[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11122-11152]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, under the standing order, is not the 
Senate now to return to the annual authorization Defense bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2766) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2007 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:

       Levin (for Lautenberg) amendment No. 4205, to provide a 
     temporary prohibition on an increase in copayments required 
     under the retail pharmacy system of the pharmacy benefits 
     program of the Department of Defense.
       Warner amendment No. 4211, to name the CVN-78 aircraft 
     carrier the USS Gerald Ford.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we are ready to proceed. The work achieved 
yesterday resulted in unanimous acceptance of a bipartisan amendment 
sponsored by the Senator from Virginia and the joint leadership. We 
then proceeded to an amendment under an arrangement whereby the 
minority was able to offer an amendment by Senator Lautenberg. I had 
the opportunity to speak briefly with him this morning. There was some 
indication that he would be willing to accept a proposal I had to make 
a slight modification, in which case I would hope we could proceed to 
either an acceptance by voice vote or schedule a vote at a time so 
desired by the leadership of the Senate.
  I assume at some point in time I will be able to obtain information 
on that

[[Page 11123]]

point. Absent that, I see my distinguished colleague, the Senator from 
Michigan. I was advising the Senate that the pending amendment is the 
Lautenberg amendment. On another committee where we were together in a 
markup session, there was some indication that he would be amenable to 
a modest modification to bring his amendment in parallel with what the 
committee had done. That is the pending business. We then turn to an 
amendment by the Senator from Virginia which I would like to discuss 
with my senior colleague in a minute or two before we turn to that. 
Unless there is a matter to address the Senate on, I would suggest we 
place a quorum call in for a few minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. If I may ask the Senator from Virginia, did the Senator 
from New Jersey want to debate his amendment further?
  Mr. WARNER. I was not able, in a busy markup session, to ascertain 
that.
  Mr. LEVIN. Maybe we could ascertain that. He is on his way to the 
floor. I know he was willing to make the modification. It is helpful to 
put the date of his amendment in line with our bill, the fiscal year, 
as I understand it.
  Mr. WARNER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the 
Lautenberg-Stabenow amendment. I understand Senator Levin has offered 
it and Senator Lautenberg will be coming shortly to speak on our 
amendment.
  This is an incredibly important amendment for the men and women who 
are currently serving us so bravely, courageously around the world. We 
all know that prescription drug costs are one of the largest drivers of 
health care costs, rising every year at double or even triple the rate 
of inflation. This is certainly an area where I have been focused for 
much of my Senate career--on the high cost of prescription drugs. We 
all know that is the case.
  Like every manufacturer, small business, and State Medicaid Program, 
the military is facing the same challenges of controlling prescription 
drug prices. Instead of supporting policies that would lower 
prescription drug prices, such as reimportation of prescription drugs 
from other countries like Canada, which is very close to Michigan, or 
focusing on more generic, lower cost drugs that can be brought to the 
market and create competition to bring down prices, or allowing 
Medicare to negotiate pricing, unfortunately, this administration wants 
to put the costs on the backs of our men and women in uniform and their 
families. I strongly oppose that policy.
  The President's budget proposed increasing the prescription drug 
copays for our troops and their families, almost doubling copays for 
both generic and brand-name drugs.
  The proposed pharmacy copay increases represent a 70-percent increase 
for military beneficiaries over the next 5 years--far in excess of the 
24-percent increase in military pay, or the 14-percent increase in 
retiree pay over the same period. These increased copays will affect 
Active-Duty members of the Armed Forces and their families, members of 
the Guard and Reserve and their families, and retired members of the 
Armed Forces and their families, as well as surviving spouses who are 
enrolled in TRICARE and get their prescription drugs from retail 
pharmacies.
  Unfortunately, the Senate Defense authorization bill only rejects the 
increases if people use mail order pharmacies for their prescriptions. 
While mail order may work for some, many military families cannot wait 
2 weeks or more to get the medicine they need right now. The vast 
majority of our military families purchase their drugs at pharmacies. 
Of all TRICARE prescriptions filled, about 43 percent are through 
retail, going to local pharmacists, 51 percent are through military 
pharmacies, and only 6 percent are through mail order.
  Unfortunately, in Michigan, there are no military pharmacies for the 
64,000 military men and women and their families who call Michigan 
home. So this will impact the families in Michigan who are serving us 
abroad--the troops as well as their families.
  Are we going to tell an Active-Duty mother to wait 2 weeks to get the 
antibiotics that her children need? Are we going to say to our troops 
that their family should have to pay more for prescriptions while they 
are serving and protecting us in Iraq?
  The Lautenberg-Stabenow amendment makes sense. It would temporarily 
freeze retail copays at their current rate through the end of next 
year. I understand there has been a request from the chairman of the 
Committee on Armed Services to change that to the end of the fiscal 
year. I don't object to that. The amendment is consistent with the 
committee's findings that military beneficiaries should be held 
harmless from TRICARE fee increases until Congress is satisfied that 
the Defense Department has done all it can to constrain health care 
costs, without shifting the costs to our military families.
  Clearly, Madam President, we have not done all we can to cut health 
care costs, and we ought not to be shifting this burden to our military 
families. If we don't pass this important amendment, our soldiers and 
their families will be asked to pay an additional $200 million next 
year for their medicine.
  I was fortunate enough to spend Memorial Day with our troops in Iraq 
and saw firsthand, as so many of my colleagues have, their dedication 
and courage under incredibly difficult circumstances. We have an 
obligation to support these men and women, and that means not raising 
their prescription drug copays while they are fighting to protect us.
  I hope the Senate will unanimously support this effort that would 
stop the doubling of copays for our military families for their 
medicine. I am hopeful that we will be able to do that as soon as 
possible.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I will give a little background, if I 
could, about this subject matter and area of inquiry.
  The Department of Defense initiated early on this year, and part of 
last year, a fairly dramatic increase in TRICARE premiums for military 
retirees and family members. The TRICARE program is, I think our 
membership knows, a military health care system for Active-Duty people 
and also for those who are retired, up to age 65. This is a provision 
for those 65 who can continue during Medicare eligibility.
  The health care part of the military budget is just growing leaps and 
bounds. Our chairman is sort of the champion of the TRICARE program, 
and it has been a wonderful program for military members and their 
families and retirees. But in 2015, it is going to be 12 percent, if 
nothing changes in the entire military budget. It is on an 
unsustainable course. We have not had a premium increase since 
TRICARE's inception.
  I will take a back seat to no one in wanting to help the troops, but 
the best thing we can do is create a benefit that is sustainable and 
not have to pick between health care benefits and armament and new 
weapons and all of the operational needs of the military, which are 
going to be eventually squeezed. In committee, Senator Nelson and 
myself, along with the chairman and ranking member, said to the 
Department of Defense: Stop, don't pass go, no fee increases.
  We are going to have the GAO and other groups look at ways to save 
money before you have to ask for fee increases. And, secondly, give us 
some idea if the Department of Defense numbers are accurate. Are they 
accurate in terms of the growth explosion in the cost of this program? 
So we are going to get information to make a good decision and 
basically put a hold on the fee increases for participation of TRICARE.
  That got us into the area of prescription drugs. One of the things 
that we

[[Page 11124]]

have done for military members, and retirees in particular, is we have 
made prescription drugs very affordable and reasonably priced. What we 
are trying to do to save money is to allow an increase in retail 
prescription drug costs, which have again been static since the 
inception of the program, from $3 to $5 for a 30-day prescription for 
generic drugs, from $9 to $15 for a 30-day prescription of brand drugs. 
To counter that, we were going to have a zero copayment for those who 
chose to get their prescriptions filled through the mail. If you had a 
maintenance prescription, a drug need that would be recurring, and you 
used the mail system, there would be no copay at all.
  What we are trying to do there is get people into purchasing drugs in 
a way that is cost effective for the military and have some cost 
increase to keep the program sustainable. That is what this debate is 
about.
  I appreciate the chairman, who has been a great leader in this, 
working with Senator Lautenberg to try to find a way to get us past 
2007.
  I will end on this note. This problem is going to get worse. Over 
time, the military health care footprint within the Department of 
Defense budget is on an unsustainable course. TRICARE is a great 
program, but we are going to have to look at ways to make it more 
efficient, look at cost savings and, eventually, we are going to have 
to go back to the military community and ask for some increased 
participation to make this sustainable for the next generation of 
military retirees and their families. If we don't, we are going to be 
in a dilemma we would not want to be in as a nation, having to pick 
between operational needs and health care needs.
  As a member of the Guard and Reserve--and I have done some time on 
active duty--I want to be as generous and as fair with the benefit 
package as the country can afford, but no benefit can be locked in time 
without some reevaluation and adjustment. After 2007 passes, we are 
going to have to start making hard choices. I promise all the Members 
of this body and those who may be listening to the military community 
that we are going to do it in a way that is acceptable, humane, 
rational, and not ask more than people can bear. The idea of trying to 
have a zero copayment if you would get your prescriptions filled 
through the mail is a great idea. It will be good for the military 
members participating in the prescription drug program, and I am 
convinced--and we will see after this year--that it will save a lot of 
money, specifically for those drugs recurring in need.
  The increases on the generic and brand names through the retail 
system are appropriate, and we will revisit that issue after this year.
  I just want the Members of the body to know that if we don't get 
ahead of the growth of TRICARE and try to implement changes in a 
systematic, incremental way, we are going to wind up one day where this 
body in the next decade is going to have to make some draconian 
choices. The way to prevent making draconian choices is to phase in 
changes that the force can accommodate and that will relieve the 
pressure on TRICARE. It is a wonderful program, and it needs to be on a 
sustainable footing. Right now it is on an unsustainable path. We will 
find out more information about how to reform it at the end of this 
year.
  Madam President, I say to the chairman of the committee, I appreciate 
all the effort he has given to create TRICARE. He worked in a 
bipartisan manner to create a health care program that has been very 
valuable to the men and women in the military, their families, and 
particularly retirees. This program, like every other program at the 
Federal level, is going to have to be looked at anew in terms of 
sustainability. I look forward to working with the chairman and others 
to make it sustainable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague. For 
years, Senator Graham has been on the Armed Services Committee and has 
really specialized in health issues and other issues relating to the 
welfare of the men and women of the Armed Forces and their families. I, 
like him, share concerns about the rising costs of these programs. How 
well he and I understand that there is only so much money allocated 
under the process of our budget to the men and women in the Armed 
Forces. They need equipment. They need training. They need housing. 
They need medical care. If we constantly begin to chip away, it ends up 
those moneys are withdrawn from the modernization account.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, if I may add, the projections are that 
the military health care program will be $65 billion in costs by 2015, 
12 percent of the DOD's budget. We will be getting a real hard look to 
see if those moneys are accurate and ways to save money. Madam 
President, 2007 will be a year in which we look at the true cost 
component of TRICARE projected out in the future and try to think of 
ways to make it sustainable, because if the projections are anywhere 
near accurate, this program becomes unsustainable over time. It is 
worth saving, and I think anyone in the military would want it to be 
saved. We are just going to have to be honest with them about the cost. 
They cannot be locked in time forever.


                    Amendment No. 4205, as Modified

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my 
amendment be the pending business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I send a modification to the 
amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator asking consent to modify the 
pending amendment?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification? 
Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 4205), as modified, is as follows:

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

     SEC. 707. TEMPORARY PROHIBITION ON INCREASE IN COPAYMENTS 
                   UNDER RETAIL PHARMACY SYSTEM OF PHARMACY 
                   BENEFITS PROGRAM.

       Subsection (a)(6) of section 1074g of title 10, United 
     States Code, as amended by section 702(b) of this Act, is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(D) During the period beginning on October 1, 2006, and 
     ending on September 31, 2007, the cost sharing requirements 
     established under this paragraph for pharmaceutical agents 
     available through retail pharmacies covered by paragraph 
     (2)(E)(ii) may not exceed amounts as follows:
       ``(i) In the case of generic agents, $3.
       ``(ii) In the case of formulary agents, $9.
       ``(iii) In the case of nonformulary agents, $22.''.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I wish to now discuss my amendment, 
which is fair and simple. It prohibits increases in the pharmacy 
copayments of our military families and military retirees they purchase 
at retail pharmacies.
  These families are part of the military's health insurance program 
called TRICARE.
  The price of everything going up so rapidly now hardly seems the time 
to ask the people who have sacrificed for our country--many who have 
been in harms way--to pay more for their prescription drugs. It is 
incomprehensible.
  My amendment, cosponsored by Senators Stabenow, Bingaman, Harkin, 
Lincoln, Menendez, Mikulski, Landrieu, Lieberman, Kerry, and Murray, is 
very simply a prohibition on increasing, at this point in time, the 
copayments that veterans and active duty families have to pay for 
prescription drugs.
  The amendment is very simple. It says no, n-o, at increase on 
pharmacy copays through the end of fiscal year 2007.
  We ask our military families to make enormous sacrifices for our 
country, and now we want to saddle them with higher health care costs? 
It doesn't make sense. The administration is proposing to increase the 
cost of TRICARE prescription drug copayments from $9 to $15 for brand-
name drugs. This is, indeed, a hardship. It means that over a 5-year 
period, prescription drug prices will rise by 70 percent for military 
families--far outstripping the 24-percent increase in

[[Page 11125]]

military pay or the 14-percent increase in retirement pay over the same 
period. If we don't stop this increase we will have taken away those 
increases that they worked so hard to get.
  If you can go to a military base to purchase your prescriptions you 
don't need to pay a copayment, but in the real world that is always not 
possible. Too many veterans and military families don't live on or near 
a base, particularly when it comes to the National Guard and Reserve.
  In New Jersey, for instance, there are seven military installations, 
but only three have pharmacies and none of these facilities are in the 
northern part of the State. Driving long distances, especially with gas 
costing $3 a gallon or more, is not the solution.
  Families and veterans have the option of getting prescription drugs 
at no cost by mail order. But many times people can't wait for a week 
or two to fill a prescription. If you have a sick child at home who 
needs an antibiotic right away, who will wait for mail delivery. Also, 
many people, especially older veterans, prefer to get their 
prescription drugs from the local pharmacy where they can also get 
consultations with pharmacists and other services. TRICARE 
beneficiaries deserve the ability to choose where they want to go to 
get their prescriptions.
  Retail pharmacies account for about 43 percent of the prescription 
drugs purchased through TRICARE. One large pharmacy chain estimated 
that it fills more than 7 million TRICARE prescriptions every year. 
Close to 9 million individuals are enrolled in the TRICARE program. The 
increases proposed by the administration would affect a large number of 
military families and veterans.
  We know how the Guard and Reserves have been disproportionately 
affected by deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. To raise their health 
care costs, I think that is unconscionable.
  John F. Kennedy said:

       To govern is to choose.

  Last Thursday, all but two Republican Senators voted to repeal the 
inheritance tax permanently, a move that would cost $989 billion over 
10 years. Remember that fewer than one-half of 1 percent of all estates 
incur tax liability. We are talking about a tax break for the 
wealthiest Americans, the very people presumably who benefit the most 
from the freedom that our men and women in uniform protect. Now we are 
being told that we cannot afford to freeze these copayments that these 
men and women have to make and their families have to pay for the 
medicines they need. It is really unbelievable.
  CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, says my amendment will cost 
$290 million in fiscal year 2007.
  In good conscience can we repeal the inheritance tax on the super-
rich while imposing a pharmacy tax on our men and women in uniform, our 
veterans, and their families?
  American's appreciate so much the sacrifices asked of our Nation's 
military families and veterans. I'm certain they would be willing to 
cover the cost of my amendment.
  This amendment freezes pharmacy copayments at their current levels. 
It will send a message to our military men and women. It will tell them 
that just as they protected us, we are concerned about them and their 
families. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I wish to advise the Senator that we 
have carefully examined the amendment and we are prepared to accept it 
on this side.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I appreciate that and am pleased 
that we are going to make a statement here that we don't want those 
people who are on TRICARE, to have to pay more at this time. It just 
would be the wrong thing to do.
  I am not surprised that the Senator from Virginia, with a sound 
military record and having been involved in Government for many years 
in terms of military affairs, stands up and delivers that agreement. I 
thank him very much, and I thank my colleague from Michigan also, for 
the opportunity to introduce this amendment. Without further ado, I 
assume that it will now be accepted.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, for those following the debate, I 
certainly would acknowledge that the Senator from New Jersey had a 
distinguished record in World War II in the U.S. Army in Europe and 
understands very well, through firsthand experience, the hardships 
faced by those particularly in the enlisted ranks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. First let me commend the Senator from New Jersey for his 
leadership in this matter and for his identifying a real problem which 
needs to be corrected. It would be, it seems to me, unconscionable for 
us to be increasing these copays in the middle of a conflict. For the 
men and women in the military and their families to face additional 
copays at this point is very, very inadvisable. I thank Senator 
Lautenberg of New Jersey for identifying this problem, and to all of 
his cosponsors, the same thank you and gratitude is owing. I very much 
support the amendment, and I hope it will be promptly adopted.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4205), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4211

  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I believe we now return to amendment No. 
4211.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the pending amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the 
distinguished President pro tempore of the Senate, Senator Stevens, be 
made a cosponsor, and the distinguished ranking member of the Armed 
Services Committee, the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, be made a 
cosponsor of amendment No. 4211.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, we are going to accept this amendment by 
voice vote. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4211) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I rise today to speak on this amendment 
that will direct the first ship of the Navy's future class of air 
carriers, heretofore known as CVN-78, shall be named the USS Gerald 
Ford, in honor of our great statesman and leader, whose distinguished 
career of service to our Nation has spanned more than six decades. I 
can think of no finer tribute to our Nation's 38th President and indeed 
to the United States Navy than to add his name to a warship.
  Gerald Ford joined the Navy in February of 1942, along with millions 
and millions of other Americans who responded to the call following 
Pearl Harbor. It was just weeks after Pearl Harbor that he volunteered, 
in those first dark hours of the United States' entry into World War 
II. Leaving behind a family and a profession to serve in a distant 
corner of the globe, he exemplified his generation often referred to as 
the greatest generation and truly all generations of young Americans 
who have sacrificed to defend our freedom--be it freedom from tyranny 
or freedom from terror.
  As a young lieutenant, Gerald Ford came within inches of being swept 
overboard while selflessly performing his duties in the raging storm 
that battered Admiral ``Bull'' Halsey's fleet during action in the 
Philippine Sea. He was aboard a small aircraft carrier at

