[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 24976-24997]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006--Resumed

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

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

  Pending:

       Nelson (FL) amendment No. 2424, to repeat 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.
       Allard amendment No. 2423, to authorize a program to 
     provide health, medical, and life

[[Page 24977]]

     insurance benefits to workers at the Rocky Flats 
     Environmental Technology site, Colorado, would otherwise fail 
     to qualify for such benefits because of an early physical 
     completion date.
       Reed (for Levin/Reed) amendment No. 2427, to make 
     available, with an offset, an additional $50,000,000 for 
     Operation and Maintenance for Cooperative Threat Reduction.
       Levin amendment No. 2430, to establish a national 
     commission on policies and practices on the treatment of 
     detainees since September 11, 2001.
       Inhofe amendment No. 2432, relating to the partnership 
     security capacity of foreign military and security forces and 
     security and stabilization assistance.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2433

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2433, which is 
at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss], for himself, Mr. 
     Isakson, and Mr. Pryor, proposes an amendment numbered 2433.

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. 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 reduce the eligibility age for receipt of non-regular 
military service retired pay for members of the Ready Reserve in active 
       federal status or on active duty for significant periods)

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

     SEC. 538. COMMENCEMENT OF RECEIPT OF NON-REGULAR SERVICE 
                   RETIRED PAY BY MEMBERS OF THE READY RESERVE ON 
                   ACTIVE FEDERAL STATUS OR ACTIVE DUTY FOR 
                   SIGNIFICANT PERIODS.

       (a) Reduced Eligibility Age.--Section 12731 of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (1) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(1) has attained the eligibility age applicable under 
     subsection (f) to that person;''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the eligibility age for 
     purposes of subsection (a)(1) is 60 years of age.
       ``(2)(A) In the case of a person who as a member of the 
     Ready Reserve serves on active duty or performs active 
     service described in subparagraph (B) after September 11, 
     2001, the eligibility age for purposes of subsection (a)(1) 
     shall be reduced below 60 years of age by three months for 
     each aggregate of 90 days on which such person so performs in 
     any fiscal year after such date, subject to subparagraph (C). 
     A day of duty may be included in only one aggregate of 90 
     days for purposes of this subparagraph.
       ``(B)(i) Service on active duty described in this 
     subparagraph is service on active duty pursuant to a call or 
     order to active duty under a provision of law referred to in 
     section 101(a)(13)(B) of this title in support of a 
     contingency operation. Such service does not include service 
     on active duty pursuant to a call or order to active duty 
     under section 12310 of this title.
       ``(ii) Active service described in this subparagraph is 
     service under a call to active service authorized by the 
     President or the Secretary of Defense under section 502(f) of 
     title 32 for purposes of responding to a national emergency 
     declared by the President or supported by Federal funds.
       ``(C) The eligibility age for purposes of subsection (a)(1) 
     may not be reduced below 50 years of age for any person under 
     subparagraph (A).''.
       (b) Continuation of Age 60 as Minimum Age for Eligibility 
     of Non-Regular Service Retirees For Health Care.--Section 
     1074(b) of such title is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(b)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to a member or former 
     member entitled to retired pay for non-regular service under 
     chapter 1223 of this title who is under 60 years of age.''.
       (c) Administration of Related Provisions of Law or 
     Policy.--With respect to any provision of law, or of any 
     policy, regulation, or directive of the executive branch that 
     refers to a member or former member of the uniformed services 
     as being eligible for, or entitled to, retired pay under 
     chapter 1223 of title 10, United States Code, but for the 
     fact that the member or former member is under 60 years of 
     age, such provision shall be carried out with respect to that 
     member or former member by substituting for the reference to 
     being 60 years of age a reference to having attained the 
     eligibility age applicable under subsection (f) of section 
     12731 of title 10, United States Code (as added by subsection 
     (a)), to such member or former member for qualification for 
     such retired pay under subsection (a) of such section.
       (d) Effective Date and Applicability.--The amendment made 
     by subsection (a) shall take effect as of September 11, 2001, 
     and shall apply with respect to applications for retired pay 
     that are submitted under section 12731(a) of title 10, United 
     States Code, on or after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask that Senator Landrieu be added as 
a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. First, Mr. President, I wish to thank the chairman of 
the committee, as well as the ranking member, Senator Warner and 
Senator Levin, for their great leadership on this bill. This has been a 
difficult process we have gone through, having spent, I guess, a week 
and a half at one point in time and having to suspend further 
proceedings and now we are back on it. In my opinion, all the work in 
this body is certainly very critical to the Nation itself, but there is 
no more important legislation we take up every year than the Defense 
authorization bill. When we are a nation at war, as we are right now, 
there certainly is no more important legislation to show support by 
this body, by the House, and by the American people to our men and 
women in uniform by making sure that we provide quality of life issues 
for them, whether it is pay raises, looking after their families, or 
making sure they have better than adequate housing, but to also say to 
them that we are going to provide you with the best weapons available 
in the world today, that we are going to provide you with the best 
training in the world today to make sure that you remain the strongest 
military in the world, and as you fight for freedom and democracy on 
foreign soil, as our men and women are doing today, that they know and 
understand, without any hesitation, the American people and the Members 
of Congress stand firmly behind the work they are doing.
  I wish to preface my comments with regard to this particular 
amendment by stating something with which no Member of the Senate would 
disagree, and that is that the way our Nation uses the Reserve 
components of the U.S. military has fundamentally changed over the last 
15 years.
  Several of my colleagues already alluded to this fact during 
discussion of TRICARE coverage for reservists earlier this year. I 
support that legislation and commend my colleagues, specifically 
Senator Graham from South Carolina and Senator Clinton from New York, 
for their perseverance on this issue of providing TRICARE for Guard and 
Reserve members.
  Over the last decade and a half, the Reserve components have changed 
from a force in reserve to an absolutely essential component of the war 
fight in almost every operation the military engages and in every 
career field represented in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine 
Corps.
  The Reserve components are now, and continue to become, a true 
operational Reserve that our military cannot operate without. This is 
reflected primarily in the rate of deployments and mobilizations of the 
Reserve components.
  The contribution of the Reserve components has increased over 60 
times from the pre-Desert Shield/Desert Storm time period to the 
present. From the post-Desert Storm period, from between 1993 and 1997 
to the present, the Reserve contribution has increased between 5 and 10 
times, depending on which year you consider. The same trends are 
illustrated if you look at the number of support days reservists have 
performed over the last 20 years. The trend over the last 5 years is 
exponential.
  My point, which cannot be any more clear, is that the way we are 
using the Guard and Reserve has fundamentally changed. Based on this 
fact, I think it is only appropriate to consider that the way we 
compensate and reward our reservists needs to change.
  Another important factor to be considered is the current recruiting 
trends for the National Guard and Reserve.

[[Page 24978]]

The overall trend in Reserve component recruiting is negative. In 
fiscal year 2005, the Army and Air National Guard, the Army Reserve and 
the Navy Reserve, all did not meet their enlisted recruiting goals. In 
fiscal year 2002, the Army National Guard exceeded its goal by 
recruiting 104 percent of its objective, but in fiscal year 2003 and 
fiscal year 2004 that number dropped to 87 percent. It now stands at 80 
percent. A similar story can be told for the Army Reserve where it 
exceeded its goal for fiscal year 2002 with 108 percent of its 
objective only to see that percentage drop to 84 percent for fiscal 
year 2005. Although not a crisis yet, these trends are definitely a 
cause for concern.
  Retention numbers for the Guard and Reserve are holding fairly steady 
for now. However, I do not believe anyone expects the retention rate to 
hold steady if we keep using our Reserves at the current rate. I 
believe the current rate at which we are using reservists, as well as 
current recruiting trends, necessitates that we reexamine the way we 
manage the Reserve.
  As the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee 
on Personnel, and the current cochairman of the Senate Reserve Caucus, 
this is an issue with which I have wrestled considerably and want to be 
sure that we account for as we provide oversight of the personnel 
policies of the Department of Defense.
  The Department of Defense has made changes in this area by improving 
the process of training and equipping the Reserve and supporting 
changes in personnel policies that improve quality of life for members 
of the Reserve. However, with the possible exception of the TRICARE 
issue, these changes have been at the margins. The amendment I am 
calling up today makes what I believe is a relatively minor adjustment 
to the Reserve retirement system. My amendment would lower the age at 
which a reservist can receive their retirement annuity by 3 months, 
counting down from age 60, for every 90 days a reservist spends on 
active duty during a fiscal year. Any service credited under my 
amendment would have to be served in support of a designated 
contingency operation. This amendment specifically rewards the members 
of the Guard and Reserve who have been called or ordered to active 
duty, had their civilian lives interrupted for an extended period of 
time, and in many cases placed themselves in harm's way in defense of 
their country.
  Currently, the average reservist, if they collect any retirement pay 
at all, receives a small fraction of the annuity that an Active-Duty 
member receives. If this amendment becomes law, that percentage will 
rise slightly but in no way will this amendment result in a major 
change with large financial implications.
  I do not have a formal CBO estimate for the current version of my 
amendment. However, based on CBO scoring for an earlier version, I 
suggest that the cost of this amendment will be approximately $300 
million over 5 years.
  There have been several other bills and amendments related to Reserve 
retirement introduced in Congress and for the sake of comparison, I 
believe my amendment provides the right incentives and rewards, and it 
is also the least costly alternative which has been offered so far.
  I think it is very important that we strike a balance between the 
Active-Duty forces and the Reserve component with respect to 
compensation, quality of life, and other assets and incentives that we 
offer for people coming into Active-Duty service. I know and understand 
that we can never totally equalize the benefits to the Active Duty 
along with those of the Guard and Reserve for the simple sake that if 
somebody joins the Active Duty, they need to be incentivized to come in 
and do the work that they are assigned to do knowing that they will be 
compensated in a way that has been provided for them for decades 
relative to retirement in this case. We cannot do that with the Guard 
and Reserve, but we do need to provide more incentives to do something 
about these drastic reenlistment, as well as enlistment, numbers that I 
alluded to earlier in my comments.
  One way I think we can certainly do that, from a retirement 
standpoint, is to provide some small incentive to our reservists and 
our Guard men and women so that they will be somewhat comparable, 
though never totally comparable, to the Active-Duty members. I believe 
this amendment is significant and important because it recognizes the 
increased contribution our reservists are making, rewards them for the 
service in support of the global war on terrorism, and provides 
reservists in the middle of their careers with an incentive to stay on 
board.
  I have received some very good feedback from the Department of 
Defense on this amendment because, first, it incentivizes voluntarism. 
Secondly, it provides a motivation for retention. Thirdly, it is 
relatively low cost.
  The Reserve Officers Association of America, the National Guard 
Association of the United States, and the Reserve Enlisted Association 
also support this amendment and see it as an important, responsible 
step forward in support of our reservists.
  There is no more important issue facing the Senate Armed Services 
Committee than how we treat our men and women in uniform and their 
families. It is my hope that as we proceed with this bill over this 
week, and as the committee entertains legislation and policy changes in 
the coming months, that we keep the people at the receiving end of our 
decisions and deliberations foremost in our minds.
  We will continue to include the members of the Reserve components in 
those deliberations and ensure that the Senate adopts policies that 
work to their advantage that are fiscally responsible and that 
recognize the significant changes that have taken place in the Reserve 
over the past decade and a half.
  I close by saying, again, that without the leadership of Senators 
Warner and Levin, we simply would not be providing the compensation, 
nor the incentives, that we have in place today to the members of the 
Guard and the Reserve. I thank them for not just their great leadership 
but their cooperation in working through these very difficult issues, a 
lot of which are driven strictly by budget. That is what makes it 
particularly difficult when we have to talk about providing incentives 
like compensation versus buying weapons systems. It makes it very 
difficult, and to their credit they have provided the great leadership 
that is necessary to make sure that we continue to be in a position to 
be the strongest military in the world. And we are because our men and 
women who volunteer for that military, whether it is Active Duty or 
Guard or Reserve, are the very finest young men and women America has 
to offer.
  I ask my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Georgia. We are studying this amendment very carefully. I am anxious to 
get the views of my distinguished colleague, the ranking member, and 
his group.
  As I listened carefully to the Senator's remarks, I was reminded by 
my own experience--I had a very modest career in the military--I think 
I spent a total of 14 years in the Marine Corps Reserve and witnessed 
and participated in a callup of the Reserves in connection with the war 
in Korea. I recall very vividly that war hit us out of the blue in the 
summer of 1950. The then-Secretary of Defense, Louis Johnson, under 
President Truman, was cutting and slashing the military right and left. 
It was down to the raw bone. Suddenly this war engulfed the United 
States and there were thoughts in the beginning that it would be fairly 
simple to end the war.
  I remember MacArthur was commander in chief of the forces at that 
time, and he made a famous statement--I think it was in late September 
or October--that this war will be over and everybody will be home by 
Christmas.
  Well, that was the fall of 1950, and action did not end until 1953, 
which had many names from the ``forgotten war'' to a ``police action,'' 
but it did cause over 50,000 casualties.
  The point I wish to make is I witnessed with my own eyes the Reserves

[[Page 24979]]

being brought in. I was with a group that was called up on 30 days' 
notice. Most of them had been in World War II. I had brief service at 
the end of World War II in the Navy. We were all basically former World 
War II veterans and just beginning to reestablish ourselves. It was 
only an interval of about 4 years since most had been released then in 
1946 and, whammo, in 30 days we were in it.
  At first I remember in the training detachments down in Quantico 
there was a decided feeling among the old regulars of the Marine Corps 
that we were second-class citizens, but once our folks hit the 
battlefield, whether it was on the ground or in the air--I was assigned 
to an air unit as a ground officer--Reserve pilots flew right along 
with the regular pilots, and one could not tell the difference. They 
pulled equal missions together, took equal risks. I do not know how the 
casualties bear out, but I know a lot--not a lot, but a number of our 
Reserve squadron lost their lives, wounded.
  So I say to the Senator, as I listened, I thought back of those days 
and how in the ensuing years that was the first time in the Korean War 
that we really involved the number of Reserves that were needed, and 
our regular forces then, not unlike now, had been pared down in 
numbers. As a consequence, today I believe 60 percent of the persons 
serving in Iraq are Reserves at this very moment. I use the term 
``reserves'' to apply to the Guard as well. So they are full partners.
  Then, fast forwarding, I remember serving in the Pentagon during 
Vietnam, and we decided to have, under the leadership of an 
extraordinary Secretary of Defense, Melvin Laird, the concept of a 
total force; in other words, whether one is Guard, Reserve, or regular, 
they are a total force. The total force concept moved on through the 
years.
  I think the Senator is right on target. If the Senator will bear with 
us a little bit, we are trying to determine exactly how we are going to 
treat this amendment. At the moment I am very impressed with the 
Senator's objective. I ask forgiveness for taking the time of the 
Senate to dwell on what I actually saw years ago and have seen, as the 
Senator has, on our visits to Iraq, one cannot distinguish between the 
Guard and the Reserves. They are all amalgamated into the regulars. 
Actually, many Guard and Reserve units are functioning as units, 
somewhat augmented, I suppose, with some regular officers, and vice 
versa some of the regular units are augmented with the Reserve and 
Guard officers. But it certainly is a total force and a magnificent 
force we have serving today.
  The Senator is right, all of these trends with regard to personnel, 
they begin to--it is like the awakening of the dawn. The sun does not 
break through, and one begins to wonder what about this cloud cover, 
and there is some cloud cover associated with the recent statistics 
regarding the introduction of new Guard and Reserve persons.
  I will say I think the retention has been pretty good in many areas 
of our Guard and Reserves, but nevertheless we need an inducement. I 
think this amendment has the beginnings of something that is very 
important.
  The Senator is a valued member of our committee. The Senator fought 
hard for this one. Give us a little time to work it around.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. If the Senator will yield very briefly, I say the 
passion that the Senator from Virginia has relative to the men and 
women in our Armed Forces has been exhibited in our committee time and 
again. It is pretty obvious to see why. It is because of men and women 
like the Senator who have served in the Guard and Reserve over the last 
50 years that we now truly are a blended force. We are a force of 
military men and women when it comes time to join hands and go to the 
fight. It truly is a seamless integration between the Active Duty and 
the Reserve and the Guard today in Iraq. That is why I think it is very 
important.
  I thank the Senator for his comments and his leadership.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, just to add a note, the Senator touched on 
this, but we cannot and do not--and I do not think this will--erode the 
base of pay and benefits given to the regular force. Those individuals 
have committed to a career in the military. In a career of 20 years, 
they will move 10 or 12 times. On the other hand, the reservist is at 
home, most of them, in a status where there is an ever-present risk of 
being called up. For that, I think they should be given some special 
recognition.
  I believe the Senator has that embraced in these valuable ideas that 
the Senator has in this amendment.
  That is because they are ready to respond and they have to, not just 
move on a set of orders, but they have to try to keep their families in 
place in their homes; they have to try to work out some relationship 
with their employers so they can go back. They have a whole set of 
problems that are quite different than those in the regulars.
  I do not think in any way this legislation encroaches on the 
important category of benefits for the regular forces, but does things 
that recognize the importance of the Guard and Reserve.
  I see another distinguished colleague on the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield, I say to the Senator from Maine 
I will be very brief because the Senator is waiting, but I want to 
comment on the amendment that has been offered by the Senator from 
Georgia.
  First, I commend him for offering this amendment. It is a very fair 
amendment. It is a very balanced amendment. It takes on a very 
important subject and deals with it very forthrightly, which is the 
fact that our Reserve Forces are called upon more and more now and are 
put under greater demands, and there is a lot of pressure and a lot of 
stress now.
  We do not require our Active-Duty Forces to wait until they are 60. 
After they get their 20 years in, they are eligible for retirement. 
What the amendment of the Senator does, as I understand it, is to 
credit the Reserve personnel for 90 days of mobilized active-duty 
service toward--it allows them to gain 3 months reduction from the 
current requirement that they be 60 years of age.
  It is a very important amendment. It addresses an inequity that we 
have, which is we require our Reserve Forces, even after they have been 
mobilized, even if they are mobilized year after year, not to get any 
credit for that active-duty service the way our regulars do.
  I commend the Senator. It is a very fair amendment. It has a lesser 
cost than the one that was opposed by the Department of Defense last 
year. I hope the Department of Defense will not oppose the Senator's 
amendment. We have not received a statement from the Department of 
Defense yet, but I hope, even though they opposed the amendment last 
year, they will not oppose the amendment of the Senator from Georgia.
  It is a worthy amendment. It has bipartisan support. As I understand, 
in addition to his colleague from Georgia, Senators Landrieu and Pryor 
are cosponsors. We very much support his effort.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might add, last year an amendment 
somewhat similar to this, but considerably more extreme in its reach, 
was considered by the Senate. At that time I, along with others, 
established the Commission on the National Guard and Reserve. It was 
included in our Defense Authorization Act. That commission is now in 
operation. As a matter of fact, the distinguished Senator from Georgia 
and I attended the opening meeting here just days ago. It has an 
extraordinary list of members. I ask unanimous consent to have a fact 
sheet and a list of membership printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

