made a motion to table, 
and next is Senator Stabenow's amendment No. 1937, which is a motion to 
waive my point of order; provided that there be 2 minutes equally 
divided prior to the debate on each of the above ordered votes. And I 
ask unanimous consent that for the votes that start at 7:30, the first 
vote be the regular number of minutes--20 minutes, I believe--and that 
following that--we have six in the order--the five remaining votes be 
limited to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, my understanding is that Senator Sessions 
is going to speak for approximately 10 minutes. I ask unanimous consent 
to speak as soon as he is finished.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I see the chairman. I suppose we are 
ready to go forward. Does the chairman have anything he needs to say at 
this time?
  Mr. STEVENS. I say to the Senator, Mr. President, if I may respond to 
his question, we are waiting for Senator Byrd to make a statement. But 
he is not ready at this time, so the Senator may proceed. He should be 
ready in about 5 or 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, we in this country have the highest standards of 
conduct in our legal system, and our military has the highest standards 
of behavior as they deal with prisoners with whom they come in contact.
  Have problems occurred? Yes, they have. Has that occurred in every 
war we have ever been involved in, that any nation has ever been 
involved in? Unfortunately so.
  But I want to take a few minutes now to express my deep feeling that 
we do not have a program of systematic abuse of prisoners going on by 
our U.S. military; that they are maintaining the discipline of our 
troops; and that they are, day after day, subjecting themselves to 
personal risk--not firing randomly or rapidly but hesitating to make 
sure innocents are not injured, and have complied with the most 
extensive set of requirements dealing with prisoners that any nation 
and army has ever had in the history of the world. Our military has 
taken disciplinary action time and time and time again if anybody 
violates those standards.
  We should all remember that event that made a good bit of news when a 
fine Army colonel was in a combat area taking fire and captured an 
enemy, and to save the lives of his troops, as his soldiers later 
testified, he fired a gun beside the head of a captured prisoner in 
order to frighten him and see if he would provide information that 
might be of value in saving the lives of the American soldiers he 
commanded. He was kicked out of the Army for it. The news media did not 
discover this occurrence. The military did and acted upon it.
  We all heard about Abu Ghraib, and the sick and unacceptable behavior 
that went on in that prison. But I remember distinctly that within one 
day of the information being brought to the commanders of our soldiers 
in Iraq, an investigation was commenced. Within 3 days, they had made a 
public announcement to the world that there had been allegations of 
abuse in Abu Ghraib and that an investigation was ongoing. And it was 
months--2 or 3 months--later that these pictures came out.
  Why do I say that? I say that because the military took the 
allegations seriously from the beginning. They were not reacting to the 
release of pictures that embarrassed them. Rather, they immediately 
initiated the investigation about what happened on this midnight shift 
by these soldiers who lost discipline in Abu Ghraib and abused 
prisoners in a way that is unacceptable to us.
  Those guards, have all been tried and convicted. The Wall Street 
Journal, just a couple of days ago, published an op-ed entitled ``The 
`Torture Narrative' Unravels.'' It noted that the trial and conviction 
of PFC Lynndie England, who was sentenced as the ``leash girl'' for her 
activities there, ``was relegated to the innards of newspapers.'' That 
did not make any big news--the Army's professional, proper response to 
a lack of discipline.
  The op-ed goes on to note that ``by one of the greatest leaps of 
logic ever seriously entertained in our national discourse, those 
memos''--that were written by the Department of Justice in analyzing 
what the President's proper powers were with regard to the detaining of 
enemy soldiers, who are not lawful combatants--that it was ``one of the 
greatest leaps of logic ever seriously entertained in our national 
discourse'' to say that memos as part of a discussion in the Department 
of Justice of the United States had anything to do with those soldiers 
in Iraq carrying out that abuse.
  But that is what was alleged. It was during a campaign season, I 
understand, and it resulted in calls for the resignation of Secretary 
Rumsfeld and, I guess, to call for the removal of the President of the 
United States before the election.
  We had one Senator, whose name is known all over the world, say: 
``Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management, U.S. 
management.''
  I submit that was a slander on our troops and our soldiers who are in 
harm's way because we sent them there. We asked them to go there to 
defend the legitimate national interests of our country. We put them at 
risk, and when we say things about them that are not true, to suggest 
to the world that we have systemic abuse in our military. Those charges 
place them at greater risk. It makes it harder for us to negotiate 
peace treaties with people who are suspicious of us. They believe these 
things.
  When we have Members of the House and the Senate and political 
leaders in our country making irresponsible and unfounded charges 
against the military, that they are systematically abusing prisoners, 
it is wrong. It ought to stop, and I feel strongly about that.
  Oh, we remember those comments, when all the pictures of the abuses 
were leaked and were made available. They said higher-ups were 
involved, it went all the way to the Secretary of Defense, and that 
these people were using interrogation techniques according to some memo 
written somewhere, and that it was all part of poor leadership and 
mismanagement, and our military discipline was not being maintained.
  Remember those comments? It could not be just the lower-ranking 
soldiers; ``why don't you prosecute the higher ups?'' We heard Senators 
saying that time and again.
  It just was not so. This is what the Wall Street Journal article 
said. They quote the judge when PFC Lynndie England was before the 
court. The judge asked her this: ``You feel that by doing these things 
you were setting conditions for interrogations?''
  Remember that allegation, that the abuses of these prisoners were 
carried

[[Page 22281]]

out to set them up, to prime them to be interrogated by the Army 
interrogators or other interrogators, and that this was part of a 
systemic plan to soften up the prisoners so they could be interrogated? 
So the judge asked her under oath--she could use this as a defense:

       You feel that by doing these things you were setting 
     conditions for interrogations?

  Her answer:

       No, sir.

  So the judge responded:

       So this was just a way to embarrass them?

  Referring to the prisoners.
  And she replied:

       Yes, sir.

  Or consider the testimony of SP Jeremy C. Sivits. He pled guilty, 
too, as I recall. This is what Sivits said about their behavior in that 
prison:

       Our command would have slammed us. They believe in doing 
     the right thing. If they saw what was going on, there would 
     be hell to pay.

  I will say right now, every one of these Senators who has been 
complaining that this misbehavior in the prison was a direct result of 
some sort of approved interrogation techniques by the Secretary of 
Defense or the President or the Department of Justice, and they were 
overruling JAG officers somewhere in doing these things, is not so.
  I was a prosecutor for quite a long time. I am telling you, when you 
have somebody being prosecuted and you are accusing them of a crime--I 
know the chairman has been a prosecutor--and they have an excuse or 
defense, don't they say it? They say: It wasn't my fault; they told me 
to do it; I was following orders. These people did not say that. They 
took their medicine, they were tried and convicted or pled guilty, and 
many are serving a very long sentence in jail for that misbehavior.
  It embarrassed the soldiers. I had soldiers tell me: This is an 
embarrassment to me. We worked our hearts out to make Iraq a better 
place, and this was an embarrassment to us. It undermined our ability 
to do our job.
  They were angry with these people who misbehaved. They were glad to 
see them prosecuted. It galls me that we have people suggesting this 
was the policy of our Army. It is not correct.
  We had the complaints about Guantanamo Bay, that there were 
systematic abuses going on down there. By the way, we have had over 25 
hearings in this Senate and in the House dealing with prisoner abuse. 
We have had more hearings on this issue than we have had on how to win 
the war. In addition to that, there have been 10 major reviews, 
assessments, inspections, and investigations. I mean major reviews. We 
had those generals and admirals who conducted the reviews before our 
committees. We interviewed them, and we made them explain their 
reports. Mr. President, 16,000 pages of documents have been delivered 
to the Congress, and 1,700 different interviews were conducted. 
Detentions, operations, enhancement, oversight training--all those 
issues were brought up. There are 390 criminal investigations completed 
or ongoing.
  People who are responsible for misbehavior are being held to account. 
If I thought our military was not responding well, I would be very 
concerned. I have seen law officers involved with a bad criminal, and 
that person runs and they chase him and have to wrestle him down. They 
are so pumped up sometimes they do more to that person they have 
apprehended than they should. Maybe they beat them. You have to contain 
the felon, but sometimes you go too far. I have seen abuse cases filed 
against them. It breaks your heart sometimes because you know the 
police officers lost control in tough conditions and went too far, but 
they have to be disciplined because we do not allow that in our 
country.
  The same is true for our soldiers. It is easy for us to talk about 
what it is like being out in combat, having your life at risk. Some of 
us might lose some of our discipline, too. We don't excuse it. We 
understand it.
  The activities at Guantanamo have been proven to involve only two or 
three incidents that have been indefensible, and action has been taken 
concerning those.
  Also, we have had tremendous evidence of how good the conditions are 
there, how well they are being fed, their full rights to conduct their 
religious expression openly and freely, and the other things that have 
gone on.
  Now we have a letter pop up from a Captain Fishback who has made 
allegations concerning the 82nd Airborne. I don't know the full details 
of it. I will quote a small portion. We heard all these complaints that 
say that he has submitted proof of systemic abuses in the prisons. This 
is a New York Times article, and the New York Times has made a full-
time effort to try to root out and expose and publicize any misbehavior 
that has occurred there. They have gone too far, sometimes, in my 
opinion. But this is what the New York Times says:

       Captain Fishback said he had seen at least one 
     interrogation where prisoners were being abused.

  I don't know what ``abused'' means. I am a former prosecutor. What 
does ``abused'' mean? Did they shake him? Did they respond to being 
spit on by prisoners, as many of our guards have been? Did they injure 
him in some way? I think if they were beaten, he would have said they 
were beaten. He didn't say that. He used a far more general term, that 
they were ``abused.''
  Then he goes on to say that he was told about other ill-treatment of 
detainees by his sergeant. ``Ill-treatment,'' what is that? He didn't 
say they were beaten, shot, killed, wounded, or tortured.
  An investigation is being undertaken of these allegations. It is odd, 
though, when asked to name the sergeants and the people who conducted 
the activity so they could follow up and investigate and make sure 
people who did wrong were disciplined, Captain Fishback refused to 
disclose the names of the sergeants, one who left the Army and the 
other who has been reassigned because he did not want to reveal his 
identity.
  It is hard for the Army to investigate if the guy making the 
complaint, telling Human Rights Watch and the New York Times all these 
points, will not tell the Army what actually occurred.
  I am dubious, for complex technical reasons, of the amendment that 
has been offered today and which we will vote on later tonight because 
I am not sure it makes good legal sense to have a law that is a moving 
law, it seems to me, that complies with the Army regulations. Army 
regulation is going to change, and you have a law and the law is going 
to change while the regulation changes? A statute is supposed to be 
permanent. As a lawyer, I am troubled by that. I don't think this is a 
necessary action. I don't intend to vote for the amendment for that 
reason and a number of other complex reasons.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senator from Alaska that 
we had a unanimous consent request that was agreed to that the Senator 
from Illinois would be recognized. Does the Senator from Alaska have a 
request other than the previous regular order?
  Mr. STEVENS. I was not on the floor, apparently, when that occurred. 
We had previously indicated the Senator from West Virginia would be 
recognized. May I inquire from the Senator from Illinois how much time 
he would like?
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I request 7 or 8 minutes, but as my 
esteemed colleague from West Virginia knows, I am happy to defer to him 
if we do not have enough time before the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Illinois be recognized for not to exceed 10 minutes and then the 
Senator from West Virginia be recognized for not to exceed 15 minutes, 
and then I be recognized following the Senator from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Obama pertaining to the introdution of S. 1821 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions,'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). The Senator from Arizona is

[[Page 22282]]

recognized but should be aware of the unanimous consent agreement.
  Mr. McCAIN. I understand. I rise in an attempt to modify the 
unanimous consent agreement, with the agreement of the Senator from 
West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized 
for not longer than 4 minutes, to be immediately followed by the 
Senator from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have had to come to this Chamber many 
times and have had the privilege of doing so since 1987 when I entered 
this body. I never thought I would have to come to the Senate floor to 
defend the integrity and the reputation of a brave young American who 
has put his life on the line for his country defending the freedom of 
Afghan and Iraqi people.
  The remarks of the Senator from Alabama concerning his allegations of 
abuse and his disparagement of his word and his conduct is 
unacceptable. This young man, Captain Fishback, served in Afghanistan 
and Iraq, is a member of the 82nd Airborne, was highly decorated, and 
had the courage to come forward because of his deep-seated dedication 
to this Nation and his desire to see that we do the right thing in the 
treatment of prisoners of war.
  He says very eloquently:

     . . . Do we sacrifice our ideals in order to preserve 
     security? Terrorism inspires fear and suppresses ideals like 
     freedom and individual rights. Overcoming the fear posed by 
     terrorist threats is a tremendous test of our courage . . .