[[Page 11126]]

that time. It was the USS Monterey, CVL-26. That ship, the Monterey, 
earned 10 battle stars for her role at Makin Island, Kwajalein, Truk, 
Saipan, the Philippines, and other major engagements in the Pacific 
theater. Lieutenant Ford had volunteered for that service aboard that 
ship and sailed in harm's way with many others. This memorable footnote 
in history of that one action where he selflessly performed lifesaving 
duties aboard his ship would instill in the future President a lifelong 
respect and appreciation for the hardships and dangers that surround 
our brave men and women in uniform. His military experience proved 
invaluable to his service as commander in chief and President of the 
United States.
  Following World War II, Gerald Ford again answered duty's call, 
gaining election in 1948 to the House of Representatives where he would 
ultimately serve our Nation for a quarter of a century. During those 
tumultuous years in our history, as Congress acted on grave and often 
divisive issues surrounding the Cold War, nuclear weapons policy, war 
in Korea and Vietnam, the assassination of a beloved President, the 
civil rights movement, and the resignation of a Vice President of the 
United States, Congressman Ford distinguished himself by his calm, 
steady guidance, his plain-spoken wisdom, his extraordinary character, 
and his openness. He was respected by all for his decency.
  These qualities propelled Gerald Ford to the forefront of his party. 
From 1965 to 1973, as minority leader of the House of Representatives, 
he was a unifying force in the Congress, serving not merely his party 
and constituency, but reaching across the aisle to find common ground 
and resolve for the greatest issues of the day.
  The history of the ensuing years is well known as a turning point in 
our modern history as a Nation, when the great system of checks and 
balances forged into our Government framework by the Founding Fathers 
met one of its greatest challenges. There was neither past precedent 
nor a clear path forward for the change of power that would take place. 
There was only certainty that the man who was to ultimately assume the 
responsibility of the office of the President of the United States must 
be a leader of uncommon integrity, one who would reach ably across the 
aisle as a leader of all the people, and one whose credibility at home 
and abroad would be a unifying force--a foundation for the future.
  In that hour of crisis, when public confidence in the Office of the 
President had ebbed, and the division between the executive office and 
the Congress had widened to its greatest extent in a century, our 
Nation placed its hope and trust in Gerald Ford to restore the faith of 
the people of the United States in the Office of the President of the 
United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.
  President Gerald R. Ford brought closure to the crisis with 
characteristic straight talk at his inauguration in August of 1974, 
when he humbly declared to the American people that: ``Our long 
national nightmare is over. Our Constitution works.'' With those words, 
our Nation moved forward under his leadership.
  During his administration, President Ford's policies at home pursued 
the path of healing and rebuilding--addressing the wounds of Watergate 
and the end of the war in Vietnam. He halted the postwar decline of our 
Armed Forces and set an early course for our Nation's defense posture, 
which proved a well-placed step toward ending the Cold War.
  Abroad, President Ford worked to achieve peace in the Middle East, to 
preserve detente with the Soviet Union, and to limit the spread of 
nuclear weapons. Furthermore, with a clear vision towards a prevailing 
freedom in Eastern Europe, President Ford advanced the cause of human 
rights and perhaps charted a way and new course for these people long 
oppressed under the Soviet regime with the signing of the final act of 
the conference on security and cooperation in Europe, commonly known as 
the Helsinki Agreement.
  In the three decades since departing the White House, President Ford 
has continued his relentless pursuit of the ideals which mark America's 
greatness. To this day, Gerald Ford remains an international ambassador 
of American goodwill, a champion for higher education, a strong 
supporter of human rights, an ardent proponent of strong national 
defense and international leadership by the United States, and a 
trusted adviser to the succession of Presidents who have built upon his 
foundation.
  I believe my colleagues will agree that it is entirely fitting that 
CVN-78 be named for a former carrier sailor, the USS Gerald Ford.
  I acknowledge the help and guidance and assistance of many in 
bringing up this amendment, notably among them John March, a friend of 
mine and an acquaintance, a fellow public servant. We both came out of 
World War II and met at Washington and Lee University. He went on to 
become a distinguished Member of the House of Representatives, serving 
there for 14 years. Then he was counsel to President Ford at the time 
of these difficult decisions that I have referred to. He then served as 
Army Secretary, and I think to date he is the longest serving Army 
Secretary in the history of our country.
  Likewise, a wonderful man, former Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird. 
He was Secretary when I was privileged to serve under him as Under 
Secretary and Secretary of the Navy, again a lifelong friend and 
admirer of Gerald Ford. Also, the Ford Foundation members, and so many 
others. I spoke with Vice President Dick Cheney yesterday. Indeed, he 
was Chief of Staff to President Ford in his years of the Presidency, 
and Don Rumsfeld also served and was appointed by President Ford as 
Secretary of Defense when he first served with great distinction.
  So I introduce this amendment, now acted upon by the Senate, with the 
deepest sense of humility and gratitude to this fine man who touched my 
life, who helped form my career, who held a Bible on the steps of the 
Senate with me when I was sworn in as head of the Nation's 
bicentennial, having then just stepped down as Secretary of the Navy; 
again served under President Ford in that capacity, to take on the 
direction of that brief chapter of America's history where our country, 
together with 22 other nations, recognized the magnificent achievement 
of our great framework of Government beginning in 1776.
  So I do so, and I am very heartened that I am joined by the 
distinguished President pro tempore of the Senate, Senator Stevens, who 
has been a lifelong friend. It is not entirely coincidental that I am 
joined by my distinguished colleague, friend, and coworker here in the 
venue of the Armed Services Committee for these 28 years that we have 
served together, the distinguished Senator from Michigan, from whence 
Gerald Ford came to serve his country as Congressman and Vice 
President.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the timeline of 
President Gerald R. Ford's life and career be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Timeline of President Gerald R. Ford's Life and Career

     July 14, 0000--Gerald R. Ford is born as Leslie Lynch King, 
         Jr. in Omaha, Nebraska.
     February 1, 0000--Dorothy King marries Gerald R. Ford, Sr., a 
         Grand Rapids businessman.
     1918-1925--Young Ford attends elementary school at Madison 
         Elementary in Grand Rapids, MI. He briefly attends East 
         Grand Rapids Elementary while the family lived there.
     1925--On his twelfth birthday, Ford joins the local Boy Scout 
         Troop 15 of Trinity Methodist Church in Grand Rapids, MI. 
         In November 1927 he attains the rank of Eagle Scout.
     1925-1931--Ford attends South High School in Grand Rapids, MI 
         for junior high and high school. He excels at football, 
         being named to the ``All-City'' and ``All-State'' teams. 
         He also works at his father's paint factory and a local 
         hamburger stand.
     1931-1935--Ford attends the University of Michigan. He plays 
         center on the football team and is named Most Valuable 
         Player on the 1934 team. He also joins the Delta Kappa 
         Epsilon fraternity.

[[Page 11127]]

     1935--Ford plays in the East-West Shrine Game and receives 
         pro football contract offers from the Green Bay Packers 
         and the Detroit Lions.
     June 1935--Ford graduates from the University of Michigan 
         with a B.A. in Economics.
     September 1935--Yale University hires Ford to be an assistant 
         football and boxing coach.
     December 3, 0000--He legally changes his name to Gerald R. 
         Ford, Jr.
     Summer 1936--Ford works as an Intern Forest Ranger at 
         Yellowstone Park's Canyon Station.
     Summer 1937--Ford attends law classes at the University of 
         Michigan in Ann Arbor.
     February 1938--Ford is accepted to Yale University Law 
         School. He begins classes in the fall while continuing to 
         coach. While at Yale, Ford supports the isolationist 
         America First Committee as America sees war spread across 
         Europe.
     Summer 1938--Ford attends law classes at the University of 
         North Carolina in Chapel Hill.
     Fall 1940--Ford volunteers for the Wendell Willkie 
         presidential campaign in New York City. As a volunteer, 
         he attends his first Republican convention in 
         Philadelphia.
     Spring 1941--Ford graduates in the top third of his law 
         school class at Yale.
     May 1941--Ford returns to Grand Rapids and partners with 
         friend Philip Buchen to open a law firm located in Suite 
         621 of the Michigan Trust Building. He also becomes 
         active in local politics helping launch a reform group 
         opposed to the Republican political machine of Frank D. 
         McKay.
     February 1942-May 1942--With the U.S. entrance into World War 
         II, Ford volunteers for the Navy. He is assigned to the 
         Navy's V-5 pre-flight program in Annapolis, Maryland to 
         become a physical training instructor. Upon completion, 
         he is sent to Chapel Hill, North Carolina as an athletic 
         training officer.
     Summer 1943-December 1944--Ford is assigned to sea duty 
         aboard the carrier USS Monterey as the ship's athletic 
         officer and one of the ship's gunnery officers. He sees 
         action in the Pacific Theater aboard the USS Monterey in 
         the Battle of Makin. The ship also takes part in attacks 
         against Kwajalein and Eniwetok, New Guinea, Saipan, Guam, 
         and Formosa. He also survives a typhoon in the Pacific 
         that batters the Monterey on December 18, 0000.
     Spring 1945--Ford is promoted to Lieutenant Commander and 
         assigned to Glenview, Illinois, to train new naval 
         officers for sea duty.
     Fall 1945--Ford returns to Grand Rapids and rejoins his 
         friend Philip Buchen with the law firm of Butterfield, 
         Keeney, and Amberg. He becomes active in many civic 
         affairs and charities including chapters of the Red 
         Cross, the American Legion, and the VFW. Influenced by 
         his experience in the war and the internationalist views 
         of Senator Arthur Vandenberg, Ford resumes his 
         involvement in reforming Grand Rapids politics.
     August 1947--Ford is introduced to Elizabeth (Betty) Bloomer 
         Warren by mutual friends.
     June 1948--Ford announces his candidacy for the Republican 
         nomination for U.S. House of Representatives, Fifth 
         Congressional District of Michigan. He challenges the 
         isolationist foreign policy approach of incumbent Bartel 
         Jonkman, a McKay associate.
     September 14, 0000--Ford defeats Jonkman 23,632 to 14,341 in 
         the Republican primary.
     October 15, 0000--Ford and Betty Bloomer Warren wed at Grace 
         Episcopal Church in Grand Rapids. Marrying in the middle 
         of his congressional campaign, the couple honeymoon 
         briefly in Ann Arbor, attend the University of Michigan-
         Northwestern football game, and then drive to Owosso, 
         Michigan to attend a rally for Republican Presidential 
         candidate Thomas Dewey.
     November 2, 0000--Ford is elected to his first term as a U.S. 
         Congressman from Grand Rapids, receiving 60.5% of the 
         vote.
     January 3, 0000-1950--Ford is sworn in as a member of the 
         Eighty-First Congress. During his first year in the 
         House, he is assigned to the Public Works Committee. As a 
         member he is invited to tour the White House by President 
         Truman. He also helps organize the ``Chowder and Marching 
         Club'' of young Republican Congressmen with fellow House 
         member Richard Nixon.
     March 14, 0000--The Fords' first child, Michael Gerald Ford 
         is born.
     November 7, 0000--Ford wins his second term as Congressman 
         from the fifth district with 66% of the vote.
     January 1951-1952--At the start of his second term in the 
         House, Ford is appointed to the Appropriations Committee. 
         Ford invites Richard Nixon to Grand Rapids to give the 
         annual Lincoln Day Speech. In February 1952 he and other 
         young Republican Congressmen send a letter urging General 
         Eisenhower to enter the Presidential race.
     March 16, 0000--The Fords' second son, John Gardner ``Jack'' 
         Ford is born.
     November 4, 0000--Ford wins his third term as Congressman 
         from Grand Rapids with 66% of the vote.
     1953-1954--Ford is a member of the only Republican controlled 
         House from 1949 to 1995. He is appointed to the 
         Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense Spending, and is 
         made Chairman of the Army Panel on spending. As a member 
         of this committee he witnesses test firings of project 
         NIKE that developed the first operational anti-aircraft 
         missile, the Nike-Ajax.
     August 1953--Ford takes a three week tour of U.S. military 
         installations in Asia and the Pacific. He visits Saigon 
         in French Indochina, and during a visit to Korea, 
         witnesses a POW exchange.
     November 4, 0000--After declining a run for U.S. Senate, Ford 
         wins his fourth term as Congressman.
     1955-56--Ford continues to serve on the Appropriations 
         Committee in the House, and in 1956 is appointed to the 
         Intelligence Subcommittee, which oversees the CIA's 
         budget. He serves on this subcommittee for ten years and 
         learns of programs such as U-2 and Bay of Pigs. He also 
         visits NATO headquarters in Paris, and the Allied and 
         Russian Zones of Berlin. He visits a Hungarian refugee 
         camp in Austria.
     Spring 1955--The Fords move into their newly completed house 
         in Alexandria, Virginia.
     May 19, 0000--The Fords' third son, Steven Meigs Ford is 
         born.
     November 6, 0000--After declining an opportunity to run for 
         Michigan Governor, Ford wins election to his fifth term 
         as Congressman.
     1957-1958--During his fifth term, Ford is appointed to the 
         ``Select Committee on Astronautics and Space 
         Exploration,'' chaired by Senator Lyndon Johnson, which 
         would recommend the creation of NASA. He also attends an 
         address of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem to a 
         joint session of Congress in May 1957.
     July 6, 0000--The Fords' youngest child, daughter Susan 
         Elizabeth Ford is born.
     November 4, 0000--Ford wins his sixth term as U.S. 
         Congressman.
     1959-1960--In January, Ford joins the Republican colleagues 
         in replacing their House leader Joseph Martin with 
         Charles Halleck. In September 1959 Ford spends 3 days 
         touring Moscow and 10 days in Poland on fact-finding 
         missions.
     July 1960--The Michigan delegation at the Republican 
         Convention in Chicago supports Ford as a favorite son 
         candidate to Richard Nixon's running mate. Ford gives the 
         nominating speech for the eventual Vice-Presidential 
         nominee, Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge.
     November 1960--Ford is re-elected to a seventh term in 
         Congress.
     1961-1962--Ford becomes the ranking Republican on the Defense 
         Appropriations Subcommittee. However, he supports many of 
         President Kennedy's foreign aid initiatives. He is also 
         awarded the Congressional Distinguished Service Award 
         from the American Political Science Association.
     January 26, 0000--Ford's stepfather, Gerald Ford, Sr., dies 
         in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
     November 6, 0000--Ford is re-elected to his eighth term, 
         despite declining Republican numbers in the House.
     January 2, 0000--In a Republican caucus revolution led by 
         Congressmen Charles Goodell and Robert Griffin, Ford 
         defeats Charles Hoeven of Iowa for House Republican 
         Conference Chairman.
     November 29, 1963--A week after President Kennedy's 
         assassination, President Johnson appoints Ford to the 
         seven member Warren Commission to investigate Kennedy's 
         death. On September 27, 0000 they would publish their 
         conclusion that there was no evidence of a conspiracy in 
         the assassination of President Kennedy. Ford would later 
         publish a book about the assassination, Portrait of an 
         Assassin, with friend Jack Stiles.
     November 3, 0000--Lyndon Johnson is elected President in a 
         landslide over Barry Goldwater. Ford is elected to his 
         ninth term as Congressman.
     December 19, 0000--After meeting with fellow Republican House 
         members Donald Rumsfeld, Robert Griffin, and Charles 
         Goodell, Ford announces that he will challenge the 
         incumbent, Charles Halleck of Indiana for the post of 
         House Minority Leader.
     January 4, 0000--Ford unseats Halleck as House Minority 
         Leader by a vote of 73-67.
     1965-1966--In his first term as House Minority Leader, Ford 
         offers Republican alternatives to the Great Society 
         legislation of the Johnson administration. He appears 
         with Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen of Illinois 
         in weekly press conferences (known as the ``Ev and Jerry 
         Show'') to offer critiques of Johnson administration 
         policies. He also campaigns on behalf of Republican 
         candidates during the 1966 midterm elections.
     November 8, 0000--Ford wins his tenth election as Congressman 
         with 68 percent of

