[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 24923-24946]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

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

       A bill (S. 1042) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2006 for the military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed 
     Forces, and for other purposes.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.


                                Schedule

  Mr. FRIST. Today we resume consideration of the Defense authorization 
bill. Under the agreement reached on October 26, we have a limitation 
of amendments and debate to Defense authorization. Chairman Warner and 
Senator Levin are here today and are prepared for Members to come to 
the floor to offer their defense-related amendments. I noted last night 
there will be no rollcall votes today, and we will delay votes until 
Monday at approximately 5:30. We will announce later on how many votes 
Senators can expect on Monday.
  Finally, I do want to thank everybody for their participation and 
cooperation over the course of yesterday's session, a lengthy session. 
I think it was 22 consecutive rollcall votes. We didn't have any 
scheduled breaks and things went very smoothly. Indeed, we were able to 
meet our goal of 6 o'clock last night to allow Senators to attend what 
was a wonderful event where we had over 50 former Senators--men and 
women who had served in this body in the past--come back and join us 
for a bipartisan event last night. It would not have been possible 
without the patience of Senators and the efforts of so many staff 
members who worked so hard to bring that deficit reduction bill to 
completion by a vote of 52 to 47.


                         Budget Reconciliation

  This was an important piece of fiscal legislation; I think clearly 
the most important piece of fiscal legislation over the course of the 
year, a bill that was called the deficit reduction bill because almost 
$35 billion in savings does go down directly to reduce the deficit. 
That is a period of 4 years, $35 billion. Over 10 years, it would be 
right at $100 billion.
  A number of people have said, well, spending cuts that we put in 
yesterday don't go far enough, and I would not disagree with that 
statement. The deficit reduction package we passed last night, however, 
was a major and important first step forward in reining in what has 
become out-of-control Federal spending, so I congratulate our 
colleagues.
  I also thank the committee chairmen one more time for their hard work 
and leadership, both sides of the aisle working together. There was in 
many instances bipartisan support for their recommendations. In 
particular, I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee, Chairman Judd 
Gregg, for his strong leadership. I also thank Senator McConnell, our 
assistant Republican leader, for his deft handling of the process 
yesterday, keeping us on track to success.
  The Senate staffers, several of them were thanked last night. And 
there are so many, I always hesitate to start naming them, but in 
truth, as always, they are the ones who give the discipline to the 
engine that makes it possible: Kyle Simmons, Scott Gudes, Bill 
Hoagland, Sharon Soderstrom, Eric Ueland, all deserve special 
recognition for their tireless efforts in bringing that bill to 
completion.
  By rallying our resources and our will, last night the Senate passed 
the first spending reduction bill in 8 years. It was last in 1997 that 
such a reconciliation on the spending side was passed. We took a tough 
look at the budget, and we came up with a strong package of fiscally 
responsible savings. And it is worth reflecting where we were even just 
10 months ago. We tend to focus so much on minute to minute here and 
day to day here, but if we look back 10 months ago when the President 
submitted his budget proposal, at that time the projected deficit was 
well past $400 billion and on its way up to $500 billion. Critics had 
bet against the majority's success. They said we could never pass a 
budget and be able to drive down the deficit, and we have proved those 
critics wrong. Not only have smart progrowth fiscal policies cut the 
deficit by $100 billion but direct action in the Senate yesterday cut 
the bottom line by another $35 billion. Our GDP growth rate is strong 
right now, in the last quarter, 3.7 percent, with over 4 million jobs 
created since May, about 15, 16 months ago.
  Hurricane Katrina hit and we know hit hard, but not even Hurricane 
Katrina could knock our economy off track. As Alan Greenspan told the 
Joint Economic Committee yesterday, the economic fundamentals remain 
firm.
  The Republican-led Senate has defied the critics at every turn. They 
said we could not pass a budget resolution, and we passed a budget 
resolution. They said we could not pass the 12 appropriations bills on 
this floor, and we did. We passed the PATRIOT Act, we passed the 
bankruptcy bill, we passed the class action bill, we passed the highway 
bill, we passed the Energy bill, we passed the gun liability reform 
bill--all this year, but we have a lot more to do.
  Yesterday, I should add, as part of that deficit reduction bill, we 
passed exploration in ANWR which will help reduce our dependence on 
foreign oil. It will strengthen our domestic supplies, again a real 
tribute to this body. Meanwhile, throughout the fall we have tackled 
relief and recovery for the victims of Katrina and we have continued to 
support our troops in the war on terror. We will be doing our Defense 
authorization bill shortly, again, to focus on continued aggressive 
support of the troops.

[[Page 24924]]

  So despite all of the naysayers and sometimes pessimistic attitudes 
as to what is going on, we are moving this country forward in a 
positive and a constructive way.
  Some have called the deficit reduction package yesterday immoral, and 
it really does bother me when people use words like that because, to 
me, what is immoral is saddling future generations with huge debt. What 
is immoral is ducking or hiding from today's challenges with inaction 
or empty platitudes or barriers to progress. What is immoral, to me, is 
proposing more debt while accusing others of being fiscally 
irresponsible.
  During the budget process, the other side proposed spending 
amendments, and we saw much of it on our spending speedometer--
spendometer, I guess we call it--of over $460 billion. The other side 
proposed over $460 billion in increased spending. And who would pay for 
this? I guess their answer would be raising taxes. It is unacceptable. 
We have a different approach, an approach that strengthens our economic 
growth, strengthens our national security, that delivers real relief, 
real relief to American families.
  The deficit reduction package we passed last night will drive down 
the deficit. It will increase America's energy supply. It will help 
students and families meet the cost of college tuition. It will take 
critical steps to protect America's retirees, a huge victory for the 
American people. We support real, measurable solutions and will 
continue moving America forward. Our goal is to strengthen America's 
families and secure America's future.
  We have a lot more work to do, Mr. President. Next week we have some 
of the world's top oil executives coming to Washington to explain why 
gas prices are going so high, above $3, and why oil and home heating 
oil prices are so high, and at the same time, we are seeing these 
record profits going into their coffers.
  The question that our constituents ask, and we ask, is Why? And those 
executives will have that opportunity to explain, and we will get to 
the bottom of it.
  We also plan to continue our work on the nomination of Judge Samuel 
Alito to the Supreme Court of the United States. The chairman and 
ranking member of the Judiciary Committee announced a schedule 
yesterday that does provide the strongest platform for Judge Alito to 
argue and to explain and describe the judicial restraint, the crux of 
his philosophy, and he will be confirmed by January 20.
  Finally, we will continue to address the pressing issues the American 
people sent us to Washington to resolve after the first of the year, 
issues such as border security and immigration.
  As I mentioned last night, we had a wonderful occasion in terms of 
having a bipartisan reunion with one out of every three former Senators 
who are still alive in our midst last night. Most all of our colleagues 
were there sharing stories, sharing intergenerational stories which did 
remind us what a powerful institution this is, the legacy that it 
leaves, the important role it plays as the world's greatest 
deliberative body. It was a reminder to all of us serving in this 
Senate it is an honor and it is a privilege.
  I look forward to continue working in a bipartisan way to deliver 
bold and innovative solutions to keep this great country moving 
forward.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the majority leader yield for a question?
  Mr. FRIST. Be happy to.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the majority leader for making 
reference to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and I just wanted to remind 
our distinguished majority leader that Hurricane Wilma, which hit the 
State of Florida, hit at a point on the southwest coast picking up 
steam as it crossed the Everglades so that the back end of the 
hurricane gave a huge punch to the southeast coast where we have 20,000 
structures uninhabitable and where the winds were clocked at Lake 
Okeechobee at 150 miles an hour. That is a category 5. So I just don't 
want us to forget Hurricane Wilma and the people who are suffering in 
Florida at this time.
  Would the majority leader just keep that in mind as we address these 
problems?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, that is very well said. I think the 
description and comments by the Senator from Florida demonstrate our 
responsibility to respond appropriately and smartly to natural 
disasters. If we look at our response to hurricanes and natural 
disasters in the past, I think we have done so.
  It is sometimes frustrating because we cannot do everything, and a 
lot of people think the Federal Government has a responsibility to come 
in and solve all the problems.
  Our challenge in responding to all these natural disasters is to 
respond quickly, responsibly, smartly, working hand in hand with the 
locals.
  I very much appreciate the Senator's attention to one other natural 
disaster we must face.


                   Recognition Of The Minority Leader

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader.


                         Deficit Reduction Bill

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, with regard to the deficit reduction bill, 
you can have a cow and put a sign on him saying he is a horse, but he 
is still a cow. I think we would be better informed if we called this 
the bait-and-switch bill. How do you call a bill deficit reduction when 
it raises the deficit in 1 year by $30 billion? How do you call a bill 
a deficit reduction bill when it increases the deficit? If there was 
ever an Orwellian pronouncement, that is it. I guess if you keep saying 
deficit reduction, some people are going to believe it is deficit 
reduction. It increases the deficit.
  This could have been a good week for the American people. It could 
have been a week Republicans joined Democrats and finally addressed 
priorities of working families. The polls around the country today make 
a pronouncement: President Bush's approval rating is 35 percent. Do you 
think it could be because we are trying to call a bill a deficit 
reduction bill that isn't one? How does the majority feel they can do 
that? The American people can see through that: A deficit reduction 
bill that increases the deficit $30 billion, and the Republicans are 
bragging about increasing the deficit? They think they can get around 
that by calling it a deficit reduction bill? No wonder this White House 
has an approval rating of 35 percent.
  This week could have been a week we agreed to do something about the 
record debt. It could have been the week we addressed the needs of 
middle-class families. The rich are getting richer, the poor are 
getting poorer. The middle class is being squeezed between declining 
incomes, rising prices of health care, college tuition, gas, and heat.
  It could have been the week we finally got serious about helping our 
brothers and sisters in the gulf coast. We can hear pronouncements from 
the Republican majority that the response to these disasters has been 
excellent. Prove that to the American people with the developments 
after Katrina.
  Listen to the radio. I listened to public radio this morning, and 
they had a segment on about what is happening to the people in 
Louisiana. They cannot go to school; there are no schools there.
  This could have been the week we finally got serious about the gulf 
coast, and we have not. That is the kind of week that we Democrats 
hoped to have. The record will show we fought for multiple amendments 
that would have helped working Americans.
  Let me take a comment on the so-called spendometer. One of the 
Senators brought that in the other day, and I commented on it. All the 
amendments that have been offered by the Democrats, with rare 
exception, have all been pursuant to Senator Conrad's pay-as-you-go 
amendment that he offered; that is, we had offsets. They did not 
increase the debt.
  This spendometer is as phony as this deficit reduction bill. We could 
have, if we had followed the direction of the amendments we offered--
there was one by Senator Bill Nelson to keep Medicare premiums from 
increasing. That was defeated on a party-line vote. The Republicans 
beat us on that. Senator

[[Page 24925]]

Murray offered an amendment to protect prescription drug coverage for 
many of our Nation's seniors. That was defeated on a straight party-
line vote. Senator Lincoln tried to provide emergency health care for 
survivors of Katrina. That was defeated on a straight party-line vote. 
Senator Jack Reed tried to ensure an adequate supply of housing, and 
that was defeated on a straight party-line vote. Finally, Senator 
Cantwell had an amendment to protect the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge in Alaska from oil drilling. We fought for these amendments on 
this side of the aisle. We reached out to the other side and asked: 
Join us, please join us, because we understand that together America 
can do better.
  I believe the Republicans have misplaced priorities. Unfortunately, 
the good week we could have given the American people turned into a 
great week for special interests.
  My distinguished friend, the majority leader, talks about all these 
great accomplishments we have had this past year. I am not going to 
talk about every one of the items he mentioned, but I will talk about 
the Energy bill.
  The Energy bill did nothing to help the American consumer. All it did 
was give a big sop to the already fat and beefy oil industry. They had 
$100 billion in profits this year. I don't think it was much of an 
Energy bill. I really do believe we can do better.
  The Republican budget we focused on this week cuts $27 billion from 
Medicare and Medicaid. It cuts housing, it cuts support for our 
farmers, and then turns around and spends billions on tax breaks for 
special interests and multimillionaires. The big tax cuts are going to 
come the week after next. We will wind up with $30 billion, if things 
go as has been indicated by the Finance Committee. I hope we can do 
better than that.
  Let's take a look at the tax breaks. Those who make over $1 million 
will see a benefit of about $35,000. Those with incomes of between 
$50,000 and $200,000 will see a benefit of $112, and those with incomes 
of less than $50,000, the benefit will be $6.
  Can't we do better than that? Yes.
  Let's look at the lucrative benefits we handed out to the oil and gas 
industry in the Energy bill I spoke about earlier and, of course, 
opening the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. It 
takes our country in the wrong direction. We should diversify, becoming 
less dependent on oil as an energy source. We didn't do that in this 
legislation.
  Finally, let's look at what we didn't do this week. We didn't do 
anything. Very minimally did we do anything to help those people who 
are the survivors and those who were devastated along the gulf coast. 
We didn't do anything to reduce energy prices. We didn't do anything to 
deal with the pension crisis we are facing in America. We did nothing 
to deal with the health care crisis we are facing in America. We have 
not passed the Terrorism Reinsurance Act.
  I think most Senators have gotten calls from major companies who 
can't build. I got a call yesterday from one major hotel owner who has 
hotels all over the world who said they have in Las Vegas four 
properties they want to build and they cannot build them. They cannot 
get anybody to give them the insurance.
  We have 2 weeks before our next recess, and we have much to 
accomplish. The American people are counting on us, and we on this side 
of the aisle, the Democrats, are going to do everything we can to not 
let them down. Just because you call something a Deficit Reduction Act 
doesn't mean it reduces the deficit, by definition of a Republican-
controlled Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Isakson). The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Is the Senate now 
on the Defense bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Will the Senator 
permit the Chair to make an announcement?
  Pursuant to the order of October 26, all amendments previously 
pending to this measure are withdrawn.
  The list of withdrawn amendments is as follows:
  Withdrawn:

       Inhofe amendment No. 1311, to protect the economic and 
     energy security of the United States.
       Inhofe/Kyl amendment No. 1313, to require an annual report 
     on the use of United States funds with respect to the 
     activities and management of the International Committee of 
     the Red Cross.
       Ensign amendment No. 1374, to require a report on the use 
     of riot control agents.
       Ensign amendment No. 1375, to require a report on the costs 
     incurred by the Department of Defense in implementing or 
     supporting resolutions of the United Nations Security 
     Council.
       Durbin amendment No. 1379, to require certain dietary 
     supplement manufacturers to report certain serious adverse 
     events.
       Hutchison/Nelson (FL) amendment No. 1357, to express the 
     sense of the Senate with regard to manned space flight.
       Thune amendment No. 1389, to postpone the 2005 round of 
     defense base closure and realignment.
       Kennedy amendment No. 1415, to transfer funds authorized to 
     be appropriated to the Department of Energy for the National 
     Nuclear Security Administration for weapons activities and 
     available for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator to the Army 
     National Guard, Washington, District of Columbia, chapter.
       Allard/McConnell amendment No. 1418, to require life cycle 
     cost estimates for the destruction of lethal chemical 
     munitions under the Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives 
     program.
       Allard/Salazar amendment No. 1419, to authorize a program 
     to provide health, medical, and life insurance benefits to 
     workers at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, 
     Colorado, who would otherwise fail to qualify for such 
     benefits because of an early physical completion date.
       Dorgan amendment No. 1426, to express the sense of the 
     Senate on the declassification and release to the public of 
     certain portions of the Report of the Joint Inquiry into the 
     Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, and to urge the 
     President to release information regarding sources of foreign 
     support for the hijackers involved in the terrorist attacks 
     of September 11, 2001.
       Dorgan amendment No. 1429, to establish a special committee 
     of the Senate to investigate the awarding and carrying out of 
     contracts to conduct activities in Afghanistan and Iraq and 
     to fight the war on terrorism.
       Salazar amendment No. 1421, to rename the death gratuity 
     payable for deaths of members of the Armed Forces as fallen 
     hero compensation.
       Salazar amendment No. 1422, to provide that certain local 
     educational agencies shall be eligible to receive a fiscal 
     year 2005 payment under section 8002 or 8003 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
       Salazar/Reed amendment No. 1423, to provide for Department 
     of Defense support of certain Paralympic sporting events.
       Collins (for Thune) amendment No. 1489, to postpone the 
     2005 round of defense base closure and realignment.
       Collins (for Thune) amendment No. 1490, to require the 
     Secretary of the Air Force to develop and implement a 
     national space radar system capable of employing at least two 
     frequencies.
       Collins (for Thune) amendment No. 1491, to prevent 
     retaliation against a member of the Armed Forces for 
     providing testimony about the military value of a military 
     installation.
       Reed (for Levin) amendment No. 1492, to make available, 
     with an offset, an additional $50,000,000, for Operation and 
     Maintenance for Cooperative Threat Reduction.
       Hatch amendment No. 1516, to express the sense of the 
     Senate regarding the investment of funds as called for in the 
     Depot Maintenance Strategy and Master Plan of the Air Force.
       Inhofe amendment No. 1476, to express the sense of Congress 
     that the President should take immediate steps to establish a 
     plan to implement the recommendations of the 2004 Report to 
     Congress of the United States-China Economic and Security 
     Review Commission.
       Allard amendment No. 1383, to establish a program for the 
     management of post-project completion retirement benefits for 
     employees at Department of Energy project completion sites.
       Allard/Salazar amendment No. 1506, to authorize the 
     Secretary of Energy to purchase certain essential mineral 
     rights and resolve natural resource damage liability claims.
       McCain modified amendment No. 1557, to provide for uniform 
     standards for the interrogation of persons under the 
     detention of the Department of Defense.
       Warner amendment No. 1566, to provide for uniform standards 
     and procedures for the interrogation of persons under the 
     detention of the Department of Defense.
       McCain modified amendment No. 1556, to prohibit cruel, 
     inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment of persons 
     under the custody or control of the United States Government.
       Stabenow/Johnson amendment No. 1435, to ensure that future 
     funding for health care for veterans takes into account 
     changes in population and inflation.