        Commission on the National Guard and Reserves Fact Sheet


                                MISSION

       The independent Commission on the National Guard and 
     Reserves is charged by Congress to recommend any needed 
     changes in law and policy to ensure that the Guard and 
     Reserves are organized, trained, equipped,

[[Page 24980]]

     compensated, and supported to best meet the national security 
     requirements of the United States. The Commission was 
     established by the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005.


                      KEY ISSUES REQUIRING REVIEW

       Among the questions the Commission will address:
       Roles and Missions--What are the appropriate roles and 
     purposes of the Guard and Reserves in meeting the national 
     security needs of the United States?
       Capabilities--How can reserve components and personnel best 
     be used to support Armed Forces operations and achievement of 
     national security objectives, including homeland defense, 
     while at the same time meeting disaster response objectives?
       Operational Support--How effective is the Department of 
     Defense implementation plan for the new ``Operational 
     Support'' personnel accounting category which has been 
     developed to account properly for reserve members on active 
     duty in support of total force missions?
       Organization and Structure--How effective are the current 
     organization and structure of the Guard and Reserves? Are 
     Department of Defense and individual service plans for the 
     future organization and structure of the Guard and Reserves 
     adequate?
       Training--Are the current organization and funding of 
     training adequate? What changes are needed to achieve 
     training objectives and operational readiness?
       Readiness--How effective are policies and programs for 
     achieving operational readiness--troops trained and equipment 
     on hand, maintained, and functioning--as well as personnel 
     readiness, including medical and family readiness?
       Personnel Compensation and Benefits--Are compensation and 
     benefits, including the availability of health care benefits 
     and health insurance, appropriate and adequate? For both 
     regular and reserve components of the Armed Forces, what are 
     the likely effects of proposed compensation and benefit 
     changes? What are feasible options for improving compensation 
     and benefits, particularly in regard to cost-effectiveness 
     and any foreseeable effects on readiness, recruitment, and 
     retention of personnel?
       Career Paths--How effective are traditional military career 
     paths? Are there alternative career paths that could enhance 
     professional development and help move personnel toward a 
     continuum of service?
       Funding--How adequate is the funding provided for equipment 
     and personnel in both active duty and reserve military 
     personnel accounts? How can funding best be provided?
       Other--What other issues relevant to the purposes of the 
     Commission will be included in its assessment?


                             COMMISSIONERS

       As specified in the authorizing legislation, 13 Commission 
     members were appointed by the chairs and ranking minority 
     members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees and 
     the Secretary of Defense. Appointed are:
       Arnold L. Punaro, Chairman--Chairman Punaro is a retired 
     Marine Corps major general who served as Commanding General 
     of the 4th Marine Division (1997-2000) and Director of 
     Reserve Affairs at Headquarters Marine Corps during the post-
     9/l1 peak reserve mobilization periods. Following active duty 
     service in Vietnam, he was mobilized three times: for 
     Operation Desert Shield in the first Gulf War, to command 
     Joint Task Force Provide Promise (Fwd) in Bosnia and 
     Macedonia, and for Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. He worked 
     on Capitol Hill for 24 years for Senator Sam Nunn and served 
     as his Staff Director of the Senate Armed Services Committee 
     for 14 years. He is currently Executive Vice President of 
     Science Applications International Corporation.
       William L. Ball, III--Commissioner Ball is currently 
     Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Asia Foundation, an 
     international NGO operating in 18 Asian countries. He served 
     in the Navy for six years followed by 10 years service on the 
     U.S. Senate staff for Senators Herman Talmadge and John 
     Tower. He joined the Reagan Administration in 1985, serving 
     as Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs, 
     Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs at the 
     White House, and Secretary of the Navy in 1988-1989.
       Les Brownlee--Commissioner Brownlee was confirmed as the 
     Under Secretary of the Army in November 2004 and served 
     concurrently as the Acting Secretary of the Army from May 
     2003 to November 2004. He was appointed by both Senators 
     Strom Thurmond and John Warner to serve as the Staff Director 
     of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He is retired from 
     the United States Army and served two tours in Vietnam. He is 
     currently President of Les Brownlee & Associates LLC.
       Rhett Dawson--Commissioner Dawson is currently President 
     and CEO of the Information Technology Industry Council. He is 
     the former Senior Vice President, Law and Public Policy, for 
     the Potomac Electric Power Company. During the last two years 
     of the Reagan Administration, he was an Assistant to the 
     President for Operations. He also served as Staff Director of 
     the Senate Armed Services Committee. He served on active duty 
     as a ROTC-commissioned Army officer from 1969 to 1972.
       Larry K. Eckles--Commissioner Eckles retired as the 
     Assistant Division Commander for the 35th Infantry Division, 
     headquartered at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, after 37 years of 
     service. He refired with over 31 years of full-time civil 
     service employment with the Nebraska Army National Guard and 
     has served in numerous positions at state headquarters 
     including Chief of Staff of the Nebraska Army National Guard, 
     battalion commander, and Director of Personnel.
       John (Jack) M. Keane--Commissioner Keane is Senior Managing 
     Director and co-founder of Keane Advisors, a consulting and 
     private equity firm. He is a director of MetLife, General 
     Dynamics, and Allied Barton Security. He served as the 29th 
     Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, retiring after 37 years of 
     service. General Keane was a career paratrooper and a combat 
     veteran, who was decorated for valor. He commanded the famed 
     101st Airborne Division and the legendary 18th Airborne 
     Corps.
       Patricia L. Lewis--Commissioner Lewis served over 28 years 
     with the federal government, including service with the 
     Senate Armed Services Committee for Chairmen John Warner, Sam 
     Nunn, and Scoop Jackson. Ms. Lewis began her federal career 
     in 1975 with the Department of the Navy and has held 
     positions in Naval Sea Systems Command, the Office of the 
     Navy Comptroller, and in the Office of the Secretary of 
     Defense. She is currently a partner with Monfort-Lewis, LLC.
       Clinton (Dan) McKinnon--Commissioner McKinnon was founder, 
     Chairman and CEO of North American Airlines. He undertook 
     special projects for the Director of Central Intelligence and 
     also served as Chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board, 
     during which time he implemented airline deregulation. He has 
     owned radio stations in San Diego. Early in his career, he 
     spent four years in the United States Navy as an aviator 
     where he set, and holds, the U.S. Navy helicopter peacetime 
     air/sea record of 62 saves.
       Wade D. Rowley--Commissioner Rowley is currently a Military 
     Border Infrastructure Construction Consultant with the 
     Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection. He served over 23 years with the California Army 
     National Guard and Army Reserves. His last military 
     assignment was with the California Army National Guard, where 
     he served as an Engineer Officer, Company Commander, and 
     Facility Commander for the California National Guard 
     Counterdrug Task Force in support of the U.S. Border Patrol.
       James E. Sherrard, III--Commissioner Sherrard served as 
     Chief of Air Force Reserve, Headquarters USAF, Washington, DC 
     and Commander, Air Force Reserve Command, Robins AFB, Georgia 
     from 1998 to 2004. He is a retired lieutenant general with 
     more than 38 years of commissioned service in the United 
     States Air Force. As Chief of Air Force Reserve and 
     Commander, Air Force Reserve Command, he was responsible for 
     organizing, training, and equipping more than 79,000 military 
     and civil service personnel required to support operations 
     and combat readiness training for 36 flying wings, 14 
     detached groups, 13 Air Force Reserve installations, three 
     Numbered Air Forces, and the Air Reserve Personnel Center 
     (ARPC). As Chief of Air Force Reserve, he directed and 
     oversaw the mobilization of Air Force Reserve personnel in 
     support of military operations in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and 
     Iraq. During his career, General Sherrard commanded an 
     airlift group, two Air Force Reserve installations, two 
     wings, and two Numbered Air Forces.
       Donald L. Stockton--Commissioner Stockton currently owns 
     and operates the Marshfield Drayage Company in Missouri. He 
     is a retired lieutenant colonel from the U.S. Air Force 
     Reserves where he served nearly 30 years. His last command 
     was with the 934th Maintenance Squadron, a subordinate unit 
     of the 934th Airlift Wing, Air Force Reserve, in Minneapolis 
     where he was responsible for the unit's C-130E aircraft and 
     training of some 175 reservists.
       E. Gordon Stump--Commissioner Stump retired in January 2003 
     from his position of Adjutant General and the Director of 
     Military and Veterans Affairs in Michigan after serving for 
     12 years. He commanded and directed a total of 157 Army and 
     Air National Guard units, two Veterans Nursing Homes, and 12 
     Veterans Service Organizations. His prior assignments 
     included Squadron Commander 107th TFS and Commander and 
     Deputy Commander of the Headquarters Michigan Air National 
     Guard. He flew 241 combat missions over North and South 
     Vietnam. He also deployed to South Korea during the Pueblo 
     Crisis. He served as President of the National Guard 
     Association of the United States and as a member of the 
     Reserve Forces Policy Board. Prior to his assignment as 
     Adjutant General, he was Vice President of Automotive 
     Engineering for Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. He is currently 
     President of Strategic Defense Associates, LLC.
       J. Stanton Thompson--Commissioner Thompson is currently an 
     Executive Director for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 
     Farm Service Agency. He is a retired naval rear admiral with 
     over 35 years of military service. He is the former Special 
     Assistant

[[Page 24981]]

     for Reserve Matters to the Commander, U.S. NORTHCOM and North 
     American Aerospace Command. He also served as a principal 
     advisor to the commander for maritime homeland defense. 
     During his recall to active duty, he provided active duty 
     support to Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm.


                        TIMETABLE AND ACTIVITIES

       December 2005--First formal meeting of the Commission
       March 2006--Ninety-day report to include strategic work 
     plan, discussion of planned activities, and any initial 
     fmdings, submitted to the House and Senate Armed Services 
     Committees and the Secretary of Defense
       December 2006--Final report of Commission to include 
     recommended reforms in legislation and Defense Department 
     policies, submitted to the House and Senate Armed Services 
     Committees and the Secretary of Defense
       March 2007--Commission terminated.

  Mr. WARNER. They have begun their work and they will examine issues 
related to your amendment and to other structural missions and 
compensation of the Guard and Reserve Forces in the coming years.
  I do not believe this commission, which is underway, should be used 
as a deterrent for the Senate to consider at this time the Senator's 
amendment. I point out that the subject he raised, that is intrinsic to 
this amendment, is under careful study by an extraordinary group of 
individuals appointed by myself, Senator Levin, our leaders, and 
others. That will be part of the Record.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator from Maine has an amendment. 
It is one of the 12 amendments we have under the unanimous consent 
agreement. There is a time limit on it, of which the Senator is aware.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2436

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, pursuant to the pending unanimous consent 
agreement, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Snowe], for herself and Ms. 
     Collins, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. Corzine, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 2436.

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

 (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense, subject to a national 
    security exception, to offer to transfer to local redevelopment 
 authorities for no consideration real property and personal property 
located at military installations that are closed or realigned as part 
       of the 2005 round of defense base closure and realignment)

       At the end of subtitle D of title XXVIII of division B, add 
     the following:

     SEC. 2887. TRANSFER TO REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES WITHOUT 
                   CONSIDERATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT MILITARY 
                   INSTALLATIONS CLOSED OR REALIGNED UNDER 2005 
                   ROUND OF DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT.

       (a) Option on Transfer of Real Property and Facilities.--
     Paragraph (2)(C) of section 2905(b) of the Defense Base 
     Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of 
     Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``(C)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(ii)(I) Except as provided in subclause (II), in the case 
     of any real property or facilities located at an installation 
     for which the date of approval of closure or realignment is 
     after January 1, 2005, including property or facilities that 
     would otherwise be transferred to a military department or 
     other entity within the Department of Defense or the Coast 
     Guard under clause (i), or would otherwise be transferred to 
     another Federal agency--
       ``(aa) the Secretary shall instead offer to transfer such 
     property or facilities to the redevelopment authority with 
     respect to such installation; and
       ``(bb) if the redevelopment authority accepts the offer, 
     transfer such property or facilities to the redevelopment 
     authority, without consideration, subject to the provisions 
     of paragraph (4).
       ``(II) The requirement under subclause (I) shall not 
     apply--
       ``(aa) to a transfer of property or facilities to a 
     military department or other entity within the Department of 
     Defense or the Coast Guard under clause (i), or to the 
     Department of Homeland Security, if the Secretary of Defense 
     determines that such transfer is necessary in the national 
     security interest of the United States; or
       ``(bb) to a transfer of property or facilities to an Indian 
     tribe or tribal organization pursuant to section 105(f)(3) of 
     the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act 
     (25 U.S.C. 450j(f)(3)).''.
       (b) Option on Transfer of Personal Property.--Paragraph (3) 
     of such section is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (C)(i), by striking ``subparagraphs (E) 
     and (F)'' and inserting ``subparagraphs (F) and (G)'';
       (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) and (F) as 
     subparagraphs (F) and (G), respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following new 
     subparagraph (E):
       ``(E) In the case of any personal property located at an 
     installation for which the date of approval of closure or 
     realignment is after January 1, 2005, including property that 
     is determined pursuant to the inventory under subparagraph 
     (A)(i) to be excess property that would otherwise be 
     transferred to another Federal agency under subchapter II of 
     chapter 5 of title 40, United States Code, pursuant to the 
     authority in paragraph (1)(A)--
       ``(i) the Secretary shall, unless the Secretary determines 
     that a transfer of such property to a military department or 
     other entity within the Department of Defense or the Coast 
     Guard, or to the Department of Homeland Security, is 
     necessary in the national security interest of the United 
     States, instead offer to transfer such property to the 
     redevelopment authority with respect to such installation; 
     and
       ``(ii) if the redevelopment authority accepts the offer, 
     transfer such property to the redevelopment authority, 
     without consideration, subject to the provisions of paragraph 
     (4).''.
       (c) Economic Redevelopment.--Paragraph (4)(A) of such 
     section is amended by striking ``purposes of job generation'' 
     and inserting ``purposes of economic redevelopment or job 
     generation''.
       (d) Conforming Change.--Paragraph (4)(B) of such section is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``shall seek'' and all that follows through 
     ``with respect to the installation'' and inserting the 
     following: ``may not obtain consideration in connection with 
     any transfer under this paragraph of property located at the 
     installation. The redevelopment authority to which such 
     property is transferred shall'';
       (2) in clause (i), by striking ``agrees'' and inserting 
     ``agree''; and
       (3) in clause (ii)--
       (A) by striking ``executes'' and inserting ``execute''; and
       (B) by striking ``accepts'' and inserting ``accept''.