[[Page 11128]]

         the vote. Republicans make strong gains in the mid term 
         elections.
     1967-1968--Ford in his second term as House Minority Leader 
         begins attacking Johnson's position on the war in Vietnam 
         asking in an August 8, 0000 speech, ``Why are we pulling 
         our best punches in Vietnam?''
     September 17, 0000--Ford's mother, Dorothy Gardner Ford, dies 
         in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
     August 5, 0000--Ford presides as Permanent Chairman of the 
         Republican Convention held in Miami Beach, Florida. 
         Following Richard Nixon's nomination, Ford supports New 
         York City Mayor John Lindsay for running mate in 
         conversations with Nixon. Nixon, however, chooses 
         Maryland Governor Spiro Agnew.
     November 5, 0000--Nixon is elected President; Ford is elected 
         to his eleventh term as House member.
     1969-1970--As House Minority Leader under a Republican 
         President, Ford consistently supports Nixon's polices in 
         the House.
     April 15, 0000--In a speech on the House floor, Ford calls 
         for the removal of Justice William O. Douglas' from the 
         Supreme Court for what Ford believes to be inappropriate 
         judicial conduct. The matter is later turned over to the 
         House Judiciary Committee where the issue dies.
     November 3, 0000--Ford is elected to his twelfth term.
     June 17, 0000--Five burglars break into Democratic National 
         Headquarters at the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C.
     June 23-July 7, 0000--Building upon President Nixon's trip to 
         the People's Republic of China in February 1972, Ford and 
         Congressman Hale Boggs of Louisiana visit and meet with 
         Premier Chou En-Lai.
     August 19-22, 0000--Ford chairs the Republican National 
         Convention in Miami Beach, Florida, where President Nixon 
         and Vice-President Agnew are re-nominated.
     November 7, 0000--Ford is elected to his thirteenth and final 
         term as a Congressman from Michigan. Despite Nixon's 
         landslide victory, the Republicans do not gain many House 
         seats. Realizing he may never achieve his goal to become 
         Speaker of the House, Ford contemplates retirement after 
         1976.
     October 10, 0000--Spiro Agnew, under investigation for 
         accepting bribes and income tax evasion, resigns as Vice 
         President of the United States.
     October 12, 0000--Ford is nominated to be Vice President by 
         Richard Nixon. He is the first Vice President nominated 
         under the 25th amendment to the Constitution.
     November 1, 0000--The Senate begins hearings on Ford's 
         nomination as Vice President.
     November 15, 0000--The House Judiciary Committee begins its 
         hearings on Ford's nomination as Vice President.
     November 27, 0000--The Senate approves Ford's nomination by a 
         vote of 92-3.
     December 6, 0000--The House approves Ford's nomination by a 
         vote of 387-35. Ford takes the oath as the fortieth Vice 
         President of the United States in front of a joint 
         session of Congress.
     January-July, 0000--With Nixon embroiled in the growing 
         Watergate scandal, Vice President Ford travels the 
         country speaking on behalf of the administration's 
         policies. Ford remains an advocate and spokesman for the 
         Republican Party, attending fundraisers and campaign 
         events for Republican candidates.
     April 30, 0000--Nixon releases edited versions of the 
         Watergate tapes containing White House conversations.
     May 9, 0000--The House Judiciary Committee begins impeachment 
         proceedings against President Nixon.
     July 24, 0000--The Supreme Court orders Nixon to turn over 
         the unedited versions of the White House tapes.
     July 27-30, 0000--The House Judiciary Committee approves 
         three articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon.
     August 1, 0000--Nixon's Chief of Staff, Al Haig, advises Ford 
         that he should prepare for a transition to the 
         Presidency.
     August 6, 0000--Ford attends a cabinet meeting and tells 
         Nixon that while he will continue to support Nixon's 
         policies, he can longer speak on the issue of Watergate 
         to the media and the public.
     August 8, 0000--Nixon announces his decision to resign in a 
         televised address.
     August 9, 0000--Ford is sworn in as the 38th President of the 
         United States. In his swearing-in remarks, Ford announces 
         ``Our long, national nightmare is over.''
     August 12, 0000--Ford addresses a Joint Session of Congress. 
         He states, ``I do not want a honeymoon with you. I want a 
         good marriage.'' He also states his first priority is to 
         bring inflation under control, declaring it ``public 
         enemy number one.''
     August 19, 0000--Ford delivers a major speech to the Veterans 
         of Foreign Wars convention in Chicago, supporting earned 
         clemency for Vietnam War draft evaders.
     August 20, 0000--Ford nominates Nelson Rockefeller, former 
         Governor of New York, to be Vice President.
     August 28, 0000--Ford holds his first press conference as 
         President. Many of the questions concern unresolved 
         issues surrounding Watergate.
     September 8, 0000--Ford pardons Nixon for any crimes he may 
         have committed as President. The surprise announcement 
         stuns the country and Ford plummets in the polls.
     September 26-28, 0000--Betty Ford is diagnosed with breast 
         cancer and undergoes surgery.
     September 27-28, 0000--The White House convenes a ``summit 
         conference'' on inflation and the economy.
     October 8, 0000--Ford announces his Whip Inflation Now 
         program to a joint session of Congress.
     October 15, 0000--Ford signs the Federal Election Campaign 
         Act Amendments of 1974, which seek to regulate campaign 
         fundraising and spending.
     October 17, 0000--Ford appears before the House Judiciary 
         Subcommittee on Criminal Justice to explain the facts and 
         circumstances that were the basis for his pardon of 
         former President Richard Nixon.
     October 17, 1974--Ford vetoes the Freedom of Information Act 
         Amendments believing not enough protection is given to 
         sensitive and classified intelligence documents. Congress 
         overrides Ford's veto on November 21, 0000 making the 
         bill law.
     November 1, 0000--Ford meets with an ailing Richard Nixon in 
         a Long Beach, California hospital.
     November 5, 0000--Republicans lose 40 seats in the House and 
         4 in the Senate, widening the Democratic majority in 
         Congress during the mid-term elections.
     November 17, 0000--Ford departs for a visit to Japan--the 
         first visit to that country by an American President--and 
         to South Korea and the Soviet Union.
     November 23, 0000--Ford and Leonid Brezhnev, General 
         Secretary of the Communist Party of the U.S.S.R., meet in 
         Vladivostok, U.S.S.R.
     December 19, 0000--Following Congressional approval, Nelson 
         Rockefeller is sworn in as the forty-first Vice President 
         of the United States.
     January 1, 0000--Ford signs the Privacy Act of 1974.
     January 4, 0000--Ford names a Blue Ribbon panel, chaired by 
         Vice President Rockefeller, to review CIA activities 
         within the United States in response to allegations made 
         in a December New York Times article by Seymour Hersh.
     January 13, 0000--Ford delivers a ``fireside chat'' to the 
         nation, outlining his proposals to fight inflation, the 
         economic recession, and energy dependence.
     January 15, 0000--In his first State of the Union Address, 
         Ford announces bluntly that ``the state of the Union is 
         not good: Millions of Americans are out of work. 
         Recession and inflation are eroding the money of millions 
         more. Prices are too high, and sales are too slow.'' To 
         remedy these problems, Ford proposes tax cuts for 
         American families and businesses, and strongly advocates 
         for the reduction of government spending.
     February 7, 0000--Ed Levi is sworn in as the new Attorney 
         General of the United States replacing William Saxbe, 
         whom Ford appoints as U.S. ambassador to India.
     April 10, 0000--As North Vietnamese Army Divisions approach 
         Saigon; Ford addresses a joint session of Congress to 
         request, unsuccessfully, financial assistance for South 
         Vietnam and Cambodia. During the speech two freshman 
         Democrats, Toby Moffett of Connecticut and George Miller 
         of California walk out in protest.
     April 12, 1975--Ford evacuates the U.S. mission in Cambodia 
         as the communist Khmer Rouge advance on the capital Phnom 
         Penh. The Khmer Rouge take over the country on April 17, 
         0000.
     April 23, 0000--In a speech at Tulane University, President 
         Ford declares that the Vietnam War ``is finished as far 
         as America is concerned.''
     April 28, 0000--Ford orders the emergency evacuation of 
         American personnel and high-risk South Vietnamese 
         nationals, as Saigon falls to Communist forces.
     May 12, 0000--Newly Communist Cambodia seizes the U.S. 
         merchant ship, Mayaguez. Ford orders Marines to rescue 
         the ship's crew.
     May 28, 0000--Ford departs on trip to Europe for a NATO 
         summit meeting, to visit Spain and Italy, and to meet in 
         Austria with President Sadat of Egypt.
     July 8, 0000--Ford formally announces his candidacy for the 
         Republican presidential nomination in 1976.
     July 26, 0000--The President departs on his second trip to 
         Europe--``a mission of peace and progress''--for visits 
         to West Germany and Poland, and finally Helsinki to meet 
         leaders of 34 other nations to sign the final act of the 
         Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. He 
         concludes his trip with visits to Romania and Yugoslavia.
     September 1, 0000--Ford announces a joint Egyptian-Israeli 
         agreement on troop disengagement in the Sinai Peninsula. 
         The agreement is the culmination of 34 days of shuttle 
         diplomacy by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.
     September 5, 0000--Charles Manson follower, Lynette 
         ``Squeaky'' Fromme attempts to

[[Page 11129]]

         assassinate President Ford in Sacramento, California.
     September 22, 0000--Sara Jane Moore, a woman with ties to 
         leftwing radical groups, attempts to assassinate 
         President Ford in San Francisco, California.
     October 2-3, 0000--Ford hosts Japanese Emperor Hirohito and 
         Empress Nagako for a state visit. This is the first state 
         visit for an Emperor and Empress of Japan to the United 
         States.
     October 29, 1975--Ford urges financial restraint and a 
         financial review for New York City during its budget 
         crisis. Ford refuses to support Federal help for New York 
         at this time. He proposes bankruptcy legislation to 
         ensure the City undergoes an orderly default process. On 
         November 26, 0000, after he believes city leaders have 
         begun to adequately address the crisis, he authorizes 
         Congress to extend the City a line of credit.
     November 4, 0000--In what the press dubs the ``Halloween 
         Massacre,'' President Ford orders a reorganization of his 
         cabinet. He names Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary, 
         Elliot Richardson as Commerce Secretary, George Bush as 
         CIA Director, and Richard Cheney as White House Chief of 
         Staff. Henry Kissinger remains Secretary of State; 
         however, he turns over his duties as National Security 
         Advisor to Brent Scowcroft. Under pressure from 
         Republican Party Conservatives, Vice-President Nelson 
         Rockefeller withdraws his name from consideration as 
         Ford's 1976 running mate.
     November 15-17, 0000--Ford attends an economic summit at 
         Rambouillet, France with President Valery Giscard 
         d'Estaing of France, Chancellor Helmut Schmidt of West 
         Germany, Prime Minister Aldo Moro of Italy, Prime 
         Minister Takeo Miki of Japan, and Prime Minister Harold 
         Wilson of the United Kingdom.
     November 20, 0000--Former California Governor Ronald Reagan 
         announces that he will challenge Gerald Ford for the 
         Republican presidential nomination in 1976.
     November 28, 1975--Ford nominates Judge John Paul Stevens of 
         the Seventh Circuit of the Court of Appeals in Chicago to 
         the United States Supreme Court to replace retiring 
         Justice William O. Douglas. The Senate unanimously 
         approves Stevens by a 98-0 vote. He is sworn in on 
         December 19, 0000.
     November 29, 0000--Ford departs for visits to People's 
         Republic of China, the Philippines, and Indonesia.
     December 19, 0000--Ford opposes to the Tunney Amendments of 
         the Defense Appropriations Bill but the Senate passes 
         them. The amendments prohibit funding for US covert 
         operations in Angola aimed at defeating the Soviet and 
         Cuban backed MPLA factions in the Angolan Civil War.
     January 2, 0000--Ford vetoes the Common Situs Picketing Bill.
     February 18, 0000--In an effort to reform the U.S. 
         intelligence community, Ford signs Executive Order 11905 
         to ``establish policies to improve the quality of 
         intelligence needed for national security, to clarify the 
         authority and responsibilities of the intelligence 
         departments and agencies, and to establish effective 
         oversight to assure compliance with law in the management 
         and direction of intelligence agencies and departments of 
         the national government.'' This executive order also 
         prohibits the United States from engaging in political 
         assassination.
     February 26, 0000--Ford edges Reagan by 1,250 votes in New 
         Hampshire primary, taking 17 of 21 delegates. This begins 
         a string of primary victories for Ford which include 
         Florida and Illinois before a series of losses from 
         challenger Reagan in North Carolina, Texas, Georgia, 
         Alabama, and Indiana.
     March 25, 1976--Ford sends a message to Congress requesting a 
         special appropriation for the National Swine Flu 
         Immunization Program. He signs the measure into law on 
         August 12, 0000.
     June 20, 0000--Ford orders the evacuation of the US embassy 
         in Beirut, Lebanon following the assassination of embassy 
         officials on June 16.
     July 4, 0000--America's Bicentennial of independence. The 
         year is marked by numerous head of state visits and state 
         gifts to the United States. On July 4, President Ford 
         attends events at Valley Forge, PA; Operation Sail in New 
         York City; and in Philadelphia, PA.
     July 7, 0000--President and Mrs. Ford welcome Queen Elizabeth 
         II to the White House for a state dinner as part of the 
         Bicentennial celebration.
     August 18, 0000--When North Korean soldiers axe-murder two 
         U.S. soldiers on a tree-pruning mission in the 
         Demilitarized Zone, Ford weighs strong military action 
         but decides on other measures.
     August 19, 0000--Ford is nominated at the Republican 
         Convention edging out former California Governor Ronald 
         Reagan. Ford names Senator Robert Dole of Kansas as his 
         running mate. Public opinion polls following the 
         convention have Ford trailing the Democratic nominee 
         Jimmy Carter by wide margins. The Gallup poll favors 
         Carter 56% to 33% and the Harris poll favors Carter 61% 
         to 32%.
     September 13, 0000--Ford signs the Government in the Sunshine 
         Act requiring that many government regulatory agencies 
         must give advance notice of meetings and hold open 
         meetings. The new law also amends the Freedom of 
         Information Act ``by narrowing the authority of agencies 
         to withhold information from the public.''
     September 15, 0000--Ford kicks off his general election 
         campaign at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.
     September 23, 0000--First presidential campaign debate 
         between President Ford and Governor Jimmy Carter in 
         Philadelphia. This is the first presidential candidate 
         debate since the Nixon-Kennedy debates in 1960.
     October 6, 0000--Second presidential candidate debate, on 
         foreign policy and defense issues, in San Francisco. 
         During the debate Ford comments that, ``there is no 
         Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and there never will 
         be under a Ford administration.'' This misstatement is 
         fodder for the press and public for the next several 
         days.
     October 22, 0000--Third and final presidential candidate 
         debate in Williamsburg, Virginia.
     November 1-2, 0000--President Ford attends his final campaign 
         rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan at the Pantlind Hotel. He 
         casts his vote on November 2 and attends the unveiling of 
         the Gerald R. Ford mural by artist Paul Collins at the 
         Kent County Airport before returning to Washington.
     November 3, 0000--Ford concedes the Presidential election to 
         Jimmy Carter of Georgia. Ford loses the Electoral College 
         297-240 and receives 39,147,793 votes (48% of the votes 
         cast) to Carter's 40,830,763 (50.1 % of the votes cast).
     December 14, 0000--Ford sends a letter to the Archivist of 
         the United States and the President of the University of 
         Michigan offering to deposit his papers in a Presidential 
         Library to be built on the University of Michigan campus.
     January 12, 0000--In his final State of the Union Address, 
         Ford tells Congress and the American People, ``I can 
         report that the state of the union is good. There is room 
         for improvement, as always, but today we have a more 
         perfect Union than when my stewardship began.''
     January 20, 0000--Carter is sworn in as the 39th President of 
         the United States. In his inaugural address, Carter 
         states, ``For myself and for our Nation, I want to thank 
         my predecessor for all he has done to heal our land.'' 
         Ford retires to Palm Springs, California and Vail, 
         Colorado. During his retirement, Ford serves on various 
         corporate boards, participates in many charitable causes, 
         remains involved in many national and international 
         causes and issues, participates in many Republican Party 
         functions, and is called to service several times by 
         later Presidents.
     March 9, 0000--President and Mrs. Ford sign contracts to 
         publish their memoirs.
     March 24, 0000--Ford returns to the White House for the first 
         time since he left office and meets with President Carter 
         in the Oval Office. They meet for an hour and a half 
         discussing a range of national and international issues.
     June 6, 0000--Ford's memoir, A Time to Heal, is published.
     Fall 1979--Ford considers another run for the Presidency in 
         the 1980 election.
     March 16, 0000--Ford officially takes himself out of 
         consideration for the Republican Presidential nomination, 
         stating ``. . . America needs a new President. I have 
         determined that I can best help that cause by not being a 
         candidate for President, which might further divide my 
         party.''
     July 1, 0000--At the Republican National Convention in 
         Detroit, Michigan, representatives of Ronald Reagan and 
         Gerald Ford attempt to work out the details of having 
         Ford on the ticket as Vice Presidential nominee, but to 
         no avail. However, many newspapers inaccurately report 
         that Ford has been selected for the post.
     November 1, 0000--Ford appears on NBC's Meet the Press to 
         discuss the Iranian hostage situation and stump for 
         candidate Reagan.
     April 27, 0000--Ford dedicates his Presidential Library in 
         Ann Arbor, Michigan.
     September 18, 0000--Ford dedicates his Presidential Museum in 
         Grand Rapids, Michigan.
     October 10, 0000--At the request of President Reagan, Ford 
         joins former Presidents Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter as 
         part of the official American delegation attending the 
         funeral of assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.
     October 3, 0000--The Betty Ford Center is dedicated.
     November 10, 0000--Ford hosts a conference on the Presidency 
         and the War Powers Act at the Ford Library in Ann Arbor, 
         Michigan.
     December 1983--Ford makes a cameo appearance with Henry 
         Kissinger on the ABC show Dynasty.