[[Page 24926]]

       Murray amendment No. 1348, to amend the assistance to local 
     educational agencies with significant enrollment changes in 
     military dependent students due to force structure changes, 
     troop relocations, creation of new units, and realignment 
     under BRAC.
       Murray amendment No. 1349, to facilitate the availability 
     of child care for the children of members of the Armed Forces 
     on active duty in connection with Operation Enduring Freedom 
     or Operation Iraqi Freedom and to assist school districts 
     serving large numbers or percentages of military dependent 
     children affected by the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, or by 
     other Department of Defense personnel decisions.
       Levin amendment No. 1494, to establish a national 
     commission on policies and practices on the treatment of 
     detainees since September 11, 2001.
       Hutchison amendment No. 1477, to make oral and 
     maxillofacial surgeons eligible for special pay for Reserve 
     health professionals in critically short wartime specialties.
       Graham/McCain modified amendment No. 1505, to authorize the 
     President to utilize the Combatant Status Review Tribunals 
     and Annual Review Board to determine the status of detainees 
     held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
       Nelson (FL) amendment No. 762, to repeal the requirement 
     for the reduction of certain Survivor Benefit Plan annuities 
     by the amount of dependency and indemnity compensation and to 
     modify the effective date for paid-up coverage under the 
     Survivor Benefit Plan.
       Durbin amendment No. 1428, to authorize the Secretary of 
     the Air Force to enter into agreements with St. Clair County, 
     Illinois, for the purpose of constructing joint 
     administrative and operations structures at Scott Air Force 
     Base, Illinois.
       Durbin amendment No. 1571, to ensure that a Federal 
     employee who takes leave without pay in order to perform 
     service as a member of the uniformed services or member of 
     the National Guard shall continue to receive pay in an amount 
     which, when taken together with the pay and allowances such 
     individual is receiving for such service, will be no less 
     than the basic pay such individual would then be receiving if 
     no interruption in employment had occurred.
       Levin amendment No. 1496, to prohibit the use of funds for 
     normalizing relations with Libya pending resolution with 
     Libya of certain claims relating to the bombing of the 
     LaBelle Discotheque in Berlin, Germany.
       Levin amendment No. 1497, to establish limitations on 
     excess charges under time-and-materials contracts and labor-
     hour contracts of the Department of Defense.
       Levin (for Harkin/Dorgan) amendment No. 1425, relating to 
     the American Forces Network.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, now that we are on the bill, it is my 
intention to eventually deliver an opening statement, but in courtesy 
to our colleague from Florida--and I believe he will be followed by 
Senator McCain to be followed by Senator Allard--I think we ought to 
proceed immediately to the amendments. Senator Levin and I will be on 
the floor to assist all Senators who wish to bring any matters to the 
attention of the Senate.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Florida, 
Mr. Nelson, be recognized for 15 minutes, to be followed by the Senator 
from Arizona, Mr. McCain, for such time as he requires, to be followed 
by the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Allard, to be followed on this side 
of the aisle--we are trying to alternate--with such amendments as 
Senator Levin may recommend.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Florida is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2424

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2424.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Nelson], for himself, Mr. 
     Hagel, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Smith, Ms. 
     Cantwell, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Landrieu, Ms. Mikulski, 
     Mrs. Murray, Ms. Stabenow, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Durbin, 
     Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Salazar, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2424.

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. 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 repeal the requirement for the reduction of certain 
    Survivor Benefit Plan annuities by the amount of dependency and 
  indemnity compensation and to modify the effective date for paid-up 
               coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan)

       At the end of subtitle D of title VI, add the following:

     SEC. 642. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT OF REDUCTION OF SBP SURVIVOR 
                   ANNUITIES BY DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY 
                   COMPENSATION.

       (a) Repeal.--Subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 10, 
     United States Code is amended--
       (1) in section 1450(c)(1), by inserting after ``to whom 
     section 1448 of this title applies'' the following: ``(except 
     in the case of a death as described in subsection (d) or (f) 
     of such section)''; and
       (2) in section 1451(c)--
       (A) by striking paragraph (2); and
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs 
     (2) and (3), respectively.
       (b) Prohibition on Retroactive Benefits.--No benefits may 
     be paid to any person for any period before the effective 
     date provided under subsection (e) by reason of the 
     amendments made by subsection (a).
       (c) Prohibition on Recoupment of Certain Amounts Previously 
     Refunded to SBP Recipients.--A surviving spouse who is or has 
     been in receipt of an annuity under the Survivor Benefit Plan 
     under subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 10, United States 
     Code, that is in effect before the effective date provided 
     under subsection (e) and that is adjusted by reason of the 
     amendments made by subsection (a) and who has received a 
     refund of retired pay under section 1450(e) of title 10, 
     United States Code, shall not be required to repay such 
     refund to the United States.
       (d) Reconsideration of Optional Annuity.--Section 
     1448(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new sentences: ``The 
     surviving spouse, however, may elect to terminate an annuity 
     under this subparagraph in accordance with regulations 
     prescribed by the Secretary concerned. Upon such an election, 
     payment of an annuity to dependent children under this 
     subparagraph shall terminate effective on the first day of 
     the first month that begins after the date on which the 
     Secretary concerned receives notice of the election, and, 
     beginning on that day, an annuity shall be paid to the 
     surviving spouse under paragraph (1) instead.''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the later of--
       (1) the first day of the first month that begins after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act; or
       (2) the first day of the fiscal year that begins in the 
     calendar year in which this Act is enacted.

     SEC. 643. EFFECTIVE DATE FOR PAID-UP COVERAGE UNDER SURVIVOR 
                   BENEFIT PLAN.

       Section 1452(j) of title 10, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``October 1, 2008'' and inserting ``October 1, 
     2005''.

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, this is a very serious 
amendment to this Defense authorization bill, but I am compelled to add 
a couple of words to the colloquy that I had with the distinguished 
majority leader regarding the hurricanes.
  In the huge tragedy that occurred with Hurricane Katrina and the 
continuing observations of the reconstruction efforts, attention has 
been lost to the severe losses that have occurred in the last week and 
a half in my State of Florida with a hurricane that hit with the force 
of a category 3 on the southeast coast of Florida and parts of that 
area having had winds of a category 5, with 20,000 residences lost.
  We have now under consideration in the Department of Commerce 
appropriations subcommittee conference committee deliberations 
additional personnel for the National Hurricane Center, which hopefully 
the Senate's position will be taken which provides that additional 
personnel. But one huge, potential downfall is that we need some kind 
of backup for the high-flying jet, the G-4, the Gulfstream-4, that 
measures the steering currents that is owned by NOAA.
  In the middle of this storm, that jet had to go down for maintenance. 
Lord knows what would happen if that jet had an accident and could not 
fly. The accuracy of our predictions of where the hurricane is going is 
25 percent greater by being able to fly at 41,000 feet measuring those 
steering currents.
  It is my hope that we can see coming out of the Senate a provision 
for a backup for NOAA, perhaps a jet shared with another agency, such 
as the Air Force or NASA, but that would give us that protection, and 
that accuracy, as we know all too well, is so important to warn people 
in the accurate path of that storm because then prediction becomes a 
matter of life and death.
  Mr. President, I am honored today to speak about an amendment that is 
necessary to fix a longstanding problem in our military survivor's 
benefit system. The system in place right now, even

[[Page 24927]]

with the important changes we have made recently, does not take care of 
our military widows and the surviving children in the way it should, 
and we should act now to correct this deficiency.
  We don't have to go any further than the Good Book to remind us that 
one of our greatest obligations is to take care of the widows and the 
orphans.
  That is what we have. This amendment will protect the benefit of 
widows and orphans of our 100-percent disabled military retirees and 
those who die on active duty.
  I will give some background on how this problem developed. Back in 
1972, Congress established the military Survivor Benefit Plan--SBP for 
short--to provide retirees' survivors an annuity to protect their 
income. If we have a military retiree and they are deceased, we want to 
protect the income of their survivors. This benefit plan is a voluntary 
program, and it is purchased by the retiree or it is issued 
automatically in the case of servicemembers who are active duty and who 
die on active duty.
  Retired servicemembers pay for this benefit from their retired pay. 
Then upon their death, their spouse or dependent children can receive 
up to 55 percent of their retired pay as an annuity. So it is a plan 
that has been in place since 1972 which the retired military person can 
purchase, and they do.
  Surviving spouses or dependent children of service-connected 100-
percent disabled retirees or those who die on active duty are also 
entitled to dependency and indemnity compensation under the Department 
of Veterans Affairs. This is a separate program. So these surviving 
spouses or dependent children of service-connected disabled veterans 
are entitled to indemnity compensation.
  So there are two different laws, two different eligibilities, but 
watch what happens under current law. The annuity paid by the Survivor 
Benefit Plan and received by a surviving widow or a child, what they 
pay for on the pie chart that is in red, this is already paid for for 
the surviving widow or the child. Under current law, they are also 
entitled, as a service-connected disability, to that under the 
Veterans' Administration. Under current law, one offsets the other. So 
what happens is the amount of the SBP is reduced by the amount of the 
DIC under current law, and a big slice of the pie, almost half of it, 
is lost when, in fact, the survivor is entitled under the law to both. 
So this big slice shows what they are losing.
  I wish to introduce my colleagues to Jennifer McCollum. She is from 
Jacksonville, FL. This is her with her son and a photo of her husband, 
a U.S. marine who was killed in 2002 while deployed in support of the 
war on terror. Jennifer was 4 months pregnant when he was killed, and 
now she has realized that her survivor benefits are being taken away by 
that offset that I just described. That is what this amendment is going 
to stop. Jennifer's situation is unacceptable, and we have to fix it 
for the sake of the widows and the orphans.
  I do not know of any other annuity program in the Government or 
private sector that is permitted to offset, terminate, or reduce 
payments because of disability payments a beneficiary may receive from 
another plan or program. That is the necessity for this amendment I am 
offering today.
  It also makes effective immediately a change to the military SBP 
program that was enacted back in 1999. The Congress has already agreed 
that military retirees who have reached the age of 70 and paid their 
SBP premiums for 30 years should stop paying a premium. We agreed back 
in 1999 that when a person reached the age of 70 and they had paid 
their SBP premiums for 30 years, they ought to stop paying a premium. 
But what happened? Recently, we delayed the effective date for this 
relief until 2008.
  The program began over 30 years ago. Under current law, people who 
signed up at the beginning must pay long beyond the 30 years that 
Congress intended. Do my colleagues know who this group is largely made 
up of? It is made up of World War II veterans. We call them the 
``greatest generation.'' Well, what it creates is the ``greatest 
generation'' tax in SBP, and we should not be delaying their relief any 
further.
  This chart is going to give an example of the ``greatest generation'' 
tax. A lieutenant colonel or a commander in the Navy who joined SBP in 
1972 when it began has paid 33 years and will continue to pay under the 
current law until 2008, for a total of 36 years. But someone of the 
same rank who retired 6 years later also will stop paying in 2008 under 
the current law, but they will have paid less. The older retiree will 
have paid 30 percent more over that time period.
  Of course, many of those fighting men and women are going to pass 
away by then and never enjoy the paid-up status that Congress intended 
for them. This amendment I am offering today will fix the SBP system to 
make sure it provides what Congress intended for our military retirees.
  The United States owes its continued strength and protection to 
generations of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who have 
sacrificed throughout our history to keep us free. We owe them and 
those they leave behind a lot--no less than a President who suffered 
through war, President Lincoln, instructed us that ours is an 
obligation to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his 
widow and for his orphan. Too often, we have fallen short of this care. 
I believe we must meet this obligation with the same sense of honor as 
the service they and their families have rendered.
  We need to continue to do right by those who have given this Nation 
their all and especially for their loved ones they leave to us for our 
care. Remember the instructions of the Good Book: The greatest 
obligation is to take care of the widows and the orphans.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am opposed to Senator Bill Nelson's 
amendment, and I intend to introduce a second degree amendment that 
would give the Commission on Veterans' Disability Benefits, which 
Congress established to study survivor benefits, the opportunity to 
complete its work before further changes are made to the Survivor 
Benefit Plan, or SBP.
  I oppose Senator Nelson's amendment, because this blue ribbon 
Commission on Veterans' Disability Benefits has been established, is 
currently at work examining this issue, and, I believe, will provide 
vitally needed facts and recommendations regarding veterans' benefits.
  The commission includes two Medal of Honor winners, two Distinguished 
Service Cross winners, and 6 winners of the Silver Star. They can be 
relied on to provide a comprehensive study. The commission was 
established to help the Congress, DOD, and the Veterans Administration 
determine what steps should be taken to best assist disabled veterans 
and their families. We should not implement another change to the SBP 
until the Commission completes its work.
  Let's remember that in last year's Defense Authorization Act, the 
Senate significantly improved benefits provided under the SBP. Congress 
directed the elimination of the so-called ``2-tier'' system which 
reduced the monthly SBP annuity when the survivor reached age 62. This 
was a significant change that works to the benefit of military retirees 
and their spouses. We should stop and allow an assessment by the 
commission of the effect of that change before we conclude that the SBP 
is in need of change.
  Here is another consideration: Senator Nelson's amendment does not 
take into account the great improvements in death benefits for military 
survivors that have been enacted this year. There has been an increase 
in the death gratuity--from $12,000 to $100,000--and an increase from 
$250,000 to $400,000 in the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, or 
SGLI. These changes clearly are substantial, and they have improved the 
quality of life for many of the survivors who my friend, Senator 
Nelson, advocates for today. There have been various other benefits 
implemented for retirees and their survivors since 2001.
  I ask unanimous consent to have a list of these legislative 
improvements printed in the Record.

[[Page 24928]]

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and Other Leislation in 
               Support of Retirees and Military Survivors

       NDAA FY 2001--TRICARE for Life Benefit for Military 
     Retirees (overage of 65 and their Families.--Under this 
     program, TRICARE pays what Medicare does not pay, and a 
     highly valuable pharmacy benefit at minimal cost.
       NDAA FY 2002--Extension of Survivor Benefit Program SBP to 
     All Active Duty Members.--This legislation gave SBP coverage, 
     at no cost, to all military members' survivors who die on 
     active duty.
       NDAA FY 2003--Special Compensation for Certain Combat-
     Related Disabled Uniform Services Retirees (``Purple Heart 
     Plus'').--This afforded additional monetary monthly 
     compensation for any disabled military retiree whose 
     condition was the result of a wound or injury for which the 
     Purple Heart was awarded, and also for retirees with combat-
     related disabling conditions rated at 60 percent or greater.
       NDAA FY 2004--Elimination of prohibition on concurrent 
     receipt.--This legislation (phased in through 2014) permits 
     receipt of military retired pay and veterans' disability 
     compensation. It provides additional payments for all 
     disabled military retirees who have a rated disability of 50% 
     or greater.
       NDAA FY 2005--Survivor Benefit Plan Improvements.--
     Eliminated SBP ``two tier'' system (phased over three years) 
     which will result in no reduction in monthly annuity when 
     survivor becomes eligible for Social Security at age 62. Also 
     directed an ``open season for one year'' that will enable 
     retirees to opt in to SBP under prescribed conditions.
       NDAA FY 2005--Accelerated Concurrent Receipt for 100 
     Percent Disabled.--This amendment eliminated the phase in 
     period for collection of both military retired pay and 
     veterans' disability compensation for individuals who have 
     been rated at 100 percent disabled.
       Emergency Supplemental FY 2005--Increased Death Gratuity.--
     This legislation approved payments of $238,000 to survivors 
     of military personnel who died from combat-related causes 
     retroactive to October 7, 2001, the beginning of Operation 
     Enduring Freedom. This increased benefit is part of S. 1042.
       Emergency Supplemental FY 2005--Increased SGLI.--This 
     legislation, which has been made permanent by the Veterans' 
     Committee, increased the maximum amount of Servicemembers' 
     Group Life Insurance (SGLI) available from $250,000 to 
     $400,000. Additionally, a Traumatic Injury Protection Program 
     (TIPP) has been authorized that will provide lump sum 
     payments of up to $50,000 to certain wounded and injured 
     military personnel.
       Commission on Veterans' Disability Compensation 
     Established.--The 13 member Congressionally-chartered 
     Commission begins its work.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr President, the Department of Defense has opposed 
Senator Nelson's proposal.
  I ask unanimous consent that the DOD points of opposition be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   Elimination of Survivor Benefit Program Dependency and Indemnity 
                              Compensation


                          DoD Position: Oppose

       The Department opposes eliminating the Survivor Benefit 
     Plan (SBP) and Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) 
     offset.
       SBP and DIC for active duty deaths are fully funded by the 
     Government. The offset of DIC from SBP avoids the duplication 
     of Government benefits. Since retirees pay premiums to cover 
     a portion of SBP funding, those premiums attributed to the 
     reduction for DIC are returned to the beneficiary, generally 
     in a lump-sum payment.
       The policy is consistent with the private sector. In 2004, 
     the Department contracted with the SAG Corporation to conduct 
     a comprehensive review of military death benefits and compare 
     them to other public and private sector benefits.
       Their study found the SBP/IDIC offset to be consistent with 
     the benefits offered by other employers. When more than one 
     annuity is available to survivors, the survivors must 
     generally choose one, or the annuities are sequential (one 
     commences when the other stops).
       An active duty election exists. The National Defense 
     Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2004 authorizes survivors of 
     members who die on active duty who have children to elect to 
     have the SBP paid to the children. Thus, for Service members 
     who die on active duty, survivors have the option to pay DIC 
     to the spouse and SBP in the children's name.
       Eliminating the SBP offset for all widows entitled to DIC 
     would cost the Military Retirement Fund more than $5 billion 
     over 10 years.
       The Department opposes costly efforts that serve to 
     duplicate benefits.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, finally we can't ignore the cost of this 
amendment. CBO estimates the cost of Senator Nelson's changes to the 
SBP as $903 million in Fiscal Year 2006 and $9.3 billion over 10 years. 
This is all mandatory spending for which there is no provision in the 
budget resolution and no offset in the legislation before us.
  I urge my colleagues to support my second degree amendment and look 
to the Commission on Veterans' Disability Benefits before we implement 
any further changes to the Survivor Benefit Plan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 2425

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendments are set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2425.

  Mr. McCAIN. 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: Relating to persons under the detention, custody, or control 
                    of the United States Government)

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

     SEC. 1073. UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR THE INTERROGATION OF PERSONS 
                   UNDER THE DETENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 
                   DEFENSE.

       (a) In General.--No person in the custody or under the 
     effective control of the Department of Defense or under 
     detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be 
     subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not 
     authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field 
     Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.
       (b) Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to with 
     respect to any person in the custody or under the effective 
     control of the Department of Defense pursuant to a criminal 
     law or immigration law of the United States.
       (c) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to affect the rights under the United States 
     Constitution of any person in the custody or under the 
     physical jurisdiction of the United States.

     SEC. 1074. PROHIBITION ON CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING 
                   TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT OF PERSONS UNDER 
                   CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES 
                   GOVERNMENT.

       (a) In General.--No individual in the custody or under the 
     physical control of the United States Government, regardless 
     of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to 
     cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
       (b) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to impose any geographical limitation on the 
     applicability of the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or 
     degrading treatment or punishment under this section.
       (c) Limitation on Supersedure.--The provisions of this 
     section shall not be superseded, except by a provision of law 
     enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act which 
     specifically repeals, modifies, or supersedes the provisions 
     of this section.
       (d) Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 
     Defined.--In this section, the term ``cruel, inhuman, or 
     degrading treatment or punishment'' means the cruel, unusual, 
     and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, 
     Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the 
     United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, 
     Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations 
     Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman 
     or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, 
     December 10, 1984.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the 
conclusion of my remarks, letters from the Navy League of the United 
States and from Abraham Sofaer of the Hoover Institution to Patrick 
Leahy, which I think are important documents as far as constitutional 
aspects of this issue, be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment is identical to the one 
that was adopted by a vote of 90 to 9 on the appropriations bill, and 
it does the following: Establishes the Army Field Manual as the uniform 
standard for the interrogation of Department of Defense detainees and, 
two, prohibits cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment of persons in 
the detention of the U.S. Government.