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, in August the Base Realignment and Closure 
Commission issued its fifth round of base closures since 1988. Soon the 
Department of Defense will begin implementing the BRAC report, 
undoubtedly having a direct and lasting impact on States across this 
country, including my own State of Maine. I rise today as a 
congressional veteran of all five previous base-closing rounds to 
introduce this amendment along with my colleague from Maine, Senator 
Collins. It is as well being cosponsored by Senators Corzine, Wyden, 
and Landrieu, and endorsed by the Association of Defense Communities, 
to place the communities that are directly affected by base closures in 
this recent round in the driver's seat with respect to the critical 
economic development decisions our base-closing communities are going 
to be confronting, and not placing the Department of Defense in control 
of their economic development and their economic futures.
  Our amendment would require that, when making determinations 
concerning the transfer of property and installations, the Secretary of 
Defense must offer that property first to the local redevelopment 
authority, or the LRA, that represents the community and is required to 
be established under the law. If the LRA accepts the offer, the 
Secretary is required to transfer the property to the LRA free of cost.
  Incredibly, the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act now provides 
for the first time in any base-closing round the Secretary shall seek 
fair market value in the case of an economic development conveyance 
through which the Secretary transfers product to affected communities 
for economic development purposes. In short, the law now

[[Page 24982]]

says the first order of business is for the Department of Defense to 
receive fair market value, no matter the cost in economic development, 
no matter the cost to the communities themselves.
  What kind of a perverse situation do we have, when the taxpayers and 
communities are facing closures or realignments and they are now 
confronted with a triple burden? They have already contributed mightily 
toward the cost of Iraq--more than $200 billion, $28.5 billion of which 
was spent on redevelopment efforts in that country. Now their 
facilities are being realigned or closed and now the statute is 
requiring of them, if you want this property for economic recovery, for 
economic development--because now they are reeling from the impact of a 
base closure--you will be required as a community or communities to buy 
it back from the Department of Defense at fair market value. That 
obviously is going to cost millions upon millions of dollars to these 
communities that are already reeling from the economic impact as a 
result of base closure.
  It is no wonder communities are going to feel slighted and, indeed, 
abandoned by those they have supported for so long. Is this the message 
we want to send, that we are going to make the recovery process Defense 
Department centered and not community centered?
  As I said earlier, I have been a veteran of five previous base-
closing rounds when they first started in 1988. I have been through 
every one of those rounds. It has always been, What can we do to 
mitigate the economic impact on the communities directly affected by 
base closures? But now, regrettably, we are seeing a reversal in that 
approach under the current statute. Now we are saying the U.S. Defense 
Department is better equipped to move the development decisions in the 
Department as opposed to concentrating and allowing the communities to 
make those decisions.
  Are we to believe the Department of Defense is better equipped to 
make decisions as to which property transfers will be most beneficial 
to a community's economic development, that the Department of Defense 
has a greater understanding of the individual challenges confronted by 
our towns and communities in the aftermath of base closures than the 
towns and communities themselves?
  I suggest such a notion is on its face absurd. Indeed, it is so 
preposterous I can hardly believe we are standing here today to offer 
this amendment, that we are in a situation that we have to offer this 
amendment. Why would we continue to require the economic future of our 
BRAC-affected communities to be determined by the highest bidder the 
Defense Department can identify?
  So it is going to be the Defense Department that is going to be 
driving the sale, the transfer, and the future economic plans of a 
particular community and not the communities themselves. It contradicts 
the purpose of what we need to do as a result of the base closures. In 
fact, in the aftermath of decisions that were made by the Base 
Realignment and Closure Commission, I had the opportunity to speak with 
one of the commissioners, who said one of the purposes in making this 
decision--regrettably, on Brunswick--was the fact that we wanted to put 
the communities in the driver's seat. We wanted the communities to be 
able to dictate their own future economic destiny, not the Department 
of Defense, because the original decision was a proposal for 
realignment, and they recognized they could close the facility, the 
Navy could take the personnel and transfer the squadrons to Florida and 
keep the facility and hold the communities hostage to an idle facility 
that would not generate jobs. So they decided to allow the communities 
to make those decisions.
  They made the decision, regrettably, to close the facility, but 
because they wanted the community to be able to take charge of its own 
future economic destiny and be able to dictate what the use of that 
abandoned base would be. So it makes no sense now to discover that we 
have in statute where it says the Department of Defense is going to 
require, is going to insist on fair market value for transferring these 
properties to the community. Ultimately, obviously, the Defense 
Department is going to be looking for the highest bidder. Ultimately 
the Defense Department could potentially dictate the use of those 
facilities, even if it contravenes the interest, the position, and the 
decisions by the local communities in terms of how they want to use 
that facility.
  What happens if the Federal Government's idea of opportunity is a 
Federal prison or an oil refinery that a community strongly opposes? 
Legislation has already been introduced in the House which, if enacted, 
could impose oil refineries on these communities. In fact, it has been 
part of their Energy bill in the House of Representatives.
  Ultimately, under current statutes, these decisions would rest not 
with the State, not with the town, or the city, but with the Department 
of Defense. Rather, we ought to look at the model established in the 
State of Maine by the success achieved after I secured a free transfer 
of land of the former Loring Air Force Base in Limestone, ME, that was 
closed in the 1991 round and subsequently closed its doors in 1994 as a 
result of that 1991 round.
  At the height of its activity, the Loring Air Force Base augmented 
the native population of Aroostook County by 10,000 individuals. Today 
the community is only now beginning to see progress in recovering from 
its prior base closing loss, replacing 1,100 lost civilian jobs with 
1,400 new civilian jobs. I could not imagine where we would be today if 
not for the free land transfer. Can you imagine if they cannot have the 
ability to make decisions about their future without being handicapped 
about paying fair market value for this property? It would have 
handicapped them from making the kind of decisions to allow them to 
move forward, if they were first required to pay for this property to 
the Department of Defense.
  It was bad enough they lost the base. It was bad enough they lost 
10,000 people who were located on that base.
  I might add 10,000 is larger than many of the communities in the 
State of Maine.
  Thousands of jobs depended on that base.
  And we now say to the community, Well, sorry. You are now going to 
have to pay fair market value to get it back. With the current base-
closing round, America faces 22 major base closures and 33 alignments. 
Outside Maine, leaders and residents in States such as California, 
Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Texas, Utah, Oregon, 
New Jersey, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Alaska, Wisconsin, and New Mexico 
will face considerable challenges as they attempt to successfully 
transition local economies following base closures and realignments.
  In fact, according to the data contained in the 2005 base-closing 
round, almost 33,000 civilian jobs will be lost in base closures and 
realignments.
  The Naval air station had a $211 million direct impact on the local 
economy in 2004. But now the communities surrounding the air station 
are expected to directly lose 3,275 military and civilian jobs, as well 
as indirectly losing another 2,590 jobs, for a total of 5,865 jobs, or 
15 percent of this labor market. While there are only 32,000 people who 
live in Brunswick and the neighboring town of Topsham combined, such a 
significant loss will cause a catastrophic unemployment increase in the 
area to an incredible 15 percent.
  These communities need tools, not obstacles.
  For those of you who are confronting the base-closure process for the 
first time, I can assure you that this will undoubtedly have a 
substantial and detrimental impact on these communities.
  In the final analysis, the base-closing act, as it stands today, 
places a very difficult burden on the community because it places an 
inappropriately high priority on the Secretary of Defense to obtain 
fair market value at the expense of the best interests of the 
community's economic recovery.
  I know you will hear opponents in the Department of Defense make its 
arguments. They will say, Well, suppose the community doesn't want to 
accept the property for any reason. Of course,

[[Page 24983]]

our amendment says if the community doesn't want it, and it would be 
mutually beneficial to the community and the Department of Defense to 
have the property transferred through another channel, the community 
need only to refuse the offer process.
  Similarly, the amendment would not require that the community request 
or accept all the property at an installation in order to receive any 
portion of that property.
  The Department of Defense will also say we need the funds we would 
recoup from selling property at fair market value to contribute to the 
account used for closing or realigning military installations or 
environmental restoration and mitigation.
  The Department of Defense may also claim that it requires the 
proceeds for the sale of closed base property in order to pay for that 
property's cleanup and redevelopment. However, history tells us that 
this is absolutely not the case. In fact, according to the January 2004 
GAO report, over the previous four base-closing rounds, proceeds from 
land transfers account for only 2.6 percent of the Department of 
Defense budget for cleanup, redevelopment, closure, and realignment 
costs.
  Selling off closed base property is clearly not necessary to these 
efforts and are certainly unwarranted when one considers the harm that 
it can cause to these communities that it purports to help.
  Finally, it is critical to know that this amendment also incorporates 
the safeguards currently applicable to these economic conveyances to 
ensure the integrity of these types of transfers.
  For instance, a property conveyance can only be provided to an LRA 
for economic development or job generation. Moreover, once the property 
is transferred to an LRA, the proceeds from the sale or lease of the 
property within the next 7 years must be spent in support of economic 
redevelopment of the installation.
  That is an important point because that would mean that it could 
reduce the Federal expenditures and environmental mitigation or other 
expenditures that are required and are associated with the closure of 
military installations.
  In addition, this amendment retains safeguard provisions currently 
contained in the BRAC Act to ensure the integrity of a transfer to a 
community.
  For instance, it retains the provisions covered under the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response and Liability Act of 1980 to 
ensure that the property will be environmentally restored.
  The amendment also includes an exception that protects the ability of 
the Secretary of Defense to make transfers necessary for our national 
security.
  I hope that we can work with my colleagues in addressing these issues 
with this amendment. I certainly will invite the chairman of the 
committee and members of the committee to critically think about the 
impact of the current statute on those communities that will be 
directly affected by base closures.
  Are we intending the Department of Defense to be the economic 
developer for these communities, for my communities in Maine, for 
Brunswick and Topsham that will not be able to plan for their economic 
futures and their economic well-being? They want to be able to dictate 
those choices. Are we now saying we are going to hamstring them where 
we say it will require fair market value for the property of the closed 
installation? Ultimately, they are going to be at the mercy of the 
Defense Department.
  The Defense Department is going to say we are going to sell it to the 
highest bidder, and it is one of several options under the statute. The 
Department of Defense could sell it at auction to the highest bidder. 
It could sell to a private entity, to an LRA. It could do a number of 
various things under the statute.
  In the final analysis, they could override the interests of the 
community, not to mention the fact that it will require the community 
to pay fair market value.
  This is the first time for this to occur under the base-closing 
statute. This is the fifth round. In the four previous rounds, this was 
not the case.
  I hope that we will reverse this course because it will have an 
enormous impact on my communities in Maine and the 22 other States 
across this country that will be in similar positions.
  I hope we can work through these issues.
  I implore my colleagues to support this amendment on behalf of the 
base-closing communities, those directly impacted by the devastating 
loss of a military installation that will cost hundreds of millions of 
dollars, the thousands of jobs in my communities in the State of Maine 
and communities and taxpayers across this country who continue to spend 
hundreds of billions, $30 billion of which we are spending on the 
reconstruction of Iraq.
  We have even closed bases in order to finance not only the war but 
the expenditures within the Pentagon. And now we are saying to 
communities, You are going to pay a price for a third time. We are 
going to make you pay for those closed installations if you want to 
develop them. You are going to have to pay fair market value.
  I submit that is unacceptable, it is unreasonable, and it is not fair 
to the communities that are directly on the line.
  To dispel any misconceptions, let me clarify the goals of the 
amendment and what it would and would not do.
  If there is property that a community does not want, or it would be 
mutually beneficial to the community and the DoD to have the property 
transfer through other channels, the community need only refuse the 
offer of property. Similarly, the amendment would not require that the 
community request or accept all of the property at an installation in 
order to receive any portion of that property.
  Moreover, it is critical to note that, while it is true that the 
revenue that the DoD receives from selling installation property goes 
into accounts that are used for such purposes as closing or realigning 
military installations, or environmental restoration and mitigation, 
this amendment would not significantly deplete those funds to the 
detriment of affected communities.
  The fact remains, the BRAC account has historically been funded 
primarily with congressional appropriations from the general treasury, 
rather than proceeds from property sales and leases. While the DoD may 
point to a few isolated examples where it recently obtained a large 
amount of money in return for a property transfer--for instance for 
transfers in places like Orange County, CA--those isolated examples are 
not indicative of what it can be expected to receive elsewhere in the 
Nation, where property values are considerably lower.
  According to the BRAC Report, there have been a total of 97 base and 
5 installation closures categorized by DoD as ``major'' as a result of 
the 1988 through 1995 processes. In addition, the DoD has stated that 
there were 55 ``major'' realignments and at least 235 smaller-sized 
closures and realignments as a result of past actions.
  Yet, a January 2005 Government Accountability Office report found 
that DoD's total land sales and related revenue was only about $595 
million for the prior four base rounds combined. The $595 million is 
minimal in comparison to the approximately $23 billion Congress 
appropriated to the BRAC accounts for the four prior BRAC rounds. In 
fact, the revenue from sales only represented about 2.6 percent of 
those accounts.
  Furthermore, that $595 million figure is dwarfed by the amount that 
the DoD has saved as a result of BRAC closures--about $28.9 billion in 
net savings through fiscal year 2003 from the prior four closure 
rounds, according to GAO, and a projected $7 billion annually 
thereafter. And these are net savings, that already take into account 
BRAC implementation cost! Unlike these BRAC savings, which accrue to 
taxpayers across the Nation, the negative impacts of base closures are 
disproportionately and unfairly borne by the communities where bases 
have closed.
  This amendment also incorporates the safeguards currently applicable 
to EDCs to ensure the integrity of these types of transfers. For 
instance, the property conveyances could only be

[[Page 24984]]

provided to an LRA for economic redevelopment or job generation. 
Moreover, once the property is transferred to an LRA, the proceeds from 
a sale or lease of the property, within the next 7 years, must be spent 
in support of economic redevelopment for the installation.
  I have not been informed of any abuses that these safeguards would 
not address, and from what I understand, the DoD tracks and audits such 
transactions to ensure compliance. If further oversight is necessary, I 
would not oppose it.
  Some would contend that local towns and communities would not be best 
served by their own, unsupervised redevelopment efforts. In response, I 
ask, are we saying that the United States Department of Defense is 
better equipped to make decisions as to which property transfers will 
be most beneficial to an individual community's economic development? 
That the DoD has a greater understanding of the individual challenges 
faced by our towns and cities in the aftermath of base closures than 
the towns and cities themselves?
  I would suggest that such a notion is, on its face, absurd. So why 
would we continue to require the economic future of our BRAC-affected 
communities to be determined by the highest bidder the Department of 
Defense can identify?
  Rather, we should look to the model established in my own State, by 
the success achieved at the site of the former Loring Air Force Base in 
Limestone, ME, closed in 1994 as a result of a BRAC round. At the 
height of its activity, the Loring Air Force Base augmented the native 
population of Aroostook County by 10,000 individuals. That is why I 
worked tirelessly to ensure that the base was transferred to the 
community's redevelopment authority for free.
  And I can tell you firsthand that the redevelopment of Loring--
replacing the 1,100 lost civilian jobs with 1,400 new civilian jobs--
would not have been as successful, if the community had not been placed 
in charge of its own redevelopment and had not received the majority of 
the installation property for free as an indispensable redevelopment 
tool.
  I am open to continuing to work with my colleagues on any reasonable 
concerns about this amendment, but would emphasize the importance of 
passing it now. Should additional reasonable changes be necessary, we 
can always address those issues through future legislation--but we 
should not lose this opportunity to enact meaningful and necessary 
change.
  I implore my colleagues to support this amendment on behalf of the 
BRAC affected communities across our Nation, who continue to contribute 
to the Iraqi war and reconstruction efforts, while simultaneously 
struggling to convince our Government to support their economic 
recovery, right here at home.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first, I wish to recognize our 
distinguished colleague from Maine, former member of the Armed Services 
Committee. We deeply regret that the Senator moved on, but she is now 
on the Tax Committee. As someone said, that is where the money is.
  It is with great reluctance that I say to my good friend that we will 
have to very strongly oppose this. She makes an equitable argument, 
persuasive argument. But we have to take a look at the broad picture.
  This is the fifth BRAC round. When the original legislation was 
written, there was quite an analysis put into that bill as to what 
happens to the properties if the BRAC Commission declares it to be 
closed. That framework of laws has guided four previous BRAC 
Commissions.
  Let us step back and think. While this particular base, Brunswick--
and I know it well, having been Secretary of the Navy--served the 
Nation magnificently, I was somewhat surprised to see it was closed, 
but the decision was made. And believe me, BRAC also hit my State 
severely. The decision was made to close it. That is over. We can't 
repeal that. But this base property does not just belong to the 
citizens of Maine but all Americans. It is Federal property. As such, 
it is owned by all Americans. All Americans, through their tax 
collections, provided the funds to improve this base over the years and 
to maintain the base.
  We have to be careful as the BRAC Commission lays down a matrix of 
closure adjustments all over America. In some instances, some 
communities would benefit enormously. Mind you, this bill governs BRAC 
decisions, wherever it was in the United States of America on BRAC 
round 5, the one currently being administered.
  When Congress enacted the first BRAC law, they very carefully 
assessed that there would be so many different locations, different 
circumstances that we had to put down a series of steps that the BRAC 
Commission and subsequently those that are entrusted with the closing--
namely, the DOD--must follow by law.
  For example, when a facility such as this is closed, the first thing 
to determine is, is there another military operation that could utilize 
this base? This was primarily a Naval base. It could well be needed by 
the Army or other departments of the military. That is the first thing. 
Are there other DOD missions? Second, other Federal agencies are 
constantly relocating and reestablishing areas. The Federal Government 
is disbursing a lot of it out of Washington. Could not this property, 
owned by all citizens of America, be utilized by another Federal 
agency?
  It is rather interesting. Through the years, there has crept in a 
doctrine that the next priority should be, for example, maybe the 
Indian tribes. Oftentimes, there are agreements that go back years and 
years regarding Federal property that was once occupied by the Indians. 
Sometimes it might revert to the Indians. Maybe the Senator would seek 
to advise the Senate. I understand that the Senator recently amended 
the amendment to protect the interests of the Indians. But the Indians 
are only one small segment. A number of base installations, through the 
16 years of BRAC, have been provided as shelters for the homeless.
  Then we move down to the public benefit conveyances. Sometimes it was 
determined that these Federal facilities should be transferred to local 
transportation or to airport authorities or veterans centers.
  In other words, there is another whole category of not quasi-Federal 
but certainly uses paralleling what the Federal Government provides 
people--that whole category.
  Then they have economic redevelopment conveyances; again, as the 
Senator said, either at fair market value or DOD can determine certain 
circumstances so they could follow the very narrow provisions of the 
Senator's bill, turn it over to the local LRA. That is established 
maybe at no cost.
  It is important that we don't take a carefully crafted, a carefully 
time-tested framework of laws regarding how the properties are to be 
used following a closure and suddenly wipe it off the books.
  There are a number of old deeds. For example, one installation I 
have--Fort Monroe, which has been in business for a very long time--
under the deed, if BRAC were to close it--and indeed this time BRAC did 
close it--then it reverts to certain community interests.
  This amendment, as I read it, would wipe out that deed.
  I am not speaking from a selfish point of view. I am simply saying 
that there are other Senators who should very quickly, if they are 
inclined to support Senator Snowe's amendment, check with your local 
State to make sure that if you are affected by this round, the fifth 
round of BRAC, there may be some old deeds, conveyances, and 
agreements, with a facility having been closed in your State, as to how 
that facility then reverts to other interests.
  This is not a very simple thing. You pull at the heartstrings when 
you talk about, yes, Maine can use it. I don't doubt that Maine can use 
it. It is a first-class facility. But it belongs to the taxpayers. They 
have paid for the construction of it. They have paid for years and 
years of maintenance.
  I suggest the framework of laws which has been in existence these 16