[[Page 11130]]

     November 15, 0000--Ford joins former President Carter for a 
         symposium at the University of Michigan on ``New Weapons 
         Technologies and Soviet-American Relations.''
     September 17-19, 0000--Ford hosts the symposium ``Humor and 
         the Presidency'' at the Ford Museum in Grand Rapids, 
         Michigan.
     January-February, 0000--To mark the bicentennial of the U.S. 
         Constitution, Ford participates in conferences with 
         former President Carter at both the Carter and Ford 
         Libraries entitled, ``The Presidency and the 
         Constitution.''
     October 1, 0000--Ford publishes Humor and the Presidency 
         drawn from the September 1986 conference at the Ford 
         Presidential Museum.
     November 18, 0000--Former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald 
         Ford meet with President-elect George H.W. Bush to 
         present the recommendations of the American Agenda Group, 
         an organization of experts and former administration 
         officials who studied the most critical issues 
         confronting the United States.
     April 6-8, 0000--Ford and many members of his administration 
         participate in a conference at Hofstra University that 
         examines the Ford presidency.
     October 8, 0000--The University of Michigan retires President 
         Ford's football jersey number 48 at halftime of the 
         Michigan State game. It is only the fifth football number 
         to be retired by the university.
     August 12, 0000--Ford speaks at the Republican National 
         Convention in San Diego, California on behalf of his 
         former running mate and Republican presidential nominee, 
         Robert Dole.
     December 22, 0000--Following the House of Representatives' 
         impeachment of former President Clinton, Ford co-authors 
         a New York Times Op-Ed piece with former President 
         Carter. They argue for a bipartisan resolution of censure 
         as an alternative to an impeachment trial.
     August 8, 0000--Ford writes an Op-Ed piece in the New York 
         Times defending the University of Michigan's system of 
         admission standards that use affirmative action.
     August 11, 0000--Ford is awarded the Presidential Medal of 
         Freedom, the Nation's highest civilian award, by 
         President Clinton.
     October 27, 0000--Ford receives the Congressional Gold Medal, 
         the highest award bestowed by the Legislative branch.
     September 12, 0000--Ford is present as The University of 
         Michigan's School of Public Policy is renamed for him.
     May 21, 0000--The John F. Kennedy Foundation presents Ford 
         with the Profiles in Courage Award for putting the 
         Nation's interest above his own political future with the 
         pardon of Richard Nixon.
     January 30, 2001--Former Presidents Ford and Carter are 
         honorary Co-Chairmen of the National Commission on 
         Federal Election Reform. The Commission presents its 
         findings to the White House on July 31, 0000.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, first let me thank the chairman of the 
Armed Services Committee for his wisdom in identifying an appropriate 
way--one of the many, but very appropriate ways--we can honor President 
Ford. Jerry Ford is a dear friend to Members of Congress and probably 
thousands of others. Regardless of party, he was someone who knew how 
to reach across the aisle. It was a matter of pride for him to reach 
Democrats as well as Republicans, to pull together in common causes.
  We are particularly proud of Jerry Ford in Michigan. He is a proud 
son of Michigan. He went to the University of Michigan. He represented 
a district in west Michigan for a long period of time in the Congress. 
His Presidential library and his Presidential museum are both in 
Michigan, and they are the objects of a great deal of reverence, not 
just for the people of Michigan but for people who visit Michigan as 
well.
  He came to be President at a time when we needed a healer, when we 
needed someone who would unify this Nation in a time of great turmoil.
  We were in the middle of the Watergate crisis and the Watergate 
crimes. It was fortuitus that it would be Jerry Ford who would become 
President when President Nixon resigned.
  Senator Warner has read from one line of Jerry Ford's remarks on 
taking the oath of office as President. I thought I would close by 
reading a few other lines because he captured the sentiment and the 
feel of our Nation at a very critical moment in our history. Jerry Ford 
started his remarks on taking his oath in August of 1974 by saying:

       The oath that I have taken is the same oath that was taken 
     by George Washington and by every President under the 
     Constitution. But I assume the Presidency under extraordinary 
     circumstances never before experienced by Americans. This is 
     an hour of history that troubles our minds and hurts our 
     hearts.

  He went on to say:

       I have not sought this enormous responsibility, but I will 
     not shirk it. . . . It is only fitting then that I should 
     pledge to [all of the people] that I will be the President of 
     all of the people.

  A little later in his remarks, in addressing the people of other 
nations, he said:

       I pledge an uninterrupted and sincere search for peace. 
     America will remain strong and united, but its strength will 
     remain dedicated to the safety and sanity of the entire 
     family of man, as well as to our own precious freedom.

  And then he said:

       I believe that truth is the glue that holds government 
     together, not only our Government but civilization itself. 
     That bond, though strained, is unbroken at home and abroad. 
     In all my public and private acts as your President, I expect 
     to follow my instincts of openness and candor with full 
     confidence that honesty is always the best policy in the end.

  And then he added, as Senator Warner has quoted:

       My fellow Americans, our long, national nightmare is over.

  The only other line I would choose to quote from his remarks is the 
following. It speaks so much of Jerry Ford and what he stood for and 
the reason he is held in such affection and esteem by all of our 
people, particularly by the people of Michigan.

       As we bind up the internal wounds of Watergate, more 
     painful and poisonous than those of foreign wars, let us 
     restore the golden rule to our political process, and let 
     brotherly love purge our hearts of suspicion and of hate.

  So spoke Jerry Ford, and that is the way he lived his life.
  I am delighted that Senator Warner has taken the lead, as he has, to 
so identify this new class of nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. I thank 
him again for his graciousness, his sensitivity, and his wisdom in 
identifying this specific class of aircraft carriers to be named after 
a truly great man and wonderful son of Michigan, Jerry Ford.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank my dear friend, Senator Levin. I 
am deeply moved by this occasion, as you can tell. This is my last 
opportunity as chairman of the committee to present a bill to the 
Congress, and to have this amendment a part of the bill is very 
special, and to be joined by the distinguished Senator from Michigan to 
share in the honors of putting this to the Senate. You and I earlier 
discussed the traditions of naming ships. I draw on my knowledge as 
former Secretary of the Navy that it more often originates in the 
executive branch, for which I have the greatest respect. But somehow I 
felt it appropriate, since President Ford is a truly remembered part of 
the legislature of America, the legislative branch, having served so 
long there, that the naming of this ship have its origin here in the 
Congress which he so dearly loved. So we have joined together for that 
purpose.
  Mr. LEVIN. And as Vice President, we will also claim him as a Member 
of the Senate as well.
  Mr. WARNER. Oh, yes, once upon a time he occupied that chair, I say, 
with respect to the Presiding Officer, the President of the Senate, the 
one and only function and duty enumerated in the Constitution of the 
Vice President.
  Madam President, I invite any other Senators who so wish to be added 
as cosponsors. I have asked unanimous consent that their names be added 
as they indicate to the Chair, the Presiding Officer, their desire and 
that be kept open until the hour of, say, 5 o'clock tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I think we are concluded on the 
amendments. We are proceeding in an orderly fashion. The amendment 
pending is that of the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin; am I correct, 
or has that been put forward yet?
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if we could inquire of the Chair whether the 
Durbin amendment has been offered. I don't

[[Page 11131]]

believe it has yet. We agreed yesterday it would be next in line; 
however, there is an effort being made to work out the Durbin 
amendment, and I suggest Senator Dorgan be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Durbin amendment has not been entered.
  Mr. LEVIN. We asked Senator Dorgan to come over and take over that 
spot.
  Mr. WARNER. We ask that following that, we try to alternate 
amendments. The next amendment would come from our side, and I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senator from Pennsylvania be recognized for 
purposes of offering an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield, I wonder if we could keep 
Senator Durbin in line after Senator Santorum, subject to the work 
being completed on his amendment?
  Mr. WARNER. Sure, the amendment would come next.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me thank Senators Warner and Levin for their 
leadership on this legislation. This is a very difficult task, to put 
together the authorization for military expenditures and military 
operations.
  I want to especially say I just walked in while they were talking 
about naming an aircraft carrier after former President Gerald Ford. 
That is a wonderful thing to have done. Gerald Ford gave great service 
to his country in the Congress, as Vice President, and as President of 
our country. I join them in acknowledging the significant achievements 
of President Ford and what he accomplished not only for himself but for 
this country as well. It is a great way to honor him, by naming an 
aircraft carrier for him.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.


                           Amendment No. 4230

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration. This amendment is sent to the desk on 
behalf of myself and Senators Bingaman, Boxer, Dayton, Feingold, 
Johnson, Kerry, Kohl, Lautenberg, Leahy, Mikulski, Nelson of Florida, 
Pryor, Reid of Nevada, Harkin, and Wyden. I ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] for himself, Mr. 
     Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Johnson, 
     Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Mikulski, 
     Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Reid, Mr. Harkin, and 
     Mr. Wyden, proposes an amendment numbered 4230.

  Mr. DORGAN. 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 printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. WARNER. Would the Senator allow me a brief unanimous consent 
request? The distinguished Senator from Michigan and I wish to alert 
the Senate that following Mr. Dorgan's amendment comes the amendment of 
Mr. Santorum and then Mr. Durbin. So the order of amendments is Dorgan, 
Santorum, then we come back to Senator Durbin, and then I ask unanimous 
consent that Senator McCain be recognized for the purpose of offering 
an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I advise the Senate we are, as we say in the Navy, well 
underway on this bill. The Senator from Michigan and I are anxious to 
learn from Senators their desire to have amendments. We will do the 
best we can to accommodate them because it appears now we will be able 
to remain in session somewhat longer this evening than originally 
anticipated due to the cancellation, I understand, of the White House 
picnic. I will consult with the leadership. It is my hope we can work 
on into the early evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. This amendment is a rather comprehensive amendment. I 
offer it on behalf of a good many of our colleagues.
  I wish to describe why I offer this amendment. As I do that, I wish 
to acknowledge the outstanding work done by my colleagues, Senator 
Warner and Senator Levin, in dealing with all of these issues. There is 
an area, however--given what has happened with respect to wartime 
expenditures in the military and also contracting outside of the 
military in the issue of reconstruction spending in the country of 
Iraq--there is an issue which I believe is of great seriousness. I 
think we have had some of the most significant waste, fraud, and abuse 
in the history of this country just in recent years, with a massive 
amount of money that is pushed out of this Congress, pushed out of the 
administration into the hands of contractors, into the hands of 
subcontractors, and then subcontractors, and subcontractors from them 
in the country of Iraq. There is a massive amount of waste, fraud, and 
abuse. The fact is, we are not dealing with it the way we should.
  I want to show a picture. This picture shows a fellow standing here 
whom I have actually met. This is a picture that was taken in the 
country of Iraq. These are one-hundred-dollar bills, wrapped in Saran 
wrap. This is $2 million. These one-hundred-dollar bills were wrapped 
in Saran wrap to be the size of a small football. This fellow, by the 
way, said they actually threw some of these around as a football there 
in this office.
  What they were doing here as they took this picture, they were 
preparing to pay a contractor in Iraq named Custer Battles, named after 
two men, Mr. Custer and Mr. Battles. Why were they paying in cash? 
Because, according to this fellow, the word was: You bring a bag, we 
pay in cash. He said it was like the Wild West. So here is a couple of 
million dollars. This was going to go to Custer Battles. Let me just 
tell the story of Custer Battles. I will abbreviate it, but the story 
is these two guys show up in Iraq. They don't have a great deal of 
experience, have very little money, but they decide they are going to 
be a company now. They are going to be a company in Iraq, and they are 
going to provide security. They start bidding on security contracts. 
All of a sudden, they are given a contract to provide security at the 
Baghdad airport. The money starts rolling in. It turns out, before this 
is all over with, from what I have learned, Custer Battles Company got 
more than $100 million in contract money for various things. This is 
just a part of the payment--in cash.
  They have been charged with criminal behavior and fraud and other 
things. The allegations were that they took the forklift trucks off the 
Baghdad airport, put them in a warehouse, repainted them blue, and then 
sold them back to the Coalition Provisional Authority which was then 
running Iraq, which, of course, was us because the CPA was created by a 
document signed by the Secretary of Defense. So this company allegedly 
took the forklift trucks that existed at the Baghdad airport, for which 
they were providing security, put them in a warehouse someplace, 
repainted them, and then sold them back to the CPA. They also then 
created offshore subsidiaries in Lebanon and elsewhere to run money 
through and beyond.
  We had a hearing on this subject. Here is what the director of 
security at the Baghdad airports said in a memo to the Coalition 
Provisional Authority that hired Custer Battles:

       Custer Battles have shown themselves to be unresponsive, 
     uncooperative, incompetent, deceitful, manipulative and war 
     profiteers. Other than that, they are swell fellows.

  That is a direct quote, yes. Let me read it again.

       Custer Battles have shown themselves to be unresponsive, 
     uncooperative, incompetent, deceitful, manipulative and war 
     profiteers. Other than that, they are swell fellows.

  Why do I raise this issue? It has been on ``60 Minutes.'' We have had 
a hearing about it. It is an example of what has been happening in 
contracting, particularly in Iraq.
  Let me just say that the minute you talk about contracting in Iraq, 
you

[[Page 11132]]

have to talk about Halliburton. The minute you talk about Halliburton, 
there will be those who will say: Aha, you are trying to talk about 
Vice President Cheney, aren't you? No, not true. Vice President Cheney 
is long gone from Halliburton. This is all about Halliburton in Iraq. 
It has nothing to do with Vice President Cheney.
  I want to go through some stories because they are very important.
  There is a woman who was the top civilian contracting official at the 
Corps of Engineers over at the Pentagon. Her name is Bunnatine 
Greenhouse. Some have written about Bunnatine. She received a top 
evaluation over two decades from her superiors as one of the top 
procurement people in this country. She knew the law. She knew the 
procedure. She had worked over two decades and had always received top 
recommendations from her superiors. She was tough as nails and 
dedicated to safeguarding the taxpayers' money.
  Then the Pentagon decided to award a very large no-bid, sole-source 
contract to a Halliburton subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown & Root, something 
called ``Restore Iraqi Oil,'' or the RIO contract, which a number of my 
colleagues are familiar with.
  Mrs. Greenhouse protested that the way this was done was in violation 
of proper contracting procedures. She later found that Halliburton was 
found by auditors to have overcharged $61 million on a piece of the 
contract for fuel delivery, and instead of taking the company to task 
for Defense Department auditors finding $61 million in overcharges, the 
top leadership of the Corps of Engineers rushed to Halliburton's 
assistance and provided the company with a waiver for the overcharges, 
a waiver of normal cost reporting rules, concluding that the prices 
were fair and reasonable. That waiver was provided without the approval 
of the top contracting official who was required to have signed it.
  They kept the top contracting official, Mrs. Greenhouse, in the dark, 
and did so deliberately. She learned about the waiver when she read 
about it in the newspaper. When she spoke up, she was bypassed, 
ignored, and then ultimately forced to resign or be demoted.
  This is what she told us. This relates to meetings that were held in 
the Pentagon prior to bidding. Halliburton was present in the meeting. 
She complained about the meetings being in violation by the way of the 
rules. Here is what Bunny Greenhouse said:

       I can unequivocally state that the abuse relating to 
     contracts awarded to KBR represents the most blatant and 
     improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of 
     my professional career.

  This from the top civilian contracting official in the Corps of 
Engineers.
  Does anybody care about this?
  This woman, by all accounts, was judged to be at the top of her 
profession, with outstanding reviews always, until she blew the whistle 
on what she believed were abuses in contracting. When she blew the 
whistle, then things started to change very, very quickly.
  She was demoted for having the courage to tell the truth. When she 
spoke out, they decided that they would replace Mrs. Greenhouse with a 
different Pentagon official. That different Pentagon official is now in 
this job. That person has over 40 years of Government service, but has 
none of that service related to procurement. So that person was 
selected to take this job knowing nothing about the job. They now have 
that person in training, going to school and training.
  We have had plenty of examples of cronies. I believe seven of the top 
jobs in FEMA were filled not with people who knew anything about 
disasters but with cronies, people who needed a job. Stick them at 
FEMA. And then a hurricane hits and we have an agency that does not 
know what it is doing because you have a bunch of cronies involved in 
that agency.
  Now we have a woman who was the top procurement official who blew the 
whistle on improper contracting, on both the Pentagon and also the 
company, and for that she was demoted and replaced by someone who is 
not certified as an acquisition professional and doesn't have the 
ability. She is now, according to General Strock, ``being brought up to 
speed on what it is she needs to know as a contracting official.''
  That is absurd.
  Let me describe some of the firsthand eyewitness issues in Iraq.
  Brand new $85,000 trucks that were left on the side of the road 
because of a flat tire and then subsequently burned; 25 tons, 50,000 
pounds, of nails ordered by Kellogg, Brown & Root, the wrong size, that 
are laying in the sands of Iraq; ordering hand towels for soldiers 
embroidered with the ``KBR'' logo, so they could double the price of 
the hand towels paid for by the American taxpayers; 42,000 meals a day 
charged to the taxpayers by Halliburton, by KBR, 42,000 meals a day 
being served to the troops each day paid for by taxpayers for the 
soldiers and only 14,000 are actually served; leasing an SUV in Iraq 
for $7,500 a month; serving food at a cafeteria in Iraq for the 
soldiers, and a man named Roy who was the supervisor in the food 
service kitchen said that the food was date-stamped ``expired.'' In 
other words, it had a date stamp, which meant the food wasn't good 
anymore, and he was told by superiors that it doesn't matter. Feed it 
to the troops. It doesn't matter that they had an expired date 
stamped--feed it to the troops.
  What we have discovered is pretty unbelievable. I will not go on at 
great length because I have done it before about the water contracts. 
We have direct testimony from physicians, Army doctors, and others 
about providing nonpotable water for shaving, brushing teeth, and so on 
that is in worse condition as water than the raw water coming out of 
the Euphrates River.
  What was going on with respect to this contracting is unbelievable. I 
have just mentioned a couple of companies. There are more. I will not 
go on at great length.
  I think when you are at war, when a massive quantity of money is 
being pushed out the door, that we ought to decide to get tough on 
those who would be engaged in war profiteering. The amendment I have 
offered has a number of provisions in it.
  First, it punishes war profiteers with significant punishment. It is 
a piece of legislation that has been introduced separately here in U.S. 
Senate. That legislation was previously introduced by Senator Leahy, 
but it is now made a piece of this larger piece of legislation.
  We have a provision that would crack down on contract cheaters by 
restoring a rule that this administration rescinded, which the previous 
administration put in place as a rule, that says that if a contracting 
company exhibits a pattern of failing to comply with the law, they can 
be debarred and suspended. That ought to be the rule. If you have a 
pattern of cheating you ought to be suspended.
  I have seen circumstances where we have had major defense contractors 
over in criminal court being judged guilty on the same day that they 
were over in the Pentagon signing a new contract. It is a slap on the 
wrist, a pat on the back. That isn't the way we ought to be dealing 
with this.
  Punishing war profiteers, cracking down on contract cheaters, forcing 
real contract competition--it gets back to what Mrs. Greenhouse 
indicated. You can't do these no-bid, sole-source contracts for 
billions of dollars and decide it does not matter to the taxpayer. Of 
course, it matters. They are going to end up paying through the nose--
and that is exactly what has happened.
  There is another provision that would end cronyism in key positions. 
I know it doesn't deal just with defense with respect to that, but we 
ought to be expecting that people have some qualifications when they 
come to their job. The top procurement official at the Corps of 
Engineers has to be sent to training because she doesn't have the 
background. Why do they have the opening? Because they demoted the 
person that had the background, was given excellent recommendations in 
every performance evaluation, but was demoted because she had the 
courage to stand up and call the old boys network wrong when they tried 
to violate contracting rules.
  The amendment also strengthens whistleblower protection. I think it 
is