[[Page 24929]]

  Because of the extraordinary support for this legislation and its 
importance to our men and women in uniform, it is imperative that these 
provisions remain on the appropriations measure which is now in 
conference, although I understand the conferees have not been appointed 
on the House side.
  There is a rumor that with the inclusion in the authorizing bill, 
then an argument will be made to have it taken out of the 
appropriations bill, and then the authorizing bill would never reach 
agreement in conference. That is a bit Machiavellian. Most of all, it 
is very important because it thwarts the will of 90 Members of the 
Senate, an overwhelming majority of the House of Representatives, and 
an overwhelming majority of the American people.
  I hope very sincerely that the inclusion of this provision on the 
authorization bill, which is important in the authorizing process, does 
not in any way give an excuse to have it removed from the 
appropriations bill.
  I commend Congressman Murtha for his leadership and efforts to date 
to offer a motion to instruct conferees to keep this amendment intact 
without modification. I hope that no one seeks procedural maneuvers to 
thwart the overwhelming majorities in both Chambers.
  I thank the leadership of the Armed Services Committee, particularly 
our leader Senator Warner, as well as the ranking Democrat, Senator 
Levin, who have provided guidance, leadership, and encouragement on 
this very important issue. I am very grateful for their leadership.
  Let me be clear.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. McCAIN. I would be glad to yield.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent to be an original cosponsor, as I 
have been consistently on the Senator's amendments. He will recall that 
our first meeting was when I was Secretary of the Navy when he returned 
from Vietnam. So our relationship on this issue has a long history, and 
I firmly believe it is in the best interest of the Department of 
Defense that this manual be the guide for our men and women of the U.S. 
military. I commend the Senator.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator. I ask unanimous consent that both 
Senator Warner and Senator Levin be added as original cosponsors of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank my dear friend. Maybe he does not want me to 
recall that was 32 years ago when we first had the opportunity of 
knowing each other, where I served under, with many layers in between, 
then Secretary of the Navy Senator Warner. I remember the many 
kindnesses he extended to me and my friends who had returned at that 
time. I also recall--and I do not want to take too much time of this 
body--that Senator Warner at that time had to make a very tough 
decision about a couple of people who had not performed to the 
standards we expected in that environment in Hanoi. Sometimes tough 
decisions have to be made, and I think Senator Warner made a very 
correct decision at that time.
  I might add, he has not aged a bit since that moment when I first saw 
him on my return.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think the Record should also reflect 
that in the course of my service as Under Secretary and Secretary of 
the Navy, I had the great privilege of working with the Senator's 
father, a naval officer without peer, distinction and achievement. He 
was commander in chief of all forces Pacific during several of those 
critical years in Vietnam when the Senator was incarcerated.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend.
  Mr. President, I say again on this issue, No. 1, it is not going 
away. It is not going away. If, through some parliamentary maneuver, 
temporarily the will of the majority of both Houses, both bicameral and 
bipartisan, is thwarted, it will be on every vehicle that goes through 
this body because you cannot override the majority of the American 
people and their elected representatives in a functioning democracy.
  No one wants this issue to go away more than I. This issue is 
incredibly harmful to the United States of America and our image 
throughout the world. The article on the front page of the Washington 
Post the day before yesterday, describing prison systems that are run 
by the CIA--the CIA wasn't set up to run prisons.
  I point out there is no nation in the world that faces a greater 
threat of terrorist attacks on a day-to-day basis than the State of 
Israel. The State of Israel Supreme Court decided, and its military and 
civil Government has implemented, a prohibition against cruel and 
inhumane treatment and torture, and they do not practice it. They do 
practice interrogation and, through various techniques--many of which I 
am sure are classified--that are not violations of the rules laid down 
by their Supreme Court, they obtain information, valuable and necessary 
information.
  Why is it some people feel we should carve out an exemption for a 
branch of our Government to practice cruel and inhumane treatment or 
even torture? Let me tell you what the consequence of that is, in case 
of another war. If we get in another war and one of our men or women in 
the armed services is captured, they will be turned over to the secret 
police because they will use the same rationale that is being argued by 
the proponents for the continuation of cruel and inhumane treatment and 
torture, that they have to have this information. We all know we need 
intelligence. We all know it is vital. We know how important it is. But 
to do differently not only offends our values as Americans but 
undermines our war efforts because abuse of prisoners harms, not helps, 
us in the war against terror.
  First, subjecting prisoners to abuse leads to bad intelligence 
because under torture a detainee will tell his interrogator anything to 
make the pain stop. Second, mistreatment of our prisoners endangers 
U.S. troops who might be captured by the enemy, if not in this war then 
in the next. And third, prisoner abuses exact on us a terrible toll in 
the war of ideas because inevitably these abuses become public, as was 
revealed--or at least a prison system was revealed; I don't know what 
goes on in them--on the front page of one of our major newspapers.
  If we inflict this cruel and inhumane treatment, the cruel actions of 
a few darken the reputation of our country in the eyes of millions. 
American values should win against all others in any war of ideas, and 
we cannot let prisoner abuse tarnish our image.
  Yet reports of detainee abuse continue to emerge, in large part 
because of confusion in the field as to what is permitted and what is 
not. That is why part of this amendment would establish the Army Field 
Manual as the uniform standard for the interrogation of Department of 
Defense detainees--so there is no confusion. Confusion about the rules 
results in abuses in the field and that is not just my opinion, but it 
is the opinion of GEN Colin Powell, GEN Joseph Hoar, GEN John 
Shalikashvili, RADM John Hutson, RADM Don Guter, and many others, those 
who have had the experience of being involved with treatment of 
detainees/POWs. These and other distinguished officers believe the 
abuses at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and elsewhere took place in part 
because our soldiers received ambiguous instructions.
  My friend from South Carolina is very aware and may chronicle the 
development of these guidelines for treatment of prisoners which was 
done without the consent of the military uniformed lawyers, and then a 
couple of months later, because of how outrageous they were, they had 
to be retracted. It is still not clear. It is still not clear what the 
practices are that are sanctioned in treatment of prisoners.
  The second part of this amendment is a prohibition against cruel, 
inhumane, and degrading treatment. If that doesn't sound new, that is 
because it is not. The prohibition has been a longstanding principle in 
both law and policy in the United States. To mention a few examples: 
The prohibitions are contained in the Universal Declaration

[[Page 24930]]

of Human Rights; the International Covenant on Civil and Political 
Rights, to which the U.S. is a signatory; and the binding Convention 
Against Torture, negotiated by the Reagan administration and ratified 
by the Senate.
  Nevertheless, the administration has held that the prohibition does 
not legally apply to foreigners held overseas. They can, apparently, be 
treated inhumanely. That means America is the only country in the world 
that asserts a legal right to engage in cruel and inhumane treatment. 
How far have we come?
  What this also means is confusion about the rules becomes rampant 
again. With this simple amendment we can restore clarity on a simple 
and fundamental question: Does America treat people inhumanely? My 
answer is no, and from all I have seen, America's answer has always 
been no.
  I noted this for my colleagues' consideration when I mentioned this 
earlier. While the State of Israel is no stranger to terrorist attacks, 
in 1999 the Israeli Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision to this 
effect--it contained words we may wish to reflect on today. I quote 
from the Israeli Supreme Court:

       A democratic, freedom-loving society does not accept that 
     investigators use any means for the purpose of uncovering the 
     truth. The rules pertaining to investigations are important 
     to a democratic state. They reflect its character.

  As I have said many times in response to a few Members of the Senate: 
It is not about them; it is about us.
  Let there be no question about America's character. In deciding these 
rules, each Member of this body has a vital role. Under article I, 
section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, the Congress has the responsibility 
for making--I quote from the U.S. Constitution: `` . . . rules 
concerning captures on land and water.'' Not the executive branch, not 
the courts, but Congress.
  Our brave men and women in the field need clarity. America needs to 
show the world that the terrible photos and stories of prison abuse are 
a thing of the past. Let's step up to this responsibility and speak 
clearly on this critical issue.
  We should do it not because we wish to coddle terrorists; we should 
do it not because we view them as anything but evil and terrible; we 
should do it because we are Americans and because we hold ourselves to 
humane standards of treatment of people, no matter how evil or terrible 
they may be. America stands for a moral mission, one of freedom and 
democracy and human rights at home and abroad. We are better than these 
terrorists--and we will win. I have said it before, but it bears 
repeating: The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human 
rights. They do not deserve our sympathy. But this isn't about who they 
are, it is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us 
from our enemies, and we can never allow our enemies to take those 
values away.
  I hope we could adopt this by voice vote at the appropriate time. 
Since we voted recently by a vote of 90 to 9, I don't see any reason 
why we should force people to be on record again.
  Again, my heartfelt thanks to both Senator Warner and Senator Levin. 
I hope we can make this issue go away so we can begin repairing the 
image of the United States of America throughout the world and still 
carry on a very effective intelligence capability this Nation so badly 
needs.
  I thank my colleague.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                       Navy League


                                         of the United States,

                                  Arlington, VA, November 1, 2005.
     Hon. C.W. Bill Young,
     Chairman, House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Young: On behalf of the more than 65,000 
     members of the Navy League of the United States, I want to 
     express our support for Sections 8154 and 8155 in the 
     Senate's version of H.R. 2863, the Defense Appropriations Act 
     of Fiscal Year 2006. These legislative provisions establish 
     the U.S. Army Field Manual on Interrogations and the 
     Convention Against Torture as the uniform standard for 
     interrogation of individuals detained by the Department of 
     Defense, and prohibit degrading treatment of detainees.
       We encourage you to support adoption of Sections 8154 and 
     8155 in conference negotiations on H.R. 2863. America's hard-
     earned reputation for respect of the rule of law and human 
     dignity is an integral part of our greatness as a Nation. The 
     world will judge us by our actions, and our troops have a 
     proven record of excellence. Establishing a written standard 
     for interrogation will only underscore this superb record. 
     The Navy League is proud to align itself with the position of 
     numerous credible voices in support of this action.
       On behalf of the men and women of the sea services, for 
     whom the Navy League has advocated for more than 100 years, 
     thank you for your consideration of this important concern.
           Sincerely,
     John A. Panneton.
                                  ____



                                           Hoover Institution,

                                   Stanford, CA, January 21, 2005.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: I have read your letter of January 19, 
     2005, and am prepared to provide my views to you on the issue 
     you raised
       First, I must disassociate myself from those who have 
     attacked Alberto R. Gonzales in connection with issues 
     related to the Torture Convention. I support his appointment 
     and urge you to vote for his confirmation. Judge Gonzales has 
     relied on the opinions of other attorneys on this and other 
     issues, and a distinction must be maintained concerning those 
     opinions and his own considered judgments. Moreover, 
     attorneys acting ethically and in good faith can reach 
     different conclusions on issues. It is unhelpful in 
     developing national policy when personal attacks are launched 
     on those with whom we disagree, despite ample grounds for 
     professional differences.
       Second, I have read some but not all the documents to which 
     you refer in your letter, and given the time available have 
     relied on the material quoted in your letter and on my 
     recollection with regard to the intentions of the Bush 
     Administration in submitting the Convention for ratification.
       Third, the issue in your letter, as you state, is not 
     whether acts amounting to torture under the Convention are 
     forbidden in areas within the jurisdiction of the US, but to 
     which the Eighth Amendment would not apply. As I understand 
     it, Judge Gonzales has made clear that he believes the 
     Torture Convention and U.S. law require the U.S. government 
     to undertake to prevent and to punish acts amounting to 
     torture committed by US officials anywhere in the world.
       Having made these disclaimers, I do not hesitate to say 
     that I disagree with the merits and wisdom of the conclusion 
     reached by the Department of Justice and cited in the 
     response of Judge Gonzales concerning the geographic reach of 
     Article 16 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, 
     Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
       Article 16 on its face limits the obligation of the United 
     States to undertake to prevent cruel, inhuman, or degrading 
     acts not amounting to torture to ``territory under its 
     jurisdiction.'' Within such territory, the US is obliged to 
     undertake to prevent such ``other'' acts, even if they do not 
     amount to torture.
       As you state in your letter, the Senate agreed to ratify 
     the Torture Convention at the urging of the Reagan and Bush 
     Administrations, and one of its reservations was that in 
     applying Article 16 the US government would not be obliged to 
     undertake to enforce its provisions, anywhere, in a manner 
     inconsistent with the US interpretation of its almost 
     identically worded Eighth Amendment prohibiting cruel and 
     unusual punishment. As I testified at the time, in writing 
     and orally, the purpose of this reservation was to prevent 
     any tribunal or state from claiming that the US would have to 
     follow a different and broader meaning of the language of 
     Article 16 than the meaning of those same words in the Eighth 
     Amendment. The words of the reservation support this 
     understanding, in that they relate to the meaning of the 
     terms involved, not to their geographic application: ``the 
     United States considers itself bound by the obligation under 
     article 16 . . . only insofar as the term `cruel, inhuman or 
     degrading treatment or punishment' means the cruel, unusual 
     and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, 
     Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments. . . .'' (Emphasis 
     added.) The Department of Justice at the time characterized 
     this reservation as ``modest,'' and explained its purpose as 
     being to use established meanings under the Eighth Amendment 
     instead of the Treaty's vague terms that had not yet evolved 
     under international law. No evidence of which I am aware 
     indicates that the reservation was intended to enable the US 
     to refuse to enforce Article 16 in any territory ``under its 
     jurisdiction.''
       The Department of Justice contends, as I understand it, 
     that Article 16 has no application outside the territory of 
     the US, because the Supreme Court has interpreted the Eighth 
     Amendment to be inapplicable beyond our territorial limits. 
     The Department reasons that since the Senate reservation 
     limited enforcement of Artic1e 16 to the US understanding of 
     the Eighth Amendment's

[[Page 24931]]

     language, and since the Supreme Court has concluded that the 
     Eighth Amendment is inapplicable beyond US territory, Article 
     16 itse1f is inapplicable beyond US territory. On the basis 
     of my understanding of the purposes of the Convention, and of 
     the purpose of the reservation related to Article 16 and the 
     Eighth Amendment, I disagree with the Department's view and 
     would urge the Attorney General Designate to accept a 
     different view.
       The US has been in the vanguard of efforts to protect human 
     rights within the US and abroad. As President Bush has 
     repeatedly affirmed, the dignity and equality of all human 
     beings stems from natural law, i.e. the principle that the 
     Creator of life has endowed us all equally with the right to 
     be protected from abhorrent conduct. We agreed in the Torture 
     Convention that all humans should be protected against 
     official acts amounting to torture, or ``other acts'' covered 
     by Article 16, and we undertook to ``take effective 
     legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to 
     prevent acts of torture'' and the other acts covered by 
     Article 16, when they occur ``in any territory'' under US 
     jurisdiction. Article 2 of the Treaty requires us to take 
     measures against acts of torture in territory under our 
     jurisdiction, and we understand this to mean any territory, 
     not just the territory of the US to which the Eighth 
     Amendment is applicable. Since the underlying objective is 
     the same everywhere--to prevent official acts of torture, 
     cruelty, or other abuse covered by the meanings of the words 
     involved which are within our legal capacity to prevent--no 
     good reason can be given to conclude that the geographic 
     scope of the words in Article 16 should be narrower than the 
     geographic scope of the same words in Article 2.
       In conclusion, the reference in the reservation to the 
     Eighth Amendment's language was intended to prevent 
     inconsistent interpretation of our obligations under Article 
     16, not to excuse us from abiding by its obligations within 
     the ``territory'' to which it applies by its terms, i.e., 
     territory that is within the jurisdiction of the United 
     States. To interpret it to limit our obligation under Article 
     16 would arguably allow US officials to act inconsistently 
     with the Treaty--and inconsistently with the Eighth 
     Amendment--in parts of the world in which we have 
     jurisdiction to prevent them from doing so. Judge Gonzales 
     said in his testimony that ``we want to be in compliance, as 
     a substantive matter under the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth 
     Amendment.'' I imagine that he and any other person who 
     shares the President's beliefs would not condone or seek to 
     protect any official from the full, potential consequences of 
     behavior so offensive as to violate the cruel and unusual 
     punishment clause in any place where the US has jurisdiction 
     to prevent and punish such conduct.
       I hope that these views are helpful to you and the 
     Committee.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Abe Sofaer.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, with regard to the McCain amendment on 
which I spoke in favor, I have an obligation as manager of the bill to 
present views of those who differ in some respects with Senator McCain 
and myself.
  I ask unanimous consent that the remarks made by Mr. Stephen Hadley, 
National Security Adviser to the President, on Wednesday, November 2, 
be printed in the Record. The material is taken directly from a 
transcript, which I presume is authentic.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      Press Briefing With National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley

       Q. Can I ask you a quick one on another subject? Why does 
     the administration feel it's necessary to maintain a network 
     of secret detention centers around the world, out of sight of 
     the Congress and the American people, and out of reach of 
     American law and values?
       Mr. HADLEY: There have been some press reports this morning 
     that have touched on that subject. And as you can appreciate, 
     they raise some issues about possible intelligence 
     operations. And as you know, we don't talk about intelligence 
     operations from this podium.
       Q. Don't they also raise issue of our values and our 
     reputation in the world?
       Mr. HADLEY: Right, and I think the President has been 
     pretty clear on that, that while we have to do what we--do 
     what is necessary to defend the country against terrorists 
     attacks and to win the war on terror, the President has been 
     very clear that we're going to do that in a way that is 
     consistent with our values. And that is why he's been very 
     clear that the United States will not torture. The United 
     States will conduct its activities in compliance with law and 
     international obligations.
       And in some of the issues involving detainees and the like, 
     as you know, where they have been allegations that people 
     have not met the standard the President has set, there have 
     been investigations, and they have been of two forms. There 
     are over a dozen investigations that have been done in the 
     Department of Defense to find out what has been going on. Two 
     things have happened as a result. There have been revisions 
     of procedures and practices to ensure that the standard the 
     President set is met; and then there have been 
     investigations, prosecutions, and people punished for the 
     failure to meet those standards. So we think that, consistent 
     with the President's guidance, we are both protecting the 
     country against the terrorists and doing it in a way that is 
     consistent with our values and principles.
       Q. If I could just press you on that, how do those self-
     correcting mechanism that affirm our values and laws, how do 
     they work if the sites are secret to begin with?
       Mr. HADLEY: Well, the fact that they are secret, assuming 
     there are such sites, does not mean that simply because 
     something is--and some people say that the test of your 
     principles are what you do when no one is looking. And the 
     President has insisted that whether it is in the public, or 
     is in the private, the same principles will apply, and the 
     same principles will be respected. And to the extent people 
     do not meet up, measure up to those principles, there will be 
     accountability and responsibility.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, before we move to a vote, I see another 
colleague who may wish to speak to this issue, the distinguished 
Senator from South Carolina, who has been very much a part of the 
integral working group of Senator McCain, myself, and the Senator from 
South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I echo the general themes of Senator McCain. This is an 
important event in the war on terror. He described very well that this 
is about us, not the terrorists. The terrorists are not having this 
debate in their world. There is not much debate going on about how they 
should behave toward innocent people, how they should behave toward 
people under their control. We know how they behave.
  The war is about, Is that a justified way of doing business? The 
answer is, No.
  Everyone condemns what they do, everyone who believes in freedom. 
This war is about two sets of values, theirs and ours. As we adjust in 
the war on terror, I think we have to understand that adjustment is 
necessary, but the adjustments cannot equate to eroding what we are 
fighting for. I am all for the PATRIOT Act. I think it has been very 
good that we adjust the way we have electronic surveillance. I think it 
has been very good that we allow the intelligence community and 
domestic law enforcement personnel to talk to each other about what is 
going on in the terrorist world. We are knocking some walls down with 
the PATRIOT Act that have made us less secure.
  We are adjusting our military policy. We are adjusting our legal 
positions to adopt to a war that is new and different. Here is the new 
and different part about it: The enemy we are fighting is 
nontraditional in terms of the Geneva Conventions. I think the 
President instinctively got it right, right after 9/11. He made a 
declaration that al-Qaida members are not going to be treated under the 
Geneva Conventions, considered Geneva Conventions qualified. He was 
right because al-Qaida is not a standing army. It is a group of 
terrorists who are not fighting for a nation. They don't wear a 
uniform. They randomly attack civilians. To give them Geneva 
Conventions protection would be undermining the purpose of the Geneva 
Conventions that rewards people for playing fair.
  The Geneva Conventions has within it reporting requirements and other 
devices that I think would undermine the war on terror. Some people 
that we catch, senior al-Qaida operatives or associates of al-Qaida, we 
don't want the world and their fellow terrorists to know we have them. 
Under the Geneva Conventions it would require reporting.
  Here is what we are trying to do, with Senator McCain's amendment. 
Even though they are not Geneva Conventions qualified, the President 
said they will be treated humanely. We have had interrogation 
techniques in the past for enemy combatants, people who do not fall 
under the Geneva Conventions, but they have never been in one source 
document. The Army Field Manual is an attempt on our part to provide 
clarity to the troops.
  I have gone with the chairman to Guantanamo Bay and I asked the 
question to the interrogators: Is there anything in the Army Field 
Manual that

[[Page 24932]]

would prevent you from getting good intelligence, being involved in 
interrogations that would be fruitful to protect our Nation? They said 
no. They don't see the Army Field Manual as written or being drafted or 
revised as an impediment to doing their jobs.
  So what is the upside? The upside is the people in the Department of 
Defense--who may find themselves in a situation where they will have a 
group of prisoners, detainees, some Geneva Conventions qualified, some 
not--will have a source document. The reason we are doing this 
amendment is right after 9/11 there was an attempt by the Department of 
Justice to cut corners, in my opinion, to give strained legal reasoning 
to the Convention on Torture, trying to define what torture is in a way 
that would get our own people in trouble.
  The idea that you could actually break bones and that not be torture 
under the convention, that it would have to be a near-death 
experience--that gets us in a very dangerous area about physical abuse. 
The point we were trying to make, and the uniformed JAGs were trying to 
make, is when you start that reasoning, you have to understand there 
are other laws on the books that govern our military.
  The Uniform Code of Military Justice has a whole section about what 
is in bounds and out of bounds when it comes to detainees and how you 
treat detainees. It has an assault provision, making it a crime for a 
military member to degrade or assault someone in our charge.
  The concern of the JAGs is that this new interpretation of the 
Convention on Torture allowing certain activity would put military 
personnel in jeopardy of being court martialed because of other laws on 
the books. Now is the time to reconcile this. Now is the time to come 
up with a standard that looks at every legal source of who we are and 
how we behave. The Army Field Manual will be one-stop shopping.
  It will have interrogation techniques classified and unclassified 
that will be a roadmap of how we handle people at the Department of 
Defense who are non-Geneva qualified. It is the best thing we can do 
for the troops. Everybody is for the troops. We should be for the 
troops. If you are for the troops, I believe the best thing you can for 
them is to give them clarity so they will not run afoul of our values 
and our laws. It is the best thing we can do to help them as they 
execute this war on terror when it comes to interrogating people.
  The second part of Senator McCain's amendment is equally important 
but for a different reason. Abu Ghraib happened. Things happen on our 
watch in war that we are not proud of. But that happens in every war. 
The fact that some people make mistakes, some people commit crimes, 
some people go too far, is a part of war. How you deal with it is 
really about you.
  What has made us different is that we hold our own people 
accountable, and we don't let the end justify the means. We have been 
doing that for a very long time because we are trying to set a value 
system in place that will be good for the world. And when we take 
someone who is a member of the military and prosecute them for abusing 
a prisoner, that is different in a lot of places in this world. If we 
are prosecuting people for abusing prisoners, the worst thing we could 
do is confuse people about what is in bounds and what is out of bounds. 
That is why the Army Field Manual is necessary. But the statement 
Senator McCain is making about treating people humanely and cruel and 
unusual punishment interrogation techniques being out of bounds applies 
to everybody in the Government.
  I believe we have to make a decision soon that that is what we are 
going to do for many years to come. The war on terror is going to be a 
long, hard road. We are going to be constantly asked to adapt to win 
the war. The question is, Should we sometimes set aside exceptions that 
are totally different than the way we have lived our lives for 200 
years to win this war? My answer is, Absolutely not, because this war 
is not about taking down a capital, sinking a navy, or capturing an 
army; this war is about tolerance, values, religion, and respect for 
human rights. This war is truly about character.
  I believe with all my heart and all my soul that what happened in Abu 
Ghraib is an aberration in terms of the men and women in the military. 
It doesn't reflect on who they are and what they believe. But it has 
done great damage to this country. To the terrorists, they are not the 
audience; it is those millions of people out there who are looking at 
democracy, checking under the hood, and trying to figure out which way 
to go.
  As a nation, we need to say as strongly as we can that no terrorist 
will have a safe haven. We are coming after you. We are going to fight 
you to the death. But if we capture a terrorist, we will want good 
information. We want to try them for their crimes, but once we have 
them in our charge, then it becomes about us because if you do not 
practice what you preach, your children will go astray if you are a 
parent. If you do not practice what you preach, your value set that has 
made you a great nation, standing out in a world in a unique way--you 
will tarnish who you are. The only way we are going to win this war is 
to have American values shine brightly. And character is about doing 
the right thing when nobody watches.
  I am hopeful that we can have a compromise and accommodation between 
the executive branch and the legislative branch on this issue; that we 
can have a policy statement that if you are in the hands of the CIA or 
a non-DOD agency, you can be interrogated aggressively, but you will be 
treated with a value set that this country has been fighting for in the 
past and is fighting for now. As the President reaffirmed just days 
ago, no matter where the prison is, no matter whether it is a prison 
known or unknown, American values follow that prisoner. That is what it 
has to be.
  Can we do better language? Maybe. I am certainly openminded to 
working on language that makes who we are crystal clear. But I will not 
entertain a retreat. I will not entertain an exception that washes away 
what we have been standing for and fighting for and what over 2,000 
young men and women have died for.
  The courts are confused. The courts are crying out for congressional 
involvement. The executive branch is trying to adapt. I really do 
believe that the best thing we could do for this President and all 
future Presidents is for the Congress to get into the game and be an 
ally on how you detain, interrogate, and prosecute enemy combatants. 
That is missing. We have been AWOL. It is now time for us to step up to 
the plate and exercise our constitutional responsibility--not to weaken 
the Presidency but to make the executive branch stronger in the eyes of 
the courts.
  If you had a policy that was signed off on by the Congress, signed 
off on by the executive branch, I am totally convinced that the 
judicial side of our Government would be much more deferential. They 
are telling us that. What benefit would that be? We could go to the 
world, and this President and the next could say that America at every 
level of Government is united. We are going to have aggressive 
interrogation techniques, we are going to detain people who are enemy 
combatants, and we are going to take them off the battlefield. And some 
of them are going to stand trial for their crimes. But we are going to 
do it together, and we are going to do it within our values. That would 
be the strongest message we could extend to the world. It would be the 
right message to send to our own troops. If we do not get this right 
now, people after us are going to pay a heavy price.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I followed that statement with great care. 
I commend the Senator. I think he articulated the key issues. He used 
the word ``compromise'' and keeping an open mind.
  I wish to assure those who are following this that our group that 
supports Senator McCain's amendment

[[Page 24933]]

have taken careful consideration of the continuing need to collect our 
intelligence, first and foremost to protect our troops and, of course, 
first and foremost to protect our citizens back here in this Nation 
from terrorists or other attacks.
  It is a balanced approach that we have tried to take on this, a 
careful one, thoughtfully moving each step of the way and entertaining 
carefully the views of others who have views different from our own.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the war against terrorism is as much as a 
contest of values and ideals as it is a military conflict. In this 
struggle, America should lead as it always has, setting an example by 
treating others as we would want to be treated ourselves, even in times 
of war.
  This golden rule has been tarnished and abandoned by the Bush 
administration. As a result, for much of the world, the American face 
in the war on terror is represented by images of torture and abuse. The 
``anything goes'' attitude at the highest levels of the Bush White 
House has made the war on terror much harder to win. And it has placed 
our own soldiers at risk throughout the globe, should they be captured.
  How can we demand that the rest of the world abide by standards of 
common decency when we abuse prisoners ourselves?
  So I come to the floor today in strong support of the McCain 
amendment to protect American honor by ensuring clear rules for the 
interrogation of prisoners. This common sense proposal ensures that we 
have one standard of interrogation for our Government, and it makes 
sure the rules are clear so that our interrogators and case officers 
know what the limits are.
  Before September 11, 2001, everyone knew what the limits were. They 
were clearly laid out in the Army Field Manual, our laws, and our 
treaty obligations. Yet this administration began systematically taking 
those rules apart.
  COL. Larry Wilkerson, the chief of staff to Secretary Powell, said on 
NPR yesterday, ``The Secretary of Defense, under cover of the Vice 
President's office began to create an environment . . . of allowing the 
President in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief to deviate from the 
Geneva Conventions.''
  William Taft, the State Department legal advisor in President Bush's 
first term, knew the consequences of that fundamental shift. In an 
address at American University, he said that the decision to violate 
international standards ``unhinged those responsible for the treatment 
of the detainees . . . from the legal guidelines for interrogation . . 
. embodied in the Army Field Manual for decades. Set adrift in 
uncharted waters and under pressure from their leaders to develop 
information on the plans and practices of al Qaeda, it was predictable 
that those managing the interrogation would eventually go too far.''
  The Judge Advocate Generals from the Air Force, Navy, Army and 
Marines--in other words, the chief lawyers for every one of the 
uniformed services--warned that the adoption of interrogation policies 
contrary to the Geneva Conventions would result in grave harms. These 
are all professional military lawyers who have dedicated their lives 
and distinguished careers to serving the men and women in uniform and 
protecting their Nation. In an extraordinary set of memos they strongly 
opposed the legal theories foisted on them by the administration's 
lawyers. The JAGS warned that the policies would harm not only our 
efforts to stop terrorism, but would also put U.S. forces at risk who 
were themselves detained in this and future conflicts. One legal 
scholar called the administration's case some of the worst legal 
reasoning he had ever seen.
  As Air Force Major General Jack Rives said: ``We need to consider the 
overall impact of approving extreme interrogation techniques as giving 
official approval and legal sanction to the application of 
interrogation techniques that U.S. forces have consistently been 
trained are unlawful.''
  Yet; despite the condemnation of these new interrogation policies by 
experienced diplomatic and military personnel alike, the administration 
persists in pursuing these disturbing practices. Just last week, Vice 
President Cheney himself suggested that the CIA should be exempt from 
the prohibitions against cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. As of 
this week, it is clear why. The CIA apparently is holding more than a 
hundred detainees in secret prisons around the world to interrogate 
them with the techniques roundly rejected by the military lawyers.
  This is unacceptable. In America, no one is above the law. There is 
no reason the CIA--or any other agency of our government--should be 
immune from American norms and standards of conduct.
  This amendment will make our message clear. As Americans, not only do 
we fight for our ideals, but we live by them. We can no longer tolerate 
ambiguity when it comes to the very standards we are trying to enforce 
around the world.
  In the first gulf war, our compliance with the Geneva Conventions--
the international gold standard for treatment of captives--was called 
``the best of any nation in any conflict in the history of the 
Conventions'' by the International Red Cross, the organization charged 
with overseeing compliance with the conventions.
  There are good reasons that we should abide by the Geneva 
Conventions. They protect our own troops. The Conventions require that 
all captured combatants or prisoners of war must be visited by the Red 
Cross to help assure the world that their treatment is humane. The 
International Red Cross visited U.S. servicemen held prisoner in Kosovo 
in the 1990s. They visited our troops held in the first gulf war.
  As Milt Bearden, a former CIA official, wrote in this morning's New 
York Times, ``the treatment of prisoners generally reaches symmetry in 
any war.'' In other words, if we abuse prisoners in a war, others will 
abuse our soldiers if they are taken prisoner.
  As Mr. Bearden pointed out, our actions make a difference, even in 
extreme situations. He wrote, ``The policy of three presidents--Jimmy 
Carter, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush--was that both the Afghan 
mujahedeen insurgents we supported and their Soviet adversaries would 
be treated within the precepts of the Geneva Conventions when taken 
prisoner. I can state without reservation that the United States used 
its influence consistently to promote that policy, with overwhelmingly 
positive results.''
  Sadly, our treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib, in Afghanistan, 
Guantanamo, and other sites, makes it far more difficult for us to 
guarantee the protections of the Geneva Conventions for our military if 
they are captured, and degrades the international consensus against 
such abuse.
  America must lead by example. After the abuse of the detainees at Abu 
Ghraib, President Bush said, ``Their treatment does not reflect the 
nature of the American people. That is not the way we do things in 
America.''
  Let's make the President's bold words into a reality and adopt the 
McCain amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that full text of Mr. 
Bearden's op-ed be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Nov. 4, 2005]

                  When the C.I.A. Played by the Rules

                           (By Milt Bearden)

       Today the Supreme Court justices are expected to debate 
     whether they will hear a case involving a Yemeni named Salim 
     Ahmed Hamdan, who is accused of being Osama bin Laden's 
     driver. A federal appeals court found that Mr. Hamdan, who 
     was captured in Afghanistan in 2001 and is being held at 
     Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, was not entitled to the protections 
     of the Geneva Conventions; he has appealed to the high court.
       If the court does not choose to review the appellate 
     court's decision, and then overturn it, America's national 
     security will be endangered. I say that based on my 
     experience as the senior American intelligence officer during 
     the final three years of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan 
     (1986 to 1989). And I also feel that our intelligence 
     agencies and military commanders should make clear to the 
     Bush administration that our country's most fundamental 
     commitments of humanitarian treatment have long been extended 
     to the Afghan battlefield.

[[Page 24934]]

       The policy of three presidents--Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan 
     and George H. W. Bush--was that both the Afghan mujahedeen 
     insurgents we supported and their Soviet adversaries would be 
     treated within the precepts of the Geneva Conventions when 
     taken prisoner. I can state without reservation that the 
     United States used its influence consistently to promote that 
     policy--with overwhelmingly positive results.
       When in Pakistan, I oversaw America's covert support to the 
     Afghan resistance that had begun in December 1979. Throughout 
     that war, countless thousands of Afghan insurgents fell into 
     the hands of Soviet forces; a far smaller number of Soviet 
     soldiers were taken prisoner by the Afghan irregulars. I 
     urged the Afghans, the Pakistani officers who supported them, 
     and the politicians on both sides of the ``zero line'' (the 
     Afghan border with Pakistan) that all combatants taken 
     prisoner deserved the protection of the Geneva Conventions. 
     My most effective argument was founded on reciprocity--that 
     the treatment of prisoners generally reaches symmetry in any 
     war.
       The Afghan war was exceptionally brutal, with more than a 
     million Afghans killed, a million and a half wounded, and 
     three million more driven into exile by the Soviet invaders 
     (who had 15,000 of their own killed). Early in the conflict, 
     the Afghans were brutal to their prisoners, using them as 
     beasts of burden and objects of amusement in traditional 
     knife play; the Soviets responded in kind. But as American 
     involvement deepened, the Afghans were persuaded to change 
     that behavior; at the same time, the Soviet troops, too, 
     began treating their prisoners in accordance with 
     international protocols.
       One incident in particular drives home the wisdom of this 
     policy. In early August 1988, I was informed that a Soviet 
     Su-25 ground attack aircraft had been brought down, lightly 
     damaged, that day by antiaircraft fire in eastern 
     Afghanistan. Was I interested in ``buying'' it?
       I was delighted. An Su-25, a superb plane often called the 
     Frogfoot, would nicely augment the equipment the United 
     States had been collecting from the Afghan battlefield over 
     the previous decade. After a little haggling, I agreed to 
     give the Afghan guerrillas eight Toyota pickup trucks and a 
     few rocket launchers in exchange. Almost as an afterthought, 
     the Afghans told me they had also taken the pilot, a silver-
     haired colonel. Was I interested?
       I was, indeed, interested. I remembered that just after I 
     arrived in Pakistan, I was shown a photograph of a Soviet 
     pilot in a silver flight suit, up to his waist in snow, skin 
     burned by the relentless sun, with a bullet hole in the side 
     of his head. His Tokarev semi-automatic pistol was still 
     clutched in his hand. He had killed himself rather than be 
     captured by insurgents. Back then, Soviet pilots had it 
     particularly rough when captured.
       I had made it clear from that moment that American policy 
     was that captured pilots be treated as prisoners of war under 
     international agreements, and that I would offer rewards for 
     any pilots used in prisoner exchanges, repatriated to the 
     Soviet Union, or, if they so desired, resettled in the West.
       I threw in another couple of Toyotas and the pilot came 
     with his downed aircraft in a sort of package deal. The 
     colonel was handed over to the Pakistanis--not wanting to 
     create an incident, I stayed clear of him, though I did make 
     sure he knew that a condominium in Phoenix, or wherever, was 
     an option open to him. He eventually chose to return to the 
     Soviet Union, where he was hailed as a national hero. Part of 
     the swap, though, was the extraction of certain guarantees 
     from the Soviet commanders that their treatment of Afghan 
     prisoners would reach ``symmetry'' of a sort with the 
     treatment of that pilot.
       The story didn't end there, however. The next time I saw 
     that colonel he was on TV, helping beat back the 1991 coup 
     against Mikhail Gorbachev. He soon became Boris Yeltsin's 
     vice president, then turned on Mr. Yeltsin in 1993. His name 
     is Aleksandr Rutskoi, and he remains a voice for democracy 
     and one of President Vladimir Putin's leading critics.
       There are two salient points here. First, the present war 
     in Afghanistan must be seen as part of a struggle that has 
     been under way for more than a quarter-century. The Afghan 
     insurgents themselves are not likely to distinguish to any 
     large degree the differences between being taken prisoner by 
     the Soviets in Mazar-i-Sharif in 1985 or by the Americans in 
     the same tortured city in 2005.
       The second thing being missed, or more likely ignored, is 
     that there was an American policy toward insurgents taken 
     prisoner by the Soviets in Afghanistan during the Soviet 
     occupation. That policy was to urge both sides toward 
     accepting that the Geneva Conventions applied, and to reach a 
     point where each side treated its prisoners within 
     established rules. In the case of Colonel Rutskoi, a graphic 
     point was made to both sides.
       It is a point that has become muddied in the Hamdan case. 
     The issue is not whether Mr. Hamdan is a Qaeda terrorist, but 
     whether as a captive of the United States he should be 
     treated under the traditional rules of the Afghan conflict--
     that is, under international norms. A unilateral change in 
     those rules dictated by America--the latest in the line of 
     foreign powers to find themselves in Afghanistan--is not only 
     unseemly, but would also put our troops there and elsewhere 
     in the struggle against terrorism in harm's way.
       The questions of applicability and enforcement of the 
     Geneva Conventions posed by the Hamdan case should not go 
     unanswered by the Supreme Court. We are a better nation than 
     that.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2425) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, 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.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we had announced earlier--I see my 
distinguished colleague, a member of the Armed Services Committee, 
Senator Reed--that we would move to Senator Allard and then follow with 
the Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Reed.