[[Page 24985]]

years remain intact and this closure be conducted in a manner 
consistent with the closures that have taken place in the several 
States represented in this Senate over a period of some 16 years.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I, too, must reluctantly oppose this amendment. I have 
come through significant base closings in my State and am going through 
them right now. I know exactly what the Senator from Maine is referring 
to.
  There are many occasions when land needs to be granted to a local 
economic redevelopment authority at no cost. There are many cases like 
that, but there are other uses that have to come first that she would 
not allow for, including such things as parks or schools, conveyances 
for those public purposes which it seems to me must come first if we 
are using Federal property and deciding what to do with Federal 
property. In terms of the priority list, it seems to me public purposes 
such as parks and schools should have priority over the economic 
redevelopment, as desirable as that can be.
  But there is another problem with that amendment, and that is it does 
not provide discretion. It makes it mandatory that the land always go 
free to a local reuse even though that land may have tremendous value 
and the proceeds we have been able to obtain, which are not great, 
nonetheless have been there to help us clean up property which we want 
to turn over to local governments. We have huge cleanup costs. We have 
been able to obtain money for the resale of land. That money has gone 
into the cleanup of these bases before they are turned back to the 
local authority.
  I have nothing but understanding for the Senator from Maine in the 
situation she and her State face. We have a number of facilities which 
have been realigned in my home State which have value. In one case, we 
have a property where a buyer is willing to purchase it if we could get 
the military to negotiate with that purchaser. That would be money 
which would come to the Federal Treasury. The buyer is willing to pay 
to the Federal Treasury. Instead, the Air Force prefers to auction the 
property. The question is whether, under all the circumstances that 
exist, it is fairer to auction that property or to negotiate with a 
private buyer with whom the Government had long been negotiating.
  Without getting into that issue as to which is fairer--an auction or 
a negotiated sale--neither one of them would be permitted under the 
amendment of the Senator from Maine. It would have to go for nothing to 
somebody even though you have a buyer out there who wants to pay for 
it. We should not take such an absolute position on the disposition of 
these properties. There will be occasions--and I happen to agree with 
the Senator from Maine--where property should be turned over to a local 
development or redevelopment authority for free. That is true. But 
there are also occasions where the property has tremendous value, where 
the Government, as our dear friend from Virginia has said, has invested 
an awful lot of money in this base and where it has great value and 
where those dollars are needed in the Treasury, in part to pay for the 
cleanup of property before it is turned over for any other use. I don't 
see why we would want to write an absolute rule into the law which says 
that the property must be given away to a local reuse authority rather 
than there should be an effort made to obtain fair compensation for it. 
It does not say that there always must be compensation; it says that 
there will be an effort to seek fair compensation. There are certain 
ways of building discretion and flexibility into that.
  We have another situation where we have a significant piece of 
property that will be available as a result of this last round of base 
closures. This property has immense value. I don't know that we can 
come close to equating it to the Presidio in San Francisco, but it has, 
nonetheless, immense value. The question is, What will the military do 
with this property? It is my belief that the military should keep it 
because part of the base that was kept open and not realigned needs the 
property for its own use. But the military may decide it does not need 
that property. It may decide that property is expendable and can be 
surplused. Then what?
  Under the Senator's amendment, extraordinarily valuable property 
which any developer would like to get their hands on and pay for it and 
pay the National Treasury money for must go for nothing to a local 
redevelopment authority. We cannot get any financial benefit from that 
land no matter how valuable if it goes to a local redevelopment 
authority.
  That is too rigid. That is too inflexible and deprives the Federal 
Treasury of desperately needed money, including money for cleanup. We 
have a huge cleanup bill for these properties. We cannot simply give 
away the opportunity to recoup some funds for the Federal Treasury from 
highly valuable land.
  I have lost a lot of bases in my home State. All three of our 
Strategic Air Command bases have been closed. We have lost other 
facilities, as well. I know firsthand what a complicated process this 
is. I do know, as the Senator from Maine says, there are occasions when 
property under all the circumstances should go to a local redevelopment 
agency without reimbursement to the Government, but there are other 
occasions when land is extraordinarily valuable and when people are 
willing to pay for that land where, if it is not going to go for a 
public use and it will be put up for private redevelopment, there 
should be some recouping to the National Treasury.
  I am afraid this is too rigid, and I cannot support it.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator talks about cleanup, but over 
the years $1.4 billion has been recouped by the Department of Defense. 
That money simply goes to the Treasury to an account earmarked for 
precisely what the Senator from Michigan said, for cleanup and other 
expenses.
  Again, the Federal taxpayers who once owned the land now do not have 
to add additional burdens out of their pockets for cleanup as a 
consequence of this existing framework of laws that has been there for 
16 years that enable some properties to bring about money for the 
Federal Government, but it goes precisely into that account for the 
cleanup, to save Federal taxpayers the added burden of cleanup 
expenses. The Senator made a key point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has 11\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. SNOWE. I respond to several of the issues raised by the chairman 
and ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services. It is important. 
We have to establish the fact that this is the first time we are 
applying the statute in this fashion. It is the first time this 
statutory language is applying to a base-closing round that allows the 
Department of Defense to establish and impose fair market value for the 
use of this property as opposed to transferring it for free to a local 
redevelopment authority. This is not some special interest authority. 
These are local communities, State officials who have a genuine 
interest in the future of their communities, whereas the Department of 
Defense is interested in a one-time sale.
  I hope we would respect the interests of the community that is 
directly affected. After all, they are the ones who are 
disproportionately bearing the burden of the base closure. Why isn't it 
that they wouldn't have a direct interest in shaping it?
  This is the first time this statute is going to apply to a base-
closing round. Is it fair, at a time we are asking our citizens, our 
constituents, to pay $200 billion for the reconstruction of Iraq, 
losing your bases, and then we are saying, If you want them back and 
you want that property, you pay for it?
  We have had four previous base-closing rounds. We had 97 major base 
closures. Then we had 235 smaller sized closures and 55 major 
realignments. And we never asked for fair market value. We have never 
said the Department of Defense was in the business of

[[Page 24986]]

economic development. We said they were in the business of national 
security and running the defense of our country and wars, not being 
real estate developers. Do they have an interest of where the future is 
going to go in Brunswick and Topsham, ME? I say not.
  At Loring Air Force Base, it worked out very well. They had a 
compatible relationship with the Defense Department. We have a defense 
agency there which is great. We have Job Corps there. We have private 
sector entities. We didn't disregard public benefits or the public 
agencies. In fact, the DOD, under this statute, does not have to 
consider, does not have to transfer to any public agency, could 
consider transferring some of this property to another public agency 
but does not have to. It is no different from the LRA. This is wrong. 
This is contravening the intent.
  The chairman raises the question about deeds. Reversion will stand as 
it is. It will not revert back to the owner, as the Congressional 
Research Service said, to the original owner. This language will not do 
anything to reverse that in any way. I make that clear.
  We are moving in an entirely different track. All of America will 
benefit from the savings, but not all of America is going to bear the 
disproportionate burden of the base closure. For the Department of 
Defense now to say we are going to take charge and hold these 
communities, such as Brunswick and Topsham, hostage to the decisions 
that are made by the Department of Defense and how they will use that 
property, frankly, I find it rather surprising, dismaying, and 
disappointing we are at this point, and I have been through all five 
base-closing rounds. I have been through it all.
  We talk about environmental cleanup. Supposedly, according to the 
Department of Defense, they have a net savings of $28 billion. They 
should have been able to clean up all of the bases by now.
  Under my legislation, what it would allow is that the LRAs for the 
next several years, for any money they made, would go back to the 
installation for job generation and for helping to clean up so it can 
mitigate the Federal costs for environmental litigation, which, by the 
way, the Department of Defense is not doing a very good job of in other 
installations. That is a serious concern. They have diverted those 
proceeds for purposes other than those for which they were intended.
  That is the issue. They have had a net savings, according to their 
numbers, of $28 billion, but they have not used it for what it was 
intended, which was to clean up other facilities from the four base-
closing rounds. They have not done it, so the local communities would 
be in control, be able to help dictate their futures, so we do not have 
the Department of Defense saying: Well, you better take this or else--
or else you get nothing.
  I do not think that is fair. I do not think that is fair to 
communities that have embraced the military for generations. At a time 
in which we are exacting a great cost from our constituents and 
taxpayers, with more than $200 billion in Iraq--supplemental upon 
supplemental, reconstruction, schools, security, sewage systems, 
power--we are saying now to communities that have just lost their 
bases:
  Oh, by the way, you are going to have to pay hundreds of millions of 
dollars if you want it back and if you want to generate jobs.
  Now, tell that to my communities, which are going to lose more than 
5,000 jobs, that if they want to create jobs, they are going to have to 
pay hundreds of millions of dollars before they can start that process. 
If they don't, the Department of Defense is going to tell them how 
their future is going to go. They will tell them whether they want an 
oil refinery because they are not going to have any choice. I cannot 
imagine that is the direction we want to take with this statute.
  It has worked very well in the past. As I have said, for hundreds and 
hundreds of base closures, it has worked well. It worked very well for 
the former Loring Air Force Base. There has been a very compatible 
relationship up there that has been a success, but that is because I 
was able to secure a free transfer for facilities like Loring back in 
1991 so they could start with the tools they needed to help shape their 
future. It has worked. Allow that process to work. It has been 
demonstrated it can work. But let's not create another obstacle by now 
having the Department of Defense in the business of developing real 
estate. I think it is a very unfortunate direction.
  I hope my colleagues will support this amendment, support what is 
right for the communities that are going to bear a tremendous burden, 
and allow this process to work. It is in the best interests of the 
communities and in the best interests of this country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in support today of this amendment 
 offered by my colleague from Maine and myself to the fiscal year 2006 
Defense/Authorization Bill.
  Our amendment focuses on one goal, to provide the communities that 
are losing bases through the BRAC another opportunity to control their 
future redevelopment, recovery, and economic well-being.
  The ``no-cost conveyance'' amendment that we have proposed would 
modify the BRAC Act to give the affected communities the ``right of 
first refusal'' with respect to the transfer of property on the base. 
Specifically, it would require that when making determinations 
concerning the transfer of property at a base, the Secretary of Defense 
must first offer that property to the community through its 
redevelopment authority. If the redevelopment authority accepts, the 
Secretary is required to transfer the property to the community at no 
cost.
  This legislation provides for an important exception in the case of 
national security, in order to allow the Secretary to transfer the 
property to a military service or other entity within the Department of 
Defense, the Coast Guard, or the Department of Homeland Security, if 
such action is necessary in the national security interest of the 
United States.
  I support this amendment because I know personally what the true 
impact of a devastating base closure can cause to a close-knit 
community. I grew up just 10 miles from the now-closed Loring Air Force 
Base. After the base shut its doors in 1994, tens of thousands of 
people left northern Maine and moved away because of the limited 
opportunities available to them once the Air Force left town.
  Given the rural area of the former Air Force base, the fact that the 
base was eventually transferred to the community at no cost was 
critically important to spurring economic growth in an area that had 
just been devastated by the loss of thousands of jobs overnight.
  The collateral damage of the base's closure went far beyond active 
duty military personnel and their families. It also affected many small 
business owners who were forced to close their businesses and leave the 
area permanently. When a base closes, the need to attract new economic 
development is even more difficult and compounded by the fact that 
supporting professionals have already left the area. The resulting job 
losses and their impact on the local economy further highlight the need 
for providing the option of no-cost conveyance at a time when many 
areas can ill-afford to spend millions of dollars to purchase vacant 
buildings.
  Much like a decade ago, the Midcoast region of Maine is now suffering 
the same devastating fate through the closure of the last active duty 
airfield north of New Jersey, the Brunswick Naval Air Station. Not only 
will this region lose 2,667 active duty personnel, 5,704 Navy family 
members, 715 civilian jobs, and an additional 1,300 drilling reservists 
who contribute to the local economy each month, but also the community 
will have to pay the Department of Defense fair market value for the 
base's property.
  Communities affected by a large base closure are already reeling from 
the economic loss of the military as its neighbor, and to add the 
hardship of forcing the same community to pay the Department for 
vacating the area is essentially a ``double closure.'' 
  This amendment is not just to assist a base closing in my home State 
of

[[Page 24987]]

Maine, but it is to help all bases affected across the country. I urge 
all of my colleagues to support this amendment, and in doing so support 
the communities nationwide that are experiencing the far-reaching 
ramifications of closure or realignment due to the recent base closing 
round by the Department of Defense.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:30 
today, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Allard amendment 
No. 2423, with no amendments in order to that amendment prior to the 
vote. My understanding is this request has been cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the bill is open for further amendment, as 
Senator Levin and I are here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Michigan.


                           Amendment No. 2430

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, very briefly, on the question of the 
independent commission, my good friend from Virginia rattled off a 
bunch of statistics as to how many investigations have taken place, how 
many hearings have been held, how many witnesses have been interviewed, 
with something like 12 major investigations. We have had 40 closed 
hearings, I think he said, 30 open hearings, and 16,000 pages of 
documents have been obtained.
  As I thought was going to happen, those kinds of numbers were going 
to be utilized. The problem is, they are not particularly relevant to 
the point which this commission amendment seeks to address, which is 
there are huge gaps in these investigations. There could be 20 hearings 
or 50 hearings or 100 hearings, but these investigations have not 
gotten to 5 major points, such as, What is the role of the intelligence 
community?
  The people who have done the investigating have said they have not 
gotten to that point, they have not reached that issue. The CIA has not 
cooperated with them. So we have that huge gap in the investigations 
that have taken place so far. Are there secret prisons around the world 
being maintained? What about the ghost detainees? There is not a week 
that goes by that we are not reading about an issue that relates to the 
intelligence community, particularly the CIA's role in terms of 
interrogating detainees. Yet that is an almost complete blank slate.
  All of those investigations which have been made, which the Senator 
from Virginia referred to, have said: Well, we have not gotten into 
that issue. We were not allowed to get into that issue.
  Another major area is the U.S. Government policy on rendition. We 
have not had any investigation on that.
  Another major area is the role of contractors. We have not had any 
investigation on that.
  Another major area is the legality of the interrogation techniques, 
particularly the two major documents setting forth the techniques which 
were going to be used, the so-called second Bybee memo and the memo 
from Mr. Yoo to the Department of Defense general counsel, Mr. Haynes. 
We have not gotten there. So there has been no investigation of the 
legality of the interrogation techniques permitted by the Office of 
Legal Counsel's memos to which I have just referred. And there are a 
number of outstanding document requests which have been flatout denied 
relative to what happened at Guantanamo.
  Now, it does not make any difference how many hearings have been 
held--as long as you have those gaps which are greater than the amount 
covered, you have not had a thorough investigation, or anything close, 
of detainee abuses and these so-called secret prisons around the world 
which are allegedly maintained. That is the point. That is why you need 
an independent commission. You cannot sweep this under the rug. It is 
going to pop up again. There is going to be another captain who is 
going to show up--and my friend from Virginia met with this captain. 
This is a letter to Senator McCain from Captain Fishback, who is in a 
parachute infantry regiment in the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort 
Bragg, talking about the way intelligence personnel were used to give 
directions to soften up detainees. But we have had no investigation of 
intelligence.
  So you have an honorable member of the U.S. military, CPT Ian 
Fishback. I had a personal conversation with this captain where he 
described to me what I just said, that there were directions from the 
intelligence community to soften up detainees. He says:

       Instead of resolving my concerns, the approach for 
     clarification process leaves me deeply troubled.