[[Page 11133]]

really important that we strengthen protections for those who have the 
courage to stand up as whistleblowers and are willing to tell us what 
is happening when waste, fraud, and abuse occurs. I think we need to 
know about it and take action.
  I have offered previously--and will again--legislation that would 
establish a Truman committee here in the U.S. Senate. The Truman 
committee was established in the 1940s when the Senator from Missouri 
went around this country to military bases and discovered substantial 
waste and fraud.
  We should do that again. I believe we ought to have a Truman 
committee. I have offered it I think three times on the floor. I will 
offer it again.
  But this amendment is different. This amendment is called Honest 
Leadership and Accountability in Contracting. It is a separate bill by 
over 30 my colleagues here in Senate, and I offer it in total as an 
amendment to the underlying Defense authorization bill.
  My hope is we can have a discussion about this. I have simply 
scratched the surface about waste, fraud, and abuse that we have 
uncovered. It is pretty unbelievable. The American taxpayer shouldn't 
stand for it, and neither should the U.S. Congress, and we ought to 
take action right now on this piece of legislation. There is no better 
time than right now to decide we are going to do something about this 
on behalf of the taxpayers of this country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the ranking member, together with our 
leadership, had hoped to have a vote. That will not occur at this time. 
We are contemplating having that vote, which would be on the Dorgan 
amendment, at 3:45 today. At this time, I cannot speak to the finality 
of that. The leadership is considering that issue. In the meantime, I 
will address the Dorgan amendment.
  The committee has been active in exercising oversight on the 
Department of Defense contracting, particularly in Iraq, and held a 
hearing earlier this year focused specifically on recent findings of 
the Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction. In addition, 
the committee held several acquisition reform and general contract 
oversight hearings this year.
  I was particularly taken by some of the remarks of the distinguished 
Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan. We do not take lightly the 
message that he spoke to today. The Special Inspector General for Iraqi 
Reconstruction was established by Congress in October 2004 to provide 
oversight of the Iraqi relief and reconstruction fund and all 
obligations, expenditures, and revenues associated with reconstruction 
and rehabilitation activities in Iraq.
  The SIGIR oversight is accomplished via independent audit, field 
inspections, and criminal investigations into potential fraud, waste, 
and abuse funds. The SIGIR submits quarterly and semiannual reports to 
Congress, the latest of which contains 29 audits of specific projects 
and activities. The SIGIR operates a hotline for reports of possible 
waste, fraud, and abuse and has uncovered criminal activity that has 
been referred for prosecution.
  There are three separate GAO reviews ongoing specifically to review 
contracting practices in Iraq--DOD's efforts to identify and resolve 
cost issues on Iraqi reconstruction contracts, Iraq reconstruction 
contracts, and agency competition requirements for Iraq reconstruction 
contracts since fiscal year 2004.
  The proposed amendment covers a range of policies introduced under 
the jurisdiction of multiple committees, including Homeland Security, 
Governmental Affairs, Judiciary, and Armed Services. Careful 
consideration and deliberation is required on a number of proposed 
provisions in the amendment. For example, one provision in the 
amendment addresses the issue of the role of contractors in performing 
inherently governmental functions. Definitions of ``inherently 
governmental functions'' and the role of contractors in supporting the 
Federal workforce in a variety of duties is an important issue, the 
resolution of which would have wide-ranging consequences and impacts. 
It deserves investigation and debate, not a few pages with a larger 
amendment attached to a major bill.
  Another provision addresses broad workforce policy issues. The 
amendment contains a number of other problematic provisions with 
undefined terms of statutory requirements and disclosure requirements 
with questionable benefits. I know the committees of jurisdiction, 
including Judiciary and Governmental Affairs, will also want to review 
the details and impact of the proposed legislation and to relate it to 
the current statute and regulations. The Armed Services Committee 
conducted oversight on the larger policy issues related to emergency or 
contingency contracting and held a previous hearing in May 2004 
specifically on contract management in Iraq.
  The committee has also held a number of Iraqi related hearings and 
briefings where Iraqi contracting issues have been discussed.
  Frequent bipartisan staff briefings on Iraqi contracting have been 
conducted with DOD, GAO, DOD IG and SIGIR officials. Issues identified 
in the May 2004 hearing and in these briefings related to security 
contractors in Iraq and insurance costs have been the subject of 
legislation in the last two authorization bills. This year's 
authorization bill builds on these reforms with legislation specific to 
effective and accountable management of large programs and projects in 
hostile environments.
  Problems identified such as improper billing, overcharges, and fraud 
against the government are addressed through existing mechanisms to 
identify these acts and punish those who defraud the government. For 
example the False Claims Act provides for criminal and civil sanctions. 
It is important we adhere to due process protections for debarments and 
suspension of contractors.
  Department of Defense 7640.2--Contract Audit Followup system--
implements OMB Circular A-50--requires tracking of all audit reports 
with significant audit findings and is monitored by the DOD Inspector 
General, and includes semi-annual reports to Congress. Virtually all 
Defense Contract Audit Agency audits are subject to this followup 
tracking system.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). The Senator from Pennsylvania is 
recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4234

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4234.

  Mr. SANTORUM. 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 printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, this is an amendment that I spoke about 
yesterday and which I wanted to bring to the floor. I think it is a 
very important one. It is an amendment that is embodied in the bill I 
introduced last year dealing with Iran. It now has 61 cosponsors.
  We have had lots of debates on the floor of this Senate. We have not 
had a debate on what I believe is the greatest foreign policy threat to 
this country at this time; that is, Iran, what our policies should be 
toward Iran, and what we as a Congress and the Senate should do with 
respect to supporting the President's policy or modifying the 
President's policy with respect to Iran.
  This legislation which I have introduced as an amendment brings 
together a couple of pieces of legislation into this one amendment. 
Before I describe what the amendment is about, let me describe what I 
believe is the problem that faces us and then lay out a prescription of 
what Congress can do in the interim to support the process of a 
diplomatic or peaceful solution to the problem that I am about to 
describe.
  It is not a surprise to anyone reading the papers that Iran is in 
pursuit of a nuclear weapon. They are fairly clear

[[Page 11134]]

about their desire to gain more nuclear technology. They have been very 
clear about their desire to enhance their ability to reprocess uranium. 
It is also clear to observers that they are doing so with the intent of 
developing nuclear weapons.
  As a result of that, the United States has been engaged in 
discussions, both with multinational organizations, as well as with 
some of our allies who are similarly concerned about this attempt by 
Iran to develop this type of capability, to get them to cease to do so. 
We have had attempts by the Russians to get them to rely on them for 
this technology. We have now seen recent efforts by the United States 
and a group of countries to approach Iran in multilateral talks about 
the possibility of getting a different type of nuclear reactor there 
that does not lead to the potential for development of nuclear weapons. 
We have seen a whole host of attempts on the part of the world to keep 
nuclear weapons out of the hands of this regime.
  The question is, Why? What is the great concern about Iran? Why do we 
have more concerns about them than, say, other countries in the Middle 
East and in southeast Asia which have, in fact, developed nuclear 
weapons?
  The answer to me is obvious, but it is important we lay that out as 
to what the great threat to this world is if Iran has the nuclear 
capability they seek to develop.
  We are fighting a war right now and everyone focuses on the war in 
Iraq. Certainly that is important and that is the major field of battle 
right now, but the war in Iraq is part of a broader war. The President 
described it as a war on terror. I prefer to describe it as a war on 
Islamic fascism, Islamic extremism. The President has referred to it as 
Islamic totalitarianism. It is a movement within Islam, within the 
Middle East, within southeast Asia, but it actually goes beyond the 
Middle East and southeast Asia that believes in, eventually, the 
domination of the entire world, the Islamization of the entire world 
under this rather radical ideology, this fascist ideology.
  This is not one particular group or one particular faction that is in 
charge. This is not one group--al-Qaida or Islamic jihad or the nation 
State of Iran--but it is a mosaic of different organizations, some of 
which are not necessarily allied with each other but coordinated with 
each other.
  We saw that the other day when Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi was killed. We 
saw Hamas come forward and call this al-Qaida leader a brother in the 
struggle. These are not organizations, at least from all of our 
intelligence, that are closely tied, but they have a common theme. Even 
though they have different views of Islam, they have a general idea of 
a war, a jihad, against the West and against the infidels, if you will.
  So we have this mosaic of different organizations, different Islamic 
fascist organizations. They are commonly called within the media 
terrorist organizations. Terrorism is just the tactic they use. What 
ties them together is not just their terrorism but their ideology. 
Although there are different strains and different ideas, they are tied 
together in a common theme at a common enemy, more importantly.
  The largest piece of this mosaic, the dominant piece of this mosaic--
and it is the dominant piece because it happens to be the biggest piece 
with the biggest wallet, the most resources--is Iran. The mosaic is a 
big mosaic, but the major piece which tends to touch all of the other 
pieces in one way or another is Iran. Iran not only supports these 
organizations--some of them very directly, others very indirectly--but 
it is itself a threat to the world.
  How do we understand what this threat is to America? We only need to 
look at the new leader of the country: Ahmadinejad is the new 
President. To Americans, the President is the leader of the country. In 
Iran, the President is an important position but traditionally has not 
been the most important position within the country of Iran. However, 
it seems to be that Ahmadinejad has taken that position to a new level 
because of his support from the ruling clerics within the country. As 
we know, this is a country ruled by these clerics, these mullahs. And 
the lead mullah is a spiritual adviser to Ahmadinejad, a supporter of 
his. He has been very forthright about what his design is. He has been 
very forthright. He has stated publicly that he would like to wipe out 
Israel off the face of the Earth. This is a leader of a country that is 
trying to develop nuclear weapons, that has the resources and the 
capability if not stopped to do so, that has been very clear about its 
desire to use these weapons to eliminate the State of Israel.
  He has also made a lot of other comments that would lead one to 
believe he does not want to stop there with respect to his designs on 
the war against the ``infidels.''
  So we have in the person of this President a character that has the 
resources, is developing the technology, has the desire, and wants to 
use this capability if it was developed, and has said so publicly, 
repeatedly. That is a pretty serious threat. In fact, I can think of no 
other threat that is more serious than that. This man and this country 
is actively pursuing the development of these weapons. I don't know of 
anyone in the world who does not believe that is what Iran is doing.
  The Senate has, so far, not taken any action to try to deter that 
development, to try to change the political dynamic within Iran. 
Obviously, we have not taken any action to pursue any military force to 
stop them from doing so.
  These are our three options, the way I see it: to get some sort of 
political dynamic going on within the country to change the regime; to 
impose sanctions or to get collaboration with other governments to stop 
them from developing these weapons; or, third, a military option.
  I don't think we are prepared at this point to offer a military 
option, but with this amendment I am offering the other two. I am 
offering an amendment that will both support and codify Executive Order 
sanctions already in place against Iran; impose additional sanctions, 
not on Iran but on other entities that are doing business with Iran; 
and then try to impose a prohibition on importing into this country 
nuclear fuel assemblies made outside of this country if they do 
business with Iran.
  Companies have to make a choice whether they want to do business with 
Iran or whether they want to do business with the United States. That 
is the sanctions part of it. So we need to enact these provisions 
because a lot of what is in place right now is done through Executive 
Orders. Part of the amendment directs the President to cut off foreign 
assistance to the host country of a company investing more than $20 
million in Iran's energy sector; allow the President to waive that 
under certain circumstances--and, by the way, that is a prospective 
investment. It is very important we send a signal to companies and 
countries that if they are going to continue to support this 
development within Iran, there are consequences to the country and to 
the company for continuing to do that.
  There are a variety of different sanctions we place in this 
legislation. By the way, the sanctions portion of this legislation has 
already passed the House of Representatives. It passed by a vote of 
over 300 votes in the House--well over 300 votes in the House. So the 
House has already spoken on this issue, has already said we want to 
codify the sanctions that are in place. We want to impose new sanctions 
on companies and countries that do business with Iran, particularly in 
their energy sector, and we want to make companies choose between doing 
business in the United States with respect to the nuclear program 
versus Iran and the nuclear program.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. WARNER. Could the Senator state the time when the House cast that 
vote?
  Mr. SANTORUM. April of this year.
  Mr. WARNER. It seems to me that vote preceded some remarkable 
developments which have taken place in the international forum within 
our country. With the great leadership of the Secretary of State, 
Condoleezza Rice, we have taken some strong initiatives

[[Page 11135]]

to try and resolve primarily the issue of the desire to proceed with 
the weapons of mass destruction effort, but there are a lot of 
collateral ramifications to these important talks.
  The House vote is of record, but we should let our colleagues know 
that vote took place way before what I regard as rather dramatic 
developments with respect to the international consortium of nations--
Great Britain, France, United States, and now recently both Russia and 
China participating in some way.
  Does the Senator think the amendment is wise in light of what is 
taking place now?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I would say that the developments have 
been--I would not call them dramatic. I would say they are modest in 
this respect: they are modest in the sense that the United States, for 
the first time, has decided to join with other countries in making an 
offer to Iran. The wisdom of that can be debated.
  What would be dramatic is if Iran would seriously consider doing what 
is being suggested, and I don't see any indication they are willing to 
do so nor do I anticipate their willingness to do so.
  My concern is--and the President has been very clear about this--that 
Iran is already jockeying around, seeming to extend the time for 
consideration and drawing this out, certainly, to their advantage. If 
you are developing a program, and you are actively pursuing developing 
a capability, the longer you can stall any action by your adversaries 
to stop you from doing so, buying that time is of great value to Iran.
  What we are seeing with this development already, Iranians are trying 
to buy time.
  The President has said, and I am not sure the other countries have 
been quite as firm as the United States has--that they have weeks, not 
months, to make this decision.
  However, I have seen no indication that the Iranians are anywhere 
near accepting this proposal. I will make the argument that this is 
actually a very good time for the Senate to speak and say we see this 
as a very serious issue, that we need to at this point speak into this 
very critical juncture.
  I would say it is more important now that we have this vote, or more 
important now that we pass this, to show the Iranians that both 
Chambers support this President in his desire, our country's desire, a 
bipartisan desire, to see that Iran does not develop this capability. 
The Senate going on record, codifying sanctions, increasing sanctions 
and, the point I did not get a chance to discuss but I will 
momentarily, funding prodemocracy, authorizing funding for prodemocracy 
groups, and for more communication, public diplomacy within the country 
of Iran to communicate to the dissidents within Iran and encourage the 
dissidents within Iran is exactly the kind of message we want to send 
if we want to force the Iranians' hand to actually come to the table.
  I think pulling this back, in my mind, would be seen by the Iranians 
as a sign that the U.S. Senate does not support this President, does 
not support getting tough. Because the President has been very clear: 
If the Iranians do not come to the table here, they are going to seek 
resolutions at the U.N. to begin the process toward a different way of 
resolving this dispute--maybe that is the best way to put it--in a way 
that could be a lot more confrontational.
  So I think the Senate speaking at this moment is actually critical 
for us to force the Iranians' hands. I am not particularly hopeful, by 
the way, that the Iranians will come to the table or will agree to any 
of the provisions that the groups have laid out. I understand why the 
President has done so. I do not believe they have any desire to comply.
  I think it is important for us not to blink. I think this is a moment 
for us to deal with this issue, to debate it here, and to vote on it or 
to approve this amendment to send a very clear message to the Iranian 
Government that we stand four square behind this President and this 
administration in doing what we can here at this point in time both 
from the standpoint of sanctions as well as supporting a change of 
regime from within Iran.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague.
  Yesterday, the Senate had an opportunity to visit with the 
Secretaries of State and Defense. I believe my distinguished colleague 
from Pennsylvania was there, as was I. And while those discussions are 
private in nature, I just simply say that with those discussions, 
combined with other discussions and communications I have had with the 
Department of State, I am somewhat more encouraged about the prospects 
of the negotiations now taking place than perhaps my colleague from 
Pennsylvania.
  My main concern is, given the fragility of the situation with regard 
to these negotiations, the almost overriding importance of the question 
of the weapons-of-mass-destruction issue, and the need to have Iran 
publicly begin to cooperate with the IAEA and other organizations to 
prevent the proliferation of that type of weapon--I just wonder, had 
the Senator thought about maybe an effective date of this amendment to 
give some reasonable period of time for these negotiations to take 
place as to the effective date of the amendment?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, what I would certainly say to the 
chairman is, this is the Defense authorization bill. We will probably 
be here the remainder of this week and maybe going into next week 
finishing this bill. Usually, the Defense authorization bill takes 
months to be able to discern the differences between the two bodies, of 
which this amendment, pending in this legislation, will be part of that 
discussion.
  So I do not anticipate there will be any final resolution to this 
particular amendment that I am offering until several months. If the 
President is serious about what the President has said, that they do 
not have months but weeks, I do not anticipate that anything we do here 
today will have any impact on the deadline or any of these 
negotiations.
  I think what they will do is signal to the Iranians that not only is 
the House serious about this, but even now that they are engaged 
potentially in a negotiated settlement, that the Senate is serious 
about pursuing this if, in fact, the Iranians do not come forward with 
an agreement.
  If there is an agreement, we may want to take another look at this. 
But I do not think any harm is done by passing this legislation and 
putting us in the conference so if, in fact, things do not go well or 
if, in fact, we believe--whatever the result is of these negotiations--
that it is important for us to go on record on some of these or all of 
these things, that we are in a position to produce a bill relatively 
quickly and send that message.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I certainly respect the views of my 
colleague who once served on the Armed Services Committee. I regret 
that the Senator felt there were other areas where he could serve his 
country other than in our committee. But we still consider him a member 
of the committee.
  The Senator is quite accurate that it is likely that this bill will 
be before this body into next week. I am hoping to conclude next week. 
Then, of course, there will be a period of time thereafter in which we 
will have a deliberation between the two bodies in the conference.
  But I would like to have some additional time today for purposes of 
consultation. I assure the Senator, he has a right to move forward, as 
he has sought to do at this time. I say to the Senator, if you can 
indulge the chairman in trying to schedule such action as may take 
place on this amendment at some point today, a little later than now, I 
would be appreciative of that.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I have tremendous respect for my former 
chairman. I say to the Senator, I served 8 absolutely remarkable and 
wonderful years on your committee, and got to serve under Senator 
Thurmond and then your great leadership. I certainly will do everything 
I can to work with you to make sure we can come to some agreement as to 
how we can dispose of this amendment, whether it is a vote or whether 
it is accepted