                           Amendment No. 2423

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

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Allard] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2423.

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

 (Purpose: To authorize a program to provide health, medical, and life 
    insurance benefits to workers at the Rocky Flats Environmental 
Technology Site, Colorado, who would otherwise fail to qualify for such 
         benefits because of an early physical completion date)

       On page 378, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:

     SEC. 3114. RETIREMENT BENEFITS FOR WORKERS AT ROCKY FLATS 
                   ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY SITE, COLORADO.

       (a) Program Authorized.--Subject to the availability of 
     funds under subsection (d), the Secretary of Energy shall 
     establish a program for the purposes of providing health, 
     medical, and life insurance benefits to workers at the Rocky 
     Flats Environmental Technology Site, Colorado (in this 
     section referred to as the ``Site''), who do not qualify for 
     such benefits because the physical completion date was 
     achieved before December 15, 2006.
       (b) Eligibility for Benefits.--A worker at the Site is 
     eligible for health, medical, and life insurance benefits 
     under the program described in subsection (a) if the 
     employee--
       (1) was employed by the Department of Energy, or by 
     contract or first or second tier subcontract to perform 
     cleanup, security, or administrative duties or 
     responsibilities at the Site on September 29, 2003; and
       (2) would have achieved applicable eligibility requirements 
     for health, medical, and life insurance benefits as defined 
     in the Site retirement benefit plan documents if the physical 
     completion date had been achieved on December 15, 2006, as 
     specified in the Site project completion contract.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Health, medical, and life insurance benefits.--The term 
     ``health, medical, and life insurance benefits'' means those 
     benefits that workers at the Site are eligible for through 
     collective bargaining agreements, projects, or contracts for 
     work scope.
       (2) Physical completion date.--The term ``physical 
     completion date'' means the date the Site contractor has 
     completed all services required by the Site project 
     completion contract other than close-out tasks and services 
     related to plan sponsorship and management of post-project 
     completion retirement benefits.
       (3) Plan sponsorship and program management of post-project 
     completion retirement benefits.--The term ``plan sponsorship 
     and program management of post-project completion retirement 
     benefits'' means those duties and responsibilities that are 
     necessary to execute, and are consistent with, the terms and 
     legal responsibilities of the instrument under which the 
     post-project completion retirement benefits are provided to 
     workers at the Site.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--Of the amounts 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Energy in 
     fiscal year 2006 for the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology 
     Site, $15,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary to 
     carry out the program described in subsection (a).

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the incredible 
achievements of the workers at the Department of Energy's Rocky Flats 
Environmental Technology Site and to offer an

[[Page 24935]]

amendment on the behalf of these workers.
  Rocky Flats is located just a few miles northwest of Denver, Co, and 
for over four decades, this facility was the Department of Energy's 
dedicated site for manufacturing plutonium pits for the U.S. nuclear 
weapons stockpile. This highly classified production facility was run 
by over 8,000 Coloradoans who worked day and night for most of the cold 
war and used some of the most dangerous substances known to man, 
including plutonium, beryllium, and uranium.
  The workers at Rocky Flats were devoted to their job and believed in 
their mission. They risked their lives on a daily basis, but did so 
with the knowledge that their efforts were contributing to the security 
of our Nation.
  When plutonium pit production ended in 1991, it was unclear what role 
these workers would play in the cleanup of Rocky Flats. They could have 
walked away from the job. Yet the workers at Rocky Flats were not ready 
to quit. They saw a new challenge in front of them--the cleanup of 
Rocky Flats.
  Their task was anything but simple. Five large plutonium processing 
facilities, encompassing over a million square feet, were highly 
contaminated with dangerous radioactive material. The contamination was 
so severe that these buildings were ranked among the top 10 most 
contaminated facilities in the Department of Energy nuclear weapons 
complex.
  I, however, had faith in the workers at Rocky Flats. I am pleased 
that the workers at Rocky Flats have not disappointed us. The cleanup 
at Rocky Flats was declared completed on October 12 of this year, a 
full year and 3 months ahead of schedule.
  We must keep in mind that most of these workers had to literally 
develop an entire new skill set. They went from manufacturing plutonium 
pits to dismantling over 1,400 highly radioactive gloveboxes.
  They tore down buildings while wearing stiff environmental protection 
suits. They cleaned up rooms that were so contaminated that they were 
forced to use the highest level of respiratory protection available.
  Listen to some of the Rocky Flats workers' accomplishments:
  All weapons grade plutonium was removed in 2003.
  More than 1,400 contaminated glove boxes and hundreds of process 
tanks have been removed.
  More than 400,000 cubic meters of low-level radioactive waste has 
been removed.
  All 802 facilities have been demolished.
  All four uranium production facilities have been demolished.
  All five plutonium production facilities have been demolished.
  All 360 sites of soil contamination have been remediated.
  The last shipment of transuranic waste was shipped this past April.
  Completion of the cleanup--1 year and 3 months ahead of schedule.
  Just as important, these workers were extraordinarily productive even 
though they knew they were essentially working themselves out of a job. 
With the completion of the cleanup and the closure of Rocky Flats, they 
knew they would have to find employment elsewhere. There was no 
guarantee for a new job.
  Despite knowing they were going to lose their jobs, the workers at 
Rocky Flats remained highly motivated and totally committed to their 
cleanup mission.
  Given the sacrifice and dedication demonstrated by these workers, you 
would think assisting those workers who lose their retirement benefits 
because of the early completion of the cleanup would be a top priority 
for the Department of Energy. After all, these workers saved the 
Department billions upon billions in cleanup costs.
  Last year, however, it became clear that the cleanup at Rocky Flats 
would be completed much earlier than anyone expected. The workers were 
supportive of early closure, but were concerned that some of their 
colleagues would lose retirement benefits because of early closure.
  I shared their concern and requested in last year's Defense 
authorization bill that the Department of Energy provide Congress with 
a report on the number of workers who would not receive retirement 
benefits and the cost of providing these benefits. After a lengthy 
delay, the Department of Energy reported that about 29 workers at three 
cleanup sites would not receive pension and/or lifetime medical 
benefits because of the closure, and the cost of providing benefits to 
these workers, according to DOE's report, was just over $12 million.
  To my dismay, the Department of Energy report was woefully 
incomplete. I was informed later at least 50 workers would have 
qualified for retirement benefits had the Department of Energy bothered 
to include those workers who had already been laid off because of the 
accelerated closure schedule. This means as many as 75 workers at Rocky 
Flats will lose their pension, medical benefits or, in some cases, both 
because they worked faster, less expensively, and achieved more than 
they were supposed to. They not only worked themselves out of a job, 
but they also worked themselves out of retirement benefits and, most 
importantly, medical care.
  Workers such as Doug Woodard and Leo Chavez now find themselves with 
either severely reduced benefits or no benefits at all. Doug started 
work at Rocky Flats all the way into 1982 and was responsible for 
monitoring radiation contamination at the site. He missed qualifying 
for medical benefits by less than 2 months. For Leo Chavez, who worked 
at Rocky Flats for 17 years, DOE's treatment was even worse. The 
Department of Energy thanked him for his service and showed him the 
door 6 working days before he qualified for lifetime medical benefits--
I repeat, just 6 days before he qualified to medical benefits.
  Sadly, the Department of Energy has failed to step up to the plate 
and help these workers who did so much to save American taxpayers so 
much money. Instead, the Department of Energy has played the numbers 
game with these workers. The Department argues that the contract signed 
with the workers already provided sufficient incentives, and those 
individuals already received an additional year of service time. Yet 
the Department will not bring up the numbers that matter most.
  Here are a couple of examples. We saved over $35 billion, the amount 
of money the Department of Energy in 1995 thought would be needed to 
clean up Rocky Flats. That was with the 60-year cleanup schedule. Then 
we came in with a plan to dramatically shorten that length of time by 
one-tenth. The amount of money the American people saved when employees 
at Rocky Flats agreed in 1999 to accelerate the cleanup at Rocky Flats 
was $28 billion.
  Now, $600 million exists. That is the amount of money the American 
taxpayer saved on top of the $28 billion because the workers at Rocky 
Flats exceeded even the accelerated cleanup schedule by over a year.
  The Department of Energy does not talk about the hundreds of millions 
the American people will save when workers at the Savannah River, 
Hanford, and Idaho cleanup sites see they will not be punished for 
accelerating their cleanup activities. Many of the workers at Rocky 
Flats have served our Nation for over two decades. They have risked 
their lives, day in and day out, first by building nuclear weapons 
components and then by cleaning up some of the most contaminated 
buildings in the world. All they have asked for in return is to be 
treated with fairness and respect. To the great disappointment of the 
workers at Rocky Flats, the Department of Energy has no intentions of 
keeping its end of the bargain. These workers would have received their 
retirement benefits had the cleanup continued to 2035, as originally 
predicted. More importantly, these workers would have received their 
retirement benefits had the cleanup continued to December 15 of 2006, a 
little over a year, as the site cleanup contract specified. By 
accelerating the cleanup by over a year and saving the American 
taxpayer over $600 million, many of these workers will be left without 
the medical, health, and

[[Page 24936]]

life insurance benefits they deserve and have earned.
  The Department's refusal to provide these benefits has ramifications 
far beyond Rocky Flats. Because Rocky Flats is the first major DOE 
cleanup clean site, workers at other sites around the country are 
watching to see how the Department of Energy treats the workers at 
Rocky Flats. Unfortunately, they have seen how the Department of Energy 
has failed to step up and provide retirement benefits to those who have 
earned it. The workers at other sites now have no incentive to 
accelerate cleanup. The question is, why should they? The Department of 
Energy hasn't lifted a finger to help the workers at Rocky Flats. It 
would be foolish for the workers at other sites, such as Hanford and 
Santa Ana River, to think the DOE would act fairly with them.
  To me, the Department's decision is penny wise and pound foolish. By 
refusing to provide these benefits, the Department saves money in the 
short term. Yet by discouraging the workers from supporting 
acceleration, the Department is going to cost the American taxpayer 
billions in additional funding in the long run.
  To correct this mistake, I offer an amendment that will provide some 
of the benefits to those workers who will have lost them because of 
early closure. I am pleased my colleague from Colorado, Senator 
Salazar, has agreed to cosponsor this important amendment. This 
amendment is limited and narrowly focused. It provides health, medical, 
and a life insurance benefits to those workers who would have qualified 
had the site remained open until December 15, 2006, the date of the 
site cleanup contract. This amendment does not add to the budget. In 
fact, all it does is direct that a very small portion of the money 
already provided in this bill for Rocky Flats be used to help those 
workers.
  To be clear, these benefits are not an additional bonus for a job 
well done, nor is it a going away present for two decades of service. 
The benefits--the health, medical, and life insurance benefits--are 
what these workers have already earned, nothing more and nothing less.
  Some might suggest these workers already received a bonus and a 
year's worth of service time as part of their contract. Yet by closing 
a year early, the Department of Energy has taken many of the bonuses 
away from the workers, including the year of service time promised to 
them.
  The workers at Rocky Flats are ordinary people who achieved some 
extraordinary goals. They made the impossible possible. We, in this 
Senate, have an obligation to correct the injustice being perpetrated 
by the Department of Energy. In my view, it is time for this Senate to 
correct this mistake.
  I have, in the Senate, a number of illustrations to share with 
Members of the Senate. This is a picture of Rocky Flats in 1955. The 
whole area was covered with construction. Most believed at that time it 
would take 70 years and cost the American taxpayer $35 billion to clean 
up Rocky Flats. The Department of Energy found several buildings in 
this complex to be among the most contaminated in the country. Building 
771, in particular, was dubbed by the national media as the most 
dangerous building in Colorado.
  Now I will proceed to some of the challenges we had. This picture 
reflects the glove boxes. The most dangerous task the workers at Rocky 
Flats had was to dismantle and eventually ship out over 1,400 highly 
contaminated glove boxes. The workers placed their hands in the gloves 
and worked with the contaminated material inside the boxes to break 
these down and eventually ship them out. It was a real challenge. They 
had been used primarily to fashion the plutonium pits and other nuclear 
weapon components. Obviously, they were highly contaminated. 
Eventually, they had to be shipped out as a whole unit in order to 
dismantle these glove boxes.
  The next illustration is the cleanup and demolishing of buildings at 
Rocky Flats, another dangerous task. The actual demolishing of the 
buildings and structures of Rocky Flats occurred with some very 
contaminated buildings. Specialized machinery had to be brought in and 
extra care had to be used to ensure the safety of all involved, as well 
as to prevent radiation exposure. The workers had to learn how to work 
in a new way in these cleanup processes. They had to use many 
techniques to protect themselves in buildings in which the very same 
workers had been working not too long before, building triggers for the 
same nuclear weapons.
  The next illustration is Rocky Flats in 2005. I want the Members to 
compare the two illustrations. This is Rocky Flats before cleanup; this 
is Rocky Flats after cleanup. We are getting back to the prairie and 
the plains in Colorado. We have a great view of the mountains, with no 
buildings. This is Rocky Flats 2 weeks ago. There are no buildings, no 
waste deposits, no fences, not even asphalt. All this remains an open 
space.
  The workers at Rocky Flats achieved this. They should be proud about 
saving the American taxpayer over $600 million. They completed the 
mission a year and 3 months ahead of schedule. They worked safely and 
in a manner that we can all be proud.
  To give an idea of the kind of people we are talking about, here are 
some of the workers at Rocky Flats. This is a group of them. They are 
ordinary people. They performed their duties with professionalism and 
extraordinary competence. They made the impossible possible and 
achieved more than we ever expected. They deserve the benefits they 
would have received had they not worked as hard or had they waited 
until the date specified in the site cleanup time practice. They saved 
the American people over $600 million. It is the least we can do to 
provide them with the benefits they have earned.
  I remind the Senate, it is time to act, it is time to correct this 
mistake.
  I yield the floor and I reserve the balance of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator reserves the balance of his time.
  Under the unanimous consent, the Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I see Senator Reed is here. I will make 
a few comments on Senator Allard's amendment if that is all right. I 
ask the unanimous consent be modified to the extent that I be allowed 
to speak for a few minutes now and that Senator Reed then be recognized 
immediately thereafter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Allard for his 
leadership in the Senate, his superb leadership on the Committee on 
Armed Services. We miss him. But he is also on the very important 
Committee on Appropriations. I am sure he had a painful decision to 
make, but I am sure it is a decision in which his constituents will 
join in his decision to leave us and go to Committee on Appropriations.
  The Senator knows this issue because he dealt with it for so many 
years. In particular, he used to chair the subcommittee that I now 
chair that deals with the issue. He has been committed to dealing with 
and promptly and effectively eliminating the difficulties at Rocky 
Flats. Our country is in his debt and the debt of those people who have 
helped make the cleanup possible. Therefore, the Senator knows why I am 
most reluctant to oppose his amendment as written, but I must do so. I 
share a few thoughts about it.
  The amendment reaches into a relationship between contract employees 
for the Government who were performing environmental cleanup and their 
employer, which was a private contractor, Kaiser Hill. Kaiser Hill won 
this contract with the Department of Energy to perform the cleanup 
work. They hired people under certain terms and agreements in a 
negotiated contract with their employees. They were hired under that 
basis.
  So, in effect, the Government is undertaking now to modify, amend, 
alter, and fund additional moneys that relate to that contract between 
the contractor and the employees. It directs the Secretary of Energy to 
instruct Kaiser Hill to grant retirement and health benefits to 
employees which

[[Page 24937]]

those employees would have earned if the cleanup had taken longer than 
it actually did.
  The cleanup of Rocky Flats did not take as long as some predicted, 
but everyone knew this was a contract that would end promptly or at 
least at a certain date in the future. It came in quicker, for which 
everyone is delighted. But there was no doubt people knew it was not a 
permanent, lifetime contract.
  So Rocky Flats is no more. Our country is the better for it. If you 
go to the site, you will see, as Senator Allard has shown, an empty 
space on that Colorado plateau. The workers for the most part have 
dispersed and gone on to other jobs. Many Government contracts complete 
early or do not run as long as originally anticipated. That is a fact. 
We cannot start down the road of altering the benefits of contractor 
workers when this happens, particularly when we have a contract that we 
know is not going to be for an extended period of time.
  Also, I would call to the attention of all our Members that the 
Government and the contractor were not unaware of this problem, and 
they advanced 1 full year of credit toward retirement and health care 
benefits for every employee who was terminated. They also realized at 
some point that the contract was going to be terminated early.
  So union negotiations took place, and an agreement was reached. It 
was agreed that,based on the termination date, additional funds would 
be paid to compensate the employees. As I understand it, $4,200 turned 
out to be the bonus, the incentive package, payment that they received 
as a result of completing the contract early. In other words, it gave 
them cash money they could use as a benefit or money they could utilize 
to transition to another employer.
  The Department of Energy is very concerned that this amendment alters 
the bargain struck between Kaiser Hill and its employees. Most of the 
Kaiser Hill employees were covered under collective bargaining 
agreements, and staggered layoffs were anticipated as the cleanup 
neared.
  I would like to offer, Mr. President, for the Record, and do offer 
for the Record, a summary of the benefits that were made available to 
the employees as a result of the anticipated early termination of this 
contract. I ask unanimous consent that summary be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                Rocky Flats Employee Benefit Initiatives