  This is a letter to Senator McCain. I ask unanimous consent it be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Sept. 28, 2005]

                           A Matter of Honor

       Dear Senator McCain: I am a graduate of West Point 
     currently serving as a Captain in the U.S. Army Infantry. I 
     have served two combat tours with the 82nd Airborne Division, 
     one each in Afghanistan and Iraq. While I served in the 
     Global War on Terror, the actions and statements of my 
     leadership led me to believe that United States policy did 
     not require application of the Geneva Conventions in 
     Afghanistan or Iraq. On 7 May 2004, Secretary of Defense 
     Rumsfeld's testimony that the United States followed the 
     Geneva Conventions in Iraq and the ``spirit'' of the Geneva 
     Conventions in Afghanistan prompted me to begin an approach 
     for clarification. For 17 months, I tried to determine what 
     specific standards governed the treatment of detainees by 
     consulting my chain of command through battalion commander, 
     multiple JAG lawyers, multiple Democrat and Republican 
     Congressmen and their aides, the Ft. Bragg Inspector 
     General's office, multiple government reports, the Secretary 
     of the Army and multiple general officers, a professional 
     interrogator at Guantanamo Bay, the deputy head of the 
     department at West Point responsible for teaching Just War 
     Theory and Law of Land Warfare, and numerous peers who I 
     regard as honorable and intelligent men.
       Instead of resolving my concerns, the approach for 
     clarification process leaves me deeply troubled. Despite my 
     efforts, I have been unable to get clear, consistent answers 
     from my leadership about what constitutes lawful and humane 
     treatment of detainees. I am certain that this confusion 
     contributed to a wide range of abuses including death 
     threats, beatings, broken bones, murder, exposure to 
     elements, extreme forced physical exertion, hostage-taking, 
     stripping, sleep deprivation and degrading treatment. I and 
     troops under my command witnessed some of these abuses in 
     both Afghanistan and Iraq.
       This is a tragedy. I can remember, as a cadet at West 
     Point, resolving to ensure that my men would never commit a 
     dishonorable act; that I would protect them from that type of 
     burden. It absolutely breaks my heart that I have failed some 
     of them in this regard.
       That is in the past and there is nothing we can do about it 
     now. But, we can learn from our mistakes and ensure that this 
     does not happen again. Take a major step in that direction; 
     eliminate the confusion. My approach for clarification 
     provides clear evidence that confusion over standards was a 
     major contributor to the prisoner abuse. We owe our soldiers 
     better than this. Give them a clear standard that is in 
     accordance with the bedrock principles of our Nation.
       Some do not see the need for this work. Some argue that 
     since our actions are not as horrifying as Al Qaeda's, we 
     should not be concerned. When did Al Qaeda become any type of 
     standard by which we measure the morality of the United 
     States? We are America, and our actions should be held to a 
     higher standard, the ideals expressed in documents such as 
     the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
       Others argue that clear standards will limit the 
     President's ability to wage the War on Terror. Since clear 
     standards only limit interrogation techniques, it is 
     reasonable for me to assume that supporters of this argument 
     desire to use coercion to acquire information from detainees. 
     This is morally inconsistent with the Constitution and 
     justice in war. It is unacceptable.
       Both of these arguments stem from the larger question, the 
     most important question that this generation will answer. Do 
     we sacrifice our ideals in order to preserve security? 
     Terrorism inspires fear and suppresses ideals like freedom 
     and individual rights. Overcoming the fear posed by terrorist 
     threats is a tremendous test of our courage. Will we confront 
     danger and adversity in order to preserve our ideals, or will 
     our courage and commitment to individual rights wither at the 
     prospect of sacrifice? My response is simple. If we abandon 
     our ideals in the face of adversity and aggression, then 
     those ideals were never really in our possession. I would 
     rather die fighting than give up

[[Page 24988]]

     even the smallest part of the idea that is ``America.''
       Once again, I strongly urge you to do justice to your men 
     and women in uniform. Give them clear standards of conduct 
     that reflect the ideals they risk their lives for.
           With the Utmost Respect,
     Capt. Ian Fishback,
       1st Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82nd 
     Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC.

  Mr. LEVIN. He sets forth what has happened here in terms of abuses 
and how it hurts our military. It hurts him. It is not just hurting our 
honor, it makes their lives more dangerous in case they are ever 
captured. And he ends by saying:

       If we abandon our ideals in the face of adversity and 
     aggression, then those ideals were never really in our 
     possession. I would rather die fighting than give up even the 
     smallest part of the idea that is ``America.''

  Now, that is a member of the U.S. military.
  We cannot sweep this under the rug. The investigations so far have 
swept critical issues under the rug. They are going to surface sooner 
or later. Better to have an independent commission take a look at them, 
get it away from any partisanship, and have a commission the way the 9/
11 Commission was appointed, with five Democratic appointees, five 
Republican appointees, and have the President appoint the chairman of 
the commission.
  But we owe it to the Captain Fishbacks of this world. We owe it to 
all the men and women who serve so honorably, which is 99 percent, 
probably 99.9 percent, of our military. We owe it to them to protect 
them. One way to protect them is to make sure we have a thorough 
investigation, without these major gaps, as to what went wrong.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 Gaps in the DoD Detainee Abuse Reviews

       The carefully-carved out mandates of the nearly a dozen 
     reviews have left significant gaps and critical issues 
     unexamined.
       1. Role of CIA: Limited or no cooperation from CIA with 
     investigations.
       2. Rendition: No investigation into practice of rendering 
     prisoners to foreign countries for interrogation.
       3. Contractors: Insufficient information on role of 
     contractors in interrogations and detainee abuse.
       4. Special Operations Forces: Allegations of abuses by 
     Special Operations Forces remain unexamined.
       5. Legality of Interrogation Techniques: Investigations 
     have avoided looking at the legality of the interrogation 
     techniques that may have been authorized by DoD officials and 
     others.
       6. Key Documents Missing: Key policy and legal documents 
     from the Defense and Justice Departments not provided to 
     Congress.
                                  ____


                [From the Washington Post, Nov. 2, 2005]

              CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons

                            (By Dana Priest)

       The CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most 
     important al Qaeda captives at a Soviet-era compound in 
     Eastern Europe, according to U.S. and foreign officials 
     familiar with the arrangement.
       The secret facility is part of a covert prison system set 
     up by the CIA nearly four years ago that at various times has 
     included sites in eight countries, including Thailand, 
     Afghanistan and several democracies in Eastern Europe, as 
     well as a small center at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, 
     according to current and former intelligence officials and 
     diplomats from three continents.
       The hidden global internment network is a central element 
     in the CIA's unconventional war on terrorism. It depends on 
     the cooperation of foreign intelligence services, and on 
     keeping even basic information about the system secret from 
     the public, foreign officials and nearly all members of 
     Congress charged with overseeing the CIA's covert actions.
       The existence and locations of the facilities--referred to 
     as ``black sites'' in classified White House, CIA, Justice 
     Department and congressional documents--are known to only a 
     handful of officials in the United States and, usually, only 
     to the President and a few top intelligence officers in each 
     host country.
       The CIA and the White House, citing national security 
     concerns and the value of the program, have dissuaded 
     Congress from demanding that the agency answer questions in 
     open testimony about the conditions under which captives are 
     held. Virtually nothing is known about who is kept in the 
     facilities, what interrogation methods are employed with 
     them, or how decisions are made about whether they should be 
     detained or for how long.
       While the Defense Department has produced volumes of public 
     reports and testimony about its detention practices and rules 
     after the abuse scandals at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at 
     Guantanamo Bay, the CIA has not even acknowledged the 
     existence of its black sites. To do so, say officials 
     familiar with the program, could open the U.S. government to 
     legal challenges, particularly in foreign courts, and 
     increase the risk of political condemnation at home and 
     abroad.
       But the revelations of widespread prisoner abuse in 
     Afghanistan and Iraq by the U.S. military--which operates 
     under published rules and transparent oversight of Congress--
     have increased concern among lawmakers, foreign governments 
     and human rights groups about the opaque CIA system. Those 
     concerns escalated last month, when Vice President Cheney and 
     CIA Director Porter J. Goss asked Congress to exempt CIA 
     employees from legislation already endorsed by 90 Senators 
     that would bar cruel and degrading treatment of any prisoner 
     in U.S. custody.
       Although the CIA will not acknowledge details of its 
     system, intelligence officials defend the agency's approach, 
     arguing that the successful defense of the country requires 
     that the agency be empowered to hold and interrogate 
     suspected terrorists for as long as necessary and without 
     restrictions imposed by the U.S. legal system or even by the 
     military tribunals established for prisoners held at 
     Guantanamo Bay.
       The Washington Post is not publishing the names of the 
     Eastern European countries involved in the covert program, at 
     the request of senior U.S. officials. They argued that the 
     disclosure might disrupt counterterrorism efforts in those 
     countries and elsewhere and could make them targets of 
     possible terrorist retaliation.
       The secret detention system was conceived in the chaotic 
     and anxious first months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, 
     when the working assumption was that a second strike was 
     imminent.
       Since then, the arrangement has been increasingly debated 
     within the CIA, where considerable concern lingers about the 
     legality, morality and practicality of holding even 
     unrepentant terrorists in such isolation and secrecy, perhaps 
     for the duration of their lives. Mid-level and senior CIA 
     officers began arguing two years ago that the system was 
     unsustainable and diverted the agency from its unique 
     espionage mission.
       ``We never sat down, as far as I know, and came up with a 
     grand strategy,'' said one former senior intelligence officer 
     who is familiar with the program but not the location of the 
     prisons. ``Everything was very reactive. That's how you get 
     to a situation where you pick people up, send them into a 
     netherworld and don't say, `What are we going to do with them 
     afterwards?'''
       It is illegal for the government to hold prisoners in such 
     isolation in secret prisons in the United States, which is 
     why the CIA placed them overseas, according to several former 
     and current intelligence officials and other U.S. government 
     officials. Legal experts and intelligence officials said that 
     the CIA's internment practices also would be considered 
     illegal under the laws of several host countries, where 
     detainees have rights to have a lawyer or to mount a defense 
     against allegations of wrongdoing.
       Host countries have signed the U.N. Convention Against 
     Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or 
     Punishment, as has the United States. Yet CIA interrogators 
     in the overseas sites are permitted to use the CIA's approved 
     ``Enhanced Interrogation Techniques,'' some of which are 
     prohibited by the U.N. convention and by U.S. military law. 
     They include tactics such as ``waterboarding,'' in which a 
     prisoner is made to believe he or she is drowning.
       Some detainees apprehended by the CIA and transferred to 
     foreign intelligence agencies have alleged after their 
     release that they were tortured, although it is unclear 
     whether CIA personnel played a role in the alleged abuse. 
     Given the secrecy surrounding CIA detentions, such 
     accusations have heightened concerns among foreign 
     governments and human rights groups about CIA detention and 
     interrogation practices.
       The contours of the CIA's detention program have emerged in 
     bits and pieces over the past two years. Parliaments in 
     Canada, Italy, France, Sweden and the Netherlands have opened 
     inquiries into alleged CIA operations that secretly captured 
     their citizens or legal residents and transferred them to the 
     agency's prisons.
       More than 100 suspected terrorists have been sent by the 
     CIA into the covert system, according to current and former 
     U.S. intelligence officials and foreign sources. This figure, 
     a rough estimate based on information from sources who said 
     their knowledge of the numbers was incomplete, does not 
     include prisoners picked up in Iraq.
       The detainees break down roughly into two classes, the 
     sources said.
       About 30 are considered major terrorism suspects and have 
     been held under the highest level of secrecy at black sites 
     financed by the CIA and managed by agency personnel,

[[Page 24989]]

     including those in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, according to 
     current and former intelligence officers and two other U.S. 
     government officials. Two locations in this category--in 
     Thailand and on the grounds of the military prison at 
     Guantanamo Bay--were closed in 2003 and 2004, respectively.
       A second tier--which these sources believe includes more 
     than 70 detainees--is a group considered less important, with 
     less direct involvement in terrorism and having limited 
     intelligence value. These prisoners, some of whom were 
     originally taken to black sites, are delivered to 
     intelligence services in Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Afghanistan 
     and other countries, a process sometimes known as 
     ``rendition.'' While the first-tier black sites are run by 
     CIA officers, the jails in these countries are operated by 
     the host nations, with CIA financial assistance and, 
     sometimes, direction.
       Morocco, Egypt and Jordan have said that they do not 
     torture detainees, although years of State Department human 
     rights reports accuse all three of chronic prisoner abuse.
       The top 30 al Qaeda prisoners exist in complete isolation 
     from the outside world. Kept in dark, sometimes underground 
     cells, they have no recognized legal rights, and no one 
     outside the CIA is allowed to talk with or even see them, or 
     to otherwise verify their well-being, said current and former 
     and U.S. and foreign government and intelligence officials.
       Most of the facilities were built and are maintained with 
     congressionally appropriated funds, but the White House has 
     refused to allow the CIA to brief anyone except the House and 
     Senate intelligence committees' chairmen and vice chairmen on 
     the program's generalities.
       The Eastern European countries that the CIA has persuaded 
     to hide al Qaeda captives are democracies that have embraced 
     the rule of law and individual rights after decades of Soviet 
     domination. Each has been trying to cleanse its intelligence 
     services of operatives who have worked on behalf of others--
     mainly Russia and organized crime.


                       origins of the black sites

       The idea of holding terrorists outside the U.S. legal 
     system was not under consideration before Sept. 11, 2001, not 
     even for Osama bin Laden, according to former government 
     officials. The plan was to bring bin Laden and his top 
     associates into the U.S. justice system for trial or to send 
     them to foreign countries where they would be tried.
       ``The issue of detaining and interrogating people was 
     never, ever discussed,'' said a former senior intelligence 
     officer who worked in the CIA's Counterterrorist Center, or 
     CTC, during that period. ``It was against the culture and 
     they believed information was best gleaned by other means.''
       On the day of the attacks, the CIA already had a list of 
     what it called High-Value Targets from the al Qaeda 
     structure, and as the World Trade Center and Pentagon attack 
     plots were unraveled, more names were added to the list. The 
     question of what to do with these people surfaced quickly.
       The CTC's chief of operations argued for creating hit teams 
     of case officers and CIA paramilitaries that would covertly 
     infiltrate countries in the Middle East, Africa and even 
     Europe to assassinate people on the list, one by one.
       But many CIA officers believed that the al Qaeda leaders 
     would be worth keeping alive to interrogate about their 
     network and other plots. Some officers worried that the CIA 
     would not be very adept at assassination.
       ``We'd probably shoot ourselves,'' another former senior 
     CIA official said.
       The agency set up prisons under its covert action 
     authority. Under U.S. law, only the president can authorize a 
     covert action, by signing a document called a presidential 
     finding. Findings must not break U.S. law and are reviewed 
     and approved by CIA, Justice Department and White House legal 
     advisers.
       Six days after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush signed 
     a sweeping finding that gave the CIA broad authorization to 
     disrupt terrorist activity, including permission to kill, 
     capture and detain members of al Qaeda anywhere in the world.
       It could not be determined whether Bush approved a separate 
     finding for the black-sites program, but the consensus among 
     current and former intelligence and other government 
     officials interviewed for this article is that he did not 
     have to.
       Rather, they believe that the CIA general counsel's office 
     acted within the parameters of the Sept. 17 finding. The 
     black-site program was approved by a small circle of White 
     House and Justice Department lawyers and officials, according 
     to several former and current U.S. government and 
     intelligence officials.