  Captain Fishback is a noble, brave young American. He does not 
deserve to be disparaged on the Senate floor by any Senator, and the 
Senator from Alabama owes him an abject and deep apology.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1955

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate will vote within the next few 
minutes on a procedural motion relating to the amendment offered by 
Senator Warner and Senator Levin. This amendment proposes to add much 
of the Defense authorization bill to the Defense appropriations bill. 
The Defense authorization bill is most complex legislation. The bill 
deals with a broad array of policy matters, ranging from providing for 
increased pay and benefits for our troops to changing laws relating to 
nuclear nonproliferation programs to authorizing military construction 
pro-
jects and so on.
  The committee report that accompanies this bill is 494 pages in 
length. It is legislation that deserves close scrutiny, full and open 
debate, and an opportunity to freely amend. If this motion carries and 
the amendment is adopted, the Senate will only have a bobtailed debate 
of just a few hours on this very important bill.
  I am a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee as well as the 
Appropriations Committee. I attended a portion of the markup of the 
Defense authorization bill which lasted several full days. Senator 
Warner and Senator Levin conducted the markup in an exemplary 
bipartisan manner, and I commend them for their outstanding efforts. 
They are always fair and very considerate of others and always 
courteous to every other Senator.
  The bill was reported from the committee on May 12 of this year, and 
it was brought to the floor on July 20. For reasons which have been 
widely discussed, the Defense authorization bill was pulled from the 
floor on July 27, after only five votes on amendments to the bill. The 
Senate could have finished consideration of the Defense authorization 
bill within a matter of 2 or 3 days or perhaps a week, if necessary, if 
the leadership had not pulled it from the floor.
  This was a precipitous act, and because of this precipitous action 
most Senators have had no opportunity to offer amendments and no 
opportunity to receive votes on their amendments. That is not the way 
the Senate ought to operate. That is not the way the Senate used to 
operate. We used to have full and open debates on this floor, take a 
week perhaps or 2 weeks on a bill this size. As I have stated, here is 
the history of this important legislation.
  The matter before the Senate is whether to allow the Defense 
authorization bill to be added to the Defense appropriations bill as an 
amendment. What a way for the Senate to operate. What a way to conduct 
this important business of the people. This is not the way the Senate 
is supposed to conduct its business. This is a forum for free, open, 
and unlimited debate. This is how the Senate is so different from other 
upper bodies throughout the world today. This is why the Senate is such 
an incredibly powerful and important forum of free debate, open debate, 
unlimited debate, the full airing of legislation, time to ask 
questions, time to answer questions, time to explain, explore, 
deliberate, and time to offer amendments. What a travesty.
  The Senate is an institution sui generis, one of its kind in this 
country, a forum where there can be free, open, unlimited debate, 
freedom of debate, freedom of speech. So the Senate is an institution 
where freedom of speech, freedom of debate, and the freedom to amend 
reign.
  Attaching such a massive bill, the Defense authorization bill, to 
another important bill, the Defense appropriations bill, will mean that 
the Senate will never have an opportunity to focus its undivided 
attention on the important matters of the Defense authorization bill. 
This is a travesty on freedom of debate. It is a travesty that strikes 
at the heart of the Senate: freedom of speech, freedom of debate, and 
freedom to amend.
  Freedom of speech has its roots buried in antiquity. Henry the Fourth 
in 1407 said that the members of commons would have freedom of speech. 
They could say whatever was on their minds about the king, if 
necessary. Freedom of speech, there it was in the English Declaration 
of Rights, February 3, 1689. And there it was, in the English Bill of 
Rights, placed there on December 6, 1689: Freedom of speech. The 
freedom of commons to speak on any subject, not to be questioned 
elsewhere in the English House of Commons, and that freedom of speech 
is enshrined in the American Constitution.
  Here we are putting a limitation and we are self-imposing it--on 
ourselves. I am a member of both the Armed Services Committee and the 
Appropriations Committee, and I believe there is a great importance to 
allowing the Senate to consider the authorization bill and the 
appropriations bills separately. Debate about funding our military 
should take place on the appropriations bill and debate about defense 
policy should take place particularly on the authorization bill. They 
are both important bills, and they should be considered separately.
  The Defense authorization bill should be brought to the floor of the 
Senate for debate and amendment as a freestanding bill, not as a 
massive rider to another bill, the appropriations bill. There ought to 
be a debate about the important matters addressed by the Defense 
authorization bill. Let there be amendments and let there be votes 
about such important matters as health care benefits for National 
Guardsmen and about the war in Iraq.
  The immediate question before the Senate is procedural in nature, but 
the heart of the matter is whether the Senate will allow parliamentary 
maneuvers to conduct an end run around how important legislation should 
be considered on the floor of the Senate.
  If the Defense authorization bill is attached to the Defense 
Appropriations Committee bill, these important and controversial 
matters will not have a full hearing on the floor of the Senate. 
Instead, any changes that may be made to the Defense authorization bill 
will only occur behind closed doors in a large, unwieldy conference 
committee. That is not the right place for debate on these important 
issues. These issues should first be debated on the floor of the Senate 
as they were on the floor of the House many months ago, but even more 
so because this is the forum for

[[Page 22283]]

free speech--freedom of debate. The Senate should not be cutting 
corners on the legislative process because what ends up being cut out 
is the freedom of speech, freedom of debate, and freedom to amend.
  It is also worth noting that the amendment now pending does not 
encompass all of the provisions of the Defense authorization bill. The 
sections of the bill that relate to military construction projects and 
nuclear weapons issues have been left out. Those are very important 
matters, considering the base closure round that occurred this year and 
the multitude of important matters relating to the thousands of nuclear 
weapons that the United States still possesses.
  What would happen to these provisions of the Defense authorization 
bill? Would they be left in limbo or would they be slipped into a 
conference report in the dark of night, never to receive any debate on 
the floor of the Senate? That is the wrong way to go.
  I have very great affection for Senator Warner and Senator Levin. I 
serve on their committee, the Committee on Armed Services. They are 
knowledgeable and able leaders of the Armed Services Committee. But I 
oppose this effort to attach the Defense authorization bill to the 
Defense Appropriations Committee bill. It is the wrong way to go, the 
wrong thing to do. It shortchanges debate. It shortchanges the American 
people, in that they will not be fully informed as to what is in each 
bill. Their representatives, their elected representatives in this 
Senate, will not have had an opportunity to fully debate, to answer 
questions, to ask questions, and to amend freely.
  What is happening to the Senate? What is happening to the Senate, I 
ask? What is happening to freedom of debate in the Senate? What is 
happening to an orderly process, the legislative process by which the 
elected representatives of the people in the Senate have a full 
opportunity to debate, to ask questions?
  Woodrow Wilson said the informing aspect was as important as the 
legislating aspect of the Senate, the informing aspect. And debate 
brings out information that the American people need and that they are 
entitled to.
  So what is happening to this Senate? I think all Senators should stop 
and think about this question. Those of us who have been here many 
years have seen the Senate when it was somewhat different than it is 
today. There was time to debate. We just weren't in session 3 days a 
week and then gone; in 3 days a week, out 4 days a week, and the 3 days 
a week often begin with a vote, which is kind of a bed-check vote at 6 
o'clock in the evening on Tuesday. So you have, really, nothing on 
Tuesday but a bed-check vote anymore, and then Wednesday and Thursday. 
What a shame.
  What is happening to the Senate? What is happening to this forum, 
this forum of freedom of debate, freedom of speech, freedom to amend--
what is happening to this Senate, and why?
  I am sorry that the Senate is going in this direction. What is 
happening? This institution has built its distinguished reputation, its 
distinguished character on the principle of freedom to debate--freedom 
of debate, freedom of speech, freedom to amend.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for another 
5 minutes?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would say to the Senator, we are 
scheduled to start at 7:30, and 6 minutes before that was equally 
divided between the Senator from Virginia and myself. So the Senator 
has probably about 3 minutes that he could proceed.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, if I could have 3 more minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Three more minutes to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. But the Senate has begun to fall short on those important 
constitutional principles. We have just a handful of votes each week 
and then the rush is on to get out that door, out that door, out this 
door here--get out. The rush is on to wrap up business on an artificial 
timetable.
  So what has happened to the Senate? The American people need to know. 
Why can't the Senate take the time for important debates on the 
important issues before our Nation. Our troops are at war in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. They are doing an outstanding service for our country. The 
Senate ought to give its undivided attention to each of the bills that 
relate to our troops. If the members of the National Guard are able to 
put their lives on hold to go fight for our country overseas, then the 
Senate ought to be able to surely spare whatever time it takes to 
debate the Defense appropriations bill and the Defense authorization 
bill as freestanding measures. America deserves that. Our troops 
deserve that.
  The Defense authorization bill ought to be brought up as a 
freestanding measure so that the Senate may work its will on that 
legislation. It should be open to debate and amendment. That is why I 
oppose the motion on the defense of germaneness for the Warner-Levin 
amendment. The Senate should not cut corners on the legislative 
process.
  Therefore, I shall vote no on the motion on the defense of 
germaneness, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no.
  Let's stand up for freedom of speech in this Senate, freedom of 
debate, freedom to offer amendments. Let's do right by the American 
people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thought I had a unanimous consent to do 
a series of modifications in the managers' package. I ask unanimous 
consent I be able to proceed now for 10 minutes, to take care of this 
managers' package?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask if I might be given, as a matter 
of personal privilege, 2 minutes to respond to the statement of Senator 
McCain?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Does the Senator from 
Alaska so modify his request?
  Mr. STEVENS. With the understanding that the Senator has 2 minutes, I 
then have 10 minutes, and then the 6 minutes starts before the 7:30 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona has asked that 
I apologize for disparaging Captain Fishback in my earlier remarks. I 
do not believe I did so in any way. The Captain has a distinguished 
record in the military. Nobody questions that.
  I did note, however, that his allegations contained in the New York 
Times article said that he had:

     . . . seen at least one interrogation where prisoners were 
     being abused and was told about other ill treatment of 
     detainees by his sergeants.

  In my statement I simply raised the question of what ``abuse'' meant 
precisely, and whether, by implication, if this was a basis for a 
charge, as the newspapers were making and others were, that there was 
systematic abuse of prisoners--which I do not believe to be the case.
  I did note that, when asked to name the individual sergeants who 
admitted they had been misbehaving or that bad activities had occurred, 
he refused to give those names.
  If something is in error about that--I simply quoted from the New 
York Times--I would be pleased to apologize. But I think those in this 
Senate who have accused the up-and-down members of the chain of command 
of the U.S. Army, the U.S. Marines, and Department of Defense of 
promoting policies to abuse prisoners, they ought to think about 
whether they should apologize. I believe that accusation is false.
  I thank the chairman and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


Amendments Nos. 2002; 1986, as Modified; 2028; 1906, as Modified; 1899, 
                     as Modified; and 2008, En Bloc

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have managers' package No. 3 before the 
Senate. This includes a Grassley amendment No. 2002 for the 
multipurpose utility vehicle; a Voinovich

[[Page 22284]]

amendment No. 1986 for the Millennium Gun System, as modified; a Graham 
amendment No. 2028 for moldable armor; a Feingold amendment No. 1906 
for civilian linguists, which contains a modification; an Akaka 
amendment No. 1899, transition assistance programs, which contains a 
modification; and a Cantwell amendment No. 2008 for infrared 
countermeasures improvement.
  I ask the Chair lay those amendments before the Senate for 
consideration en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the amendments en bloc.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for their consideration, please.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, I will not object. I do 
not know if I have seen that amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thought the Senator had.
  Mr. McCAIN. I do not object. I think we have already seen that. Thank 
you.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be agreed 
to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to en bloc, as follows:


                           Amendment No. 2002

  (Purpose: To make available $1,000,000 from Research, Development, 
Test, and Evaluation for the Army for the Multipurpose Utility Vehicle)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Of the amount appropriated by title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 
     Army'', up to $1,000,000 may be used for Combat Vehicle and 
     Automotive Technology (PE#0602601A) for the Multipurpose 
     Utility Vehicle.


                    Amendment No. 1986, as Modified

     (Purpose: Of the amounts provided for the Navy for research, 
 development, test, and evaluation, up to $3,000,000 may be available 
       for land attack technology for the Millennium Gun System)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Of the amount appropriated by this title under the heading 
     ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy'', up to 
     $3,000,000 may be available for land attack technology for 
     the Millennium Gun System.


                           Amendment No. 2028

  (Purpose: To make available $2,000,000 from Research, Development, 
         Test, and Evaluation for the Army for Moldable Armor)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Of the amount appropriated by title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 
     Army'', up to $2,000,000 may be used for Moldable Armor.


                    Amendment No. 1906, as modified

(Purpose: To provide for the establishment of a pilot project to create 
a civilian language reserve corps in order to improve national security 
  by increasing the availability of translation services and related 
                                duties)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. PILOT PROJECT FOR CIVILIAN LINGUIST RESERVE CORPS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense, acting through 
     the Chairman of the National Security Education Board, shall, 
     during the 3-year period beginning on the date of enactment 
     of this Act, carry out a pilot program to establish a 
     civilian linguist reserve corps, comprised of United States 
     citizens with advanced levels of proficiency in foreign 
     languages, who would be available, upon request from the 
     President, to perform translation and other services or 
     duties with respect foreign languages for the Federal 
     Government.
       (b) Implementation.--In establishing the Civilian Linguist 
     Reserve Corps, the Secretary, after reviewing the findings 
     and recommendations contained in the report required under 
     section 325 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 2003 (Public Law 107-306; 116 Stat. 2393), shall--
       (1) identify several foreign languages in which proficiency 
     by United States citizens is critical for the national 
     security interests of the United States and the relative 
     importance of such proficiency in each such language;
       (2) identify United States citizens with advanced levels of 
     proficiency in each foreign language identified under 
     paragraph (1) who would be available to perform the services 
     and duties referred to in subsection (a);
       (3) cooperate with other Federal agencies with national 
     security responsibilities to implement a procedure for 
     securing the performance of the services and duties referred 
     to in subsection (a) by the citizens identified under 
     paragraph (2); and
       (4) invite individuals identified under paragraph (2) to 
     participate in the civilian linguist reserve corps.
       (c) Contract Authority.--In establishing the civilian 
     linguist reserve corps, the Secretary may enter into 
     contracts with appropriate agencies or entities.
       (d) Feasibility Study.--During the course of the pilot 
     program established under this section, the Secretary shall 
     conduct a study of the best practices to be utilized in 
     establishing the civilian linguist reserve corps, including 
     practices regarding--
       (1) administrative structure;
       (2) languages that will be available;
       (3) the number of language specialists needed for each 
     language;
       (4) the Federal agencies that may need language services;
       (5) compensation and other operating costs;
       (6) certification standards and procedures;
       (7) security clearances;
       (8) skill maintenance and training; and
       (9) the use of private contractors to supply language 
     specialists.
       (e) Reports.--
       (1) Evaluation reports.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter for the next 2 
     years, the Secretary shall submit to Congress an evaluation 
     report on the pilot project conducted under this section.
       (B) Contents.--Each report under subparagraph (A) shall 
     contain information on the operation of the pilot project, 
     the success of the pilot project in carrying out the 
     objectives of the establishment of a civilian linguist 
     reserve corps, and recommendations for the continuation or 
     expansion of the pilot project.
       (2) Final report.--Not later than 6 months after the 
     completion of the pilot project, the Secretary shall submit 
     to Congress a final report summarizing the lessons learned, 
     best practices, and recommendations for full implementation 
     of a civilian linguist reserve corps.
       (f) Funding.--Of the amount appropriated under the heading 
     ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' in title II, up 
     to $1,500,000 may be available to carry out the pilot program 
     under this section.