[[Page 11136]]

or whatever the case may be. I am certainly not going to push for a 
vote today if that is not what you desire. But, obviously, this is a 
very important issue.
  I remind the chairman there are 61 cosponsors on a similar piece of 
legislation, and it has very broad support here in this body from both 
sides of the aisle. It passed, as I said, with well over 300 votes in 
the House. And this issue is quite timely. So I would be happy to 
suspend any request for votes until we can negotiate how we would 
dispose of this amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. He is recognized as 
one of the leaders of our party, and he is very cooperative with regard 
to all legislative matters.
  My understanding is the Dorgan amendment is the pending amendment; is 
that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Santorum amendment is now pending.
  Mr. WARNER. I see. And we did not move on the Dorgan amendment as of 
yet.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Dorgan amendment was set aside.
  Mr. WARNER. Set aside. At the appropriate time, will the 
distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, when he completes his remarks, 
move to have this amendment set aside for the time being?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I would be happy to do so after we have had discussions 
about how we can dispose of this amendment, absolutely.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I see our colleague from Maine, a member of the 
committee, and in due course I expect, after the completion of the 
Senator's remarks, the Senator from Maine can be recognized.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. President, if I can just finish the explanation of the 
legislation, I talked about the sanctions portions of this legislation. 
The final component of the legislation deals with what we call the pro-
democracy side. This is very interesting. I introduced this legislation 
last year. Actually, I introduced it 3 years ago. It provided, at the 
time we introduced it 3 years ago, $10 million for the pro-democracy 
component of this.
  I felt very strongly this was really the key to this legislation. In 
fact, just meeting a few weeks ago with a student dissident who had 
recently escaped from Iran, I am even more convinced there is a strong 
anti-regime movement within Iran. There is a very strong pro-American 
component of the Iranian population that understands the tremendous 
effort that our country has put forward in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, 
like most people around the world, seek self-determination and freedom. 
It is very important for us to communicate that in unequivocal terms.
  One of the concerns I have with the diplomatic efforts being taken 
right now is that we are potentially muddying the waters somewhat with 
respect to our opinion of the regime in Iran. I want to make it very, 
very clear that personally that regime is the greatest threat to this 
country and must be removed. That is how I feel. Now, that is not in 
this legislation. But that is, to me, one of the highest national 
security priorities of this country.
  I think the best way to do that under the current circumstances is to 
support pro-democracy groups, to support groups that would like to see 
changes within Iran and peaceful changes.
  The one gentleman I met with just recently, a couple weeks ago, was 
very clear about the intention of at least the student movement within 
Iran to be a peaceful movement, similar to what happened in the old 
Soviet Union. They believe they can, in fact, rally support. But they 
need support. They need resources. They need to communicate. One of the 
things this legislation does is provide not $10 million but $100 
million for that purpose. The reason I talk about the difference is 
that in the interim the President, thankfully, took some of the 
provisions of the Iran Freedom Support Act, which is the bulk of this 
amendment that I am proposing today, and proposed that in the emergency 
supplemental that he sent up and that we will be voting on, in all 
likelihood, tomorrow. So that money is being appropriated, in this 
case, before it is being authorized. But this is the authorization, and 
sets an authorization level of $100 million, which is what the 
President's request was.
  Excuse me, the President's request was $75 million. We make it $100 
million.
  So we think this is important to send another strong signal that we 
support efforts for peaceful change within Iran, that we support those 
who on the evening of 9/11 stood in the city of Tehran in candlelight 
vigils in support of Americans. We support the Iranian people who would 
like to see the oppression end in that country that they have suffered 
under now for over 25 years. So this is a vitally important component 
of this authorization, and it is a very important signal to the people 
of Iran.
  When I met with that student leader a few weeks ago, he told me how 
evil this regime was on a personal level, not only with his 
imprisonment for leading student protests, but also with the current 
group of students who are, in the eyes of the regime, a great threat to 
the future of that regime. He talked about how his sister, who is a 
student at one of the universities in Iran, recently had to sign a 
document as a condition of attending the university. The document was a 
commitment to be a suicide bomber.
  So now every student in colleges within Iran has to sign a document 
pledging their commitment to be a suicide bomber. In fact, shortly 
after those documents were signed in every university in Iran, they 
conducted training courses for the students on how to strap on and 
detonate a suicide bomb.
  This is the enemy we are confronting. This is why I think it is 
important for us to step forward now and have this debate, to step 
forward now and pass this legislation, to send a signal now, while they 
are deciding whether to engage the United States and the free world in 
the pursuit of peaceful nuclear energy as opposed to nuclear warheads. 
It is important for the Senate to act. This is our moment in history. 
This is the great threat that faces us. This is the war we are 
currently engaged in, and this is the principal player on that stage 
today. We must act.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, is the floor open to debate on the 
underlying bill, or would the Presiding Officer advise me as to the 
pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may debate the underlying bill.
  Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair.
  I rise in strong support of the fiscal year 2007 National Defense 
Authorization Act. This legislation provides essential resources to our 
troops, whether they are engaged in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, in 
training and service at home, or in deployments in other countries 
around the world. I thank my colleagues, the distinguished chairman and 
ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Senators Warner and 
Levin, for putting together an excellent bill and also for their strong 
commitment to our Nation's Armed Forces.
  Through the leadership of Chairman Warner and Senator Talent, the 
Seapower Subcommittee chairman, the legislation before us strengthens 
our Nation's shipbuilding program by authorizing construction of eight 
new ships and by providing $12.1 billion in shipbuilding moneys, an 
increase of $1.5 billion above the President's request. This 
legislation wisely focuses on the declining size of the Navy fleet and 
takes significant strides toward strengthening the shipbuilding 
program. It also provides some much needed stability for the industrial 
base that will be called upon to build and sustain the current force 
and the future fleet.
  The Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Mullen, has put forward a 313-
ship long-range Navy shipbuilding plan that is a genuine effort to 
address longstanding congressional concerns that

[[Page 11137]]

Navy shipbuilding has been inadequately funded and has lacked stability 
from year to year. Past instability has made it difficult for 
shipbuilders to plan their businesses. That degree of instability, 
coupled with less-than-economic production rates, has contributed to 
significant cost growth in naval shipbuilding programs. The CNO's plan, 
combined with more robust funding from Congress, will begin to reverse 
the dangerous decline in Navy shipbuilding.
  I am pleased that this bill provides full funding for the DD(X) 
destroyer program, including split funding of the first two ships' 
detailed design and construction. The DD(X) is so important to our 
future national security. This ship will have high-tech capabilities 
that currently do not exist on the Navy's surface combatants. These 
capabilities include far greater offensive and precision firepower, 
advanced stealth technologies, numerous engineering and technological 
innovations that will allow for reduced crew size and thus help to 
reduce the lifecycle cost of the ship and sophisticated, advanced 
weapons systems such as the electromagnetic rail gun.
  Constructing the first two DD(X)s in 2007 and 2008 will contribute to 
the sustainment of our Nation's highly skilled shipbuilding workforces, 
including the employees at Bath Iron Works in my home State of Maine. I 
am very proud of these highly skilled workers and their contributions 
to our Nation's defense. Split funding between the first two DD(X) 
ships is a key component of the CNO's 313-ship plan and will make an 
important contribution to stabilizing a critical naval shipbuilding 
program, allowing for a more steady plan for the fragile dual-source 
service combatant shipbuilding industrial base, and achieving long-term 
program affordability through stability and other ongoing Navy and 
industry initiatives.
  Split funding for the DD(X) also supports cost-effective construction 
activities at both of our shipbuilding yards that concentrate on 
surface combatants. That will help stabilize and preserve two shipyards 
in order to meet future Navy requirements. If there were ever any doubt 
about the need to have two shipyards capable of constructing surface 
combatants, surely those doubts were put to rest by the extensive 
damage that Hurricane Katrina caused at the Ingalls Shipyard. We simply 
cannot afford to have only one shipyard that is capable of responding 
to the needs of our Navy for capable advanced surface combatants. That 
is why it is so critical that our procurement strategies recognize that 
and are developed and designed to sustain both yards.
  In doing so, we are helping the Navy meet its needs. Our naval fleet 
has been declining for far too many years. This bill will take a 
significant step toward stability and meeting the requirements that 
exist.
  The high priority placed on the DD(X) program in the Senate version 
of the Defense authorization bill stands in stark contrast to the House 
Defense authorization bill that recommends full funding for the 
procurement of only one DD(X) and does not adopt the critical split 
funding approach. Failure to support the budget for two DD(X)s would 
exacerbate the production gap facing BIW in Maine and would pose a 
significant risk to the DD(X) program that the CNO has so strongly 
endorsed and that the committee has consistently supported. Navy 
officials testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that 
authorizing only one DD(X) in fiscal year 2007 would result in the 
following negative consequences.
  First, it would cause significant program delay and disruption. 
Second, it would increase program costs. Third, it would have a 
negative impact on the shipbuilder industrial base. Fourth, it would 
defer the planned competitive contract awards from 2009 until at least 
2011. And, finally, it would force the Navy into a lead-follow scenario 
that would require an additional $450 million in shipbuilding funds. 
Approval of split funding is, therefore, critical to moving the DD(X) 
program forward. It strives to keep both DD(X) shipbuilders on an equal 
footing during this key transitional period.
  Furthermore, the House version of the DOD authorization bill 
recommends reducing the overall DD(X) program to only two ships, a 
significant decrease from the Navy's requirement for a minimum of seven 
DD(X)s as part of the 313-ship plan. At one point a couple of years 
ago, the Navy said it actually needs 12 DD(X)s. I still believe the 
military requirements suggest that that is the accurate number. But for 
the House committee to slash the number of ships under this program to 
two would seriously jeopardize our national security. I hope we will 
proceed with the Senate's much better plan to proceed with a minimum of 
seven DD(X) ships.
  I am also pleased that the committee agreed to my request for $25 
million in funding to accomplish planning and engineering for the 
modernization of the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke destroyer class. This 
program, which has been in effect in the past few years, is already 
showing significant promise of significant savings to the Navy by 
applying some of the technology that is being developed for the 
destroyer of the 21st century, the DD(X), and backfitting the DDG. This 
has the potential, for example, to reduce crew size on the retrofitted 
DDGs by about 30 to 40 sailors. That certainly is significant as well.
  The Senate's fiscal year 2007 Defense authorization bill also 
includes funding for other important defense-related projects that 
benefit Maine and our national security. For example, it includes 
additional funding for the Mark V fast patrol boat that is being 
developed at a shipyard in Maine, in conjunction with the University of 
Maine. It also provides $2 million to the University of Maine's Army 
Center of Excellence in order to continue the design and testing of 
lightweight ballistic panel tent inserts made from composite materials. 
These potentially lifesaving panels protect our troops from insurgent 
attacks when they are sheltered in temporary dining or sleeping 
facilities in hostile environments. This is particularly important to 
the State of Maine because we lost National Guardsmen in Iraq who were 
eating in an unprotected mess tent. Had we had those composite 
ballistic inserts for this tent, truly, I believe, lives and injuries 
would have been saved and avoided.
  The legislation also authorizes $9.6 million for the Portsmouth Naval 
Shipyard and Drydock Waterfront Support Facility in Kittery, ME. This 
will replace the current submarine support center that is more than 60 
years old and poorly designed for current use.
  This legislation also provides much needed funds for other national 
priorities. The legislation authorizes incentive payments for civilian 
health care providers who provide services to TRICARE beneficiaries in 
rural and medically underserved areas. I know that is a concern of the 
Presiding Officer as well. Any of us who represent rural States realize 
how difficult it is to ensure an adequate supply of health care 
providers.
  It also follows on the Senate's action earlier this year by repealing 
provisions of the Survivor Benefit Plan that require the offset of 
military retirement annuity payments by amounts received for dependency 
and indemnity compensation. It authorizes acceleration of the effective 
date of the paid-up provision from October 1, 2008, to October 1, 2006, 
for retirees who reach age 70 and have paid premiums for 30 years.
  Finally, let me again, since the distinguished chairman is now in the 
Chamber, commend him for his extraordinary leadership and dedication to 
the men and women who are serving in our Armed Forces. We are very 
fortunate to have such a talented and committed chairman and ranking 
minority member as we do on this committee. I am very proud to be a 
member. I offer my full support to the important legislation before us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our distinguished colleague from 
Maine. She is a valued member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. 
She has taken enormous interest in shipbuilding. Obviously, she has one 
of the world's finest yards in her State.

[[Page 11138]]

Nevertheless, naval power and seapower are of great interest to the 
Senator from Maine. I thank her for her remarks and her strong 
participation as a member of the committee.
  Ms. COLLINS. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at this time, it is our hope and 
expectation that we will have another amendment soon brought to the 
floor.


                           Amendment No. 4230

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to particularly commend the Senator 
from North Dakota for sections 1521 and 1522 of his amendment which 
address the issue of competition in contracting. This is an issue that 
I have been concerned about since I worked with Senator Bill Cohen to 
enact the Competition in Contracting Act in 1984.
  Sections 1521 and 1522 in Senator Dorgan's amendment build on the 
principle that the Federal Government, taxpayers, and Government 
contractors all benefit from the competitive award of Federal 
contracts. I was pleased to work with Senator Dorgan and his staff in 
drafting these particular provisions of his amendment.
  Over the last 10 years, the Government Accountability Office, the 
Department of Defense Inspector General, and others have documented 
numerous shortcomings in the application of competition rules by 
Federal agencies. These problems have included, one, numerous 
unjustified sole-source awards under Government-wide, multiple-award 
contracts. Some studies have indicated that more than 50 percent of 
such awards have been made on a sole-source basis. Second, the award of 
huge what are called indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity, or IDIQ, 
contracts--some of them in the billions of dollars--go to individuals, 
individual contractors, rather than multiple contractors.
  These single awards--these indefinite delivery and indefinite 
quantity contracts--basically give a single contractor the right to 
sole-source award of innumerable highly lucrative projects. Such 
contracts include the highly visible contracts awarded to Halliburton 
relative to Iraq.
  Sections 1521 and 1522 of the Dorgan amendment would address these 
problems by prohibiting, with limited waiver authority, the issuance of 
long-term, open-ended contracts, like Hallibur-
ton's LOGCAP contract, to a single company. Federal agencies would be 
required to issue such contracts to more than one company so that they 
could compete with each other for work, unless the agency makes a 
determination that it is not practical to do so and reports that 
determination to Congress. That section of the amendment would also 
extend to civilian agencies a legislative provision that we wrote 4 
years ago to eliminate abusive sole-source awards and ensure 
competition when Department of Defense officials place work orders 
under multiple-award contracts, and we would authorize bid protests for 
task orders in excess of $500,000 under multiple-award contracts.
  So I commend our colleague from North Dakota for offering this 
important amendment. I support this amendment. I hope the Senate will 
adopt it and not table it because it includes many important reforms 
and changes in our contracting process to address some of the abuses 
that have been identified by the expert agencies that we actually 
utilize and hire to do these kinds of reviews.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeMint). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator from Florida desires to speak 
regarding the National Guard. For that purpose--oh, yes, Mr. President, 
I had indicated to the distinguished Senator from Texas that she could 
speak. She wanted how much time?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I wanted 10 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Why doesn't the Senator from Texas go first.
  Mr. LEVIN. The two Senators will be recognized in that order?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes. The Senator from Texas and the Senator from Florida.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.