                         Deals With 2 Countries

       Among the first steps was to figure out where the CIA could 
     secretly hold the captives. One early idea was to keep them 
     on ships in international waters, but that was discarded for 
     security and logistics reasons.
       CIA officers also searched for a setting like Alcatraz 
     Island. They considered the virtually unvisited islands in 
     Lake Kariba in Zambia, which were edged with craggy cliffs 
     and covered in woods. But poor sanitary conditions could 
     easily lead to fatal diseases, they decided, and besides, 
     they wondered, could the Zambians be trusted with such a 
     secret?
       Still without a long-term solution, the CIA began sending 
     suspects it captured in the first month or so after Sept. 11 
     to its longtime partners, the intelligence services of Egypt 
     and Jordan.
       A month later, the CIA found itself with hundreds of 
     prisoners who were captured on battlefields in Afghanistan. A 
     short-term solution was improvised. The agency shoved its 
     highest-value prisoners into metal shipping containers set up 
     on a corner of the Bagram Air Base, which was surrounded with 
     a triple perimeter of concertina-wire fencing. Most prisoners 
     were left in the hands of the Northern Alliance, U.S.-
     supported opposition forces who were fighting the Taliban.
       ``I remember asking: What are we going to do with these 
     people?'' said a senior CIA officer. ``I kept saying, where's 
     the help? We've got to bring in some help. We can't be 
     jailers--our job is to find Osama.''
       Then came grisly reports, in the winter of 2001, that 
     prisoners kept by allied Afghan generals in cargo containers 
     had died of asphyxiation. The CIA asked Congress for, and was 
     quickly granted, tens of millions of dollars to establish a 
     larger, long-term system in Afghanistan, parts of which would 
     be used for CIA prisoners.
       The largest CIA prison in Afghanistan was code-named the 
     Salt Pit. It was also the CIA's substation and was first 
     housed in an old brick factory outside Kabul. In November 
     2002, an inexperienced CIA case officer allegedly ordered 
     guards to strip naked an uncooperative young detainee, chain 
     him to the concrete floor and leave him there overnight 
     without blankets. He froze to death, according to four U.S. 
     government officials. The CIA officer has not been charged in 
     the death.
       The Salt Pit was protected by surveillance cameras and 
     tough Afghan guards, but the road leading to it was not safe 
     to travel and the jail was eventually moved inside Bagram Air 
     Base. It has since been relocated off the base.
       By mid-2002, the CIA had worked out secret black-site deals 
     with two countries, including Thailand and one Eastern 
     European nation, current and former officials said. An 
     estimated $100 million was tucked inside the classified annex 
     of the first supplemental Afghanistan appropriation.
       Then the CIA captured its first big detainee in March 28, 
     2002. Pakistani forces took Abu Zubaida, al Qaeda's 
     operations chief, into custody and the CIA whisked him to the 
     new black site in Thailand, which included underground 
     interrogation cells, said several former and current 
     intelligence officials. Six months later, Sept. 11 planner 
     Ramzi Binalshibh was also captured in Pakistan and flown to 
     Thailand.
       But after published reports revealed the existence of the 
     site in June 2003, Thai officials insisted the CIA shut it 
     down, and the two terrorists were moved elsewhere, according 
     to former government officials involved in the matter. Work 
     between the two countries on counterterrorism has been 
     lukewarm ever since.
       In late 2002 or early 2003, the CIA brokered deals with 
     other countries to establish black-site prisons. One of these 
     sites--which sources said they believed to be the CIA's 
     biggest facility now--became particularly important when the 
     agency realized it would have a growing number of prisoners 
     and a shrinking number of prisons.
       Thailand was closed, and sometime in 2004 the CIA decided 
     it had to give up its small site at Guantanamo Bay. The CIA 
     had planned to convert that into a state-of-the-art facility, 
     operated independently of the military. The CIA pulled out 
     when U.S. courts began to exercise greater control over the 
     military detainees, and agency officials feared judges would 
     soon extend the same type of supervision over their 
     detainees.
       In hindsight, say some former and current intelligence 
     officials, the CIA's problems were exacerbated by another 
     decision made within the Counterterrorist Center at Langley.
       The CIA program's original scope was to hide and 
     interrogate the two dozen or so al Qaeda leaders believed to 
     be directly responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks, or who 
     posed an imminent threat, or had knowledge of the larger al 
     Qaeda network. But as the volume of leads pouring into the 
     CTC from abroad increased, and the capacity of its 
     paramilitary group to seize suspects grew, the CIA began 
     apprehending more people whose intelligence value and links 
     to terrorism were less certain, according to four current and 
     former officials.
       The original standard for consigning suspects to the 
     invisible universe was lowered or ignored, they said. 
     ``They've got many, many more who don't reach any 
     threshold,'' one intelligence official said.
       Several former and current intelligence officials, as well 
     as several other U.S. government officials with knowledge of 
     the program, express frustration that the White House and the 
     leaders of the intelligence community have not made it a 
     priority to decide whether the secret interment program 
     should continue in its current form, or be replaced by some 
     other approach.
       Meanwhile, the debate over the wisdom of the program 
     continues among CIA officers,

[[Page 24990]]

     some of whom also argue that the secrecy surrounding the 
     program is not sustainable.
       ``It's just a horrible burden,'' said the intelligence 
     officials.
                                  ____


                                     ACCOUNTABILITY OF SENIOR-LEVEL OFFICERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Name                              Investigative findings                Accountability
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall......................................  Schlesinger Panel: ``[T]he abuses were  No action taken.
                                                not just the failure of some
                                                individuals to follow known
                                                standards, and they are more than the
                                                failure of a few leaders to enforce
                                                proper discipline. There is both
                                                institutional and personal
                                                responsibility at higher levels.''
Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez, Commander, CJTF-  Jones Report: Findings included:        Army Inspector General
 7.                                            CJTF-7 policies memos ``led indirectly   finds allegations of
                                                to some of the non-violent and non-     dereliction of duty
                                                sexual abuse.''                         improperly communicating
                                               Sanchez ``failed to ensure proper        interrogation policies
                                                staff oversight of detention            to be unsubstantiated.
                                                operations.''                           Rejects 15 findings from
                                               Schlesinger Panel Report: LTG Sanchez    the reports of Generals
                                                established ``confused command          Kern and Jones and the
                                                relationship'' at Abu Gharib.           Schlesinger Panel.
Maj. Gen. Walter Wojdakowski, Deputy           Jones Report: MG Wojdakowski ``failed   Army Inspector General
 Commander, CJTF-7.                             to ensure proper staff oversight of     finds allegation of
                                                detention and interrogation             dereliction of duty to
                                                operations.''                           be unsubstantiated.
                                               Schlesinger Panel Report: MG             Rejects 10 findings in
                                                Wojdakowski ``failed to initiate        reports of Generals Kern
                                                action to request additional military   and Jones and of the
                                                police for detention operations after   Schlesinger Panel.
                                                it became clear that there were
                                                insufficient assets in Iraq.''
Maj. Gen. Barbara Fast, C/J-2, Director for    Schlesinger Panel Report: MG Fast       Army IG finds allegation
 Intelligence, CJTF-7.                          ``failed to advise the commander        of dereliction of duty
                                                properly on directives and policies     to be unsubstantiated,
                                                needed for the operation of the         rejecting findings in
                                                [Joint Interrogation and Detention      reports of Generals Kern
                                                Center], for interrogation techniques   and Jones and of the
                                                and for appropriately monitoring the    Schlesinger Panel.
                                                activities of Other Government
                                                Agencies (OGAs)'' in Iraq.
Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, Commander, JTF-     Schmidt-Furlow Report: Found that:      General Craddock,
 GTMO.                                          ``the creative, aggressive, and         Commander, U.S. Southern
                                                persistent interrogation of [Detainee   Command disapproves the
                                                063] resulted in the cumulative         recommendation MG Miller
                                                effect being degrading and abusive      be held accountable,
                                                treatment.''                            saying the interrogation
                                               MG Miller ``failed to monitor the        ``did not result in any
                                                interrogation and exercise commander    violation of any U.S.
                                                discretion by placing limits on the     law or policy, and the
                                                application of otherwise authorized     degree of supervision
                                                techniques and approaches used in       provided by MG Miller
                                                that interrogation.''                   does not warrant
                                               Recommendation: MG Miller ``should be    admonishment under the
                                                held accountable for failing to         circumstances.'' General
                                                supervise the interrogation of ISN      Craddock forwards report
                                                063 and should be admonished for that   to Army IG for review
                                                failure.''                              and action as
                                                                                        appropriate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I believe the Senator 
from Iowa is ready, in case the Senator from Virginia is ready to have 
his amendment offered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first I want to clarify one thing. The 
distinguished Senator from Michigan, as the ranking member of our 
committee, participated in all of the hearings of the Armed Services 
Committee. There were many hearings on the issue of the detainees, Abu 
Ghraib. Then we went through the series of analyses by the Army 
inspector general. And on and on we went.
  I do hope when he made a reference to sweeping things under the rug--
I do not think our committee ever tried to sweep anything under the 
rug.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my good friend from Virginia. What our committee 
has done is held some hearings. They are important hearings. They are 
valuable hearings. They have not covered five critical areas. Those 
areas have to be brought to the surface. As to those areas, I am not 
saying the chairman or our committee has swept them under the rug. We 
have allowed those issues to be unaddressed.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, when you use the 
term ``we,'' let's be more specific. You mean the Congress in its 
various oversight capacities? Maybe the Intelligence Committee, which 
basically has primary jurisdiction over intelligence issues, like you 
point out the intelligence aspects of this? The Foreign Relations 
Committee has held hearings on this issue. Indeed, the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee has held some hearings. So I judge that the 
``we'' you refer to is the broad responsibilities of the several 
committees in the Congress?
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my good friend for that clarification. The ``we'' 
applies to the Congress. We, the Congress, have oversight 
responsibility. We have not carried it out. There are at least five 
major areas where we have failed to carry it out. We have to address 
those areas. We have been unable to do so. I see no evidence that we 
will. Therefore, the only way we can do this is with an outside, 
independent, 9/11-type panel.
  But I was not in any way suggesting that any one committee has been 
the source of this failure. It is all of the Congress together, which, 
obviously, is in the control of the Republican majority. That is a 
fact. But, nonetheless, we as a Congress have not carried out the 
oversight responsibility which our troops deserve.
  I hope I have assured my friend.
  Mr. WARNER. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to make certain.
  Mr. LEVIN. I did not mean in any way to impugn--
  Mr. WARNER. In our committee, you have sat side by side through 
almost every minute of the many hours of hearings we have had on this 
subject. While there may be areas which our committee may yet probe on 
this matter--as a matter of fact, I do not think the whole series of 
hearings we have had has come to a conclusion. We still have the issue 
of the overall accountability. So there may be some point in time--but 
I have always felt we should allow more of the court-martial and 
various Uniform Code of Military Justice prosecutions, which are 
underway, to be completed. I will be discussing that further with the 
Senator. But I just did not want it indicated that our committee had 
brushed anything under the table.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend again. I would say of all the committees 
I know of, our committee, the Armed Services Committee, have carried 
out their responsibilities better than other committees. I wish to give 
credit where credit is due--to our chairman. I do not know of any more 
honorable, decent, hard-working, fair person in this body or any body 
in which I have ever served.
  We have still, overall, as a Congress, failed in five major areas to 
look at the way in which detainees have been handled. That failure is 
going to come back to haunt our troops, and it is haunting our Nation 
right now. But I surely did not mean in any way to single out our 
committee as being the source of that failure. But we are part of a 
larger failure in terms of the whole Congress failing to carry out its 
oversight responsibility.
  Now, Mr. President, I wonder if my friend would accept a unanimous 
consent request that the time we have just taken on this subject be in 
morning business rather than deducted from the time on this amendment, 
given the interest in it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I see our distinguished colleague from 
Iowa has taken the floor on a matter relating to the bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 5 
minutes provided to Senator Salazar prior to the vote at 5:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa.


                           Amendment No. 2438

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be laid aside, and I call up

[[Page 24991]]

an amendment I have pending at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for himself and Mr. 
     Dorgan, proposes an amendment numbered 2438.

  Mr. HARKIN. 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: Relating to the American Forces Network)

       At the end of subtitle A of title IX, add the following:

     SEC. 903. AMERICAN FORCES NETWORK.

       (a) Mission.--The American Forces Network (AFN) shall 
     provide members of the Armed Forces, civilian employees of 
     the Department of Defense, and their families stationed 
     outside the continental United States and at sea with the 
     same type and quality of American radio and television news, 
     information, sports, and entertainment as is available in the 
     continental United States.
       (b) Political Programming.--
       (1) Fairness and balance.--All political programming of the 
     American Forces Network shall be characterized by its 
     fairness and balance.
       (2) Free flow of programming.--The American Forces Network 
     shall provide in its programming a free flow of political 
     programming from United States commercial and public radio 
     and television stations.
       (c) Ombudsman of the American Forces Network.--
       (1) Establishment.--There is hereby established the Office 
     of the Ombudsman of the American Forces Network.
       (2) Head of office.--
       (A) Ombudsman.--The head of the Office of the Ombudsman of 
     the American Forces Network shall be the Ombudsman of the 
     American Forces Network (in this subsection referred to as 
     the ``Ombudsman''), who shall be appointed by the Secretary 
     of Defense.
       (B) Qualifications.--Any individual nominated for 
     appointment to the position of Ombudsman shall have 
     recognized expertise in the field of mass communications, 
     print media, or broadcast media.
       (C) Part-time status.--The position of Ombudsman shall be a 
     part-time position.
       (D) Term.--The term of office of the Ombudsman shall be 
     five years.
       (E) Removal.--The Ombudsman may be removed from office by 
     the Secretary only for malfeasance.
       (3) Duties.--
       (A) In general.--The Ombudsman shall ensure that the 
     American Forces Network adheres to the standards and 
     practices of the Network in its programming.
       (B) Particular duties.--In carrying out the duties of the 
     Ombudsman under this paragraph, the Ombudsman shall--
       (i) initiate and conduct, with such frequency as the 
     Ombudsman considers appropriate, reviews of the integrity, 
     fairness, and balance of the programming of the American 
     Forces Network;
       (ii) initiate and conduct, upon the request of Congress or 
     members of the audience of the American Forces Network, 
     reviews of the programming of the Network;
       (iii) identify, pursuant to reviews under clause (i) or 
     (ii) or otherwise, circumstances in which the American Forces 
     Network has not adhered to the standards and practices of the 
     Network in its programming, including circumstances in which 
     the programming of the Network lacked integrity, fairness, or 
     balance; and
       (iv) make recommendations to the American Forces Network on 
     means of correcting the lack of adherence identified pursuant 
     to clause (iii).
       (C) Limitation.--In carrying out the duties of the 
     Ombudsman under this paragraph, the Ombudsman may not engage 
     in any pre-broadcast censorship or pre-broadcast review of 
     the programming of the American Forces Network.
       (4) Resources.--The Secretary of Defense shall provide the 
     Office of the Ombudsman of the American Forces Network such 
     personnel and other resources as the Secretary and the 
     Ombudsman jointly determine appropriate to permit the 
     Ombudsman to carry out the duties of the Ombudsman under 
     paragraph (3).
       (5) Independence.--The Secretary shall take appropriate 
     actions to ensure the complete independence of the Ombudsman 
     and the Office of the Ombudsman of the American Forces 
     Network within the Department of Defense.
       (6) Annual reports.--
       (A) In general.--The Ombudsman shall submit to the 
     Secretary of Defense and the congressional defense committees 
     each year a report on the activities of the Office of the 
     Ombudsman of the American Forces Network during the preceding 
     year.
       (B) Availability to public.--The Ombudsman shall make 
     available to the public each report submitted under 
     subparagraph (A) through the Internet website of the Office 
     of the Ombudsman of the American Forces Network and by such 
     other means as the Ombudsman considers appropriate.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to notify this Senator 
when I have spoken for 15 minutes.
  This amendment, offered by me, Senator Dorgan, and a number of 
others, addresses the problem of the extreme imbalance of political 
programming on American Forces Radio. As my colleagues know, for 
American servicemembers and their families stationed in more than 177 
countries and territories around the world, as well as for Department 
of Defense civilians and their families, American Forces Radio is 
intended to broadcast a ``touch of home'' programming that reflects a 
cross section of what is widely available to stateside audiences. 
Making U.S. entertainment and news programming available to American 
servicemembers wherever they are located is important for their morale 
and to keep them informed. But in order to accomplish this, American 
Forces Radio needs to provide a wide variety of programming and views. 
Unfortunately, in recent years, it has failed to do so, in violation of 
its own guidelines.
  The amendment Senator Dorgan and I are offering is designed to 
address this imbalance. The Department of Defense directive 5120.20R 
states that: American Forces Radio and Television Services Broadcast 
Center shall provide a free flow of political programming from U.S. 
commercial and public networks. It shall maintain the same equal 
opportunities balance offered by these sources. Outlets should make 
extensive use of such programming.
  That is what is in their directive. It also requires ``reasonable 
opportunities for the presentation of conflicting views on important 
controversial public issues.''
  That is what we would expect. We would expect that our Armed Forces 
personnel would have reasonable opportunities to hear the presentation 
of conflicting views on public issues. Yet in spite of these clear 
guidelines, the programming offered by American Forces Radio is 
anything but balanced. Instead, American Forces Radio carries the shows 
of noted conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Laura Schlesinger, 
and James Dobson, to the near total exclusion of any progressive talk 
radio hosts.
  On American Forces Radio's talk radio service, 85 percent of the 
short commentary or talk radio programming with political content is 
conservative--Mark Merrill, James Dobson, Dr. Laura, and Rush Limbaugh. 
Only 15 percent is progressive--Jim Hightower and Dave Ross. Here is 
what it comes down to in hours: More than 10 hours a week of 
conservative talk radio compared to less than 2 hours of progressive 
talk radio and commentary.
  Mind you, when I said ``offered,'' this is what is offered. The 33 
American Forces Radio outlets around the world are offered 85 percent, 
more than 10 hours of conservative talk radio, and 15 percent, less 
than 2 hours, of progressive talk radio. Now it gets worse. Again, what 
I mentioned is what is just offered to the American Forces stations. 
The programming that is actually used by local stations is even more 
unbalanced. Of the 33 local stations around the globe, 177 countries 
and territories that our Armed Forces personnel listen to, 100 percent 
of what they actually get the chance to listen to is conservative talk 
radio, 100 percent; zero percent of progressive talk radio. Less than 2 
hours of progressive talk radio is what is offered. What they actually 
get is nothing on the progressive side. But they get 100 percent of 
Rush Limbaugh, 2,460 minutes a week; Dr. Laura, 1,245 minutes a week; 
and James Dobson, 60 minutes a week.
  That is balanced? That is fair? That is not balanced. That is 
monopoly. This is propagandizing our troops.
  This is wrong. The amendment Senator Dorgan and I are offering, along 
with Senators Obama, Dodd, Mikulski, Lautenberg, Kennedy, and Dayton 
addresses this imbalance in two simple ways. First, it will codify the 
American Forces Network's obligation to provide political programming 
that is fair and balanced. What I read before was just a DOD directive. 
It has no force or effect of law. It says it should be balanced, should 
provide equal opportunities. We