                    Amendment No. 1899, as modified

 (Purpose: To make available up to $5,000,000 for the participation of 
Vet centers in the transition assistance programs of the Department of 
                Defense for members of the Armed Forces)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Funding for Participation of Vet Centers in 
     Transition Assistance Programs.--Of the amounts appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by this Act, up to $5,000,000 may 
     be used for the participation of Vet centers in the 
     transition assistance programs of the Department of Defense 
     for members of the Armed Forces.
       (b) Vet Centers Defined.--In this section, the term ``Vet 
     centers'' means centers for the provision of readjustment 
     counseling and related mental health services under section 
     1712A of title 38, United States Code.


                           Amendment No. 2008

  (Purpose: To make available, from funds appropriated for research, 
   development, test and evaluation, Air Force, up to $2,500,000 for 
          advanced technology for IRCM component improvement)

       On page 220, after line 25, insert the following:
       Sec. 8116. Of the amount appropriated by title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air 
     Force'', up to $2,500,000 may be available for advanced 
     technology for IRCM component improvement.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


    Amendments Nos. 1989, as Modified; 1911, as Modified; 2027, as 
Modified; 2010; 1947, as Modified; 2030, as Modified, and 2012, En Bloc

  Mr. STEVENS. I also have before the Senate a managers' package No. 4. 
Has the Senator from Arizona seen this? This contains Senator Allen's 
amendment, No. 1989, for operational gasification with a modification; 
Senator Snowe's amendment, No. 1911, for New England manufacturing with 
a modification; Senator Kerry's amendment, No. 2027, for expeditionary 
fighting vehicle, with a modification; Senator Reed of Rhode Island, 
No. 2010, for shipboard automated reconstruction; Senator Cornyn, No. 
1947, for activated factor VII, as modified; Senator Talent, No. 2030, 
on the C-17, as modified.
  I ask unanimous consent that those amendments be considered en bloc 
as presented to the Senate.

[[Page 22285]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
consider them en bloc.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I failed to mention Senator Boxer's 
amendment on mental health. It is amendment numbered 2012. I include 
that and repeat my unanimous consent request for consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will also consider the Boxer 
amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask that the Senate consider and agree to the 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendments?
  If not, the question is on the amendments.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                    Amendment No. 1989, as modified

 (Purpose: From funds appropriated for research, development, test and 
evaluation, Army, and available for demonstration and validation, up to 
  $5,000,000 may be available for the Plasma Energy Pyrolysis System 
                 (PEPS), Operational Gasification unit)

       On page 220, after line 25, insert the following:
       Sec. 8116. Of the amount appropriated by title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army'' 
     and available for demonstration and validation, up to 
     $5,000,000 may be available for the Plasma Energy Pyrolysis 
     System (PEPS), Operational Gasification unit.


                    Amendment No. 1911, as modified

(Purpose: To provide that, of the amount authorized to be appropriated 
  for the use of the Department of Defense for research, development, 
test, and evaluation for Defense-wide activities, up to $5,000,000 may 
      be available for the rapid mobilization of the New England 
                 Manufacturing Supply Chain Initiative)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Of the amount appropriated by this Act under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, 
     Defense-Wide'', up to $5,000,000 may be available for the 
     rapid mobilization of the New England Manufacturing Supply 
     Chain Initiative to meet Department of Defense supply 
     shortages and surge demands for parts and equipment.


                    Amendment No. 2027, as modified

(Purpose: To provide that, of the amount made available under title IV 
  for the Navy for research, development, test, and evaluation, up to 
$1,000,000 may be made available for Marine Corps assault vehicles for 
 development of carbon fabric-based friction materials to optimize the 
  cross-drive transmission brake system of the Expeditionary Fighting 
                                Vehicle)

       On page 220, after line 25, add the following:
       Sec. 8116. Of the amount appropriated by title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy'', 
     up to $1,000,000 may be made available for Marine Corps 
     assault vehicles for development of carbon fabric-based 
     friction materials to optimize the cross-drive transmission 
     brake system of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.


                           Amendment No. 2010

  (Purpose: To make available $2,000,000 from Research, Development, 
     Test, and Evaluation for the Navy for the Shipboard Automated 
                       Reconstruction Capability)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Of the amount appropriated by title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy, 
     up to $2,000,000 may be used for Program Element #0603235N 
     for the Shipboard Automated Reconstruction Capability.


                    Amendment No. 1947, as modified

 (Purpose: From amounts available in RDA in title IV, up to $1,000,000 
         may be available for Recombinant Activated Factor VII)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Blast Injury Prevention, Mitigation, and 
     Treatment Initiative of the Army.--Of the amount appropriated 
     by title IV under the heading ``Research, Development, Test, 
     and Evaluation, Army'', up to $1,000,000 may be available for 
     Program Element #63002A for far forward use of recombinant 
     activated factor VII.


                    Amendment No. 2030, as modified

    (Purpose: To provide for the procurement of 42 additional C-17 
                               aircraft)

       On page 220, after line 25, insert the following:
       Sec. 8116. Beginning with the fiscal year 2006 program 
     year, the Secretary of the Air Force is strongly encouraged 
     to exercise the option on the existing multiyear procurement 
     contract for C-17 aircraft in order to enter into a multiyear 
     contract for the procurement of 42 additional C-17 aircraft.


                           Amendment No. 2012

 (Purpose: To provide for a Department of Defense task force on mental 
                                health)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TASK FORCE ON MENTAL HEALTH.

       (a) Requirement To Establish.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall establish within the Department of Defense a task force 
     to examine matters relating to mental health and the Armed 
     Forces.
       (b) Composition.--
       (1) Members.--The task force shall consist of not more than 
     14 members appointed by the Secretary of Defense from among 
     individuals described in paragraph (2) who have demonstrated 
     expertise in the area of mental health.
       (2) Range of members.--The individuals appointed to the 
     task force shall include--
       (A) at least one member of each of the Army, Navy, Air 
     Force, and Marine Corps; and
       (B) a number of persons from outside the Department of 
     Defense equal to the total number of personnel from within 
     the Department of Defense (whether members of the Armed 
     Forces or civilian personnel) who are appointed to the task 
     force.
       (3) Individuals appointed within department of defense.--At 
     least one of the individuals appointed to the task force from 
     within the Department of Defense shall be the surgeon general 
     of an Armed Force or a designee of such surgeon general.
       (4) Individuals appointed outside department of defense.--
     (A) Individuals appointed to the task force from outside the 
     Department of Defense may include officers or employees of 
     other departments or agencies of the Federal Government, 
     officers or employees of State and governments, or 
     individuals from the private sector.
       (B) The individuals appointed to the task force from 
     outside the Department of Defense shall include--
       (i) an officer or employee of the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs appointed by the Secretary of Defense in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs;
       (ii) an officer or employee of the Substance Abuse and 
     Mental Health Services Administration of the Department of 
     Health and Human Services appointed by the Secretary of 
     Defense in consultation with the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services; and
       (iii) at least two individuals who are representatives of--
       (I) a mental health policy and advocacy organization; and
       (II) a national veterans service organization.
       (5) Deadline for appointment.--All appointments of 
     individuals to the task force shall be made not later than 
     120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (6) Co-chairs of task force.--There shall be two co-chairs 
     of the task force. One of the co-chairs shall be designated 
     by the Secretary of the Defense at the time of appointment 
     from among the Department of Defense personnel appointed to 
     the task force. The other co-chair shall be selected from 
     among the members appointed from outside the Department of 
     Defense by members so appointed.
       (c) Long-Term Plan on Mental Health Services.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 12 months after the date on 
     which all members of the task force have been appointed, the 
     task force shall submit to the Secretary a long-term plan 
     (referred to as a strategic plan) on means by which the 
     Department of Defense shall improve the efficacy of mental 
     health services provided to members of Armed Forces by the 
     Department of Defense.
       (2) Utilization of other efforts.--In preparing the report, 
     the task force shall take into consideration completed and 
     ongoing efforts by the Department of Defense to improve the 
     efficacy of mental health care provided to members of the 
     Armed Forces by the Department.
       (3) Elements.--The long-term plan shall include an 
     assessment of and recommendations (including recommendations 
     for legislative or administrative action) for measures to 
     improve the following:
       (A) The awareness of the prevalence of mental health 
     conditions among members of the Armed Forces.
       (B) The efficacy of existing programs to prevent, identify, 
     and treat mental health conditions among members of the Armed 
     Forces, including programs for and with respect to forward-
     deployed troops.
       (C) The reduction or elimination of barriers to care, 
     including the stigma associated with seeking help for mental 
     health related conditions, and the enhancement of 
     confidentiality for members of the Armed Forces seeking care 
     for such conditions.
       (D) The adequacy of outreach, education, and support 
     programs on mental health matters for families of members of 
     the Armed Forces.
       (E) The efficacy of programs and mechanisms for ensuring a 
     seamless transition from care of members of the Armed Forces 
     on active duty for mental health conditions through the 
     Department of Defense to care for such conditions through the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs after such members are 
     discharged or released from military, naval, or air service.

[[Page 22286]]

       (F) The availability of long-term follow-up and access to 
     care for mental health conditions for members of the 
     Individual Ready Reserve, and the Selective Reserve and for 
     discharged, separated, or retired members of the Armed 
     Forces.
       (G) Collaboration among organizations in the Department of 
     Defense with responsibility for or jurisdiction over the 
     provision of mental health services.
       (H) Coordination between the Department of Defense and 
     civilian communities, including local support organizations, 
     with respect to mental health services.
       (I) The scope and efficacy of curricula and training on 
     mental health matters for commanders in the Armed Forces.
       (J) Such other matters as the task force considers 
     appropriate.
       (d) Administrative Matters.--
       (1) Compensation.--Each member of the task force who is a 
     member of the Armed Forces or a civilian officer or employee 
     of the United States shall serve without compensation (other 
     than compensation to which entitled as a member of the Armed 
     Forces or an officer or employee of the United States, as the 
     case may be). Other members of the task force shall be 
     treated for purposes of section 3161 of title 5, United 
     States Code, as having been appointed under subsection (b) of 
     such section.
       (2) Oversight.--The Under Secretary of Defense for 
     Personnel and Readiness shall oversee the activities of the 
     task force.
       (3) Administrative support.--The Washington Headquarters 
     Services of the Department of Defense shall provide the task 
     force with personnel, facilities, and other administrative 
     support as necessary for the performance of the duties of the 
     task force.
       (4) Access to facilities.--The Under Secretary of Defense 
     for Personnel and Readiness shall, in coordination with the 
     Secretaries of the military departments, ensure appropriate 
     access by the task force to military installations and 
     facilities for purposes of the discharge of the duties of the 
     task force.
       (e) Report.--
       (1) In general.--The task force shall submit to the 
     Secretary of Defense a report on its activities under this 
     section. The report shall include--
       (A) a description of the activities of the task force;
       (B) the plan required by subsection (c); and
       (C) such other mattes relating to the activities of the 
     task force that the task force considers appropriate.
       (2) Transmittal to congress.--Not later than 90 days after 
     receipt of the report under paragraph (1), the Secretary 
     shall transmit the report to the Committees on Armed Services 
     and Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives. The Secretary may include in the transmittal 
     such comments on the report as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.
       (f) Termination.--The task force shall terminate 90 days 
     after the date on which the report of the task force is 
     submitted to Congress under subsection (e)(2).

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


 Amendments Nos. 1991, as Modified; 1964, as Modified; 1948; 2029, as 
                  Modified; 1927, as Modified, En Bloc

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have a managers' package No. 5 before 
the Senate.
  Senator Kennedy's amendment, No. 1991, for basic research programs, 
as modified; Senator Salazar, colloquy on system controls; Senator 
Murray, No. 1964, for transition assistance programs, as modified; 
Senator Coburn, No. 1948, on placing directives in the bill; Senator 
Alexander, No. 2029, for heat pumps, as modified; Senator Warner, No. 
1927, for electron source program, as modified.
  I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be considered en bloc 
by the Senate, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of amendments en bloc.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask for consideration of the 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendments.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                     amendment no. 1991 as modified

   (Purpose: To make available additional amounts for defense basic 
                           research programs)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Army Programs.--Of the amount appropriated by 
     title IV under the heading ``Research, Development, Test, and 
     Evaluation, Army'', up to an additional $10,000,000 may be 
     used for Program Element 0601103A for University Research 
     Initiatives.
       (b) Navy Programs.--Of the amount appropriated by title IV 
     under the heading ``Research, Development, Test, and 
     Evaluation, Navy'', up to an additional $5,000,000 may be 
     used for Program Element 0601103N for University Research 
     Initiatives.
       (c) Air Force Programs.--Of the amount appropriated by 
     title IV under the heading ``Research, Development, Test, and 
     Evaluation, Air Force'', up to an additional $10,000,000 may 
     be used for Program Element 0601103F for University Research 
     Initiatives.
       (d) Defense-Wide Activities.--Of the amount appropriated by 
     title IV under the heading ``Research, Development, Test, and 
     Evaluation, Defense-Wide''--
       (A) up to an additional $10,000,000 may be used for Program 
     Element 0601120D8Z for the SMART National Defense Education 
     Program; and
       (B) up to an additional $5,000,000 may be used for Program 
     Element 0601101E for the Defense Advanced Research Projects 
     Agency University Research Program in Cyberse-
     curity.
       (e) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that it 
     should be a goal of the Department of Defense to allocate to 
     basic research programs each fiscal year an amount equal to 
     15 percent of the funds available to the Department of 
     Defense for science and technology in such fiscal year.


                     amendment no. 1964 as modified

 (Purpose: To provide for studies of means of improving the transition 
assistance services of the Department of Defense and other benefits for 
            members of the National Guard and the Reserves)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. REPORT ON REVIEW AND IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPTROLLER 
                   GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON TRANSITION 
                   ASSISTANCE FOR MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL GUARD 
                   AND RESERVES.