       The Department of Energy has instituted, through its 
     closure contractors, numerous incentives to reward employees 
     for accelerating closure. Rocky Flats-Kaiser Hill has 
     implemented many benefit initiatives and has dedicated a 
     significant percentage of their fee to support closure. The 
     following lists the initiatives:
       Retirement Plan Improvements--A ``Rule of 70'' was put in 
     place that allows a laid off employee to retire if their age 
     and years of service equal at least 70 and the employee is 
     less than age 50. This was reduced from the ``Rule of 80.'' 
     This reduction results in an investment of tens of millions 
     of dollars in additional retirement benefits provided to 
     workers. The Rule of 70 allows employees access to retiree 
     medical coverage. Upon layoff, they will be eligible for a 
     reduced pension benefit which they have the option of taking 
     in a lump sum distribution.
       Robust Workforce Transition Program--This program was 
     implemented to provide many services, including an onsite 
     Career Transition Center, job search training, resume 
     development, counseling, job fairs, and financial planning. 
     Approximately 2000-2500 people took advantage of this program 
     over the last two years.
       Severance Pay for Steelworkers--Lump sum severance pay was 
     provided for steelworkers. Workers receive one week severance 
     pay for every year of service up to 20 years plus an 
     additional lump sum amount. 313 workers received a $5,000 
     lump sum payment and 358 workers received $7,000. (The amount 
     was increased in October 2004).
       Bonuses--880 steelworkers received up to $4,200 in 
     performance bonuses. 365 salaried employees receive several 
     thousands in bonuses as well. On-the-spot bonuses are also 
     provided.
       Improved Savings Plan--The 401(k) program was revised to 
     allow hourly steelworkers employees immediate plan 
     participation, and a Company match after 1 year of service. 
     This of course is in addition to traditional pension program.
       Enhanced Tuition Reimbursement Program--This program 
     provides funds for education and retraining in non site 
     specific careers for employees. This is available for two 
     years after an employee is terminated.
       Entrepreneurial Resource Program--This program provides up 
     to $5000 assistance for new business endeavors.
       Leave Incentives--This program removes caps on paid leave 
     accrual, which allows employees to bank unused vacation time; 
     this provides employees with the opportunity to build an 
     additional financial cushion.
       Relocation Incentives--This is provided for those who 
     relocate to another DOE site. Actual cost or $5,000 is 
     available. This is available for two years after an employee 
     is terminated.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I say this: This was anticipated. 
Compensation for early termination was negotiated and agreed upon. And 
at whatever date you choose, some will be out of it, and some will be 
in it.
  So I note this: In the Deficit Reduction Act we just completed 
yesterday, we had a lot of talk about the fiscal situation in which 
this country finds itself. There was debate about the hard choices we 
face as a nation so we do not burden our children and grandchildren 
with obligations that, in retrospect, were not wise.
  I respect my colleague from Colorado as much as I respect any Senator 
in the Senate. I commend the workers at Rocky Flats for what has been 
achieved. I am proud of that. But I believe, as we face this amendment 
as written, the concerns of the Department of Energy are legitimate, 
principled concerns. They are not skinflinty concerns, mean-spirited 
concerns, but a genuine concern that this is not a road we need to go 
down.
  What if we agree to build so many aircraft and we cut that number in 
half? We do that every day. The number of ships, contracts are 
terminated based on the terms of those contracts, and closure penalties 
are paid, and we go on. We do not need to have the politicians come in 
and redo those.
  So I respect my colleague from Colorado. As written, I am of the 
belief the Department of Energy's concerns are justified; therefore, I 
must reject and ask my colleagues to not support this amendment.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama yields the floor.
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to respond briefly, if I may.
  First of all, I would like to state for the record, I was the 
chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee on Armed Services before my good 
friend and colleague from Alabama took over that responsibility. I 
congratulate him for a job well done. There are some very difficult 
issues relating to cleanup. Rocky Flats is the first major nuclear 
facility in the country that has been cleaned up. This program has not 
been moved forward like it should be moving forward. I think it is 
important we leave a good taste with the workers because workers at 
other plants are obviously going to be watching what happens at Rocky 
Flats.
  I would like to comment, the $15 million we have in here does not add 
to the spending picture. It is out of the savings that comes from early 
closure, which is about $600 million. So you can bring it down to about 
$575 million. I think that is still a pretty good savings.
  My point is, workers at these other nuclear sites, they will be less 
willing to buy into these incentive contracts if they feel somehow or 
other the members cannot get health insurance and life insurance. We 
already have limited this amendment. We limit it to health insurance.
  How would you like to be a citizen out there shopping for health 
insurance, being exposed to radiation to one degree or another for 15 
years? Insurance companies do not insure those kinds of risks. So it is 
tough. For life insurance, it is the same thing because the incidence 
of cancer and everything is well known. It is elevated whenever there 
is increased exposure to radiation, particularly in the amounts we are 
talking about being handled out there in Rocky Flats. They do not care 
whether it is a little amount of exposure or a lot of exposure. A 
little amount of exposure would not be a problem with a lot of them, 
but it is

[[Page 24938]]

the same concern that comes out of the insurance company; they do not 
try to differentiate.
  So we have workers out there, and we are just talking about their 
health insurance and life insurance. I think that it is a small price 
to pay to be fair to these workers.
  My hope is we can continue to negotiate with the Department of 
Energy. I hope we continue to negotiate with the staff and my good 
friend from Alabama. Perhaps maybe we can tighten this down if we have 
to, but we have already tightened it down a lot. We have it listed to a 
very specific group of employees from certain dates. We have tightened 
it down just to insurance and health benefits and nothing else. But we 
will look and work with them to see if perhaps maybe we can find a 
different way so we do not set a precedent. I am sensitive to that, 
that we do not set an unfair precedent. But we have to be fair to the 
workers, too.
  I thank the Armed Services Committee and my good friend from Alabama. 
I know they have some real concerns. They have shown a willingness to 
want to work with us, so I thank them for that gesture.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I say to my colleague, maybe there is 
something that can be worked out. I look forward to continuing 
discussions.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields the floor.
  Does the Senator from Colorado yield back?
  Mr. ALLARD. I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                           Amendment No. 2427

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
myself and Senator Levin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for Mr. Levin, 
     for himself and Mr. Reed, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2427.

  Mr. REED. 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 make available, with an offset, an additional $50,000,000 
    for Operation and Maintenance for Cooperative Threat Reduction)

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

     SEC. 330. ADDITIONAL AMOUNT FOR COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Increased Amount for Operation and Maintenance, 
     Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs.--The amount authorized 
     to be appropriated by section 301(19) for the Cooperative 
     Threat Reduction programs is hereby increased by $50,000,000.
       (b) Offset.--Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 201(4) for research, development, test, and 
     evaluation, Defense-wide activities, is hereby reduced by 
     $50,000,000, with the amount of the reduction to be allocated 
     as follows:
       (1) The amount available in Program Element 0603882C for 
     long lead procurement of Ground-Based Interceptors is hereby 
     reduced by $30,000,000.
       (2) The amount available for initial construction of 
     associated silos is hereby reduced by $20,000,000.

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kerry, 
Senator Feingold, and Senator Lautenberg be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, we have spent the last several days making 
difficult decisions about national priorities with respect to spending. 
We also have to continue to make these difficult decisions within the 
context of the Defense bill.
  The amendment I propose today, along with Senator Levin and my 
colleagues, would transfer $50 million from the Missile Defense Program 
to the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. I believe this amendment 
properly reallocates scarce resources so we can deal with an immediate 
threat. That immediate threat is the proliferation of nuclear materials 
and nuclear weapons.
  When President Bush first took office in 2001, he made missile 
defense one of his highest priorities. Since fiscal year 2002, 
approximately $45 billion has been spent on missile defense. In fact, 
this represents a huge amount. If you look back to 1984, when President 
Reagan began the search for a strategic defense initiative--we have 
spent, since President Bush took office, half again the amount of money 
that was spent from 1984 to 2002. This has been a huge program.
  It has been named as a priority by the President. In fact, the 
Missile Defense Agency, as a result, rushed to field a system--any 
system--in fact, a system that many claim--and it seems to be the 
case--does not work very well.
  So last year, six ground-based interceptors were placed in silos at 
Fort Greely in Alaska. Two interceptors were placed in silos in 
Vandenberg Air Force Base. In September 2004, President Bush declared 
that this missile system was operational. A seventh interceptor was put 
in place at Fort Greely last month.
  Now, one of the critical aspects of declaring a system operational, 
it seems to me, is successful testing. Unfortunately, this element--
successful testing--seems to be absent from the present ground-based 
system. In fact, it is highly questionable whether this is at all 
operational.
  In missile defense, interceptor tests are critical, and they should 
involve a real missile intercepting a real target. These tests are the 
only means to truly assess whether a missile defense system has a 
chance to work against an enemy missile.
  The first intercept flight test of the system was conducted in 
December 2002, and it was a failure. Over the next 2 years, seven other 
planned tests that were contemplated were canceled because of technical 
reasons. In December 2004, 3 months after the missile defense system 
was declared operational--3 months after we supposedly had a working 
system--the Missile Defense Agency conducted only the second integrated 
flight test on this multibillion dollar system. It failed. On February 
14, 2005, there was another integrated flight test, and it, too, 
failed.
  After three consecutive failures, Lieutenant General Obering, the 
Director of the Missile Defense Agency, established an Independent 
Review Team to examine test failures and recommend steps for improving 
the test program. The team made some interesting observations. The 
team's report stated:

       With the focus on rapid deployment of the Ground-based 
     Midcourse Defense system, there was not always adequate 
     opportunity to fully ground test the system prior to each 
     flight attempt.

  The team also found:

       Schedule has been the key challenge that drives daily 
     decision making in the program.

  What you have here today has been a rush to failure, a succession of 
flight test failures, a premature declaration of operational 
characteristics of the system. No one will argue that the development, 
in a deliberate way and in a technically feasible way, of a missile 
defense system is not a good thing for the country, but what has 
happened over the last several years has been this rush to failure.
  In addition to the evaluation team I previously mentioned, General 
Obering requested RADM Kate Paige to direct a Mission Readiness Task 
Force to study the review team's recommendations and put the program on 
a path to success.
  This task force made the following recommendation:

       There will be a significant increase in ground testing of 
     all systems, components and processes before resuming flight 
     testing. Contractors will be held accountable for their 
     performance. The first flight test will not be an intercept 
     test and the first intercept test will not take place for 
     more than a year.

  I commend General Obering and the Missile Defense Agency for 
implementing these recommendations, for realistically assessing their 
technical capacity, for realistically beginning to test on the ground 
before they fly, for doing the things that are both prudent

[[Page 24939]]

and necessary in this regard. The next interceptor flight test is not 
scheduled until a year from now, so we will not know until fiscal year 
2007 whether the problems that led to the past test failures have been 
fixed.
  Let me evaluate where we are. We presently have nine interceptors in 
the ground, but we do not know if they will work because we have not 
had a fully successful flight test. In addition, the administration has 
requested and Congress has provided most of the money for 30 more 
interceptors. So we have nine in the ground which we have not 
adequately tested, and we have also, through the President's request 
and the majority's concurrence, purchased 30 more of these 
interceptors. Yet in the President's fiscal year 2006 budget request, 
he requested long lead funding for an additional 10 operational 
interceptors. These are in addition to 30 interceptors we are already 
buying on top of the 9 we have in the ground, all of which have not 
been adequately tested.
  Furthermore, it must be noted there is also the issue of production 
rate capacity. Production rate capacity for the interceptor is 1 per 
month, or 12 per year. That means the Defense Department is seeking 
funding for more missiles than can be built in 1 year.
  As we all know, this is an annual authorization process. There is no 
need to pay for more interceptors than can be built in 1 year, 
especially when there is no guarantee that any of them will work in 
operational circumstances.
  At this point the responsible thing to do is to slow down funding and 
reallocate the money to a more pressing threat. That is what this 
amendment does. This amendment takes $30 million from the long lead 
procurement for more interceptors and $20 million for funding for 
initial construction of silos to house these interceptors and increases 
funding for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program by $50 million. As 
we all know, the goal of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program is to 
eliminate the threat of unsecured nuclear material from falling into 
the wrong hands.
  A 2001 task force, chaired by former Senator Howard Baker and former 
White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler, studied nonproliferation programs for 
almost a year and concluded:

       The most urgent unmet national security threat to the U.S. 
     today is the danger that weapons of mass destruction or 
     weapons-usable material in Russia could be stolen and sold to 
     terrorists or hostile nation states and used against American 
     troops abroad or citizens at home.

  That was before September 11. Certainly since September 11, this 
warning is much more ominous and should be much more closely followed.
  It is estimated that Russia has approximately 16,000 nuclear weapons 
stored at 150 to 210 sites. Only about 25 percent of these sites have 
received any upgrades for security in the past 5 years. At the rate 
planned in the fiscal year 2006 budget request, it would be around 2011 
or 2012 before work at only a portion of the sites would be completed 
to bring them up to the levels of security and safety that we would 
feel confident this nuclear material would not be stolen, misplaced, or 
somehow diverted into the wrong hands.
  Because of the agreement between President Putin and President Bush 
at the February summit in Bratislava, we have a unique opportunity to 
improve security at an additional 15 sites. The problem, of course, is 
funding. The cost of securing these 15 sites is $350 million, funding 
that is not in this budget. This project deserves top priority. This 
amendment provides some funding--not complete funding--$50 million 
toward securing nuclear material.
  As I have said before, I support the concept and, deployment of a 
system that has been tested and truly works for national missile 
defense. I think it is a system we should pursue. But I also believe 
the Missile Defense Agency is more than adequately funded for its 
fiscal year 2006 mission, and some money can and should be diverted to 
more pressing needs without harming this missile defense program.
  This amendment does not affect the funding or deployment of the first 
30 ground-based interceptors. They will continue to be built and 
deployed. Again, this is all in a situation in which we haven't had a 
truly effective, complete flight test of even the first missiles we 
have acquired.
  This amendment does not touch $53 million included in the bill for 
long lead funding for eight test missiles. It is essential to produce 
these missiles for testing.
  This amendment simply takes into account that only 12 interceptors 
can be produced in a year so the funding for the 6 that cannot be used 
should be reallocated to the dire threat of nuclear proliferation so 
that no one, no terrorist, can obtain nuclear material or a nuclear 
device because we have been negligent in securing those materials along 
with other countries, and use those weapons against our soldiers in the 
field or citizens here at home.
  We have an obligation. The most existential threat that faces this 
country is a terrorist, nonstate actor obtaining a nuclear device, 
surreptitiously moving into the United States or some other area of 
vital interest to the United States, and detonating that device. The 
more we do to resist and thwart that threat, the more we are responding 
to the true threats that confront this country.
  I retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will speak in opposition to this 
amendment, but to accommodate a colleague who has remained on the 
floor, I yield such time as the distinguished Senator from Colorado, a 
former member of our committee, former expert on our committee on this 
subject, needs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I miss the leadership on the committee and 
the committee. I like to stay involved in many of the issues the 
committee is still working on because of the importance of the many 
military installations in my own State and because it is good for the 
country.
  I have some problems with the amendment proposed by Senators Levin 
and Reed. The first is it is reducing a program that has already been 
reduced at $1 billion by the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2006 
and over a longer period of time, from 2006 to 2007, for a total of up 
to $5 billion in this very vital program for our Nation's security.
  The other concern I have is, the money they are taking here is going 
to another program that hasn't spent all the money we gave it last 
fiscal year. I don't see a need, when they haven't spent all their 
money in the previous year.
  I talk about the program itself because I think sometimes this 
amendment brings up where we are going in missile defense and some of 
the questions there. I understand the amendment eliminates $30 million 
for long lead funding for ground-based interceptor missile defense and 
then $20 million for associated silo construction. Currently, we have 
nine ground based-interceptors emplaced to protect the United States 
against a long-term limited ballistic missile attack. The $50 million 
is supposed to be transferred to what we call the Cooperative Threat 
Reduction Program, which is fully funded in the bill we have before us 
and is $7 million more than we had last year. My understanding is the 
same program last year had $107 million in unobligated funds remaining 
after the 2005 fiscal year. So an additional $1.6 billion is funded for 
DOE nonproliferation programs in addition to this. I think we have put 
plenty of money in that area.
  We do have a need in missile defense, and we should not back away 
from our plan or obligation to develop missile defense because of 
threats that we potentially could have from countries such as North 
Korea and Iran, for example. This amendment unnecessarily delays by 1 
year the fielding of the ground-based interceptors scheduled for 2009. 
We simply cannot afford to delay it any more because we do have real 
and imminent dangers as based on the testimony from General Cartwright, 
Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command. I do believe North Korea is a 
threat. We have already had