[[Page 24992]]

need to make this law. That is what our amendment does. It codifies the 
directive.
  Secondly, it establishes an independent office of the ombudsman to 
address imbalances, to report annually on whether American Forces Radio 
is satisfying its mandate to provide fair and balanced political 
programming.
  What this amendment does not do is prescribe specific content or 
programming. That is not the role of the Senate. But I believe we do 
have an obligation as Senators to all of our constituents to make the 
network's talk radio programming representative of the diversity of 
opinion in America.
  While I generally do not agree with Rush Limbaugh's commentaries--I 
am sure that comes as no surprise to anyone--I do not object to the 
fact that they are run on the American Forces Network. I have never 
called for American Forces Radio to pull the commentaries of Rush 
Limbaugh or any other conservatives from its talk radio service.
  On last year's defense authorization bill, we offered an amendment 
that simply asked that DOD develop appropriate methods of oversight to 
ensure the network provided fair and balanced political programming. 
This year, since they haven't done it, we want to codify it. But last 
year when I pointed out the imbalance in programming--100 percent 
conservative talk radio, Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Laura Schlesinger, James 
Dobson; zero for progressives--Rush Limbaugh went ballistic on his 
radio show: Senator Harkin is now trying to take me off the air. He 
said I wanted to deny the troops the opportunity to hear him. He went 
on and on. I had other reporters and press people ask me about it.
  I said: Typical of Rush Limbaugh. He doesn't understand what is 
happening. He wouldn't know the truth if it hit him in the face. I 
said: All I'm asking for is balance on taxpayer-funded radio. What Rush 
Limbaugh wants is monopoly. To him, to have someone oppose him and get 
equal time might be the same as, in his mind, taking him off the air. 
That is probably the way he thinks.
  But I have never called for taking him off the air. I just think 
there ought to be some opposing views, representative of the diversity 
of opinion in America. I take issue with the fact that there is no 
commentary broadcast on this network that would even begin to balance 
the extreme views that Rush Limbaugh routinely expresses on his 
program. And where there is no alternative viewpoint, where there is no 
balance, what you are left with is one-sided propaganda. And that is 
not what we want on American Forces Radio. The men and women of our 
Armed Forces deserve and expect balance, not thinly disguised 
propaganda.
  What I object to is that Rush Limbaugh is on all week, and our troops 
get to hear him, but they don't get to hear any viewpoints from the 
other side of the political spectrum.
  Let's talk about one specific case in point, the scandal at Abu 
Ghraib. We all know what happened there. I don't need to remind anybody 
of the pictures, the torture, the shame and disgrace it brought upon 
our country. We know what happened just a couple weeks ago with the 
McCain amendment: 90 to 9, we voted to insist that our Armed Forces and 
others follow the Army Field Manual on Interrogations; that we will not 
condone torture, we will not condone the type of thing that we saw at 
Abu Ghraib. Ninety to nine on the Senate floor.
  Here is what Rush Limbaugh had to say about Abu Ghraib: He called 
it--these are his words, not mine--``a fraternity prank.'' He likened 
it to a fraternity prank. He dubbed the humiliation of inmates ``a 
brilliant maneuver, no different than what happens at the skull and 
bones initiation at Yale.'' This is Rush Limbaugh talking about Abu 
Ghraib. He described the images of torture as ``pictures of homoerotism 
that looked like standard, good-old American pornography.'' That is 
Rush Limbaugh talking to our troops 100 percent of the time. He said of 
the pictures at Abu Ghraib--this is a quote from Rush Limbaugh--``if 
you take these pictures and bring them back and have them taken in an 
American city and put on an American Web site, they might win a video 
award from the pornography industry.''
  I ask, does this represent the views and attitudes of the average 
American citizen? It may represent a few, but I think the vote in the 
Senate more accurately reflects the views of the American citizens. 
Ninety Senators, Republicans and Democrats, conservatives, liberals, 
and everybody in between, basically said on the McCain amendment, no, 
we don't want to have what happened at Abu Ghraib ever happen again. We 
don't want to be engaged in torturing prisoners or detainees.
  Now, it is in the newspapers that even Vice President Cheney is 
fighting the McCain amendment. Maybe Vice President Cheney and Rush 
Limbaugh feel that way, but I don't think too many other Americans do. 
That is why we had a 90-to-9 vote here. Yet what do our Armed Forces 
personnel and DoD civilians hear when they tune in the radio from their 
assignments around the world? They hear Rush Limbaugh telling them it 
is a prank, a brilliant maneuver, good-old American pornography. That 
is what they are hearing.
  So what are our troops to think? Are they to think, that is Rush 
Limbaugh and that is what we hear so, therefore, that must represent 
what the American people back home feel about this? Maybe it wasn't so 
bad after all.
  That is why we need some opposing views on American Forces Radio. Our 
troops need to hear the other side of the story to get a balance. I 
have never said take Rush Limbaugh off. But the network does need 
someone to give the other side of the story.
  Again, that is what this amendment does. It codifies it. Again, 16 
months ago, the Senate adopted a sense-of-the-Senate amendment I 
offered calling on the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the policies 
of fairness and balance of American Forces Radio were being fully 
implemented and to develop appropriate methods of oversight to ensure 
they were followed. That was last year.
  Sixteen months later, the Department of Defense has made no progress 
in balancing out the more than 62 hours a week of conservative 
programming broadcast on the 33 American Forces Radio stations, 
compared to zero of progressive, 16 months later, after this Senate 
adopted a sense-of-the-Senate resolution saying it ought to be fair and 
balanced.
  On October 19, just a few weeks ago, I and 12 of my colleagues sent a 
letter to Secretary Rumsfeld expressing our concern, once again, with 
the utter failure to address the lack of political balance.
  Sixteen months later, no progress. As I said, we wrote this letter to 
the Secretary of Defense on October 19. On Thursday of last week, we 
received a letter from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public 
Affairs, Mr. Lawrence Di Rita. It says:

       The network plans to offer the show of one progressive talk 
     radio host Ed Schultz.

  The letter makes absolutely no representations as to how soon or when 
it plans to offer Mr. Schultz's show on the network.
  ``Offer,'' it said ``offer.'' They didn't say they would ensure the 
broadcast. They said they are going to offer it.
  As I pointed out earlier, they offer 15 percent per week of 
progressive talk radio, less than 2 hours, and guess what. None of the 
AFR stations carry that paltry amount. Not one of their stations out of 
33 around the world, even bothers to broadcast any portion of those two 
hours.
  Let me note that in response to a letter Senator Dorgan and I sent to 
the Department earlier this year, Deputy Assistant Secretary Allison 
Barber replied that DoD ``recognizes that the domestic political talk 
market has grown more diverse and that the time has come to consider 
expanding the AFN choices.''
  I respectfully disagree with Deputy Assistant Secretary Barber. It is 
not that the time has come to consider expanding the choices. We are 
long past the time for that. The time has come for the DoD to act on 
expanding and broadening the political discourse on American Forces 
Radio. There is no reason our servicemembers should receive 10 hours--
more than 10 hours--of

[[Page 24993]]

rightwing conservative talk radio and absolutely zero hours, zero 
minutes, zero seconds of progressive talk radio. They need competing 
views.
  As I said, that was part of the mandate so our troops would have the 
ability to get a wide variety of programming to keep them informed, a 
cross-section of what is widely available to stateside audiences. That 
is what they should have.
  I suppose after my talk today old Limbaugh will come on the radio 
again blasting me, saying Harkin wants to take him off the air, wants 
Congress to tell the radio networks what to carry. I can hear him now 
talking about it. He got it wrong last year; there is no reason why he 
would probably get it right this year--correct, I should say; he gets 
everything right but never gets it correct. Leave Limbaugh on there, 
but give someone else equal time. I would like to see Ed Schultz have 
as much time as Rush Limbaugh. Why not? Ed Schultz is entertaining. He 
has a viewpoint. It is more progressive, obviously, than Rush 
Limbaugh's, but there is no doubt he is doing well. In fact, I found 
that in almost every market where Ed Schultz went up against Rush 
Limbaugh, more people listened to Ed Schultz than listened to Rush 
Limbaugh.
  Oh, now maybe the scales are falling from my eyes. Maybe now I see 
why Rush Limbaugh doesn't want Ed Schultz on Armed Forces Radio. Our 
servicemen might tune him out and decide they would like to listen to 
Ed Schultz more than they would listen to him.
  Our amendment is needed because it codifies that fairness and balance 
on taxpayer-funded radio is an obligation, and sets up an ombudsman to 
help ensure that goal. That is not unique. We have ombudsmen in other 
things. We have ombudsmen for both of the other two major federally 
funded broadcasting agencies. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting 
and the Broadcasting Board of Governors--that is the Voice of America--
have statutory language providing for diversity and balance in their 
programming and both the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and 
National Public Radio have an ombudsman in place.
  I fully intend, when the Secretary of Defense comes up for his 
appropriations hearing next year--I happen to be on the Appropriations 
Committee. I happen to sit on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, 
and I intend to ask him these questions. Why do they think this is 
fair? Do they think this represents balance, a fair representation of 
the diversity of American thought? Or do they feel it ought to be more 
balanced, and if so, let's get on the stick.
  I am saying to the Secretary of Defense, time for consideration is 
past. Move, move now. There is a lot of progressive talk radio in 
America that gives an opposite view of Rush Limbaugh or Dr. Laura or 
James Dobson. Get them on there. Let's even the pie. That is all we are 
asking for--fairness.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time under my regular 
time of 15 minutes for other Senators to speak, and I thank the Senator 
from Virginia for his kindness.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we are going to take this amendment and 
study it. Senator Inhofe, who is quite interested in this subject, is 
unable to be here at this time, but tomorrow we will have further 
opportunity to debate it.
  I am advised that the Department does not try to manage these 
programming agendas in such a way as to exclude, I am told, any 
particular political bent or bias. Rather they go out and use 
nationally known and presumably credible organizations that establish 
ratings and select programs which have very high ratings. In other 
words, people want to listen to them.
  That is the procedure, as I understand it, that is being followed by 
the Department. I think Mr. Di Rita, who was trusted with this 
recently, made a statement to the effect that is the process. I will 
read from at this juncture a letter to Senator Levin from Lawrence Di 
Rita, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public 
Affairs. It says:

       Thank you for your October 19th letter to Secretary 
     Rumsfeld concerning the radio programming distributed by the 
     Armed Forces Radio and Television Services on its American 
     Armed Forces Network.
       The [Armed Forces Radio] attempts to make available to 
     forces stationed overseas a breadth of programming that 
     reflects the quality and diversity that would be available to 
     servicemembers and their families if they were in the United 
     States.
       AFRTS provides 105,000 hours of programming choices per 
     year to programmers at 33 stations around the world.

  I understand we have 33 stations geographically around the world so 
that the beam can reach even the most remote of men and women in the 
Armed Forces. I am paraphrasing my own thoughts at this time. They are 
the ones, the 33 stations, that make pretty much the decision as to 
their region and the consumer interest among the uniform people in 
certain programs. So they provide 105,000 hours of programming at 33 
stations around the world.

       Programmers at individual stations choose from the . . . 
     mix of content they wish to air on their multiple broadcast 
     channels.

  So there is a mix of Armed Forces Radio and Television Services 
programming, and then each of the 33 has a certain degree of autonomy. 
They go into that list and pick those programs they think their 
listeners will enjoy and utilize.

       I am advised that the Armed Forces Radio and Television 
     Service managers are updating the programming mix and have 
     decided to include additional programs, including the Ed 
     Schultz Show, that apparently meet the criteria for that 
     [Armed Forces Radio and Television Service] managers apply to 
     such decisions.
       As is the practice, these programs will be made available 
     to local [Armed Forces Radio and Television Service] 
     programmers. Local programmers decide which programs are 
     broadcast. These programmers typically are military or civil 
     servants who have the best insights into the interests and 
     preferences of their local audiences.
       [Armed Forces Radio and Television Service] managers will 
     continue to monitor the programming mix and do their best to 
     provide a broad, high quality range of choices for local 
     station managers.

  I think the Senator's points are well taken, but it appears that this 
system is working well at the moment. But I judge the Senator has views 
to the contrary. The Senator from Iowa can respond on my time.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Virginia, he is a 
very thoughtful individual. I know he is fair and always has been fair. 
To air commentary of the nature I discussed earlier--that which Mr. 
Limbaugh made about Abu Ghraib--with absolutely no counterbalance or 
rebuttal, sends entirely the wrong message to our troops.
  Last year when we had the sense-of-the-Senate resolution--this was 
posted on CNN.com; they carried an article on it--Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of Defense Allison Barber said:

       It's not about conservative or liberal, it is about the 
     full selection of radio programming based on popularity----

  Here in the States. That is ratings.

       Still, Howard Stern has millions of fans, and his show is 
     not sent to the troops.

  Barber explains:

       His issue is one of content that is not appropriate.