       (a) Report.--Not later than 30 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit 
     to the congressional defense committees report on the status 
     of the review of, and actions taken to implement, the 
     recommendations of the Comptroller General of the United 
     States in the report of the Comptroller General entitled 
     ``Military and Veterans Benefits: Enhanced Services Could 
     Improve Transition Assistance for Reserves and National 
     Guard'' (GAO 05-544).
       (b) Particular Information.--If the Secretary has 
     determined in the course of the review described in 
     subsection (a) not to implement any recommendation of the 
     Comptroller General described in that subsection, the report 
     under that subsection shall include a justification of such 
     determination.


                           amendment no. 1948

  (Purpose: To require that any limitation, directive, or earmarking 
   contained in either the House of Representatives or Senate report 
 accompanying this bill be included in the conference report or joint 
  statement accompanying the bill in order to be considered as having 
               been approved by both Houses of Congress)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Any limitation, directive, or earmarking contained 
     in either the House of Representatives or Senate report 
     accompanying H.R. 2863 shall also be included in the 
     conference report or joint statement accompanying H.R. 2863 
     in order to be considered as having been approved by both 
     Houses of Congress.


                     amendment no. 2029 as modified

(Purpose: To require a report on the use of ground source heat pumps at 
                   Department of Defense facilities)

       On page 220, after line 25, insert the following:
       Sec. 8116. (a) Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     submit to the congressional defense committees a report on 
     the use of ground source heat pumps at Department of Defense 
     facilities.
       (b) The report required under subsection (a) shall 
     include--
       (1) a description of the types of Department of Defense 
     facilities that use ground source heat pumps;
       (2) an assessment of the applicability and cost-
     effectiveness of the use of ground source heat pumps at 
     Department of Defense facilities in different geographic 
     regions of the United States;
       (3) a description of the relative applicability of ground 
     source heat pumps for purposes of new construction at, and 
     retrofitting of, Department of Defense facilities; and

[[Page 22287]]




                     amendment no. 1927 as modified

(Purpose: To make available up to $1,500,000 for the Navy for research, 
development, test, and evaluation, to be available for research within 
              the High-Brightness Electron Source program)

       In the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. 8116. (a) Of the amount appropriated by title IV under 
     the heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, 
     Navy'' up to $1,500,000 may be available for research within 
     the High-Brightness Electron Source program.


                           Amendment No. 1991

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, our military is first in the world, 
because of the quality and training of our personnel and because of the 
technological sophistication of our equipment and weaponry. A large 
portion of the best civilian scientific minds in the Defense Department 
are nearing retirement age.
  I rise to thank my colleagues for their support and adoption of the 
amendment Senator Collins and I offered to ensure that the Department 
maintains the workforce that it needs to stay globally competitive and 
invests in crucial research and development efforts.
  Our amendment includes $10 million to double the committee's funding 
for the Department's current SMART Scholars program, which is 
essentially an ROTC program for the agency's civilian scientists. This 
represents a $17.8 million increase over the $2.5 million funding level 
provided last year--the program's first year in existence.
  It increases by $30 million the Department's funding of basic 
research in science and technology, to ensure that its investment in 
this field is maintained and our military technology remains the best 
in the world.
  Our amendment provides sufficient funding for the full cost of 
college scholarships and graduate fellowships for approximately 100 
science, technology, engineering, and math students. It increases basic 
research in the Army, Navy, Air Force, DARPA, and National Defense 
Education Program. It is supported by more than 60 of the most 
prestigious institutions of higher education in America.
  Defense Department-sponsored research has resulted in stunningly 
sophisticated spy satellites, precision-guided munitions, stealth 
equipment, and advanced radar. The research has also generated new 
applications in the civilian economy. The best known example is the 
Internet, originally a DARPA project.
  Advances in military technology often have their source in the work 
of civilian scientists in Department of Defense laboratories. 
Unfortunately, a large percentage of these scientists are nearing 
retirement. Today, nearly one in three DOD civilian science, technical, 
engineering, and mathematical employee is eligible to retire. In 7 
years, 70 percent will be of retirement age.
  Another distressing fact is that the number of new scientists being 
produced by our major universities at the doctoral level each year has 
declined by 4 percent over the last decade. Many of those who do 
graduate are ineligible to work on sensitive defense matters, since 
more than a third of all science and engineering doctorate degrees 
awarded at American universities go to foreign students.
  It is unlikely that retiring DOD scientists will be replaced by 
current private industry employees. According to the National Defense 
Industrial Association, over 5,000 science and engineering positions 
are unfilled in private industry in defense-related fields.
  The Nation confronts a major math and science challenge in elementary 
and secondary education and in higher education as well. We are tied 
with Latvia for 28th in the industrialized world today in math math 
education, and that is far from good enough. We have fallen from 3rd in 
the world to 15th in producing scientists and engineers. Clearly, we 
need a new National Defense Education Act of the size and scope passed 
nearly 50 years ago.
  At the very least, however, the legislation before us needs to do 
more to maintain our military's technological advantage. Last year, 
over 100 ``highly rated'' SMART Scholar applications were turned down 
because of insufficient funding. Our amendment has sufficient funds to 
support every one of those talented young people who want to learn and 
serve.
  It also increases the investment in basic research in science and 
technology. Investments by DOD in science and technology through the 
1980s helped the United States win the cold war. But funding for basic 
research in the physical sciences, math and engineering has not kept 
pace with research in other areas. Federal funding for life sciences 
has risen fourfold since the 1980s. Over the same period, 
appropriations for the physical sciences, engineering, and mathematics 
have remained essentially flat. Funding for basic research fell from 
fiscal year 1993 to fiscal year 2004 by more than 10 percent in real 
terms.
  The Defense Science Board has recommended that funding for Science 
and Technology reach 3 percent of total defense spending, and the 
administration and Congress have adopted this goal in the past. The 
board also recommended that 2 percent of that amount be dedicated to 
basic research. We must do better, and our amendment makes progress on 
this issue.
  I thank my colleagues for recognizing the importance of this 
amendment and for their support in its adoption. I hope that we will 
continue to see similar increases in these programs in the future.


                           Amendment No. 1955

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we have 6 
minutes equally divided before the Senate's consideration of the Warner 
amendment. Senator Warner seeks a Senate vote on whether his amendment 
is germane to the bill. But before that occurs, it is my understanding 
the leaders may want to use some of their leadership time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 6 minutes of debate divided on 
the germaneness of the Warner amendment.
  The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I shall divide my time equally with my 
colleague Senator Levin, ranking member of the committee.
  Mr. President, the question of germaneness has already been, in a 
sense, ruled on by the Parliamentarians who said in their judgment it 
is germane. The question is simply do we or do we not at this time, 
when our Nation is at war, bring up on the appropriations bill section 
A of the authorization bill?
  I simply say to my colleagues, I trust you--I trust you to look at 
this extraordinary circumstance in which we are a nation at war, 
needing this bill to send a message. And I trust you that the amendment 
process will not be abused and that we can in a reasonable period of 
time accommodate those amendments that might be offered as second-
degree amendments, and that your bill can go forward with the vitally 
needed appropriations funds.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the only way we are going to be able to 
consider the Defense authorization bill, apparently, this year is if we 
offer this as an amendment and then amend it. You heard from the 
Senator from Alaska earlier today that this would open up the bill, the 
appropriations bill, to amendments, that they would be unlimited. We 
heard the opposite argument from our dear friend from West Virginia 
that this would restrict amendments on the authorization. The only way 
we are going to be able to have debate on amendments on the 
authorization bill is if we consider the authorization bill now.
  The leader, in his wisdom, pulled down the authorization bill when it 
was pending. As far as I know, there is not a decision on his part to 
bring that authorization bill back to the floor. How I dearly wish we 
could have a separate authorization bill. But we are not going to get 
it, except in this process.
  It is amendable. I assure my friend from West Virginia that the only 
way we are going to debate the authorization bill on the floor of the 
Senate and offer amendments is if we follow this process. It is 
amendable. It is debatable. It is free speech at its utmost.

[[Page 22288]]

The alternative is the absence of debate on the authorization bill.
  We have been able to clear about 100 amendments, plus. We do that in 
the ordinary process. We do that every year on the authorization bill. 
We try to accommodate our colleagues. We have gone through that 
process. There are another dozen or so amendments which we would have 
to consider that we know about.
  Let us follow that process. There is so much in this bill that is 
needed. There is a health provision in this bill and a lot of other 
provisions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, let me begin by saying, very succinctly, 
a vote against this issue of germaneness is not a vote against defense. 
This is the Defense appropriations bill. It is meant to carry the money 
to the Department of Defense and all of those involved in defense. It 
is not meant to carry the authorization. That is what rule XVI is all 
about. What we are looking at now is the Defense authorization bill 
being brought to this bill in part. This is not the whole bill. This is 
just part A; B and C were left out.
  This is not going to finish debate on the authorization bill. It will 
only take up a part of it. There are a whole series of amendments that 
have been offered to the authorization bill, and, as a matter of fact, 
Senator Warner has offered now two packages of amendments that have 
been approved by himself and Senator Levin. But they have not been 
considered, as far as we are concerned, as amendments to the 
appropriations bill. But that is what they want. They want us to accept 
their portion of the bill plus their amendments to the bill without any 
consideration for anybody. This is 108 amendments en bloc, not agreed 
to by the managers of this bill but agreed to by the would-be managers 
of the Defense authorization bill.
  Offering the authorization bill to this bill without an agreement is 
an enormous precedent. I have been involved now 38 years, almost. It 
has never happened in my career, that a bill was brought to the 
appropriations bill and offered and then subject to amendment.
  Often, we have taken whole bills at times and taken them to 
conference. Even that has been objected to by some. But normally we 
have taken omnibus bills. The authorizers are trying to make this an 
omnibus bill.
  There are also other bills waiting in the wings that haven't been 
heard. What are we going to do with them if this process is to be 
followed?
  But again, I want to note that a vote to find that this is germane--
and I think I understand the question of what Senator Warner said about 
what the Parliamentarians have done.
  I make a parliamentary inquiry: Has the Parliamentarian ruled that 
this amendment is germane or just that it is subject to being found 
germane by the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Parliamentarian has advised that the 
Senator may raise a defense of germaneness.
  Mr. STEVENS. Defense of germaneness is available to the Senator?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is then submitted to the Senate.
  Mr. STEVENS. A vote against this position of the Senator from 
Virginia would not be overturning the Chair, would it?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would not.
  Mr. STEVENS. What we have here is a situation where it is critical 
that we finish this bill this week. Let me tell you why.
  This bill is the supplemental appropriations bill for Defense for 
activities in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terror. We are in a 
continuing resolution period. There is no money in the continuing 
resolution for that part. I hope the Senate will understand that this 
authorization bill has no place in this bill as a bill to become 
amended by the processes of the Senate in the future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask to speak on leader time.
  We will in a very few minutes be coming to a vote on the question of 
germaneness on the Warner amendment. I want to take a few minutes to 
comment on two issues. One is what we have been talking about over the 
last 30 or 45 minutes; that is, the Defense authorization bill. And 
secondly, I want to make a quick comment on the germaneness issue.
  We heard the distinguished Senator from West Virginia argue very 
strongly to have a freestanding Defense authorization bill come to the 
floor, and that is the most appropriate way to handle that bill. I 
agree to that. In fact, we have tried to do that in the past. We spent 
about 4 days on the floor, and at that time, because we had well over 
100 amendments, took it off the floor to be addressed at some point in 
the future.
  We heard from the Senator from Michigan saying the only way that we 
believe we can deal with this is by offering it as an amendment, which 
has been done to the appropriations bill. I want to make it very clear 
I disagree with that.
  First, Defense appropriations: I think the appropriate way of dealing 
with this very important bill is to have it as a freestanding piece of 
legislation. As I mentioned, we have attempted to do that in the past, 
and I have been trying very hard to do that over the last couple of 
weeks. We had an offer on the floor that both the Democratic leader and 
the chairman and ranking member are well aware of, as most Members in 
our caucus are; that is, we would bring the Defense authorization bill 
to the floor as a freestanding bill, with 12 amendments to either side 
with second-degree amendments allowed under a time agreement.
  Those amendments we have asked to be related or within the 
jurisdiction of that particular committee. That is what we have been 
working with. We have been waiting and working all day. We have for the 
last about 8 or 9 days been waiting for a response from the other side 
of the aisle. I understand the other side of the aisle cannot agree 
with that unanimous consent request. I do propound it, in large part, 
to let all of our colleagues know we have been working on it, and we 
feel strongly there is a way to bring this Defense authorization bill 
up freestanding with appropriate amendments.
  With that, I will, at this point in time, propound that unanimous 
consent to make this clear. I ask consent, when the Senate resumes 
consideration of S. 1042, the Defense authorization bill, it be 
considered under the following limitations. All of the pending 
amendments be withdrawn and the bill be considered as follows: The only 
first-degree amendments in order be up to 12 amendments to be offered 
by the two leaders or their designees; provided further that the 
amendments be within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed 
Services and that these amendments be subject to second degrees, which 
are to be relevant to the amendment to which they have offered; 
provided further that the first-degree amendments be limited to 1 hour 
of debate equally divided in the usual form, with any second degrees 
limited to 30 minutes of debate equally divided.
  I further ask that there then be 2 hours of general debate on the 
bill divided between the two managers; provided further that the 
amendments be offered on a rotating basis, and if an amendment is not 
available at the conclusion of the previous amendment, then the 
amendment no longer be in order.
  Finally, I ask consent, at the expiration of that time and the 
disposition of the above amendments, the bill be read the third time 
and the Senate proceed to a vote on the passage of the bill as amended, 
if amended, with no intervening action or debate.
  Mr. REID. Of course, I am going to object, but I want to use some of 
my leader time to talk about the travesty before the Senate at this 
time.
  The Committee on Armed Services completed their work on this bill 
around the 1st of May, give or take a day or two. For 5 months, we have 
been trying to get this bill to the floor. For Members to cry crocodile 
tears that this might take an extra day or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5, we need 
only look at the history of the Senate.