                      Supplemental Appropriations

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior 
Senator from Virginia for allowing me to take this time to speak about 
the supplemental appropriations bill. I certainly want to start by 
saying that I think the authorization bill that is before us is a good 
bill that will authorize the spending for our troops in the field. I 
plan to speak separately on that later in the week.
  Today, I want to talk about the supplemental appropriations bill that 
the Senate will pass at 10 o'clock tomorrow because this is a very 
important emergency supplemental. Obviously, the majority of this bill, 
$70.4 billion, is for our military. It is to make sure that we support 
our men and women in the very important mission that we have asked them 
to do. I cannot imagine sending our troops into harm's way and not 
assuring that they have the equipment they need to do the job. So we 
are doing that in this bill--$70.4 billion for uparmoring of vehicles, 
for more aircraft, and the Bradley fighting vehicle upgrades that they 
so desperately need.
  I am going to take this opportunity to say what a tremendous 
achievement we have had this week with the death of Abu Mus'ab al-
Zarqawi, the head of the operation in Iraq that was behind the heinous 
crimes on the streets of Iraq day after day after day that we have been 
seeing. The man who was the mastermind of those atrocities is now gone. 
It is a significant victory for the intelligence capabilities of our 
country and our military personnel who achieved this remarkable feat. I 
hope this will begin another phase in the stabilization of Iraq.
  Clearly we need to assure that our troops have what they need to do 
the job. Part of what is in this supplemental appropriations bill is 
money for training of Iraqi troops, because if we are going to 
stabilize Iraq, it is going to be with Iraqi security forces. That is 
what the Iraqis want, it is what we want, it is what our allies want, 
and it is certainly what the people of the world who believe in freedom 
want for the people of Iraq.
  The other part of the bill is one that is very important to my home 
State of Texas, as well as to Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and the 
other States that have suffered so much from hurricanes last season. We 
have never seen the ravages of a hurricane like we saw after Katrina 
and then Rita following so closely after that.
  This bill, for the first time, has begun to acknowledge the part that 
my home State of Texas played in this recovery effort. We had a 
situation we have never had before in the history of our country. The 
first hurricane, Hurricane Katrina, did not hit Texas, but Texas had a 
major part in the disaster recovery. That is because 500,000 people 
were moved from Louisiana to Texas almost overnight. It was the biggest 
migration from one State to another in our country's history.
  It has been a costly endeavor for the people of Texas, one which they 
have stood up and handled with grace beyond any imagination. But it is 
time that we reimburse the people of Texas because some of our 
communities are having to increase taxes to carry the burden, and that 
is not right. It was a natural disaster for which Texans stepped up to 
the plate, because we are a neighboring State, to try to handle, and 
now we have suffered the consequences. This bill helps us in that 
recovery effort.
  The first part that is so important for us is the equity in 
reimbursement rates for the communities hit by Hurricane Rita. Since 
Hurricane Rita hit in September of 2005, the counties on the Louisiana 
side of the Sabine River have been able to put up 10 percent, with a 
90-percent Federal reimbursement. This has been very helpful to the 
people of Louisiana. But on the other side of the Sabine River, where 
the same hurricane hit, our counties have had to

[[Page 11139]]

put up 25 percent of the cleanup. The result is that much debris has 
never been cleaned up.
  Furthermore, we have infrastructure that has not even begun to be 
repaired. Some counties, in doing the original cleanup, contemplated 
bankruptcy. They have talked now about having to raise the property tax 
rates to pay for the cleanup, and some have borrowed money and issued 
bonds to try to do the cleanup. Bond issues should never be used for 
that kind of an emergency or any kind of operational expenditure. Bonds 
are for capital expenditures. They knew that it was not good public 
policy, but they had no alternative because these are counties which 
are rural, not rich in property values, and it was a huge strain.
  In this bill, those 22 counties in East Texas will get the 
reimbursement rate that has been given on the Louisiana side. I am so 
grateful to the Senate for doing this in a way that does allow equity 
for the first time since last September. This has been such a relief to 
these counties. I have had calls from mayors and county judges who were 
almost giving up hope because they did not know how they would manage 
this crisis, and now they see light at the end of the tunnel.
  I thank my colleagues for supporting this bill. I know the bill will 
pass. I particularly thank Senator Cochran, Senator Byrd, Senator 
Gregg, Senator Collins, Senator Specter, Senator Lieberman, and Senator 
Kennedy. It was these Senators who helped us get through the equity in 
reimbursement that will so help our East Texas counties.
  The other part of this hurricane relief bill is in the educational 
area. When we had half a million evacuees, we were looking at, of 
course, educating their children. After an initial enrollment of 43,000 
children, mostly in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin, some in 
the East Texas counties that also were hit by Rita, we did agree in a 
previous supplemental to reimburse these school districts. We 
authorized impact aid of $6,000 per student to cover the cost of 
education for students displaced by Hurricane Katrina. However, they 
were only able to do the reimbursement at a rate of $4,000. So these 
school districts were taking a hit of $2,000 per student. The current 
supplemental bridges that gap, which is a huge help for these 
communities.
  Just to give one an idea of the impact of Hurricane Katrina on Texas, 
it is normal to see a two-page ad in a newspaper that advertises 
polling locations for elections. One would see in any normal election 
in a county all of the polling places on election day. This newspaper I 
am holding up doesn't seem to look that unusual. It is a list of 
polling places for the New Orleans mayor's race. What is interesting is 
this is the Houston Chronicle. This same ad over two pages appeared in 
the Dallas Morning News. That is because the number of Katrina evacuees 
who were going to vote and did vote in the New Orleans mayor's race was 
significant enough, with a 500,000-person migration after that 
hurricane, to make a huge difference.
  There is also a picture on the front page of the Houston Chronicle 
just before that mayor's race with a billboard for New Orleans mayor, 
Ray Nagin.
  We can tell just from these anecdotal pieces of evidence that this is 
an evacuation which is affecting Texas to a huge extent.
  The $235 million in this bill will help these school districts make 
up for the deficit they have been funding all year and, again, raising 
property taxes in Texas to pay for it will not now be necessary.
  We are going to monitor the enrollment of the number of 
schoolchildren in these school districts this fall to see if we have 
large numbers of displaced schoolchildren--because schools are not yet 
fully open in New Orleans--and we will come back and ask for more 
supplemental funds for the Katrina evacuees who are not planning to 
make a permanent home in Texas but are still in our education system.
  Because of the fairness of the conference committee--and I 
particularly mention Congressman Kevin Brady, Congressman Ted Poe, 
Congressman Hal Rogers, and Congressman Henry Bonilla for helping us 
put forward the case that needed to be made for Texas to show that we 
had to have some equity in the East Texas counties that were hit by 
Rita, as well as the educational community that was so affected by the 
evacuees who came to our State immediately after Katrina. This is going 
to go a long way toward helping them.
  We are also hoping to have some of the money for infrastructure 
reimbursement after Hurricane Rita that is also included in this bill, 
but it is at the discretion of the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
Development.
  This is a balanced bill. It is the first time we have been able to 
recognize that though a State wasn't hit by the first natural disaster, 
it nevertheless had a huge impact on the economy of the State. Our 
State stepped up to the plate, and this bill begins to equalize the 
burden our State has carried.
  I appreciate my colleagues listening to me. I appreciate their help 
in the original Senate bill. I appreciate the members of the conference 
committee who did so much to help, and I certainly appreciate the 
chairman, Senator Cochran, Senator Byrd, Senator Gregg, Senator 
Collins, Senator Specter, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Kennedy for 
helping us create the equity that will exist when this conference 
report is agreed to tomorrow.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4237

  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4237, which is 
at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Martinez] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4237.

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

(Purpose: To provide that States likely to be effected by the hurricane 
   season in 2007 are afforded a priority in funding for replacement 
                   equipment for the National Guard)

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

     SEC. 114. REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT FOR THE ARMY NATIONAL GUARD.

       In allocating amounts authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 101(5) for other procurement for the Army for the 
     procurement of replacement equipment for the National Guard, 
     the Secretary of Defense shall afford a priority in the 
     allocation of such funds to the States likely to experience a 
     hurricane during the 2007 hurricane season.

  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Bill Nelson of Florida be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? It was my 
understanding that the Senator from Florida was going to speak on an 
existing amendment or some other subject, and he now has offered an 
amendment?
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. There is a lineup of amendments to which we had previously 
agreed. It was not my understanding the Senator would be offering an 
amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I have been 
trying to work with the Senator from Florida to revise a draft I saw.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Correct.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it seems to me, if the Senator withdraws 
the amendment, the managers can work with him and then the Senator from 
Florida can speak to the generic substance of the amendment, which I 
believe is a very important amendment.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. I have no problem doing that. I will be glad to 
withdraw the amendment.


                     Amendment No. 4237, Withdrawn

  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
amendment No. 4237.

[[Page 11140]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator has additional 
copies of the amendment he can share.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my colleague, the Senator from 
Florida is now in the process of rewriting it. I suggest we wait until 
he has decided on the version he would like to submit at the 
appropriate time.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. That will be fine. I was under the impression Senator 
Levin had seen the amendment. I will make sure he gets a copy.
  Mr. LEVIN. I very much appreciate it.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes on the subject of the amendment 
and come back to the issue of calling it up at the appropriate time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, the issue of the ongoing war on terror 
and the very important role the National Guard is playing in this 
effort is the subject of my amendment. I wanted to start first by 
congratulating President Bush, who visited Baghdad yesterday. The 
President once again is showing his commitment and his leadership in 
this difficult fight. He went to Iraq to show his support for the now-
formed Iraqi Government and again to offer his support to the brave men 
and women who are fighting this war and offer his support to them and 
their families.
  The last 7 days have been historic. The bringing to justice Abu 
Mus'ab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida's No. 2 figure in the world, second only to 
Osama bin Laden, was great news for freedom-loving Iraqis and for the 
men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces who have patiently and 
methodically hunted this terrorist to his end, and most of all a 
crucial step for us in winning the war on terror. For U.S. special 
operations forces, this was yet another impressive victory in removing 
an enormous obstacle to peace in Iraq and victory of our Armed Forces. 
By capturing Saddam Hussein, tracking and killing his sons, Uday and 
Qusay, and now killing Zarqawi, our special operations forces continue 
to effectively serve the cause of freedom. Iraq is a better place for 
these actions, and America will be safer as well.
  The President recently reminded us that the fight is far from over. 
As he has said from the beginning, this war on terror will not be easy 
or short. Blindly hoping for victory will not result in victory. As 
Americans, we must be firm in our determination to the task at hand. As 
the President said while talking to the troops in Baghdad yesterday, 
the sooner Iraqis can take up the fight, the sooner our soldiers can 
come home.
  Defeatism and hand-wringing and finger-pointing does not constitute a 
strategy for victory. We cannot and will not be defeated militarily. 
The only way we will be defeated is by our own lack of resolve. If we 
had listened to detractors who told us to cut and run, al-Zarqawi would 
be alive and planning his next killing and the future of a radical 
caliphate in Iraq. The constant talk about withdrawal and the ceaseless 
pursuit of establishing a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops 
directly undermines the mission. It undermines morale. Why would we 
ever want to alert our enemies and give them our precise plans? A 
timetable is only tied to the success of our forces and the political 
situation on the ground. While we all wish to see the end of the 
struggle and our troops' safe return home, this must not be determined 
by an arbitrary deadline that signals retreat in defeat. After all the 
Iraqis have achieved--peaceful democratic elections, an interim and now 
permanent government, a police force, and building of the armed 
forces--how could we think about abandoning this struggle and mission 
before we meet with success?
  The clear goals of this war--to protect America and our vital 
national interests, to rid the world of radical Islamic terrorists, to 
reshape the Middle East and bring democracy to one of the darkest and 
most historically undemocratic corners of the world--is Wilsonian in 
its vision and Churchillian in its urgency. I commend President Bush 
for his leadership, Secretary Rumsfeld for his diligence, Generals 
Abizaid and Casey, the commanders on the field, and the soldiers, 
sailors, airmen, and marines in the theater for their perseverance, 
competence, and for their honor; also, our Secretary of State and our 
very capable Ambassador Khalilzad for their success and the way they 
have assisted the formation of a new government.
  In relation to the continuing war on terror, there is one issue I am 
concerned with, and that is the process by which our National Guard 
units are currently being reequipped. Today, we have a situation in our 
National Guard units from Florida--and I imagine National Guard units 
from many other States--which are sent to war with their own equipment; 
that is, the men and women, the trucks, the tanks, the helicopters, the 
humvees, and all the gear leave the State and go to protect Americans 
serving in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, when the tour of duty is 
over, the Guard returns home and the equipment stays behind. This is 
understandable, since in a war zone and in desert conditions, vital 
equipment needs to be replaced sometimes more quickly than new 
equipment can get to the region. As you might imagine, the National 
Guard then has a resulting deficit of equipment, which is a temporary 
situation but nonetheless a crucial delay in their completion of their 
equipment inventory.
  With the arrival of this year's hurricane season, I have urged the 
citizens in our State of Florida, where we are currently and have been 
previously consistent victims of recent hurricanes, as well as other 
hurricane-prone States, to do everything they can to prepare for 
potential storms. But even with the best preparedness, storms have a 
way of taking unexpected turns, and as we have seen over the past three 
years, the National Guard plays a crucial role in helping stabilize 
areas in the immediate hours and days following the disastrous 
hurricanes we have experienced recently.
  For instance, last year alone, the Florida National Guard deployed 
5,800 troops within the State of Florida and along the gulf coast 
during 4 major hurricanes. To support Hurricane Katrina recovery 
efforts, the Florida Guard sent 2,500 troops to Mississippi as part of 
the emergency compact agreement the States have with the Guard. They 
have done their job with dedication and competence.
  The point is that during hurricane season, during the war on terror, 
we cannot sustain the National Guard without prioritizing equipment 
replacement. They need this equipment for training. They need this 
equipment for those times when they are needed to be activated in 
honoring their State and Federal missions here at home.
  The Guard wears many hats and plays a vital role in fighting the war 
on terror and in responding to catastrophes here at home. I have 
offered an amendment to ensure that their reequipment is not deferred. 
The amendment directs the Secretary of Defense to place a priority on 
providing replacement equipment to Guard units, particularly in those 
States which are prone and historically have been shown to be frequent 
victims of hurricanes.
  The first named storm of the season, Tropical Storm Alberto, just 
visited the State of Florida. NOAA has told us that we are in for an 
active hurricane cycle that could last for a decade or more. From New 
England to Texas to Louisiana to Florida, hurricane-prone States 
require National Guard units that will be able to meet important 
missions abroad and at home. Meeting this mission requires prioritizing 
their reequipping.
  So at the right time and in the right order, I intend to bring up 
such an amendment, which I hope will have broad support in the Senate 
where I believe all of us understand and appreciate the very vital and 
crucial role the National Guard continues to play, not only in the 
crucial war on terror but, equally important, providing that 
irreplaceable line of assistance at home during the times of hurricanes 
and other natural disasters.

[[Page 11141]]

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, is the pending amendment the Dorgan 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the pending amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to table the Dorgan amendment. I 
ask unanimous consent that the vote on the motion to table occur at 
3:45 this afternoon; provided further that between now and 3:45, 
Senator Dorgan be recognized to speak for up to 15 minutes on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding is that there will be a 
motion, perhaps a motion to table--in any event, a vote on my amendment 
at 3:45. I had asked that I be allowed time to speak once again on the 
amendment.
  It is an obligatory statement to come to the floor and congratulate 
the chairman and the ranking member, but in this case I will always 
mean it. The work of my friend and colleague from Virginia, as chairman 
of this committee, is really excellent work. So, too, is the work of 
Senator Levin from Michigan. I always say this is a big, big piece of 
legislation, a difficult piece of legislation. The Defense 
authorization bill is a real piece of work to put together. It is made 
even more difficult during wartime to stretch for all of the needs--
unlimited wants with limited resources. So I come here understanding 
that there are things in this legislation that are very important that 
inure to the credit of the chairman and the ranking member.
  I want to describe something that is not in the legislation, however, 
and the opportunity to offer it to this legislation at this time is 
very important. This bill will authorize the expenditure of a great 
deal of money. That is not new. We have authorized the expenditure of a 
lot of money for a lot of things, particularly with respect to the 
military expenditures in Iraq and Afghanistan in recent years--
something close to $350 billion. That is with a ``b,'' $350 billion has 
been spent. That was virtually all done as emergency appropriations, 
not paid for with anything, just added on top of the debt.
  Even as we have done that, we in the Congress have also voted for $18 
billion in reconstruction funding in the country of Iraq. That $18 
billion in reconstruction for the country of Iraq has gone out in 
various contracts and been spent. What we are hearing now, as a result 
of a massive amount of money being spent in a fairly short period of 
time, is the most hair-raising tale of waste and fraud and abuse that I 
have ever heard.
  I dare say that never in the history of this country has so much 
money been wasted so quickly. And, yes, there is fraud involved, there 
is abuse involved, and it is the case that there is a dramatic amount 
of taxpayers' money that is now being wasted.
  I went through this morning a description of what is happening in 
some areas. In our policy committee, we held hearings over 3 years 
about this issue. This is a photograph which I showed this morning of 
this man, the man with the brown belt. He was actually in his office in 
Iraq. These are $100 bills wrapped in Saran Wrap. This represents $2 
million, and it was to be paid to a company called Custer Battles, 
named after Mr. Custer and Mr. Battles. They are two folks who went to 
Iraq to seek their fortune--one I believe a former Army Ranger. Neither 
had experience as contractors, but they knew there was a lot of money 
to be made. They went to Iraq to set up a company. They got there, and 
the first contract, I believe, which they received was to provide 
security at the Baghdad Airport, which at that point wasn't open.
  As they provided security at the Baghdad Airport, whistleblowers came 
forward who were working for them and said: What is going on here is 
really pretty awful. In fact, one of the whistleblowers was threatened. 
Someone threatened to kill him for speaking out. But they said it is 
wrong and awful. This company that had the contract for security at 
Baghdad Airport took forklift trucks off the airport, which belonged to 
the airport, put them in a warehouse, painted them blue, and sold them 
back to the Coalition Provisional Authority. It is the sort of thing 
that was going on.
  This picture of $100 bills wrapped in Saran Wrap was $2 million that 
was paid to this company called Custer Battles. This fellow who was in 
charge of that money said there was a basement with a vault in this 
building in Iraq where he said he thought billions and billions of 
dollars in cash was stored.
  The message to the contractors in Iraq was: Bring bags because we pay 
in cash. Bring a sack because we pay cash.
  Then there is the story about a contract for air-conditioning a 
building in Baghdad. The contract goes to a subcontractor, which goes 
to another subcontractor, and a fourth-level subcontractor. And the 
payment for air-conditioning turns out to be payments to four 
contractors, the fourth of which puts a fan in a room. Yes, the 
American taxpayer paid for an air-conditioner and, after the money goes 
through four hands like ice cubes travel around the room, there is a 
fan put in a room in Iraq.
  I mentioned this morning that every time you talk about this you have 
to talk about Halliburton. Every time you talk about Halliburton, they 
say you are talking about Vice President Cheney. Not true. He hasn't 
run Halliburton for many years, but this company received very large, 
no-bid, sole-source contracts worth billions of dollars and massive 
amounts of money have been wasted.
  Investigators and inspectors at the Department of Defense discovered 
this contractor had overcharged. The contracts were in some cases 
awarded under questionable circumstances.
  I described just a few of the examples today, such as $85,000 new 
trucks that had a plugged fuel pump and left by the side of the road--
brand new--to be burned; $85,000 brand new trucks with a flat tire, 
left beside the road to be torched.
  It is pretty unbelievable, the stories we have heard about what is 
going on with these contractors in Iraq.
  The buyer for Kellogg, Brown & Root, a subcontractor for Halliburton, 
came and testified. He was a purchaser stationed in Kuwait. His job was 
to purchase things that the Army needed in Iraq. He was told you should 
purchase hand towels for the military. So he gets about the business of 
buying hand towels--tens of thousands of hand towels, except he was 
told by his bosses, KBR, don't buy just the ordinary hand towels. We 
want to have them embroidered ``KBR,'' for Kellogg, Brown & Root, 
therefore doubling the price. Buy the towels, doubling the price. It 
doesn't matter. The taxpayer is paying for all of this, and it has 
cost-plus. Don't worry, be happy. Charge as much as you can.
  And $7,500 a month to lease an SUV; $45 a case for Coca-Cola. It 
doesn't matter. The taxpayer is paying the bill. Order 25 tons of 
nails, 50,000 pounds, the wrong size, doesn't matter, lay them on the 
sand in Iraq. Nobody will know. Just 25 tons of nails.
  The stories are pretty unbelievable.
  Frankly, one of the great surprises to me is that the Pentagon has 
not been very interested.
  A guy named Rory came over here. He was actually in Iraq. He was a 
food service supervisor at Kellogg, Brown & Root. He was a supervisor 
in the food service kitchen. He said the convoys of trucks that were 
hauling food in would occasionally be attacked. There was shrapnel in 
the back of the trucks. They were told to go back and pick the shrapnel 
out of the food, save the bullets as souvenirs for the supervisors,