  They say it is popularity, but then they decide whether it is 
appropriate.
  Are we to believe that the Abu Ghraib comments by Mr. Limbaugh are 
excusable because of the high ratings his show receives? I partially 
agree with the Deputy Assistant Secretary's statement. It appears that 
content is sometimes a factor in deciding which commentaries to run on 
American Forces Radio. At the same time, I also agree with the 
directive DoD already has in place. There should be fairness and 
balance in political programming on American Forces Radio. To use 
commercial market share ratings as an excuse not to offer fair and 
balanced programming will no longer suffice. When there are 33 stations 
around the globe, and they do not even carry 1 minute of an alternative 
to Rush Limbaugh, that has to say something. That it is not just 
ratings. Something else is going on there.
  One would think that at least they would carry the 15 percent that is 
offered. They do not even carry that, if

[[Page 24994]]

the Senator knows what I mean. The 33 stations around the world were 
offered 15 percent progressive talk radio a week. They are offered it, 
but they do not carry any of it. So something is going on out there. I 
do not know what it is, but something is.
  Mr. WARNER. I certainly do not want the Senator to feel that we are 
trying to control these stations in such a manner as to preclude 
members of the Armed Forces and their families from having an 
opportunity to hear opinions that differ. So in the course of the 
evening, I and others will look into this. We thank our friend from 
Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LEVIN. Would the Senator from Iowa yield 1 minute to me?
  Mr. HARKIN. I yielded the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has 13 minutes 6 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thought I had 14 minutes 30 seconds.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning 
business. There is no one else on the floor, so I do not want to use up 
my time. I ask unanimous consent for up to 10 minutes in morning 
business so I may yield some time to whoever wants it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I do not object, but we do have a 5-minute 
request from the other side of the aisle, I say to my distinguished 
colleague. We have the proponents of the amendment of the Senator from 
Colorado and others. I ask unanimous consent that the proponents of the 
amendment and those in opposition have at least 5 minutes each in 
addition to that. So that is 15. That would leave time for further 
debate by others on this amendment. So I would say at the hour of 5:15 
that 5 minutes be allocated to Senator Salazar; is that correct?
  Mr. LEVIN. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. To be followed by Senator Allard, to be followed by those 
of us who oppose the Allard amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request made by 
Senator Warner?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there objection to the unanimous consent request by Senator Harkin 
that he be allowed to speak as in morning business until 5:15?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from Virginia. If anyone shows up to 
talk on something else, I will obviously yield the floor. But I would 
yield to the distinguished minority ranking member of the committee 
whatever time he desires.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Iowa. I support his 
amendment. It simply would codify provisions in a directive. It puts 
some force behind what is already supposed to be in regulation, which 
is that there be fair and balanced political programming for the Armed 
Forces network radio broadcast. That is what the Harkin amendment does. 
It does not do the allocation. It does not make a judgment. It simply 
says we have to put some stronger teeth behind a regulation because we 
are talking about political programming. We have to be certain that 
political programming is fair and balanced. That is what the regulation 
states it is supposed to be already and just simply codifying it means 
Congress believes that is essential, as well as in addition to that it 
establishes an ombudsman to make sure the Armed Forces network adheres 
to its own programming standards and practices. I think that is a fair 
request, and I support the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. I will just take a couple more minutes and then I will 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. As long as there is no one else in the Chamber--if anyone 
comes here, I would yield the floor to whoever would want it.
  Let me go through again what this amendment does for Senators who may 
be watching from their offices. The ombudsman would be appointed by the 
Secretary of Defense for a term of 5 years. They could not engage in 
any prebroadcast censorship. The ombudsman would conduct regular 
reviews of the integrity, balance, and fairness of American forces 
radio programming. It would respond to programming issues raised by 
AFR's audience regarding the network's programming and refer complaints 
to American forces radio management for response. The ombudsman would 
make suggestions to American forces radio management regarding ways to 
correct imbalances, and the ombudsman would prepare and present an 
annual report to the Secretary of Defense and Congress on whether 
American Forces Radio is satisfying its mandate to provide fair and 
balanced political programming.
  So that is what the ombudsman basically would do under our amendment, 
not censor or anything like that. Basically, he would take complaints, 
pass it on to management, issue a report to us every year on whether 
the programming is fair and balanced, and any other comments and 
criticisms that may come into the ombudsman's office. So that is 
basically the amendment.
  I have had my say on it. I think it is pretty clear. I thank the 
Senator from Michigan for his support. I hope all Senators could 
support this amendment. As the Senator from Michigan said, it just 
codifies what is basically a directive right now. It just makes it more 
clear to DOD, from the Secretary of Defense on down, that we mean it 
when we say it has to be fair and balanced. We do not mean to take 
anyone off the air or shut anyone up, but we do mean to have it fair 
and balanced to represent the diversity of views of America.
  Not all Americans agree with Rush Limbaugh. Not all Americans agree 
with Ed Schultz or Jim Hightower or me or anyone else, but we do have 
diversity. That is what is so wonderful about our country. That is what 
we are proud of as Americans, that we are able to speak our minds and 
have our opinions heard and we do not have any censorship. Since we do 
not have it here, we should not have it on the American Forces Radio 
network, either.
  I believe having served myself for a long time in the military, as I 
know the Senator from Virginia has, too, our troops are well educated. 
They are smarter today than they ever were even when I was in the 
military. They know how to listen to one side or the other, and they 
should have that opportunity. That is all we are asking for.
  I yield the floor and 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.
  Mr. WARNER. At this time, the Senator from Alabama will speak to the 
Allard amendment, which is the subject of a vote in 20 minutes. I give 
him 5 minutes, plus 2 or 3 other minutes. I thought he was right behind 
me.
  The Allard amendment is rather a technical one. It requires our 
colleagues to be informed on this amendment. I am opposed to it, but I 
was asked to provide to the Senator from Alabama the time needed to 
speak to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.


                           AMENDMENT No. 2423

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Warner. I chair the 
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Armed Services Committee. This 
matter is under our subcommittee's oversight area. I have great respect 
for Senator Allard, who is proposing the amendment. He chaired the same 
subcommittee. He is very much loyal to

[[Page 24995]]

his workers in Colorado. He is very much determined they get everything 
that he can get them, and I think maybe a little more than they would 
be entitled to under a fair reading of the statute and the contract 
that is involved.
  Therefore, with the greatest respect to Senator Allard and others who 
may be supporting this amendment, I would oppose it. It reaches into a 
relationship between the contractor employees who are performing the 
cleanup at Rocky Flats and their employer, who is a company called 
Kaiser Hill. Kaiser Hill won the contract with the Department of Energy 
to perform cleanup work, and this deals with their relationship with 
their employees, not Government employees but employees for Kaiser 
Hill. How would it amend those terms of that agreement between Kaiser 
Hill and its private employees? The amendment directs the U.S. 
Secretary of Energy to instruct Kaiser Hill to grant retirement and 
health benefits to employees that those employees would have earned if 
the cleanup had taken longer than it actually did. So that is why, of 
course, the Department of Energy opposes it.
  They have looked at this very carefully. They have indicated they 
would be open to some sort of discussion about what might be done. I 
have also indicated that to those who support this amendment but have 
not heard back from them.
  So I believe the amendment as drafted is overreaching, and the 
Department of Energy objects to it. It is just not good policy for our 
Government. The cleanup did not take as long as some people projected, 
but everyone knew the cleanup was going to be accelerated and would 
end. It was not a limitless timeframe. Rocky Flats is not there 
anymore. It has been cleaned up. There is empty space. The workers have 
all been disbursed and gone to other jobs.
  I would just note that many Government contracts complete early or 
they do not run as long as anticipated. So we cannot start down the 
road of altering the benefits of contract workers when something 
happens good for the Government because the matter proceeded along and 
was able to be completed sooner than expected, although it was 
accelerated and everybody knew it was going to complete and complete 
sooner than many had projected.
  One of the things that every employee has, and this is important to 
note, every employee has been given a 1-year acceleration of the time 
and grade they get credit for, the time in service. The collective 
bargaining that went on as this contract moved forward, and everybody 
knew the contract would be completed early, they had a collective 
bargaining process, and they met with the steelworkers and others and 
they agreed that they would take a $4,200 basic payment because they 
were completing the work sooner, as an incentive or a thank-you for 
good work done. That was done, and they received that.
  So, again, this amendment would alter the freely entered-into 
agreement between these workers and Kaiser Hill concerning the early 
completion.
  Now, most of the Kaiser Hill employees were covered under the 
collective bargaining agreements which anticipated there would be 
staggered layoffs as the completion of the cleanup neared. Union 
workers negotiated substantial benefits such as lump-sum incentive 
payments in addition to providing for early and regular retirement 
benefits and an extra year in service.
  The Senate has recently conducted its debate on budget 
reconciliation. There has been a lot of debate and consideration about 
the fiscal situation in which this country finds itself. There was a 
debate about hard choices that we face as a Nation so we do not burden 
our children or grandchildren with financial obligations that, in 
retrospect, we cannot afford.
  If we were a private company, I ask my colleagues, would we say we 
could tell our stockholders that we paid more than we were supposed to 
pay for a cleanup? I think we are concerned about this mainly because 
we feel as governmental representatives, sometimes we ought to go 
further and do more. I know my colleague Senator Allard strongly 
believes we ought to do more and be generous.
  I do join him in commending the workers at Rocky Flats for what has 
been achieved. The cleanup is done and workers have moved on to other 
jobs and other employers. I cannot support, however, taking this 
unprecedented step--at least unprecedented to my knowledge--that is 
embodied in this amendment. It is contrary to good, sound fiscal 
policy, good governmental policy. It is noble to want a job to be 
recognized and people to be paid fairly for it. But military bases 
close around the country all the time. Awards for contracts for 
aircraft and ships get terminated. Sometimes they complete them sooner 
than expected. People do not expect to be paid forever. Agreements were 
reached, as I said, to make sure people would be generously compensated 
as a result of this early closing.
  I urge my colleagues, as difficult as they may find it, to vote 
``no'' on this amendment. I think it would be the right thing for the 
country.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Chair advise the managers with regard to the 
remaining time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado, Senator Allard, 
controls 5 minutes. The Senator from Colorado, Senator Salazar, has 
been granted 5 minutes under a unanimous consent agreement.
  Mr. WARNER. Basically there is 2 minutes left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes remaining in opposition to 
the amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. My colleague from Alabama has basically stated the case. 
But I must say this is a unique amendment among those I have 
encountered. You could induce laborers to have a slowdown at work so as 
not to finish it and so attenuate this right or some other benefit, 
while at the same time they were taking inducements for expediting the 
work.
  I commend my good friend from Colorado. I know he fights hard for his 
constituents. But were we to see this type of precedent distributed to 
other situations in Government contracting across America, we would be 
opening up a very interesting line of arguments by a number of 
contractors and employees. So regrettably I have to oppose the 
amendment of my good friend from Colorado.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I will talk about my amendment for a 
moment or two, but before I do, I have some cosponsors I would like to 
add to the amendment: Senators Salazar, DeMint, Alexander, and 
Cantwell.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I will take a little time to lay out the 
history of the cleanup of Rocky Flats after it was decided to close the 
facility. It was a nuclear production facility that produced plutonium 
triggers which were used for nuclear weaponry. When I first got 
involved in this issue, the plan called for 60 years to clean up Rocky 
Flats, costing somewhere around $35 billion.
  In 1999, we were able to reach an agreement with the Department of 
Energy and the contractor that for $7 billion, we could have it cleaned 
up in 6 years. So here we are in 2005 and we have cleaned up the 
facility 14 months ahead of what anybody ever imagined.
  When we first came up, everybody was snickering and saying that would 
not happen. But we did a key thing; we put incentives in the contract 
which encouraged various members of the workforce, including the 
contractors, to get the job done on time. In this case they got it done 
ahead of time and ended up saving lots of money.
  This means we are cleaned up 14 months ahead of time. That means 
probably close to $500 to $600 million in savings because we are not 
going to have to pay for it next year. As a result of this early 
cleanup we are going to have about 70 workers out at Rocky Flats who 
are going to get cut short on their health insurance benefits and cut 
short on their life insurance. It is very difficult to try to get 
insurance after you have been working around a nuclear facility for 15, 
16, 17, or 18 years.

[[Page 24996]]

Insurance companies don't like to insure them, and if you do get 
insurance, at least it is very expensive. It seems to me it is a matter 
of fairness to take care of these 70 workers.
  The reason it is important to other cleanup sites around the country, 
and this is where I think the Department of Energy is shortsighted--if 
you put in incentive contracts to get cleanup at these other sites 
around the country, getting them done on time or even early, as we did 
in Colorado, if you treat the workers fairly, I think the workforce at 
those cleanup sites will be willing to step in and participate in the 
early cleanup efforts.
  The purpose of my amendment is to take care of the 70 or so workers 
who got shortchanged because of early closure at Rocky Flats. But more 
importantly, I want to see cleanup of these nuclear facilities all over 
the country. There are a number of States that are going to be 
impacted. A lot of us want to see these sites cleaned up for various 
reasons, not the least of which is to make sure we have environmental 
cleanup so we have a better environment in which to live here in the 
United States.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in this particular amendment. I think 
it is very important. Let me take a couple of examples. 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 back in 1982 and then was responsible for monitoring 
radiation contamination at the site. He missed qualifying for the 
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 to the door 6 working days before he qualified 
for lifetime medical benefits. Let me repeat that. That was 6 days 
before he qualified for medical benefits. Yet his workers, then other 
workers at the plant, walked away with those benefits. It seems to me 
it is a matter of fairness.
  The Department of Energy has made the point they do not want to set 
any precedent. In this particular amendment, we have narrowed it down 
to the time length and when they qualify. We have narrowed it down to 
these workers at Rocky Flats.
  I believe this is an important amendment if you want to see rapid 
cleanup occur at these nuclear sites because the workers have to buy 
into the program. If they do not buy into the program, then you are not 
going to have early cleanup.
  I understand my colleague from Colorado, Senator Salazar, might be 
down to the floor. I want to take this opportunity, before my time runs 
out, to thank him for his work and effort. I thank Senator Cantwell and 
other Members of the Senate who have agreed to cosponsor this amendment 
because they have situations in their States similar to ours in 
Colorado.
  We all look forward to getting early cleanup, and hopefully the 
cleanup at Rocky Flats will set an example for the rest of the country. 
The faster we have cleanup, the less money the American taxpayers will 
have to pay. That is the bottom line. We are required to get this 
cleanup done. If we can do it and save taxpayer dollars, we need to do 
that. In this case, from the original plan it saves billions upon 
billions of dollars. Then we modified the plan, and it is well over 
$500 million we are going to save. We need to encourage this to happen 
throughout the country. I am proud of the workers at Rocky Flats. It 
wouldn't have happened without their dedication and effort. We need to 
make sure every worker at Rocky Flats will walk away from this cleanup 
being proud and feeling they were treated fairly.
  I urge my colleagues, again, to join us in righting a wrong that I 
think has been perpetrated by the Department of Energy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, may I be recognized for an additional 
cosponsor, and that is Senator Graham.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the junior Senator from Colorado is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, in a few minutes my colleagues here in 
the Senate will be voting on an amendment sponsored by Senator Wayne 
Allard and myself, amendment No. 2423. I am here to speak for a few 
minutes to urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  This is an important amendment that recognizes the great work the 
employees at Rocky Flats have been doing on behalf of our Nation for a 
long time. When Rocky Flats was first proposed to be cleaned up, as the 
place where plutonium triggers were being manufactured for the United 
States of America and for national security, it was contemplated that 
we were undertaking a project that would take many years. Some had 
suggested it would take as long as 60 years to clean up Rocky Flats at 
a cost of $35 billion. Yet when all was said and done, because of the 
great work of both Democratic and Republican administrations, and these 
dedicated workers, we were able to accomplish the task in just over 5 
years as opposed to 60 years and at a cost of $7 billion as opposed to 
$35 billion.
  It was anticipated at the time when the contracts were executed that 
the cleanup in no way, shape, or form would ever be accomplished any 
earlier than December 15 of 2006. Yet because of the great work that 
has been done, the work has now been finished. It is unfair, from my 
point of view, to penalize the employees who performed this great work 
on behalf of our national security in this cleanup by simply not 
providing them with the benefits that had been anticipated with a 
December 15, 2006 termination date for this contract.
  What this amendment will do is provide up to $15 million for the life 
and health insurance benefits for these employees. These men and women 
were exposed to radioactive elements and other toxic compounds that we 
are still trying to identify, and in amounts that even today we can 
only guess at. We do not know what they were exposed to, how much, or 
when they were exposed to these radioactive materials. We know for sure 
many have suffered serious illnesses and many have died as a result of 
these exposures.
  Under the current employment contract, these workers would become 
eligible for full retirement benefits, including health benefits and 
life insurance benefits, if the work had been completed on December 15 
of 2006. But because the work was completed before that time, these 
employees will not be eligible for these benefits unless we correct an 
inequity with the amendment that has been proposed. The extraordinary 
efforts of these employees at Rocky Flats who worked long hours under 
very difficult conditions must be recognized by providing them with 
these benefits.
  We believe these workers are entitled to receive these benefits 
because the cleanup of Rocky Flats, which was expected to be completed 
by December 15, 2006, has now been completed. We believe it is 
important that we recognize the employees at Rocky Flats who, at 
significant sacrifice to themselves and their families, created an 
opportunity for this Nation to learn how we can clean up our Department 
of Energy facilities.
  In sum, what I would say to my colleagues here in the Senate is that 
what we have done at Rocky Flats, through the cleanup effort there, is 
to demonstrate to the Nation how we can move forward in an expedited 
fashion and clean up contaminated sites such as the one we had at Rocky 
Flats. I am grateful for the work of my colleague from Colorado, 
Senator Allard, who has been leading our joint efforts on this 
amendment. At the end of the day, we hope all of our colleagues will 
recognize that these employees have done a very valuable job for our 
national security.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

[[Page 24997]]

  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. 
McCain).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh), the 
Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Corzine), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan), the Senator from 
Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and 
the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 38, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 304 Leg.]

                                YEAS--38

     Alexander
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Burns
     Cantwell
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Obama
     Pryor
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Specter
     Talent
     Wyden

                                NAYS--53

     Akaka
     Allen
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Dodd
     Dole
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bayh
     Biden
     Corzine
     Dorgan
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     McCain
     Stabenow
  The amendment (No. 2423) was rejected.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my understanding is that the majority 
leader and minority leader have determined that we will not have 
further votes tonight, but I advise colleagues we have a number of 
amendments which are almost completed and ready for a vote tomorrow. We 
anticipate--and I will, hopefully, be joined by my ranking member 
here--we can, during the course of business tomorrow, hear out the 
remainder of the amendments. I would hope so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if we could get a list of pending 
amendments made, unless the chairman has already done that, as to what 
amendments are already pending and how much time is left on those 
amendments.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my understanding is that the clerk will 
require a period of time within which to compile this list.

                          ____________________