[[Page 22289]]

  I heard the remarks of the Senator from West Virginia. I agree with 
him. Can anyone imagine the Senate not having time to do the Defense 
authorization bill? We have men and women, as we speak, being shot at 
driving down roads and darkened streets in Iraq not knowing if they 
will make it home--because of a roadside bomb--home to their billet for 
that evening.
  We have almost 2,000 men and women who have been killed in Iraq. We 
have had 15 to 20,000 wounded. Shouldn't we take a little time to talk 
about the work done by the duly constituted committee of the Senate, 
the Committee on Armed Services, take a look at what we need to do on a 
policy basis?
  I am a proud member of the Committee on Appropriations. I have been 
on this committee since the day I got here. I am proud of it. It is the 
best committee in the Senate. But the Senate Committee on 
Appropriations does not run everything around here. Other committees 
work as hard as we do and have the right to have the matters they work 
on in committee heard.
  We have devoted basically one day to this bill. It was pulled because 
of gun liability.
  Now, in years past, we have worked our way through this. It has not 
been easy, but we have done it. The 10-year average: in the last 10 
years, we have averaged 133 amendments, and we have averaged 14 
rollcalls per bill. Why? Because we have had the same managers for a 
long time. They know how to work through these amendments. There is 
some give-and-take and some unhappy people, but we respect these two 
men. We work our way through it. That is the way it has been for 10 
years.
  The average for hours of debate on this bill is 47\1/4\ hours. We 
have spent as much as 88 hours. When did we do that? Last year. We 
spent 88 hours on this bill last year. We had 196 amendments.
  The point I make is that the real issue here--my two dear friends, 
the senior Senator from Virginia and the senior Senator from Michigan, 
think it is defense matters. It is not. It is Katrina. That is what it 
is about. We want to have a vote on an independent bipartisan 
commission to figure out what went wrong down in the gulf coast. We 
have not been allowed to have a vote on that. All we want is a vote. 
The only way we can do it is have a bill of substance, not one on an 
appropriations bill, so we can offer the amendment.
  So this is a system that works just fine. The Senate was not set up 
to be convenient. It was not set up to have short periods of time to 
work. It was set up to do the business of this country. It has worked 
pretty well for more than 200 years.
  One of the things we have traditionally done in time of war or peace 
is the Defense authorization bill.
  So here it is, I have been to this floor I don't know how many times, 
but many, many times since last May, saying, Let's do a defense 
authorization bill. I can remember talking about one of my trips to the 
hospital and seeing the people in bed and how I felt I owed them 
something to come here and ask for time to hear their views. And they 
have views as to what is good and bad in Iraq. I have been here many 
times. I have added up weeks with the ranking member trying to get some 
way to the floor. And here at this time of night, as we are winding 
things down, we get a unanimous consent request that everyone knows is 
going to be objected to.
  The Senator from West Virginia pretty well knows how to express 
himself. He may come from coal-mining families. He may have been an 
orphan. But he knows how to talk. He explained in very good detail why 
we cannot have the Senate run similar to the House of Representatives.
  I want the record to reflect that the Defense authorization bill 
should have been debated a long time ago. We are ready to debate it any 
time. We are willing to enter into time agreements on amendments, but 
to come here tonight and say we are going to do 12 amendments, does 
anybody object--what I should have done is not object and have that 
side of the aisle watch them go to the ceiling. They would not like it 
either.
  I am standing here and saying, I not only object, I object 1,000 
times, until we get back to being Senators and doing things the way we 
have done.
  The number of amendments, 196 last year. We spent 16 days on it; in 
2003, 5 days, 75 amendments; back in 1997, 8 days, 120 amendments, 44 
hours. Couldn't we spend a little bit of time on this bill?
  The answer is, no, we are going to do the appropriations bill.
  I know appropriations. As I have said, I have been on the committee 
for a long time. But as much as I love my committee assignment--it is 
the only committee I have anymore; I gave them all up with this job, 
but I love the Committee on Appropriations. I repeat, there are other 
committees that are as important as the Committee on Appropriations. 
The problem is, we have strict rules of how appropriations bills are 
handled, for obvious reasons.
  I want the record to reflect I do my best, and sometimes that is not 
good enough, to be a partner with my friend, the majority leader. I 
don't want this statement I make to reflect on him personally. I am 
talking about the process that comes about as a result of him being a 
leader. I don't like the process. I think we could have done it better. 
I think we should have done this bill. I could be wrong, but I say to 
my chair and my distinguished friend, I think the only amendment we 
have had in this is one dealing with Boy Scouts--four others--and that 
was offered by the distinguished majority leader. I know it is well-
intentioned, but I don't think it had much to do with the Defense 
authorization bill.
  Let's let the record reflect I object. I object. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the objection we heard was to a unanimous 
consent.
  Mr. REID. I have a unanimous consent request that I should have made, 
that we resume consideration of Defense authorization upon disposition 
of the Defense appropriations bill.
  Mr. FRIST. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the unanimous consent I propounded that was 
objected to by the other side is exactly what we have been working on 
the last couple of weeks. It did say we would have a freestanding bill 
to bring a very important bill to the floor. We have spent several 
days, I believe 4 days, on that bill in the past. I had 24 amendments, 
12 to either side, plus second-degree amendments, of which there is no 
limit for. But it was objected to.
  We will continue to work in that regard because I believe at some 
point we will be able to address that bill. What we will vote on, in 
hopefully a couple of minutes, is the germaneness of the Warner 
amendment, the authorization bill. The real challenge is if this bill 
is ruled germane, it will bog down what we are trying to do. There can 
be an endless number of amendments that are attached if it is germane; 
130 have been filed. There would be unlimited second-degree amendments 
that could be applied toward the Warner amendment if that is found to 
be germane.
  The appropriate way to deal with the Warner amendment is as a 
freestanding authorization bill. I agree with Senator Warner. We need 
to do that, and we will work toward that in the future. I am 
disappointed the other side will not allow us to do it as a 
freestanding bill. Institutionally, if we start taking the huge 
authorization bills and start dumping them into the appropriations 
bill, the appropriations process, which is already difficult enough, is 
going do come to a grinding halt.
  Therefore, I ask my colleagues to vote that the Warner amendment be 
not germane, joining the chairman and the ranking Member of the bill as 
well as Senator Byrd, that this is not germane, and if it is not 
germane, it will allow us to continue on with the Defense 
appropriations bill in a disciplined way to complete, hopefully, by the 
end of Friday.
  Mr. WARNER. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

[[Page 22290]]


  Mr. THUNE. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, under Senate rule XVI, now submits 
to the Senate the question raised by the Senator from Virginia, Mr. 
Warner: Namely, is his amendment No. 1955 germane or relevant to any 
legislative language already in the House-passed bill?
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 247 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Akaka
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dole
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Graham
     Hagel
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Talent
     Thune
     Warner

                                NAYS--50

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lott
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Corzine
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are 
50. The Senate has voted the amendment not germane, and it falls for 
that reason.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1933

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 6 minutes evenly divided on the 
vote with respect to the Bayh amendment. Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. What is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 1933 offered by the Senator from 
Indiana. There will be 6 minutes evenly divided.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I make a point of order under section 
302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment provides 
spending in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation under the 
fiscal year 2006 concurrent resolution on the budget.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act 
for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, under the previous order, this is a 10-
minute vote; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Is all time yielded back?
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I thank our colleague, Senator Kennedy, for 
his steadfast support of this amendment. I thank our colleague, Senator 
Stevens, both for his courtesy at this moment and also because while we 
may have a substantive disagreement about this amendment, I know his 
heart is in the right place.
  This amendment ensures that our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan will 
have the equipment they need to accomplish their mission while keeping 
them out of harm's way. In deciding how to vote, I ask my colleagues to 
consider three things. First, the lesson of Katrina and regrettably the 
lesson of Iraq is that our Nation, when lives are at stake, must always 
plan for the worst, even as we hope for the best. Unfortunately, this 
has not happened in Iraq. On the contrary, our Armed Forces have 
consistently underestimated the need for armored vehicles in that 
theater of war. Nine times they have underestimated the need. They are 
no longer entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Regrettably, Walter 
Reed Army Hospital and other military hospitals are filled with the 
consequences of these errors. Let us not make that mistake again.
  I ask my colleagues to recall the image of that brave soldier who 
stood up in a conversation with our Secretary of Defense, complaining 
about what he referred to as ``hillbilly'' armor, talking about our 
brave troops having to search through garbage dumps for the ability to 
defend themselves from hostile attack. We owe them better than that. 
Better than that is exactly what this amendment will provide. I ask for 
Senators' favorable consideration.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am delighted to join my colleague once 
again, Senator Bayh, in sponsoring this amendment, No. 1933, which 
increases funding for the procurement of armored Tactical Wheeled 
Vehicles for the Army.
  Together, Senator Bayh and I have worked very hard together to make 
sure our soldiers have what they need. In April of this year, the 
Senate added $150 million for additional armored vehicles in the Iraq 
Supplemental.
  Now we want to work together to keep our troops in the field properly 
equipped and also make sure they have the proper equipment on hand at 
home to train with prior to going overseas. The money in this amendment 
will make sure that the Army's pre-positioned stocks are re-constituted 
after over 2\1/2\ years at war.
  There are also funds for the Joint Readiness Training Center at Fort 
Polk, LA. The Joint Readiness Training Center provides advance level 
joint training for the Army's Active and Reserve Component, Air Force 
and Navy forces. The training they receive simulates what they will 
face when deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.
  This issue has been divisive for far too long. All of us support our 
troops. We obviously want to do all we can to see that they have proper 
equipment, vehicles, and everything else they need to protect their 
lives and carry out their missions.
  It's scandalous that the administration has kept sending them into 
battle year after year in Iraq without adequate equipment. It's 
scandalous that desperate parents and wives here at home have had to 
resort to Wal-Mart to try to buy armor and mail it to their loved ones 
in Iraq to protect them on the front lines. Secretary Rumsfeld has 
rarely been more humiliated than on his visit to Iraq last December, 
when a soldier had the courage to ask him why the troops had to 
scavenge scrap metal on the streets to protect themselves. The cheer 
that roared out from troops when he asked question said it all.
  More than 400 troops have already died in military vehicles 
vulnerable to roadside bombs, grenades, and other notorious improvised 
explosive devices.
  Many of us have visited soldiers at Walter Reed and Bethesda and seen 
the tragic consequences of inadequate armor. We want to ensure that 
parents grieving at Arlington National Cemetery no longer ask, ``Why 
weren't more armored humvees available?''
  It's taken far too long to solve this problem. We have to make sure 
we solve it now, once and for all. We can't keep hoping the problem 
will somehow go away.
  In a letter last October 20, General Abizaid said, ``The FY 2004 
Supplemental Request will permit the services to rapidly resolve many 
of the

[[Page 22291]]

equipment issues you mentioned to include the procurement of . . . 
Humvees.''
  We have been told for months that the Army's shortage of Up-Armored 
Humvees was a thing of the past. The Army could have, and should have, 
moved much more quickly to correct the problem. As retired General Paul 
Kern, who headed the Army Materiel Command until last November, said, 
``. . . It took too long to materialize.'' He said, ``In retrospect, if 
I had it to do all over, I would have just started building up-armored 
Humvees. The most efficient way would have been to build a single 
production line and feed everything into it.''
  In April, GAO released a report that clearly identifies the struggles 
the Pentagon has faced. In August 2003, only fifty-one Up-Armored 
Humvees were being produced a month. It took the industrial base a year 
and a half to work up to making 400 a month. Now the Army says they can 
now get delivery of 550 a month. The question is, why did it take so 
long? Why did we go to war without the proper equipment? Why didn't we 
fix it sooner, before so many troops have died?
  According to GAO, there are two primary causes for the shortage of 
up-armored vehicles and add-on-armor kits.
  First, a decision was made to ramp-up production gradually rather 
than use the maximum available capacity.
  Second, funding allocations did not keep up with rapidly increasing 
requirements. Obviously, the Pentagon was still being influenced by its 
cakewalk mentality.
  The GAO report specifically states that Pentagon decision-makers set 
the rate at which both up-armored Humvees and armor kits would be 
produced, and did not tell Congress about the total available 
production capacity. GAO was unable to determine what criteria were 
used to set the rate of production. In both cases, additional 
production capacity was available, particularly for the kits.
  The delay was unconscionable. Without this amendment, the production 
rate of Up-armored humvees could drop off again later this year. We 
need to guarantee that we are doing everything possible to get the 
protection to our troops as soon as possible. We owe it to them, to 
their families here at home and to the American people.
  We need to make sure our troops overseas have the best equipment 
available to protect them in combat. They also need to have the same 
equipment to train with at the Joint Readiness Center and the money in 
this amendment will ensure that happens.
  The amendment contributes significantly to this goal, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on a recent trip to Iraq, we saw the up-
armoring taking place in country. They are doing it now in specially 
created circumstances there. But beyond that, we have funded the total 
capacity of the plants in the United States to produce up-armor. We 
have done everything we can. If we can find additional capacity, we 
have another supplemental coming in the spring, we will join the 
Senator in urging more money. But we have used every dollar we can for 
up-armoring in the plants and in facilities. You should see the Oshkosh 
plant over there. They are up-armoring trucks and all sorts of vehicles 
now in country.
  I urge the Senate to understand this amendment is duplicative. We 
already provided the maximum amount before us that we can possibly 
spend with the existing capacity of the system now, $240 million for 
humvees, $150 million for the Army tactical wheeled vehicle. In 
addition to that, we are sending strikers now. We visited strikers in 
the Mosul area. They are enormous systems, and they are already 
armored. They don't have to be up-armored. We need more strikers, more 
armored vehicles, but we are doing the best we can. And we are using 
every bit of capacity the system has. This amendment will be 
duplicative of that funding.
  I oppose the Senator's amendment despite my admiration for him and 
insistence that we do the maximum possible in armoring our vehicles.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my name be 
added as a cosponsor of the amendment offered by Senator Bayh.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. BAYH. I thank my colleague from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield back my time.
  Mr. BAYH. I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive the Budget Act with respect to amendment No. 1933.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have been ordered. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 248 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Talent
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--43

     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Corzine
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 56, the nays are 
43. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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 Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. What is now the pending business?