[[Page 24940]]

testimony a number of years back from the Director of Intelligence that 
missiles launched out of Korea have the capability of reaching our west 
coast. Now North Korea is ready to flight test another ICBM that many 
of us feel--and we have been informed--will reach the United States. 
Iran may have such a capability in 2015, according to the DIA. So we 
are facing a real threat.
  We have already acted on this issue in the Defense appropriations 
bill. The long lead funding for ground-based interceptors 31 through 40 
was included in this year's fiscal year 2006 Defense appropriations 
bill. And in the report language, the bill added $200 million to the 
budget request ``to maintain the production schedule for ground-based 
interceptors.''
  With this amendment, we are backing off of that commitment we put in 
the appropriations bill. I don't think we should run counter to the 
Defense appropriations bill.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for bringing that 
point up. He is on that committee.
  Mr. ALLARD. I am.
  Mr. WARNER. Therefore, you were participating at the time this took 
place.
  Mr. ALLARD. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. And were the Senate to accede to the Reed amendment, it 
would, in effect, be overruling or reversing what the Appropriations 
Committee, through the conference report, will presumably bring before 
the Senate in a matter of days.
  Mr. ALLARD. That is right. We would be reversing the Senate action on 
that. I appreciate the chairman emphasizing that point.
  I do think it is important that we move ahead. Myself and two other 
members on the Armed Services Committee made a special trip out to the 
southern part of the test bed. We went to where they were launching the 
target missile. We have had a few failures, but you learn from 
failures. Our testing is not intended to be 100 percent successful. It 
is spiral development. We are pushing the system to its limits. 
Occasionally you learn from failures. We have had four successful 
prototype launches, and of the operationally configured booster we now 
have, we have had three successful flights. One of the problems we have 
in some of these tests is the target we were supposed to be launching 
wasn't launching. So we made a special trip to look at what was 
happening with missile defense in the southern part of the test bed.
  I have to tell you, it is very impressive. There are three aspects to 
it. There is short range, midrange and long range. The role of the 
naval forces in this program is very impressive. Ground forces are 
coming along. Now we are working on some of the longer range missiles 
through the Air Force. I was impressed.
  The target missile, unfortunately, the first time it didn't launch 
was because of a computer glitch. That has been corrected. The second 
one was because you had the wrong part in the wrong place and the arms, 
when they were supposed to retract for the missile, didn't come back 
all the way so the missile didn't launch. This was human error, things 
that were errors that should not have happened. They have been 
corrected. It didn't have to do with new technology. It is things we 
have had. We have been launching for years missiles out of silos, and 
this was the wrong part in the wrong place at the wrong time so launch 
did not occur.
  We have run into these kind of things. Hopefully, they don't happen 
again. Fundamentally, the technology is there. We need to rely on it. 
The threat is there, and we need to be prepared for it.
  I rise in opposition to the Levin-Reed amendment and thank Chairman 
Warner for giving me an opportunity to make a few comments in this 
regard.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we thank our former member, the Senator 
from Colorado.
  Would the Chair kindly advise the managers as to the time remaining 
on both sides for this amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 22 minutes remaining in opposition 
and 20 minutes in favor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at this time I would like to grant time to 
our distinguished colleague from Alabama, a member of the Armed 
Services Committee, bearing in mind it is the desire of the manager to 
leave time for Monday. There are other colleagues on our side who wish 
to speak in opposition. We are pleased he will take the time to join 
us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
notified at 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment that would 
eliminate $50 million in long lead funding for missiles 31 to 40 of the 
ground-based interceptor, a key component of the missile defense system 
protecting the United States against limited long-range ballistic 
missile attack. Senators Levin and Reed have argued these funds would 
be better spent on the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat 
Reduction Program, but it is already fully funded at $415 million.
  I don't believe they have spent all of their previous appropriations, 
and we are being asked to make a choice between these two issues.
  In addition to authorizing the requested $415 million for the 
Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, the bill 
provides $1.6 billion for the Department of Energy nonproliferation 
programs. We have a lot of money being spent in these issues. These 
accounts are fully funded. They were not reduced. They do not need 
additional funding, especially not by taking money from our ballistic 
missile defense system.
  While CTR is fully funded, it is important, please, to note that the 
Department of Defense, in its last-minute preparations of the 2006 
budget, bit the bullet. They had some tough decisions to make, and they 
made a decision that I regretted but one I guess I would acknowledge 
and yield to, to make significant cuts in our missile defense program.
  This year's request represents a $1 billion reduction, while the 
Missile Defense Agency has programmed a $5 billion overall reduction in 
years 2006 through 2011. So the Department of Defense did not reduce 
the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program and fully funded it, but they 
did make cuts in missile defense of a significant amount.
  The $50 million identified as an offset for this amendment 
specifically targets the long-lead funding for ground-based interceptor 
missiles 31 through 40 and associated silo construction. These missiles 
are scheduled for manufacture in 2007, in the 2007 timeframe, for 
deployment in 2009 and 2010 to actually be deployed. Eliminating these 
funds would delay fielding this important defensive capability even 
while our intelligence and military officials tell us there is a near-
term threat. Additionally, the amendment would cause a break in the GBI 
ground-based interceptor production line that would cost some $270 
million to restart, according to General Obering.
  I want to make that clear. This is the problem we are dealing with. 
We have cut that budget significantly. We have tightened up the missile 
defense budget. We have reduced it $1 billion a year, $5 billion in 5 
years, but if we cut it any more, as this amendment suggests, we will 
break the production line that is ongoing today because if a 
manufacturer can't keep his employees producing at least a minimum 
number of missiles, then the assembly line breaks, and under the 
contracts and other ramifications, General Obering has estimated that 
it would cost some $270 million to restart that line.
  The sponsors of this amendment argue that these missiles have not 
been sufficiently proven through operational testing, and they point to 
recent test difficulties as evidence that further procurement of GBIs 
is unwise at this time.
  While I believe the GMD system requires additional testing--we are 
going to have additional testing, we must have additional testing--I 
would argue that the Missile Defense Agency has conducted sufficient 
ground and flight

[[Page 24941]]

intercept testing over the past 5 years to provide the confidence 
necessary to acquire the basic ground-based interceptors on the current 
schedule.
  I would point out that in fiscal year 2004, the annual report to 
Congress by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation notes that 
``the test bed architecture is now in place and should have some 
limited capability to defend against a threat missile from North 
Korea.''
  The independent review team, established by the Missile Defense 
Agency to investigate the test problems, found that recent test 
problems are attributable to quality control factors rather than the 
basic technology necessary to hit a missile with a missile. In fact, it 
has been proven. For example, between 2001 and 2002, MDA conducted four 
out of five successful intercept tests using a GBI prototype, while in 
2003 and 2004, MDA conducted three successful test flights with the GBI 
booster.
  According to the director of MDA, it is unlikely we will discover 
something in our testing in the next year or 2 that would require any 
major redesign of the system.
  With respect to the threat that we face, General Cartwright, the 
commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, has testified before the Armed 
Services Committee that ``we have a realistic threat. We have an 
imperative.''
  The Director of Central Intelligence has testified that the North 
Korean Taepo Dong 2 missile is capable of reaching the United States 
with a nuclear warhead and that North Korea could resume flight testing 
at any time.
  The Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency confirmed this 
assessment as recently as April 28 in a hearing before the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, and he has testified separately that Iran will have 
the capability to develop an intercontinental missile by 2015.
  In closing, I ask for your support for the continuing production of 
the GBIs through missile No. 40 by defeating this amendment. The GBI 
production line has been stretched to the limit by slowing production 
to some 8 to 10 missiles a year, the result of Congressional actions 
last year. Moreover, General Obering recently announced plans to divert 
another four operational GBIs. Denying additional funding for 
additional missiles will break the assembly line.
  Mr. President, I would oppose this amendment. I respect my colleagues 
but feel that we should not break the assembly line at the time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, speaking on my time under my control on 
this amendment, I wish to express my opposition to this Levin-Reid 
amendment would transfer $50 million from the Ground-based Midcourse 
Defense, GMD, program to the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. The 
impact of this amendment would be, first and foremost, to delay the 
fielding of ballistic missile defense capabilities to protect the U.S. 
homeland against the threat posed by long-range ballistic missiles; and 
secondly, to cause a break in the production of ground-based 
interceptors, GBIs--a production break that would cost the government 
$270 million to restart.
  While I agree with the sponsors of this amendment that the 
Cooperative Threat Reduction Program is an important national security 
initiative, the defense of our homeland against the growing threat of 
long-range ballistic missiles is equally, if not more, important.
  Asking us to choose between missile defense protection and CTR is a 
false choice: we need to do both. And, in fact, this bill fully funds 
the President's requested amount for both programs.
  The bill before the Senate authorizes the requested amount of $415.5 
million for CTR programs within the Department of Defense, and $1.6 
billion for other non-proliferation efforts in the Department of 
Energy. There is no current need for extra CTR funds; in fact, the CTR 
program has an unobligated balance of some $100 million. With a backlog 
in spending, it is hard to understand why the proponents of this 
amendment think that more money is needed at this time for the CTR 
program.
  The President's budget for missile defense, on the other hand, has 
already taken its share of cuts. Due to last minute decisions made at 
the Pentagon as the fiscal year 2006 budget was being finalized, the 
missile defense budget request was reduced by $1 billion in fiscal year 
2006, and $5 billion overall between fiscal year 2006 and 2011.
  Sponsors of this amendment argue that we should not provide long-lead 
funding for GBI missiles 31-40 because of recent test failures. I am 
mindful of the recent difficulties encountered by the GMD system test 
program, but in my view--and that of independent test authorities--
these difficulties do not represent serious technological hurdles for 
the GMD program. Indeed, such problems are to be expected during the 
research and development phase of complicated weapon systems.
  To get at the root cause of these testing problems, the Director of 
the Missile Defense Agency, to his great credit, commissioned an 
independent review team, IRT, to examine these recent GMD test 
failures. The IRT found no fundamental GMD system design flaws related 
to the recent test failures. Moreover, the IRT found no evidence that 
major modifications of the current system hardware or software will be 
required. In other words, it is unlikely that future testing will find 
some major fault in the system that will require a costly retrofit to 
fielded GBIs.
  For those of my colleagues concerned about testing, I point out that 
this bill before you contains a provision--developed in a bipartisan 
fashion during the committee's markup--which requires the Missile 
Defense Agency, the service operational test agencies, and the Director 
of Operational Test and Evaluation to plan and conduct tests that 
demonstrate the operational capability of the ballistic missile defense 
system. The bill also reallocates $100 million from longer term 
development efforts to GMD testing, consistent with the recommendations 
of the independent review team.
  The current and growing threat posed to our country by long-range 
ballistic missiles argues for proceeding without delay with the 
Department's approach of concurrent testing and fielding of ballistic 
missile defense capabilities for the homeland.
  Some of my colleagues suggest that because the current system is not 
fully proven, we should not procure additional missile interceptors. To 
this I would respond that General Cartwright, Commander of U.S. 
Strategic Command--the senior military official charged with advising 
the Secretary of Defense and the President on missile defense matters--
has testified, with respect to the current GMD system, that ``in an 
emergency, we are in fact in the position that we are confident that we 
can operate and employ it.''
  In addition, the Pentagon's chief independent weapons tester, the 
Director for Operational Test and Evaluation, noted in his most recent 
Annual Report to Congress that ``the test bed architecture is now in 
place and should have some limited capability to defend against a 
threat missile from North Korea.''
  In my view, it is a good thing that we have some capability--albeit 
limited--to defend the homeland against long range missiles. For as 
General Cartwright testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee 
in April, ``we have a realistic threat here; we have an imperative.''
  General Cartwright is referring to CIA and DIA estimates that the 
North Korean Taepo-Dong 2 ballistic missile is capable of reaching the 
United States with a nuclear warhead--and that North Korea could resume 
flight testing of the Taepo-Dong 2 at any time. The Defense 
Intelligence Agency also estimates that Iran will have the capability 
to develop intercontinental ballistic missile, IBCM, by 2015.
  We simply can't wait until the threat is upon us to deploy missile 
defenses; we can't wait until the GMD system is fully and completely 
tested before we start providing some measure of protection against 
this threat. It is our responsibility to field what capabilities

[[Page 24942]]

currently exist, even while we continue to test and improve the system. 
By continuing to field missile defenses today, we send a message to 
potential adversaries that we will not be deterred or coerced by their 
possession of long-range ballistic missiles.
  In summary, I ask my colleagues to reject the amendment offered by 
Senator Levin. This amendment would needlessly delay the fielding of a 
ballistic missile defense capability to protect the homeland. As the 
Commander of STRATCOM warns, the threat is real. We must continue on 
the current path of fielding available capabilities--even while testing 
continues to improve the system over time.
  Mr. President, at this time I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                           Amendment No. 2430

(Purpose: To establish a national commission on policies and practices 
        on the treatment of detainees since September 11, 2001)

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, I thank my dear friend from Virginia 
for his invariable courtesies. We have brought a bill to the floor, 
finally, which I will have much more to say on Monday, but at this time 
I simply would call up an amendment that is at the desk. I think it is 
No. 2430.
  I would make inquiry of the Chair as to whether I need to lay aside 
any pending amendments in order to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does need to lay aside pending 
amendments.
  Mr. LEVIN. In that case, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the 
pending amendment and to call up amendment 2430.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2430.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I introduce this amendment on behalf of 
Senators Reed of Rhode Island, Kennedy, Rockefeller, Bingaman, Boxer, 
and Durbin, and I ask unanimous consent that they be added as 
cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. The amendment would establish an independent commission on 
the treatment of detainees in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo, and 
elsewhere. This would be modeled after the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, 
which was an independent commission that we all recognize as being an 
extremely successful commission. This bipartisan independent commission 
would examine U.S. policies and practices related to the treatment of 
detainees, including their detention, interrogation, and rendition. It 
would also examine the causes of detainee abuses and assess the 
responsibility of military and civilian leaders within and outside the 
Department of Defense for policies, actions, and failures to act which 
may have contributed to such abuse. It would also evaluate the 
effectiveness and propriety of interrogation techniques and practices 
for producing intelligence. The independent commission would report on 
its findings and recommendations to the President and to the Congress.
  Mr. President, our troops serve honorably, they serve courageously 
across the globe. Their honor is besmirched when some of those who we 
capture are abused. And on top of that our troops' security is 
jeopardized when people that we detain are not treated as we rightfully 
insist others treat our troops when they are captured.
  The amendment that we are proposing today will help reaffirm the 
values that we cherish as Americans, will help to reestablish our 
credibility around the world, and will help to protect our troops 
should they be captured.
  When Secretary Rumsfeld appeared before the Senate Armed Services 
Committee on May 7, 2004, shortly after the horrific pictures of Abu 
Ghraib appeared in the media, he asked the world to ``judge us by our 
actions.'' Those were his words. And he went on to say, telling 
everybody, ``watch how a democracy deals with wrongdoing and with 
scandal and the pain of acknowledging and correcting our own mistakes 
and our own weaknesses.'' Secretary Rumsfeld asked all who were 
watching and within the sound of his voice to ask those who would 
spread hatred of America if ``the willingness of Americas to 
acknowledge their own failures before humanity doesn't like the world 
as surely as the great ideas and beliefs that make this nation a beacon 
of hope and liberty for all who strive to be free.''
  Secretary Rumsfeld's words were direct and they were right. It is 
important to our efforts to defeat terrorism that the United States 
investigate itself openly and thoroughly. That is the standard by which 
we and our causes will be judged and should be judged.
  In nearly 2 years since Specialist Darby courageously came forward to 
report the abuses at Abu Ghraib, the Defense Department has had every 
opportunity to investigate itself. But the results have fallen far 
short of the standard that Secretary Rumsfeld set up. Some seek to 
downplay the significance of these detainee abuses, arguing at the 
start that they were the result of aberrant behavior of a few rogue 
reserve Military Police on the night shift at Abu Ghraib, but with each 
successive of Department of Defense report it has become increasingly 
clear that the claim that these were the isolated acts of a few rogue 
reserve MPs does not explain the causes and the factors contributing to 
detainee abuse, and it does not explain the scope of those abuses.
  There have been a number of Department of Defense reviews--8, 10, 12, 
pick a number. Every one of them has failed to provide a comprehensive 
picture of the extent and the causes of detainee abuses, and put 
together, they don't come close to a comprehensive picture of the 
extent and causes of detainee abuses.
  Every one of those reviews and investigations of detainee abuse has 
been carefully circumscribed, leaving significant gaps and omissions.
  I want to go through some of the gaps and omissions of these 
investigations because we are going to hear on the floor that there 
have been 10, there have been 12 reviews--whatever the number; you can 
count them different ways--but when you put them all together, there 
are massive gaps. That cannot be allowed to remain.
  First, we don't know the role of the CIA and other parts of the 
intelligence community in the mistreatment of detainees or what 
policies apply to those intelligence personnel. Witness after witness 
who was in charge of these reviews has told us they had no jurisdiction 
to look into the intelligence community's mistreatment of detainees or 
what their role is. They all disclaim the capability, the competence, 
or the authority to look into the role of the intelligence community, 
which we know from public statement after public statement of people 
who have been found guilty and not found guilty, people who were 
pictured in these pictures at Abu Ghraib, that the intelligence 
personnel told them to soften up detainees. Yet gap No. 1, the policies 
of intelligence communities, their activities, their involvement, has 
not been reviewed.
  Second, we don't know what the policies and practices are of the 
United States regarding the rendition of detainees to other countries, 
where they may be interrogated using techniques that would not be 
permitted at U.S. detention facilities.
  Third, there is insufficient information, almost total lack, on the 
role of contractors in U.S. detention and intelligence operations. We 
are using contractors to interrogate detainees. What is their role? 
There is total silence, a total gap on their role, with all these 
reports we have.
  Fourth, the detention and interrogation of detainees by special 
operation forces, that needs close examination.
  Fifth, and this is one of the largest gaps of all, all of the 
unanswered questions regarding the legality under U.S. and 
international law of the interrogation techniques used by Department of 
Defense personnel, regardless of whether they were authorized or not 
authorized by a higher authority. We have

[[Page 24943]]

sought for a year or more the two key documents that set forth the 
standards to be used in interrogation that were approved by the 
Department of Justice. We cannot get the Office of Legal Counsel 
documents.
  These issues are not going to go away. They can't be swept under the 
rug. With each passing day, we have new revelations of detainee abuses. 
Courageous and honorable soldiers, such as Captain Fishback, come 
forward--just a few weeks ago now--with new allegations of mistreatment 
of prisoners, of confusion over what policies applied, and commanders 
who appear to have condoned this behavior. He was there. He is speaking 
out publicly.
  There is not a week that goes by that there is not a revelation. We 
have to get an independent investigation going so that we can refer 
allegations to an independent commission, to put it in the hands of a 
bipartisan group.
  These revelations only serve to further undermine our international 
standing and put our troops at risk of being treated similarly should 
they be captured. That is why a group of retired generals and admirals 
wrote to the President in September 2004 calling for an independent 
commission to investigate the treatment of detainees.
  So we have a significant group of retired military leaders saying we 
must have an independent commission. That is why the American Bar 
Association has endorsed an independent commission.
  The administration, I know, opposes this, just the way they have 
opposed Senator McCain's amendment and Senator Graham's amendment that 
will get us into the future as to what future standards there are. The 
administration doesn't want to look at the history. They are wrong. Let 
the chips fall where they may, wherever that may be. It will benefit 
everybody.
  Most importantly, it will benefit the men and women who wear the 
uniform of the United States. They are entitled to have their honor. 
They deserve their honor. They deserve an independent commission which 
will look at how this happened and prove to the world this is not us. 
Whatever it is, whatever the policies were, whatever the practices 
were, we are willing to look them straight in the face and say: We are 
going to correct that. We are not going to hide it. We are not going to 
run away from it. We are not going to sweep it under the rug. We are 
going to look it square in the face. We are going to fill the gaps.
  Those gaps are huge. No matter how often it is stated that we have 
had 8 or 10 reviews, it does not fill the gaps because of the limits 
placed on those reviews and the gaps that were left.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have on this amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 18 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Rhode Island.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will yield a few 
minutes to me before he departs the floor?
  There are evolving aspects with regard to the underlying goal of this 
amendment, as he and I speak, on information which is circulating which 
goes to how the administration dealt with these issues.
  I am going to reserve until Monday exactly the approach the Senator 
from Virginia is going to take. I wish to consult with a number of my 
colleagues in that connection. But I wish to point out two things.
  The Senator from Michigan said we should face--speaking, of course, 
to the committee but also the United States and colleagues in the 
Senate--this issue square on. I know my distinguished friend and 
colleague of so many years would say, by virtue of him and me being the 
two principal cosponsors of the McCain amendment, that we are within 
the rights of this committee facing certain aspects of this issue head 
on as it relates to the future conduct of this country.
  I also hope at some point in our debate that we can address the very 
valuable contribution that two individuals, together with the staff and 
a third member of the commission--namely, former Secretary of Defense 
Schlesinger and former Secretary of Defense Harold Brown. Each of those 
extraordinary men--and I have been privileged to know and work with 
each of them quite closely through the years. Actually, I served under 
three Secretaries of Defense when I was in the Navy Department as 
Secretary, and one of them, the last, was Secretary Schlesinger. He 
remains to this day one of my closest confidantes and advisers on a 
wide range of issues.
  Harold Brown, my colleague, the Senator from Michigan, will recall, I 
sponsored--and I think the Senator from Michigan joined me when I was 
on the Intelligence Committee in an overall review of our intelligence. 
The first chairman of that commission was a distinguished former Member 
of Congress, Les Aspin, and then, following his untimely death, Harold 
Brown. I was the one who recommended he take over the work on that 
commission, on which I was privileged to serve as a member.
  A lot of things have been done to address the issue, which is the 
goal of this amendment. Again, I am going to reserve until Monday just 
how I am going to further approach this issue, but I wanted to bring 
those two points up should the Senator from Michigan wish to comment on 
either.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I do appreciate that, and I will take 1 
minute to respond.
  The chairman very properly points out that there was a Schlesinger 
panel. That panel said the following relative to the lack of 
cooperation from the CIA with the panel, which is gap No. 1 I have 
listed as one of the reasons we need an independent commission. The 
Schlesinger panel said the following:

       The panel did not have full access to information involving 
     the role of the Central Intelligence Agency in detention 
     operations. This is an area the panel believes needs further 
     investigation and review.