                           Amendment No. 1977

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 6 minutes evenly divided before 
a vote with respect to the McCain amendment No. 1977.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, war is an awful enterprise and I know 
that. I do not think I am naive about how severe are the wages of war 
and how terrible are the things that must be done to wage it 
successfully. It is a grim, dark business, and no matter how noble the 
cause for which it is fought, no matter how valued their service, many 
veterans spend much of their subsequent lives trying to forget not only 
what was done to them and their comrades but some of what had to be 
done by their hand to prevail.
  I do not mourn the loss of any terrorist's life, nor do I care if in 
the course of serving their noble cause they suffered great harm. They 
have pledged

[[Page 22292]]

their lives to the intentional destruction of innocent lives, and they 
have earned their terrible punishment in this life and the next.
  What I do regret, what I do mourn, and what I do care very much about 
is what we lose, what we, the American service man and woman, and the 
great Nation they defend at the risk of their lives, when by official 
policy or by official negligence we allow, confuse, or encourage our 
soldiers to forget that the best sense of ourselves, that which is our 
greatest strength, that we are different and better than our enemies, 
that we fight for an idea, not a tribe, not a land, not a king, not a 
twisted interpretation of an ancient religion but for an idea that all 
men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable 
rights.
  I have been asked before where did the brave men I was privileged to 
serve with in Vietnam draw the strength to resist to the best of their 
ability the cruelties inflicted on them by our enemies? Well, they drew 
strength from our faith in each other, from our faith in God, and from 
our faith in our country.
  Our enemies did not adhere to the Geneva Convention. Many of my 
comrades were subjected to very cruel, very inhumane, and degrading 
treatment, a few of them even unto death. But every single one of us 
knew and took great strength from the belief that we were different 
from our enemies, that we were better than them, that if the roles were 
reversed, we would not disgrace ourselves by committing or 
countenancing such mistreatment of them. That faith was indispensable 
not only to our survival but to our attempts to return home with honor. 
Many of the men I served with would have preferred death to such 
dishonor.
  The enemies we fight today hold such liberal notions in contempt as 
they hold in contempt the international conventions that enshrine them, 
such as the Geneva Conventions and the Treaty on Torture. I know that. 
But we are better than them, and we are stronger for our faith, and we 
will prevail.
  I submit to my colleagues that it is indispensable to our success in 
this war that our service men and women know that in the discharge of 
their dangerous responsibilities to their country they are never 
expected to forget that they are Americans and the valiant defenders of 
a sacred idea of how nations should govern their own affairs and their 
relations with others, even our enemies.
  Those who return to us and those who give their lives for us are 
entitled to that honor. Those of us who have given them this onerous 
duty are obliged by our history and by the sacrifices, the many 
terrible sacrifices, that they have made in our defense. We are obliged 
to make clear to them that they need not risk their honor or their 
country's honor to prevail; that through the violence, chaos, and 
heartache of war, through deprivation and cruelty and loss, they are 
always Americans, and different, better, and stronger than those who 
would destroy us. God bless them as He has blessed us with their 
service.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise to speak on leader time. I thank 
Senator McCain for his efforts on this very important issue that we 
have been debating, talking about, and focusing upon for a long period 
of time. It is an important matter that affects both our American 
reputation abroad and the conduct of our military personnel in this 
global war on terrorism.
  It is important to state that the performance of American 
servicemembers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the globe has 
been outstanding, has been inspiring, and truly representative of the 
best our Nation has to offer. This amendment strives to establish 
uniform standards for the interrogation of prisoners and detainees as a 
means for helping ensure our service men and women are well trained, 
well briefed, knowledgeable of their legal, professional, and moral 
duties and obligations. Therefore, I fully support the purpose and 
intent of this amendment, and although I understand it may require some 
fine-tuning to prevent any unintended consequences, I do intend to vote 
for it with that in mind.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am compelled to speak in opposition to this amendment, 
although I wholeheartedly agree with what the Senator from Arizona has 
said. It was a marvelous statement made by a man who has every reason 
to say exactly what he said. I support what the majority leader has 
said, but there is a classified annex to the Army Field Manual that is 
not spelled out in this amendment, and there are people who are not in 
uniform who may not even be citizens of the United States who represent 
us in very strange and dangerous places, whose lives may be put in 
jeopardy by the process that is spelled out in part of this amendment. 
I speak for them.
  I honor all service men and women, and I really believe they should 
absolutely follow the lifestyle of the Senator from Arizona, as well as 
his statement tonight. But as the leader has said, there are some 
changes that have to be made if we are to be faithful to those people 
who live in the classified world and will be covered by the classified 
annex that, if one reads the amendment, is not covered here.
  I have to do my best to make sure that when we get to conference 
people understand that there is that problem. Therefore, I shall oppose 
the amendment and try to straighten it out in conference. I know it 
would pass.
  I yield back the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. The yeas and nays 
have been ordered. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1977.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 9, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 249 Leg.]

                                YEAS--90

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     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
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--9

     Allard
     Bond
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Inhofe
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Stevens

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Corzine
       
  The amendment (No. 1977) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1978

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is evenly divided before a vote with 
respect to amendment No. 1978.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The McCain amendment No. 1978.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if I could have a minute, I want to warn 
the Senate that we may be here all night. We may have to have our 
cloture vote after adjournment at about 11:55. We would vote about 
12:55 or 1:05 on cloture. Because if we are to have 30 hours and still 
finish by the time some people want to leave on Friday, it has to start 
at that time or else we have to get unanimous consent to shorten the

[[Page 22293]]

time. If we vote tomorrow morning at 10, we will be here until 6 
o'clock or 7 o'clock Friday afternoon. Just a warning--not yet. We are 
still trying to work it out.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time on the amendment? The Senator 
from Arizona controls the time and the Senator from Alaska controls the 
opposition.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment would prohibit for 1 year 
the transfer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend for a moment. The 
Senate will be in order.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment would prohibit, for 1 year, 
the transfer of $23 million in cash to the Government of Uzbekistan.
  Just this year, the government of President Islam Karimov has taken a 
number of actions so alarming, that one would think this body would be 
considering sanctions, not how to transfer millions of taxpayer dollars 
to this government.
  In May, the government massacred up to 1,000 people, mostly unarmed 
men, women, and children protesting the government's corruption, lack 
of opportunity, and continued oppression. The government has rejected 
all calls for an independent international inquiry and blamed a foreign 
conspiracy for the protest. It even placed blame on the United States 
for the events, saying that rebels received money from the U.S. embassy 
in Tashkent.
  The Uzbek government launched a campaign of anti-American propaganda 
after its massacre, staging rallies to denounce the United States. 
President Karimov suggested that the U.S. was behind not just the event 
in Andijan but also served as the ``scriptwriters and directors'' of 
the ``colored revolutions'' in other countries.
  In July, Karimov's government announced that the U.S. will no longer 
have access to the K2 base in Uzbekistan, and evicted all U.S. troops 
from the country. In addition, his government has terminated 
counterter-
rorism cooperation with the United States.
  This week the EU announced that it will impose sanctions against 
Uzbekistan. But the Pentagon wants to send $23 million to pay past 
bills. Paying our bills is important. But more important is America 
standing up for itself; avoiding the misimpression that we overlook 
massacres; and avoiding cash transfers to the treasury of a dictator 
just months after he permanently evicts American soldiers from his 
country.
  We should postpone the cash payment to the Government of Uzbekistan 
for 1 year, at which point the Congress can decide whether to renew the 
prohibition or make the payment. If it had not been authorization, I 
would have said until a complete and thorough investigation of the 
massacre was conducted.
  Mr. STEVENS. May I ask the Senator from Arizona, would he allow us to 
adopt this by voice vote?
  Mr. McCAIN. I would be pleased.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask the Senate proceed to consider this by voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to vitiating the yeas and 
nays?
  Without objection, the yeas and nays are vitiated.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1978) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. What is the pending business.


                           Amendment No. 2033

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Kerry 
amendment No. 2033. A motion to table has been made. Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if the Senator will permit me to do so, 
section 402 of the House Concurrent Resolution 95 of the 109th 
Congress, the fiscal year 2006 concurrent resolution budget, created a 
point of order against an emergency designation on nondefense spending.
  The amendment contains nondefense spending with an emergency 
designation.
  Pursuant to that section 402 of S. Con. Res. 95 of the 108th 
Congress, the fiscal year 2005 concurrent resolution on the budget, I 
make a point of order against the emergency designation contained in 
the amendment.
  Mr. KERRY. Parliamentary inquiry?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, wasn't there an order already in place for 
the motion?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A motion to table has been made.
  Mr. KERRY. Wasn't there an order already in place for the motion?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That would take precedence over the point of 
order.
  Mr. KERRY. I believe that is accurate. I ask for the yeas and nays, 
Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Parliamentary inquiry: If the motion is not tabled, it 
is still subject to a point of order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order can be made.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, first of all, I ask unanimous consent that 
Senators Collins, Byrd, Obama, and Salazar be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this amendment is an emergency response to 
the natural gas shortage and crisis that has raised prices all across 
the country. In the South, there has been a 17-percent increase in 
electricity costs. In the Midwest, there has been a 69-percent natural 
gas increase. And in New England, the heating oil prices have gone up 
29 percent. The industry tells us that there will be an average of a 
$600 increase per family. For people on fixed incomes, when you add 
that to the cost of tuition increases, gasoline increases, and health 
care increases, it is unaffordable.
  The National Energy Assistance directorate has told us that 39 
percent of those individuals in the country who are low income went 
without medical care in order to be able to pay those bills. Twenty 
percent didn't pay their rent or their mortgage.
  I ask colleagues to approve this $3.1 billion emergency LIHEAP 
allocation.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, sadly, the gap between rich and poor has 
been widening in our society. The number of persons living in poverty 
in the Nation has increased from 31 million in 2000 to 37 million 
today, including 13 million children. Two main parts of the problem are 
that wages are stagnant, and the long-term unemployment rate is at 
historic levels. After Hurricane Katri-
na revealed the plight of minorities, the ``silent slavery of poverty 
is not so silent any more.''
  For many, the American dream has turned into a nightmare. Families 
stay awake at night worrying how to make ends meet. Parents wonder how 
they will feed their children and pay their bills.
  Significant numbers of Americans live year-round with the constant 
threat of power shut-offs because they can't pay their energy bills, 
and there is no relief in sight. According to the Energy Information 
Administration, energy prices are likely to continue to increase.
  The outlook for the coming winter is bleak. Heating oil will probably 
cost a third more than the already high prices Americans paid last 
year. Families who use natural gas to heat their homes will also pay 
more. The average 2005 price for residential natural gas is estimated 
to be 21 percent higher than it was in 2004.
  These are not just abstract numbers. They represent real burdens on 
real people. Minorities, the elderly, and the disabled, and many others 
are forced to make painful choices between heating their homes and 
paying for food, healthcare, and rent. The good news is that a highly 
successful Federal program is available to prevent the poorest of poor 
from making impossible

[[Page 22294]]

tradeoffs. LIHEAP grants money to low-income families who can't afford 
the steep cost of energy. The number of American households receiving 
LIHEAP assistance has increased from over 4 million in 2002 to 5 
million this year, the highest level in 10 years.
  Ninety-four percent of LIHEAP recipients have at least one member who 
is elderly, disabled, a child under the age of 18, or is a single 
parent with a young child. Seventy-seven percent of LIHEAP recipients 
report an annual income at or below $20,000 and 61 percent of 
recipients have annual incomes at or below the Federal poverty line.
  The bad news is that these fortunate recipients comprise only 18 
percent of the eligible population. In Massachusetts, the participation 
rate is 22 percent, which is still unacceptably low.
  Last year in Worcester, the city's Community Action Council provided 
fuel assistance to 9,660 households, but it processed applications for 
almost 11,000 households before the funds ran out. Many of the unserved 
households were made up of the working poor, the elderly, the disabled, 
and children.
  In Franklin and Hampshire counties in Massachusetts, over 6,000 
LIHEAP applications were processed. The Franklin Community Action 
Corporation reported that emergency applications and payment requests 
increased this past winter. They told me that this was by far their 
most stressful year.
  Across the United States, families are suffering from high energy 
prices. There are far too many stories of families that were eligible 
to receive LIHEAP, but didn't because the money just wasn't there. Here 
are just a few examples.
  A single father just lost his job on June 15 and has three children. 
His electric bill was $117.33, but he is unable to pay it because he 
isn't receiving unemployment compensation, or any other income. He is 
looking for work every day. Even if he is hired soon, his electricity 
may be turned off before he gets his first paycheck.
  A grandmother taking care of three grandchildren, ages 14, 11, 5 had 
an electric bill for $195. Her monthly income is $904. The house is 
totally electric, so the bills will probably be going higher. The 
grandmother also has extra medical expenses, but she too was turned 
away.
  It is wrong to let people like this suffer. So how does the 
Republican leadership in Congress respond? By cutting or freezing funds 
for essential low income programs.
  Hurricanes Katrina and Rita upended the lives of millions of citizens 
in the Gulf region, and the administration was right to release 
emergency energy funds for the areas that were devastated. But, their 
response to the looming energy crisis is far less.
  The administration and the House of Representatives closed their eyes 
to the needs of the poor. The House sent the Senate a continuing 
resolution which froze funding for the LIHEAP program. The current 
funding obviously isn't enough. Nineteen percent of current LIHEAP 
recipients say they keep their home at a temperature they feel is 
unsafe or unhealthy. Eight percent of recipients report that their 
electricity or gas was shut off in the past year for nonpayment.
  The continuing resolution also cut the Community Services Block Grant 
by 50 percent. These funds are used by many community action agencies 
to administer the LIHEAP program.
  According to ABCD, a community action agency in Massachusetts, since 
the outreach and application process for LIHEAP is handled through the 
ABCD neighborhood network, funding cuts will mean that access to this 
critical survival resource will shrink by more than 70 percent. Up to 
10,500 households--out of a current total of 15,000 recipients--may not 
get their benefits.
  Those in Congress who care about this issue sent an urgent request to 
the President to increase the funds, but our request has gone 
unanswered. In a news conference earlier this week, a reporter asked 
Energy Secretary Bodman if the administration plans to ask Congress for 
more funds for assistance for low-income families and seniors. 
Secretary Bodman replied, ``At least at this point in time, that's not 
on the agenda.''
  The administration may not think the needs of the poor deserve to be 
on their agenda, but the States do. They are trying to do their part. 
In Massachusetts, State legislators want to add $20 million in State 
funds to LIHEAP, to supplement Federal funds.
  Governors are stepping forward to acknowledge the problem. A 
bipartisan group of 28 Governors, led by Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, 
and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, recently sent a letter to Congress 
urging additional emergency funds for LIHEAP. They know the importance 
of this issue first hand, and so should we.
  Congress needs to stand up for the millions of Americans struggling 
to make ends meet. We have the ability to tell the elderly, and the 
disabled, and many others that we have heard them, and that we won't 
leave them shivering in the cold this winter. LIHEAP provides a 
critical service to desperate families who have nowhere else to turn 
for basic energy help, and LIHEAP is indispensable in filling that 
need. I strongly support this amendment to increase these emergency 
funds. We can't shortchange LIHEAP and all the people who need our help 
the most. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, because we had a time agreement that gave 
each side time before a vote, the point of order I made is subject to 
that time agreement, as I understand it. But now we will be faced with 
two votes. Does the Senator wish to have two votes on this amendment?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am happy to change the order to serve the 
purposes of the Senate.
  Pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95, which is the concurrent 
resolution on the budget, I move to waive section 402 for the purposes 
of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we vitiate 
the vote to table and that we proceed on the motion to waive the point 
of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 250 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Akaka 
     Baucus
     Bayh 
     Biden 
     Bingaman 
     Boxer 
     Byrd 
     Cantwell 
     Chafee 
     Clinton 
     Coleman 
     Collins 
     Conrad 
     Dayton 
     DeWine 
     Dodd 
     Dorgan 
     Durbin 
     Feingold 
     Feinstein
     Harkin 
     Jeffords 
     Johnson 
     Kennedy 
     Kerry 
     Kohl 
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg 
     Leahy 
     Levin 
     Lieberman 
     Lincoln 
     Lugar 
     Mikulski 
     Murray 
     Nelson (FL) 
     Obama 
     Pryor 
     Reed 
     Reid 
     Rockefeller 
     Salazar 
     Santorum 
     Sarbanes 
     Schumer 
     Snowe 
     Specter 
     Stabenow 
     Talent 
     Wyden

                                NAYS--49

     Alexander 
     Allard 
     Allen 
     Bennett 
     Bond 
     Brownback 
     Bunning 
     Burns 
     Burr 
     Carper 
     Chambliss 
     Coburn 
     Cochran 
     Cornyn 
     Craig 
     Crapo 
     DeMint 
     Dole 
     Domenici 
     Ensign 
     Enzi 
     Frist 
     Graham 
     Grassley 
     Gregg 
     Hagel 
     Hatch 
     Hutchison 
     Inhofe 
     Inouye 
     Isakson 
     Kyl 
     Lott 
     Martinez 
     McCain 
     McConnell 
     Murkowski 
     Nelson (NE) 
     Roberts 
     Sessions 
     Shelby 
     Smith 
     Stevens 
     Sununu 
     Thomas 
     Thune 
     Vitter 
     Voinovich 
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Corzine
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this question, the yeas are 50, the nays 
are 49. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having 
voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained.

[[Page 22295]]


  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent, notwithstanding rule XXII, the 
vote on the motion to invoke cloture occur following the last scheduled 
vote in this sequence, with the mandatory live quorum waived.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I want the record spread 
with my appreciation to the Senators from Louisiana for allowing the 
Senate to move forward. We were going to work through the night and 
early in the morning to come up with something that would help satisfy 
their tremendous needs. I appreciate their cooperation so we do not 
have to be here at 1 o'clock in the morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. For the information of our colleagues, what this means is 
we will vote on the Stabenow amendment next. Immediately following 
that, we will go to the cloture vote. Following that, there will be no 
more rollcall votes tonight.
  Throughout tomorrow we will have plenty of opportunity for 
discussion, for debate. We will be voting throughout tomorrow, as well. 
There will be no more rollcall votes after the Stabenow vote and 
cloture vote tonight which will immediately follow the Stabenow vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I announce we will have a managers' package. We will 
consider amendments that might be taken by voice vote after this last 
scheduled vote.
  I have already made the point of order against the Stabenow 
amendment. To be sure the record is clear, I make the point of order 
against the Kerry amendment and I ask it be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The emergency designation has been stricken 
from the amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Is the record clear I made the point of order on the 
Stabenow amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would inform the Senator an 
emergency point of order has been stricken from--we are still on the 
Kerry amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. And I asked it be dropped, now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained under the 
Budget Act.


                           Amendment No. 1937

  Mr. STEVENS. Now, is the record clear about my making a point of 
order to the Stabenow amendment? If not, I renew the point of order 
under 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act. The amendment requires 
spending in excess of the committee's 302(b) allocation for the fiscal 
year concurrent resolution of the Budget, and I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  Ms. STABENOW. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for the 
purpose of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask colleagues to support the 
Stabenow-Johnson-Thune amendment that guarantees funding for our 
veterans for health care. It takes it out of the annual appropriations 
process where every year we are wrestling with whether the funding is 
available. This year alone already we have had one emergency 
designation of $1.5 billion because the veterans health care budget was 
underfunded this year. We know there are concerns about next year.
  This amendment would do two things. First, the legislation provides 
an annual discretionary amount that would be locked in for future years 
at the 2005 funding level. Then in the future, the VA would receive a 
sum of mandatory funding that would be adjusted year to year based on 
changes in demand from the VA health care system as well as rate of 
inflation.
  This is incredibly important. We should not be arbitrarily picking 
numbers in terms of funding veterans health care. It should be based on 
the brave men and women who have served who come on home and put on a 
veteran's cap. We have more and more coming home from Afghanistan and 
Iraq every day. Each and every one of them has been promised health 
care. The way to guarantee we keep our promise is to pass this 
amendment.
  I urge agreement.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, our veterans deserve all a grateful nation 
can give them. Over the last 6 years we have increased the Veterans 
budget by over $3 billion a year. Although the Senator from Michigan is 
right about the dustup this year, we still did it because America is 
grateful for those who serve in harm's way.
  While all veterans are entitled, should we start a new entitlement 
program, one that is now out of control, that we cannot monitor on a 
yearly basis as we do through the appropriating process and the 
authorizing process? The Senator is proposing a new entitlement 
program. But she is also saying something else. She is not saying those 
who served is the baseline of the formula. She is saying those who are 
entitled. And there is a very real difference between those who are 
entitled and eligible versus those who seek service because of need. We 
pay for those who seek service based on their eligibility. We do not 
create a new entitlement program.
  Ask yourselves, do you want to create a new entitlement program or do 
you want to do what we are doing now, providing the necessary resources 
on an annual basis to meet the needs of America's veterans?
  I ask Members to vote no. Do not waive the Budget Act. Do not create 
a new entitlement program and basically take it out of the hands of the 
Congress and put it in the hands of the VA. That is not what I think 
our veterans would want us to do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive the Budget Act. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 251 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

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

                                NAYS--51

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Corzine
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 48, the nays are 
51. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected, the point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I did not hear the last ruling of the 
Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment falls on the point of order.
  Mr. STEVENS. Now, the next pending business is the cloture vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

[[Page 22296]]


  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my understanding we will convene 
about 9:30 in the morning. We will be prepared to stay tonight if any 
Senators wish to discuss amendments following the cloture vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Could the Presiding Officer tell us how many amendments 
have been filed and how many of them would fall as nongermane? Could 
the Chair just give us some idea, some estimate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will note that the Parliamentarian 
does not have that information at this time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Can we have an idea as to how many are filed? Can we get 
that information?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are approximately 140 amendments filed.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair.
  I cannot vote for cloture on this bill because it would make it 
impossible to consider highly important amendments for our troops and 
their families and amendments to enhance our Nation's security.
  One hundred twenty amendments are filled. The Parliamentarian can't 
tell us even how many are relevant but, because they are not 
technically germane, will not be permitted to come to a vote if cloture 
is invoked.
  The stakes for our security in the middle of war are too great not to 
take an extra few days to consider important relevant amendments.
  I vote to take those extra few days rather than to prematurely end 
debate. I will vote against cloture.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Chair lays 
before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will 
report.
  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 H.R. 2863: the 
     Department of Defense appropriations bill.
         Bill Frist, Ted Stevens, Daniel Inouye, Mel Martinez, 
           Mitch McConnell, Bob Bennett, George Allen, Chuck 
           Hagel, Tom Coburn, Richard Burr, Lisa Murkowski, John 
           Thune, Lamar Alexander, Richard Shelby, Jon Kyl, Jeff 
           Sessions, Saxby Chambliss.

  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 H.R. 
2863, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2006, shall be 
brought to a close? The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I announce that the Senator from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 94, nays 4, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 252 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett 
     Biden
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd 
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn 
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     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
     Lieberman
     Lincoln 
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski 
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor 
     Reed
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer 
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow 
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--4

     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Levin
     Reid

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Corzine
     Santorum
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 94, the nays are 4. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Alaska.


 Amendments Nos. 1882, as Modified; 1923, 1942, as modified; 1969, as 
     modified; 2001, 2004, as Modified; 2038, as Modified; and 2042

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have a managers' package, which is No. 
6, that I send to the desk. I ask unanimous consent that they be 
considered en bloc. I state for the record that this includes a 
Bingaman-Domenici colloquy on the F-117; for Senator Hatch and others, 
an amendment on the Air Force Depot Maintenance Program, as modified. 
This is amendment No. 2001; for Senator Schumer and Senator Clinton, 
amendment No. 2038 on the arsenal program support, which is modified; 
for Senator Hagel, a colloquy on supplemental security income; for 
Senator Bond, amendment No. 1923, for oral anthrax vaccine; for Senator 
Sarbanes, amendment No. 1969, as modified, for the Naval Academy; for 
Senator McConnell, amendment No. 2042, recognizing U.S. military 
personnel; for Senator Landrieu, amendment No. 1942, as modified, for 
Northern Command; for Senator Graham, amendment No. 2004, as modified, 
on combatant status review tribunals; for Senator Conrad, amendment No. 
1882, as modified, on Predator aircraft.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair notes that amendment No. 2001 is not 
modified.
  Mr. STEVENS. Air Force Depot Maintenance, is it not modified? I stand 
corrected. That is not a modified amendment.
  I ask that these amendments be considered en bloc, and I ask for 
their further consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendments? If 
not, without objection, the amendments are agreed to en bloc.
  The amendments were agreed to en bloc, as follows:


                    amendment no. 1882, as modified

   (Purpose: To increase, with an offset, amounts available for the 
           procurement of Predator unmanned aerial vehicles)

       At the appropriate place in title IX, insert the following:
       Sec. __.(a) Additional Amount for Aircraft Procurement, Air 
     Force.--The amount appropriated by this title under the 
     heading ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force'' is hereby 
     increased by $130,000,000.
       (b) Availability of Amount.--Of the amount appropriated by 
     this title under the heading ``Aircraft Procurement, Air 
     Force'', as increased by subsection (a), $130,000,000 shall 
     be available for purposes as follows:
       (1) Procurement of Predator air vehicles, initial spares, 
     and RSP kits.
       (2) Procurement of Containerized Dual Control Station 
     Launch and Recovery Elements.
       (3) Procurement of a Fixed Ground Control Station.
       (4) Procurement of other upgrades to Predator Ground 
     Control Stations, spares, and signals intelligence packages.
       (c) Offset.--(1) The amount appropriated by title II for 
     Operation and Maintenance, Air Force is hereby reduced by 
     $130,000,000.