  I agree they did good work, but they were limited in what they were 
allowed to do, and they themselves recommended further investigation 
and review.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. The order has it that the distinguished Senator from 
Rhode Island will now continue his contribution to the Levin amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Levin amendment, 
which establishes a commission to look into the treatment of detainees 
by our national security forces.
  Let me say as an initial point, I am a strong supporter of the 
McCain-Graham amendment which would clarify the law. But the issues we 
are confronting today with respect to Abu Ghraib and with respect to 
other notorious incidents is not simply a failure of law, a failure of 
lacking legal precedent; it is a failure of leadership and a failure of 
institutions. Unless we look carefully, objectively, and independently 
at this leadership and these institutions, we will be bound to repeat 
the mistakes of the past several years. I urge my colleagues to support 
the Levin amendment.
  What prompts me to support this amendment is the belief and 
understanding that the treatment of our soldiers on the battlefield is 
a function of how we treat our opponents. If we do not have high 
standards of treatment, then we cannot make the moral claim that our 
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines should be similarly treated.
  I understand the nature of our adversaries might reject those claims, 
might reject standards, but if we reject those standards, then our 
ability to protect our soldiers is diminished substantially.
  I think also one just has to take note of the events of the last 
several years and understand that not only is there a legal and moral 
premise to our use of suitable standards of conduct, there is a very 
practical one. The incidents of Abu Ghraib, the reports of abuse of 
prisoners, have been a disastrous situation with respect to our 
progress in the Middle East. It is harming our efforts to convince 
people that we are there not to exploit them, not to abuse them, but to 
try to lift them up.
  It is essential we get to the heart of these failures of leadership, 
institutional direction, and policy. I think it

[[Page 24944]]

is also essential that we have accountability. One of the essential 
aspects of any military organization is accountability. Everyone who 
enters the military, particularly an officer, learns that the first 
rule is they are responsible for what happens and what fails to happen 
on their command. There has been a dearth of accountability when it 
comes to these issues of abuse of detainees.
  The plan seemed to be from the very beginning to portray this as the 
fault of aberrant soldiers. In fact, if we look at those people who 
have been prosecuted, those people who have been brought to justice, it 
is a handful of enlisted soldiers. We know this process, this approach, 
was not simply the result of a few soldiers. It was the result of 
decisions that were made at the very highest level.
  Today, in the International Herald Tribune, COL Larry Wilkerson, a 
former chief of staff to Colin Powell, pointed out that, in his words: 
There was a visible audit trail from the Vice President's office to the 
Secretary of Defense down to the commanders in the field authorizing 
practices that led to the abuse of detainees.
  That suggests to me that the evidence has accumulated where we need 
to take a good look not just at individual soldiers, not just 
compartmental reviews of certain aspects, we have to take the approach 
that Senator Levin suggests, a comprehensive review by an independent 
panel on the model of the 9/11 Commission to look at how we came to 
this point; not just to establish accountability I think that is 
principal and important but to ensure that we do not do it again, to 
ensure that when we enter into a conflict everyone understands the law, 
everyone follows the law. That is to the benefit not only of the 
protection of our troops but also to claiming the moral high ground, 
aiding our mission, aiding our military forces in the field, by 
creating an image in the world that we are bound to the highest 
standards and we are not there for self-interest but to help other 
people.
  If we fail to pursue this commission, we will see a situation where 
what has happened in the past will happen again. It will be replicated 
time and time again. It will create a terrible situation within our 
military forces. It will appear, as it appears now, that the only 
people who are punished for these abuses are low-ranking, enlisted 
personnel. They bear the brunt, but the officers who directed it, the 
officers who could have stopped it, the civilian leaders in our 
Government who might have directed it or encouraged it, will walk away. 
That is unfair and that is so corrosive that it will undermine our 
military forces in the future.
  I urge passage of the Levin amendment.
  I reserve the remainder of time on our side and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this amendment is one of great importance 
and has far-reaching consequences. As I said, as we speak, there are 
some facts coming into the public domain. I have no idea of evaluating 
their authenticity, but it does, in my judgment, bear on this issue. 
Therefore, speaking for myself, we will have further statements 
regarding this amendment Monday and quite likely Tuesday before we 
vote.
  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. INHOFE. 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. 2432

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have an amendment to be considered. I 
consider it to be perhaps one of the most important amendments. It is 
referred to as the train and equip amendment.
  What I am not going to do is take a lot of time today talking about 
it because in the event there is opposition to it, I want an 
opportunity to respond to that opposition.
  Primarily, this is what our amendment would do: Under sections 1201 
and 1204 of Title XII, it would allow the military to train and equip 
some of these countries where we see an opportunity to be using their 
resources and their militia as opposed to sending our troops there. 
Right now, in order to get it done, the process is one has to go 
through the State Department and then the Department of Defense. A good 
example is when the U.S. Government wanted to train and equip some of 
the Georgia forces for counterterrorism. Seven different authorities 
for funding and sources had to be stitched together to make this 
effort. It took 8 months. By the time 8 months goes by, the problem is 
no longer the same problem it was 8 months before.
  What we would do is take existing O&M moneys, $750 million, that we 
would be able to use to train and equip in a streamlined way of doing 
this.
  I will share some personal experiences and then I will yield the 
floor. We have been talking about the five African brigades, that we 
would be training and equipping various countries in regional areas in 
Africa to take care of some of the problems. I am sure I am not the 
only one who has been in Djibouti and worked with our marines there. I 
have been very much concerned that they are not able to do as good a 
job and as fast a job at training some of the African forces as they 
could otherwise.
  I have talked to President Museveni of Uganda. There are problems in 
the northern part of Uganda where they have adequate troops, but they 
are not trained and equipped to protect themselves against the global 
war on terrorism and would be dependent upon our troops if that should 
happen. It is far better for us to be able to train them than it is for 
them to have to be in a situation where they are going in untrained.
  I say to my chairman, I visited with my counterpart in Angola. He is 
the second ranking member on the armed services committee there, 
although it is called something different. His name is Paiza. As we all 
know, in Angola they have been undergoing a civil war and there are 
endless numbers of troops. They have been bush troops. They have not 
been trained to do the kind of defense that would be necessary in our 
global war on terrorism. Consequently, what they say they need--they 
have the Unita forces, they have their forces on both sides of the 
civil war. They need to have an opportunity to train these people.
  I also spoke with the President of Burundi 2 weeks ago when I was 
there. They had the fighting, as we all know, for a long period of time 
between the Hutus and the Tutsis, but they are now united. What they 
need, though, is to be able to be trained. I know that General Jones 
and others, and certainly Secretary Rumsfeld, feel very strongly that 
we need to have a streamlined process where we can go in and train 
these guys to do the job that otherwise American troops are going to 
have to do.
  That is essentially what this is all about. I will wait until Monday 
to give a little more complete description of it.
  At this time I would like to officially call up the amendment, No. 
2432. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and 
call up amendment No. 2432 for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2432.

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

  (Purpose: Relating to the partnership security capacity of foreign 
military and security forces and security and stabilization assistance)

       At the end of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. __. BUILDING THE PARTNERSHIP SECURITY CAPACITY OF 
                   FOREIGN MILITARY AND SECURITY FORCES.

       (a) Authority.--The President may authorize building the 
     capacity of partner nations' military or security forces to 
     disrupt or destroy terrorist networks, close safe havens, or 
     participate in or support United States, coalition, or 
     international military or stability operations.

[[Page 24945]]

       (b) Types of Partnership Security Capacity Building.--The 
     partnership security capacity building authorized under 
     subsection (a) may include the provision of equipment, 
     supplies, services, training, and funding.
       (c) Availability of Funds.--The Secretary of Defense may, 
     at the request of the Secretary of State, support partnership 
     security capacity building as authorized under subsection (a) 
     including by transferring funds available to the Department 
     of Defense to the Department of State, or to any other 
     Federal agency. Any funds so transferred shall remain 
     available until expended. The amount of such partnership 
     security capacity building provided by the Department of 
     Defense under this section may not exceed $750,000,000 in any 
     fiscal year.
       (d) Congressional Notification.--Before building 
     partnership security capacity under this section, the 
     Secretaries of State and Defense shall submit to their 
     congressional oversight committees a notification of the 
     nations designated by the President with which partnership 
     security capacity will be built under this section and the 
     nature and amounts of security capacity building to occur. 
     Any such notification shall be submitted not less than 7 days 
     before the provision of such partnership security capacity 
     building.
       (e) Complementary Authority.--The authority to build 
     partnership security capacity under this section is in 
     addition to any other authority of the Department of Defense 
     to provide assistance to a foreign country.
       (f) Military and Security Forces Defined.--In this section, 
     the term ``military and security forces'' includes armies, 
     guard, border security, civil defense, infrastructure 
     protection, and police forces.

     SEC. __. SECURITY AND STABILIZATION ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, upon a request from the Secretary of State and upon a 
     determination by the Secretary of Defense that an unforeseen 
     emergency exists that requires immediate reconstruction, 
     security, or stabilization assistance to a foreign country 
     for the purpose of restoring or maintaining peace and 
     security in that country, and that the provision of such 
     assistance is in the national security interests of the 
     United States, the Secretary of Defense may authorize the use 
     or transfer of defense articles, services, training or other 
     support, including support acquired by contract or otherwise, 
     to provide such assistance.
       (b) Availability of Funds.--Subject to subsection (a), the 
     Secretary of Defense may transfer funds available to the 
     Department of Defense to the Department of State, or to any 
     other Federal agency, to carry out the purposes of this 
     section, and funds so transferred shall remain available 
     until expended.
       (c) Limitation.--The aggregate value of assistance provided 
     or funds transferred under the authority of this section may 
     not exceed $200,000,000.
       (d) Complementary Authority.--The authority to provide 
     assistance under this section shall be in addition to any 
     other authority to provide assistance to a foreign country.
       (e) Expiration.--The authority in this section shall expire 
     on September 30, 2006.

  Mr. INHOFE. Parliamentary inquiry: Since we have this in proper form 
to be treated, are the comments I made to be used as time for the 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That would be an appropriate allocation of 
time.
  Mr. INHOFE. Can you tell me how much time has been used?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. So it will be 20-some minutes. At this point I yield the 
floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. With permission from Senator Warner, I would like to 
speak on the issue of this commission and express some comments on 
that.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am delighted my distinguished colleague, 
a member of the committee, would like to contribute his thoughts on 
this very important issue and take such time, I think up to 5 or 6 
minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask to be notified in 5 minutes, and I will 
definitely try to keep my time within that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator inform the Chair about which 
amendment he will be speaking?
  Mr. SESSIONS. The Levin-Reed commission suggestion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2427

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, my problem with this matter is that we 
have created, through our complaints--and some of it has been 
political, frankly--and debates beginning back during the past 
election, a determination to embarrass President Bush or undermine, 
maybe, even his policies by some; to call for the resignation of the 
Secretary of Defense. And all of these matters were taken out of 
context and blown up and distorted in a way that I think was 
unfortunate. Yes, we have had problems with abuse of prisoners. We 
really have. But not nearly as many as would be suggested.
  Senator Levin said it seems like it is every week. It has been talked 
about every week. Somebody comes up and repeats something that occurs, 
and then they repeat it again like it is new. So we are keeping alive a 
perception that our military is not performing according to the high 
standards that it sets for itself with regard to prisoner abuse. I do 
not believe that is so.
  I have been there. I have talked to the troops. But it is a tough war 
and a tough enemy. It is not great duty. We know what happened in Abu 
Ghraib, and I would point out the general there, within 1 day or 2 
days--1 day of hearing of the Abu Ghraib problem--commenced an 
investigation, and 3 days later announced to the world that we were 
conducting an investigation of abuse and did so publicly to the TV, 
long before any photographs were ever released because the military, 
the Army, did not approve of what went on there.
  They have had an investigation. It was suggested that the higher ups 
were responsible for this; interrogation tactics and procedures were 
not clear, and that is why all this happened.
  I would just ask our colleagues to remember that when the evidence 
came out during the prosecution of those individuals, the conviction of 
them, and their being sentenced to jail, I point out it was never 
suggested that was part of an interrogation technique. These people 
were not being interrogated. Most of them were not even members of al-
Qaida. A lot of them are street thugs that had been arrested for normal 
criminal behavior. They didn't have any intelligence to give us about 
the enemy we were facing over there. So all this that has been 
suggested, that we are completely out of control and somehow the 
Department of Justice memorandums about what is the maximum ability of 
a U.S. office to conduct investigation, somehow that affected that.
  Remember Mr. Sivitz, a private, I believe, or a corporal or sergeant, 
who pled guilty and was convicted and sentenced to jail? He said our 
leaders didn't know what we were doing. If they had known what we were 
doing, it would have been hell to pay.
  Do you remember the incident of the African-American colonel who had 
a sterling career who, in a fire fight, pulled out a gun and fired a 
bullet near the head of an individual he had captured to frighten him 
to get information he thought might help him save his troops? They 
cashiered him out of the Army.
  We had case after case of people being disciplined. Over 200 have 
been. So this myth has been created that people didn't know what was 
going on and were not properly instructed.
  We had hearings. I am on Judiciary, and I am on Armed Services in the 
Senate. We have House Judiciary and Armed Services and we have Senate 
Intelligence and we have Senate and House Intelligence. We have had 
over 26 hearings on this issue, more than any other.
  We ought to spend some time trying to figure out how to win this war 
rather than going back and suggesting to the whole world, by hearing 
after hearing, after report after report after commission, that we are 
out of control, mistreating prisoners, when it is not so. Our soldiers 
are consistently abiding by the Geneva Conventions as they have been 
instructed, and they do their duty every day. The Field Manual applies 
to men and women in the military, and they know that. That has been 
reaffirmed to them with clarity, that that controls the treatment of 
the prisoners in Iraq.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. My 5 minutes is up? Mr. President, I will conclude--I 
may like to talk about this later on--with a letter from a sergeant 
from the Arkansas National Guard who was in Iraq

[[Page 24946]]

from April 2004 to March of 2005. He said:

       My job was that of fire-team leader, responsible for three 
     soldiers. We patrolled the streets of Baghdad daily [not a 
     safe place to be] conducted raids, manned checkpoints, and 
     cleared houses and other buildings. During our stay we 
     detained dozens of Iraqis.
       So I was somewhat astounded at Capt. Ian Fishback's letter. 
     . . .

  He said he saw beatings, broken bones and other improper treatment of 
prisoners. That is inconsistent with my observations--of mine. I will 
offer this for the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will quote one paragraph.

       We never experienced the confusion that Capt. Fishback and 
     his soldiers evidently experienced. Our directives were clear 
     and our approach to treating detainees was consistent: I 
     never saw a U.S. soldier physically mistreat an Iraqi. I saw 
     professional treatment of detainees from top to bottom, and I 
     was proud to be a part of this great combat team.

  That is what is going on. That is the reality, in my view, of what is 
going on in Iraq. We have subjected ourselves and our soldiers to great 
risk because we demanded restraint on their part, and for the most part 
they have given us that.
  There have been problems. We know that. But we are not allowing them 
to continue. We are stopping them and prosecuting people if they have 
violated the law, as they should be prosecuted. So I am concerned that 
what we do today sends a message to the world that Members of this body 
and members of the leadership of the U.S. Government believe that our 
military is out of control and that we need some sort of commission to 
get them in control.
  That is not accurate in my view. We don't need another commission. We 
have had at least six, eight or nine major reports, and we have had, of 
course, over 20 hearings in the House and Senate. I have been a part of 
more of them than I would have wished.
  I honestly and truly believe we need to watch our rhetoric and not 
demean the fine men and women who are serving us because we sent them 
there in harm's way, and they are serving us with fidelity to duty and 
the highest degree of professionalism, giving their lives to help the 
Iraqi people to have a better life. That is our goal. That is what we 
need to keep at. I hope we will remember that as we debate these 
subjects.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

       I am a sergeant in the Arkansas Army National Guard, and I 
     was in Iraq from April 2004 to March 2005. My job was that of 
     fire-team leader, responsible for three soldiers. We 
     patrolled the streets of Baghdad daily, conducted raids, 
     manned checkpoints, and cleared houses and other buildings. 
     During our stay in Iraq, we detained dozens of Iraqis.
       So I was somewhat astounded at Capt. Ian Fishback's letter 
     to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) about what he saw and observed 
     in Iraq concerning beatings, broken bones and other improper 
     treatment of prisoners [op-ed, Sept. 28]. His experience and 
     observations are inconsistent with mine.
       Our unit was attached to the 1st Cavalry Division. We 
     worked with active-duty soldiers, and when I moved to a 
     forward operating base known as Headhunter, I worked every 
     day with the 1st Cavalry, which I found to be a professional 
     organization.
       We never experienced the confusion that Capt. Fishback and 
     his soldiers evidently experienced. Our directives were clear 
     and our approach to treating detainees was consistent: I 
     never saw a U.S. soldier physically mistreat an Iraqi. I saw 
     professional treatment of detainees from the top to the 
     bottom, and I was proud to be part of this great combat team.
       I do not challenge Capt. Fishback or his observations. But 
     I saw U.S. soldiers, both active-duty and National Guard, 
     conduct themselves professionally on a daily basis.

  Mr. SESSIONS. 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.
  Mr. INHOFE. 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. INHOFE. Mr. President, I just made a presentation on my amendment 
No. 2432. I ask unanimous consent to add cosponsors--Senators Stevens, 
Roberts, Sessions, Ensign, Graham, Thune, and Kyl.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. 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.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we have had a very good and productive 
morning on the Defense authorization bill, a continuation by the Senate 
of that important legislation.
  Matters relating to the bill are concluded. I will now await the 
directions of the majority leader as to the concluding of today's 
proceedings before the Senate.
  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. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________