                           amendment no. 1923

  (Purpose: To make available $4,000,000 from Research, Development, 
  Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, for Oral Anthrax/Plague Vaccine 
                              Development)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Of the amount appropriated by title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 
     Defense-Wide'', up to $4,000,000 may be used for Oral 
     Anthrax/Plague Vaccine Development.


                    amendment no. 1942, as modified

(Purpose: To make available $10,000,000 for Operation and Maintenance, 
 Air Force, and $20,000,000 for Other Procurement, Air Force, for the 
     implementation of IMT-2000 3G Standards Based Communications 
 Information Extension capability for the Gulf States and key entities 
          within the Northern Command Area of Responsibility)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Implementation of Long-Range Wireless 
     Capabilities.--Of the amount appropriated by title II under 
     the

[[Page 22297]]

     heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', up to 
     $10,000,000 may be used by the United States Northern Command 
     for the purposes of implementing Long-range wireless 
     telecommunications capabilities for the Gulf States and key 
     entities within the Northern Command Area of Responsibility 
     (AOR).
       (b) Implementation of Long-Range Wireless Capabilities.--Of 
     the amount appropriated or otherwise made available by title 
     III under the heading ``Other Procurement, Air Force'', up to 
     $20,000,000 may be used by the United States Northern Command 
     for the purposes of implementing IMT-2000 3G Standards Based 
     Communications Information Extension capabilities for the 
     Gulf States and key entities within the Northern Command Area 
     of Responsibility (AOR).


                    amendment no. 1969, as modified

 (Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of the Navy to donate the World 
War II-era marine railway located at the United States Naval Academy to 
 the Richardson Maritime Heritage Center, Cambridge, Maryland, for non-
                          commercial purposes)

       On page 220, after line 25, insert the following:
       Sec. 8116. (a) The Secretary of the Navy may, subject to 
     the terms and conditions of the Secretary, donate the World 
     War II-era marine railway located at the United States Naval 
     Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, to the Richardson Maritime 
     Heritage Center, Cambridge, Maryland.
       (b) The marine railway donated under subsection (a) may not 
     be used for commercial purposes.


                           amendment no. 2001

 (Purpose: 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)

       In an appropriate place insert the following:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING DEPOT MAINTENANCE.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the Depot Maintenance Strategy and Master Plan of the 
     Air Force reflects the essential requirements for the Air 
     Force to maintain a ready and controlled source of organic 
     technical competence, thereby ensuring an effective and 
     timely response to national defense contingencies and 
     emergency requirements;
       (2) since the publication of the Depot Maintenance Strategy 
     and Master Plan of the Air Force in 2002, the service had 
     made great progress toward modernizing all 3 of its Depots, 
     in order to maintain their status as ``world class'' 
     maintenance repair and overhaul operations;
       (3) 1 of the indispensable components of the Depot 
     Maintenance Strategy and Master Plan of the Air Force is the 
     commitment of the Air Force to allocate $150,000,000 a year 
     over 6 years, beginning in fiscal year 2004, for 
     recapitalization and investment, including the procurement of 
     technologically advanced facilities and equipment, of our 
     Nation's 3 Air Force depots; and
       (4) the funds expended to date have ensured that 
     transformation projects, such as the initial implementation 
     of ``Lean'' and ``Six Sigma'' production techniques, have 
     achieved great success in dramatically reducing the time 
     necessary to perform depot maintenance on aircraft.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the Air Force should be commended for the 
     implementation of its Depot Maintenance Strategy and Master 
     Plan and, in particular, meeting its commitment to invest 
     $150,000,000 a year over 6 years, since fiscal year 2004, in 
     the Nation's 3 Air Force Depots; and
       (2) the Air Force should continue to fully fund its 
     commitment of $150,000,000 a year through fiscal year 2009 in 
     investments and recapitalization projects pursuant to the 
     Depot Maintenance Strategy and Master Plan.


                    amendment no. 2004, as modified

(Purpose: To require the President to submit the procedures for Status 
  Review Tribunals and Administrative Review Boards to determine the 
           status of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Submission of Procedures for Combatant Status 
     Review Tribunals and Administrative Review Boards To 
     Determine Status of Detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.--Not 
     later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act 
     the President shall submit to the congressional defense 
     committees and committees on Judiciary in the House and 
     Senate the procedures for the Combatant Status Review 
     Tribunals and noticed Administrative Review Boards, in 
     operation at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for determining the status 
     of the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, including whether 
     any such detainee is a lawful enemy combatant or an unlawful 
     enemy combatant.
       (b) Procedures.--The procedures submitted to Congress 
     pursuant to subsection (a) shall ensure that--
       (1) in making a determination of status under such 
     procedures, the Combatant Status Review Tribunal and Annual 
     Review Boards may not consider statements derived from 
     persons that, as determined by the Tribunals or Boards, by 
     the preponderance of the evidence, were obtained with undue 
     coercion.
       (2) the Designated Civilian Official shall be an officer of 
     the United States Government whose appointment to office was 
     made by the President, by and with the advise and consent of 
     the Senate.
       (c) Modification of Procedures.--The President shall submit 
     to Congress any modification to the procedures submitted 
     under subsection (a) no less than 30 days before the date on 
     which such modifications go into effect.

(Purpose: To make available $5,000,000 from Procurement of Weapons and 
 Tracked Combat Vehicles for the Army for the Arsenal Support Program 
                Initiative and to allocate such amounts)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Of the amount appropriated by title III under the 
     heading ``Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, 
     Army,'' up to $5,000,000 may be used for the Arsenal Support 
     Program Initiative for Watervliet Arsenal, New York.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2042

 (Purpose: To recognize U.S. military personnel serving in Afghanistan 
                               and Iraq)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       ``Sec. __. The Secretary of Defense may present promotional 
     materials, including a United States flag, to any member of 
     an Active or Reserve component under the Secretary's 
     jurisdiction who, as determined by the Secretary, 
     participates in Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi 
     Freedom, along with other recognition items in conjunction 
     with any week-long national observation and day of national 
     celebration, if established by Presidential proclamation, for 
     any such members returning from such operations.''

  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


              PROHIBITION ON RETIREMENT OF F-117 AIRCRAFT

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me begin by complimenting my friend 
from Alaska, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Defense, for producing a terrific bill. H.R. 2863, the fiscal year 2006 
Defense appropriations bill, is a strong piece of legislation that 
supports the men and women of the Armed Forces and strengthens our 
security. I would also like to recognize my colleague, the junior 
Senator from New Mexico, who joins us today.
  I want to raise the issue of the F-117 Stealth Nighthawk aircraft. 
Report 109-69 to S. 1042, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
fiscal year 2006, recommends a provision prohibiting retirement of F-
117 aircraft in fiscal year 2006. I know that my colleague from New 
Mexico is aware of this recommendation as well.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I am aware of this recommendation and note that it 
further describes the F-117 as the only stealthy tactical aircraft 
capable of delivering certain precision munitions currently in the 
inventory. Clearly, this is a very important capability for national 
security.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I agree with my colleague's assessment about the 
strategic value of the F-117 and note that this recommendation is 
further validated by the House-passed H.R. 2863 which retains the 
President's budget request for F-117 upgrades and adds $11.1 million in 
operations and maintenance funding to retain the 10 aircraft scheduled 
for retirement. I would like to ask the distinguished chairman for his 
views concerning the Air Force's recommendation to retire 10 F-117s in 
fiscal year 2006.
  Mr. STEVENS. I concur with the Senators from New Mexico that the F-
117 is of critical importance to the Nation's precision strike 
capability. Furthermore, I agree with the Senate Armed Services 
Committee recommendation that it is premature to retire any F-117s at 
this time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distinguished chairman for his views on 
this important matter.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the chairman as well, and look forward to 
working with him; the ranking member, Senator Inouye and Senator 
Domenici on this issue in the future.


                            SSI Eligibility

  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, currently there are service members in our

[[Page 22298]]

Armed Forces with disabled dependents who have lost or are in danger of 
losing Supplemental Security Income, SSI, eligibility or benefits. This 
issue not only affects our regular active duty service members, but our 
mobilized National Guard and Reserve service members as well.
  Supplemental Security Income is a Federal income supplement program, 
funded by tax revenues, designed to provide cash to meet basic needs 
for food, clothing, and shelter for aged, blind, and disabled people.
  Under current law, section 1612(a) of the Social Security Act, only 
military basic pay is counted as earned income for the purposes of 
determining SSI eligibility and benefit amount. Special pay and 
allowances are counted as unearned income. As a result, a disabled 
child or spouse of a service member can lose SSI eligibility or have a 
benefit reduction due to the way military compensation is presently 
counted.
  Because a significant portion of a service member's compensation 
includes special pay and allowances, military compensation generally 
results in more countable income for SSI purposes than comparable wages 
earned by a civilian. Accordingly, a child or spouse of a service 
member could be ineligible for SSI while the child or spouse of a 
civilian worker could be eligible for SSI based on comparable gross 
wages.
  The problem is particularly acute when a member of the National Guard 
or Reserves is called to active duty and begins to receive full 
military pay, including special pay and allowances. In some cases, the 
military pay alone is sufficient to cause a reduction of SSI benefits 
or a loss of eligibility for the disabled dependent. This means that at 
the critical point when the service member is called away from his or 
her family in the service of our country, SSI benefits may be reduced 
or stopped.
  In consideration of the special hardships facing military families in 
a time of war and to provide more financial security for these 
families, I have offered an amendment that proposes a statutory 
exclusion for all types of special pay and allowances received by 
service members serving on active duty regardless of duty station. At a 
time when military service members and their families are making such a 
huge sacrifice for our country, it is vital that this step be taken to 
protect SSI eligibility for these families.
  Under this proposed statutory change, only basic pay, earned income, 
would be used to determine SSI eligibility for a disabled child or 
spouse of the service member. All compensation provided by special pay 
and allowances, including the basic allowance for housing, BAH, would 
be excluded. Excluding all special pay and allowances would eliminate 
the disadvantageous income counting that results from treating a 
substantial portion of military compensation as unearned income.
  Mr. STEVENS. I agree with the Senator from Nebraska. The provisions 
of the Social Security Act need to be addressed in order to ensure 
Supplemental Security Income eligibility and benefits are not 
inadvertently taken away from those in the armed services when they 
need them most.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, for the information of Senators, we will 
resume consideration of this bill tomorrow following the opening of the 
Senate at 9:30 a.m. as soon as possible. It will be my intention to ask 
that any votes that are to be taken on this bill be stacked until 
approximately noon or 12:30 in order that the committees may meet in 
the morning. There has been a specific request for that to happen. It 
is my understanding that there will be a request later that the time 
consumed for cloture be consumed during the period of temporary recess 
this evening on into tomorrow morning; is that the understanding?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That unanimous consent request has not yet 
been propounded or agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am assured that will be the case.


                            Notice of Intent

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, in accordance with rule V of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it 
is my intention to move to suspend paragraph 4 of rule XVI for the 
purpose of proposing to the bill, H.R. 2863, a bill making 
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2006, and for other purposes: amendment No. 2040.
  (The amendment is printed in the Record of Tuesday, October 4, 2005 
under ``Text of Amendments.'')


                                 CROWS

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I wish to bring up an important subject 
involving our soldiers in harm's way. In my State of Colorado and 
across the country, our fighting men and women have suffered casualties 
while on patrol in armored vehicles. Typically, the gunner sitting on 
top of the vehicle is at more risk from being hit both because he or 
she is visible to the enemy and because he or she is not as protected 
as those troops inside the armored vehicle.
  I recently received an e-mail from a Colorado soldier serving in 
Iraq. This brave young man wrote me concerning the combat death of his 
friend. His friend was riding in the gunner's seat when his Humvee was 
subjected to an improvised explosive device attack. He feels that his 
friend might still be alive if that Humvee had a Common Remotely 
Operated Weapons Station--CROWS--and he wanted me to know about it and 
see if anyone here in Washington could do something about it.
  I think we can do something about it, and with the help of my 
colleagues from Hawaii and Alaska, we will do something about it.
  The CROWS can be mounted on a variety of vehicles, including Humvees. 
It allows the operator to acquire and engage targets while protected 
inside the armored vehicle from enemy fire and IED attacks. It works 
with a variety of machine guns. The sensor suite allows both day and 
night time operation.
  This appropriations bill, as it stands now, allocates $75 million out 
of the emergency supplemental for the military to purchase CROWS. The 
House Defense appropriations bill provides no funding for CROWS, which 
is disheartening. The DOD's program manager has advised me that the 
Pentagon supports spending $206 million for the CROWS system over the 
next year.
  My goal is for the military to be able to purchase thousands of these 
systems, but at the moment our production capability is only on the 
order of 10 systems per month. We have to do better. I ask my 
colleagues, the chairman and ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee 
on Appropriations, for their leadership and assistance in sustaining 
the Senate's position when they get to conference on this matter with 
the House.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, like all proud Americans, I share my 
colleague's concern for the safety and well being of our troops. IED 
attacks are a very real threat to our troops and it is our 
responsibility as Members of Congress to help protect our brave men and 
women fighting overseas. I will work in conference to ensure that we 
can maintain the Senate's funding level to purchase CROWS for our 
troops.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues from Colorado and 
Hawaii for their work on this issue. They are right. We will continue 
to support these systems that provide our service members with the 
force protection they need.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and the ranking 
member for their leadership on this issue--and for their careers of 
service to and sacrifice for this country.

                          ____________________