[[Page 11142]]

but pull the fragments out of the food and put the food in the food 
line. And then he said: Routinely we would have food that had an 
expired date stamp. This food is good until August 22nd, expired; 
routinely expired food. What did the supervisor say? It doesn't matter. 
Just feed it to the troops.
  I am surprised that Secretary Rumsfeld, for example, didn't become 
apoplectic about that. You would think he would have a seizure when 
they were paying contractors to feed the troops and to feed them 
outdated food and nobody seems to care very much; or feeding 42,000 
people, according to the billing record, and only 14,000 people were 
eating.
  I come from really small town of 300 people. We have one little 
restaurant. You could miss a cheeseburger, or two or three. But to miss 
28,000 meals when you say you fed the troops that you didn't feed? In 
my hometown, we have a word for that sort of thing.
  It is unbelievable what is going on and the stories. These aren't 
stories that we have heard second or third-hand. Rory, for example, 
worked there, lived there, served food there in the cafeteria. He was 
told this.
  He said this on the record: When the auditors come around to your 
base in Iraq and come to your food service operation, you dare not talk 
to them. If you talk to Government auditors, you are going to be in 
some real trouble. One of two things will happen. You will either be 
fired or you are going to be sent to an area that has intense fighting. 
It turns out that Rory was sent to Fallujah in the middle of 
hostilities there because he had the gall to talk to Government 
auditors who were asking questions about what was happening in the food 
service operation.
  No one in this Chamber believes this sort of stuff ought to go on. It 
shouldn't happen. Yet, I think there is so much money being spent with 
big, sole-source, no-bid contracts being let.
  I described this woman this morning. I am going to do it again 
because I have met her several times now. I think what has happened to 
her is a crying shame. Bunnatine Greenhouse, the highest civilian 
official in the Corps of Engineers, rose to become the highest civilian 
official to serve in the Corps of Engineers. Well-educated, smart, with 
a great career that every supervisor said was excellent by every 
evaluation, this woman knows what she is doing. She is an outstanding 
public servant. But she ran into some trouble.
  The trouble was she saw contracts being let that violated contract 
provisions. She saw meetings being held in which big companies were 
part of the meetings, talking about the new contracts that were going 
to be let. She began to complain, saying: You are violating the rules 
of contracting. The old-boy network didn't like that at all. Bunnatine 
Greenhouse got into trouble for speaking out. She was demoted. This 
woman who had the courage to speak out against waste, fraud, and abuse 
paid for it with her job.
  She said:

       I can unequivocally state that the abuse relating to the 
     contracts awarded to Kellogg, Brown & Root represents the 
     most blatant and improper contract abuse that I have 
     witnessed during the course of my professional career.

  A career, I might add, was judged--not by the Department of Defense--
to be outstanding by people outside of the Department of Defense who 
worked with her. For that, she paid with her job. And nobody seems to 
care.
  By the way, this job is now being filled by someone who is 
unqualified. The general who made the decision to fill this job with 
someone unqualified said it is true the person they put in that job to 
replace Bunnatine Greenhouse doesn't have the necessary experience, but 
she is now being trained.
  That is really helpful. I assume that is what they were doing down at 
FEMA when they put something like seven of the top FEMA officials in 
place who were cronies who had no experience in disaster preparedness 
or relief. I guess they were being trained too. The problem is 
Hurricane Katrina hit and that agency was a mess.
  We don't need cronyism. We need good, strong professional people who 
have the courage to speak out when they see something wrong.
  The amendment that I have offered is very simple. The amendment that 
I have offered deals with war profiteering. Nobody in this Chamber 
believes that anybody ought to be justified in profiteering from war. 
If there are people profiteering from war, there ought to be strong 
sanctions.
  This amendment includes a number of different pieces of legislation. 
The war profiteering amendment is one which Senator Leahy constructed 
in the last Congress and brought forward. That is a portion of this 
amendment. The amendment deals with contract abuse, requiring 
competition in contracting.
  Also, the amendment has protections for whistleblowers. We ought to 
care about that.
  There are about six or eight provisions of this amendment that I 
described earlier today. But I want to conclude with this.
  I mentioned earlier the Custer Battles company. They are the subject 
at this point of criminal prosecution.
  The Custer Battles folks are the two men named Custer and Battles. 
``60 Minutes'' just did a program on them on CBS. We held hearings 
about Custer Battles. They went to Iraq, as I said earlier, and got a 
contract for security at the airport. They eventually ended up being 
paid more than $100 million in contracts. These are people without 
experience in contracting. They went to Iraq to seek their fortune and 
to get contracts. And they did.
  Here is what the Baghdad airport director of security said in a memo 
to the Coalition Provisional Authority. That was us. We were running 
Iraq before they created their new government. Here is what the Baghdad 
airport director of security said:

       Custer Battles have shown themselves to be unresponsive, 
     uncooperative, incompetent, deceitful, manipulative and war 
     profiteers. Other than that, they are swell fellows.

  Isn't that unbelievable? Does anybody dare say now that we didn't 
know what was going on over there? They knew.
  What is still now going on over there is unbelievable.
  What we need at this point on behalf of the American taxpayers and on 
behalf of the troops who put on the uniform and serve this country, and 
without question put their lives on the line, what we need on their 
behalf is an understanding that we are doing the right thing here.
  This piece of legislation, this authorization bill, is a good bill. 
It will be a better bill with this amendment because this amendment 
plugs a very big hole that exists with respect to contracting and 
profiteering.
  I mentioned earlier today that I have previously offered and will 
again offer an amendment that establishes a Truman Committee here in 
U.S. Senate. I wasn't around, of course, during the Truman Committee. 
The Truman Committee was established in the early 1940s at a time when 
a Democratic Senator with a Democratic President in the White House 
said we have to investigate waste, fraud, and abuse. And he did on a 
bipartisan basis. They put together a special committee, and they sunk 
their teeth into this issue of waste, fraud, and abuse. It was 
unbelievable what they discovered. The country was better and stronger 
as a result of it.
  I bet sometimes FDR gritted his teeth over the investigations. But it 
was not about the White House at all; it was about making sure the 
taxpayers were getting their money's worth, making sure we were doing 
the right things for the troops. The same is true now.
  I don't offer this with any political intent at all. It is just that 
I sat hour after hour after hour and listened to stories--yes, some of 
them about Custer Battles, some about KRB, some about Halliburton, and 
some about other companies--and I have seen unbelievable stories and 
heard unbelievable stories about waste, fraud, and abuse. I see very 
little desire at the Pentagon to sink their teeth into it and fix the 
problems.
  The woman who had the courage to stand up and blow the whistle has 
lost

[[Page 11143]]

her job. This is not a very hospitable place for people willing to have 
the courage to speak out. We ought to stand up for Bunny Greenhouse and 
say we need more like her. When you see something wrong, you report it. 
When you see something bad, you stop it. We need more people like her.
  This amendment is not about her; it is about protecting people who 
have the courage to stand up for our interests and who care about what 
is being spent, what is being done, who care about when we are being 
defrauded and when people are war-profiteering.
  I ask consent that Senator Kennedy and Senator Clinton be added as 
cosponsors of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me conclude by saying that this 
amendment is not aimed at the White House. It is not aimed at some 
political objective. It is certainly not aimed at the chairman and 
ranking member of this bill. This is aimed at trying to find common 
sense in the way we deal with these issues, especially in wartime.
  I mentioned this morning that common sense is sometimes described as 
genius in work clothes. Common sense could take us a long way if we 
just applied it in these circumstances. We understand what happens when 
a company gets a special deal--by the way, you get a big old contract 
worth billions of dollars, you do not have to bid on it, and we will 
negotiate the terms later. I understand what happens then. That is like 
leaving the till open. The stories that come from it are unbelievable. 
On behalf of the American taxpayer, we ought to do something about it.
  Perhaps my colleague wishes to respond.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have listened very carefully to my 
colleague. I spoke earlier about what our committee had done. The 
organization is now in place to try to monitor the situations the 
Senator has enumerated.
  We will proceed to a vote at 3:45. I will at that time seek to be 
recognized for the purpose of tabling the amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this 
juncture a paper provided by the Department of Defense, a copy of which 
I hand to my distinguished colleague, which recites the Department's 
understanding with regard to the career of this woman to whom the 
Senator has referred.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           Information Paper

       Effective August 27, 2005, Ms. Greenhouse was removed from 
     her position in the Senior Executive Service (SES) as the 
     Principal Assistant Responsible for Contracting at the U.S. 
     Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and placed in a GS-15 
     position. Her removal was required by Title 5, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, Section 359.501, because she had 
     received two final performance ratings of ``less than fully 
     successful'' within three consecutive years.
       The two performance ratings at issue covered the rating 
     periods from October 1, 2001 through September 30, 2002 and 
     from October 1, 2002 through December 31, 2003. The second 
     rating period was extended for three months to ensure that 
     Ms. Greenhouse was afforded a minimum of 120 days working 
     under a set of approved performance standards and to give her 
     additional time to demonstrate successful performance. 
     Further, because USACE officials had proposed Ms. 
     Greenhouse's removal from the SES, both of these ratings were 
     reviewed by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
     Acquisition, Logistics and Technology (ASA-AL&T), who has 
     functional responsibility for all Army acquisition 
     activities, and the Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
     Manpower and Reserve Affairs, who has responsibility for 
     management of the SES.
       On October 5, 2004, Lieutenant General (LTG) Carl Strock, 
     Commanding General, USACE, advised Ms. Greenhouse that she 
     would be removed from the SES and placed in a GS-15 position 
     effective November 13, 2004, based on her receipt of two 
     final ratings of ``less than fully successful'' performance 
     within three consecutive years. By letter of October 21, 
     2004, to then Acting Secretary of the Army, R.L. Brownlee, 
     Mr. Michael Kohn, an attorney representing Ms. Greenhouse, 
     requested an investigation into alleged procurement 
     irregularities within USACE and implied that Ms. Greenhouse 
     faced removal from the SES because of her disclosure of these 
     irregularities. Acting Secretary Brownlee directed suspension 
     of the removal action until a sufficient record was available 
     to address the matters raised in Mr. Kohn's letter. 
     Concurrently, Mr. Brownlee directed the forwarding of Ms. 
     Greenhouse's allegations of contracting irregularities to the 
     Inspector General, Department of Defense (IG, DoD) for action 
     as appropriate. There is no record that these allegations 
     are, or have been, the subject of USACE Inspector General 
     inquiry, as set forth in your letter; as detailed below, 
     however, we believe that the IG, DoD is continuing its 
     criminal investigation into procurement matters of interest 
     to Ms. Greenhouse.
       On June 3, 2005, LTG Strock forwarded a memorandum through 
     the Department of the Army Inspector General (DAIG) to the 
     Secretary of the Army, requesting authorization to proceed 
     with the removal of Ms. Greenhouse from the SES and placement 
     in a GS-15 position within Headquarters, USACE. In support of 
     his request, LTG Strock enclosed an analysis prepared by his 
     staff that demonstrated that Ms. Greenhouse's removal from 
     the SES was based solely on her ``less than fully 
     successful'' performance. This record was reviewed by the 
     Department of the Army Inspector General who forwarded it to 
     the Director, Investigations of Senior Officials, Office of 
     the DoD Inspector General (IG, DoD). On June 13, 2005, the 
     Director advised that ``The criminal investigation into 
     procurement matters of interest to Ms. Greenhouse is 
     continuing. However, there is no basis to delay actions 
     concerning Ms. Greenhouse pending the outcome of that 
     investigation.'' Further, the Director found no basis to 
     delay the proposed removal because of a possible reprisal 
     allegation.
       Because of the ongoing IG, DoD criminal investigation, it 
     would have been inappropriate for the DAIG to inquire into 
     that matter. However, the DAIG reviewed for regulatory 
     compliance the two ``less than fully successful'' evaluation 
     reports upon which the proposed removal was based and 
     concluded that the USACE had satisfied applicable regulatory 
     requirements. Accordingly, on July 14, 2005, the Army 
     determined that a sufficient record existed to determine that 
     Ms. Greenhouse's removal from the SES was grounded in a 
     documented record of less than fully successful performance, 
     and not because of any allegations she made of contracting 
     irregularities or her decision to testify before Congress.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we are awaiting the arrival of Senator 
McCain. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recognize Senator 
McCain upon his arrival at the floor.
  The Senator may wish to ask unanimous consent to place further 
material into the Record after he has had an opportunity to examine 
that paper. There may be some material the Senator believes should be 
added.
  Mr. DORGAN. If I might just respond briefly, I don't think this is a 
substantive answer to the very serious allegations raised by Ms. 
Greenhouse--not just in her statements, but in other documentation 
about improper meetings, about improper actions by the Corps of 
Engineers, in violation of their own regulations. Nowhere do I see the 
Pentagon officials or General Strock willing to address those in their 
specifics. I will await their response to that, as I have waited now 
for 2 years, but that answer is not yet forthcoming.
  It is perfectly fine to have this printed in the Record. I will, 
during this debate, evaluate it and also respond to it, but even with 
this, we have never gotten a straight answer from the Pentagon about 
these issues. They are very anxious and interested in making sure there 
are no waves around this on contracting because they have their own way 
of doing things, and if it does not work out, that is tough, they do 
not want news coverage.
  Mr. WARNER. I got unanimous consent to have this printed in the 
Record but as a courtesy gave the Senator a copy thinking the Senator 
may wish to supplement it.
  Mr. DORGAN. I appreciate the courtesy of Senator Warner, and I may do 
so at an appropriate time.
  Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, these days it seems rare that we debate a 
nonpartisan issue. Too many of the items that Congress considers have 
more to do with spin than substance, are based more on politics than 
policy. It is a disturbing trend and that is why I am proud to rise as 
a cosponsor of the amendment introduced by my colleague from North 
Dakota, Senator Dorgan.
  The issue addressed by the Senator's amendment--the fleecing of 
American taxpayers by war profiteers and corrupt contractors--should 
disturb every American. My colleague from North

[[Page 11144]]

Dakota constructed his amendment, which is based on legislation that I 
have also cosponsored, in reaction to testimony presented at several 
hearings he held on contracting fraud. At those hearings, witnesses 
presented example upon example of blatant misuse of taxpayer dollars. 
Witnesses testified about abuse ranging from the towels given to our 
troops to the meals they were served. At every opportunity, no-bid 
contract winners took advantage of the fact that we are at war to fill 
their own coffers. That is not a partisan issue--that is a crime.
  It is a crime that requires punishment, and it is a crime that we 
could prevent with greater transparency and accountability. That is 
what this amendment would do. The amendment establishes penalties of up 
to 20 years in prison and at least $1 million in fines for war 
profiteering. It also prohibits the award of Federal contracts to 
companies that have a history of failing to comply with the law. 
Finally, the amendment requires real competition: For any contract 
worth more than $10 million, contractors would be allowed to compete, 
rather than have all the work automatically go to a single contractor.
  This is a commonsense approach to an appalling problem. When we ask 
our troops and their families to make the ultimate sacrifice, it is 
repugnant to think that there are those who seek to profit off that 
sacrifice. Contract fraud does more than cost the taxpayers money--it 
abuses their confidence. We owe it to our troops, and to the American 
public, to do all we can to protect such abuses. Senator Dorgan's 
amendment is a step in that direction, and I urge my colleagues to 
support the amendment.


                           Amendment No. 4241

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask the indulgence of my friend from 
Virginia for a very brief two amendments, one which will be very 
brief--I do not believe he will object too strenuously--and that is to 
name this act after the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia.
  I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4241 for himself, Mr. Frist, Mr. Levin, 
     Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Sessions, 
     Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Collins, Mr. Reed, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Akaka, 
     Mr. Talent, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Nelson 
     of Nebraska, Mr. Graham, Mr. Dayton, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Bayh, Mr. 
     Cornyn, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Thune, Mr. Allard, and Mr. Allen.

  Mr. McCAIN. 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 name the Act after John Warner, a Senator from Virginia)

       On page 2, strike lines 1 through 3, and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; FINDINGS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``John 
     Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2007''.
       (b) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Senator John Warner of Virginia was elected a member of 
     the United States Senate on November 7, 1978, for a full term 
     beginning on January 3, 1979. He was subsequently appointed 
     by the Governor of Virginia to fill a vacancy on January 2, 
     1979, and has served continuously since that date. He was 
     appointed a member of the Committee on Armed Services in 
     January 1979, and has served continuously on the Committee 
     since that date, a period of nearly 28 years. Senator 
     Warner's service on the Committee represents nearly half of 
     its existence since it was established after World War II.
       (2) Senator Warner came to the Senate and the Committee on 
     Armed Services after a distinguished record of service to the 
     Nation, including combat service in the Armed Forces and high 
     civilian office.
       (3) Senator Warner enlisted in the United States Navy upon 
     graduation from high school in 1945, and served until the 
     summer of 1946, when he was discharged as a Petty Officer 3rd 
     Class. He then attended Washington and Lee University on the 
     G.I. Bill. He graduated in 1949 and entered the University of 
     Virginia Law School.
       (4) Upon the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950, Senator 
     Warner volunteered for active duty, interrupting his 
     education to accept a commission in the United States Marine 
     Corps. He served in combat in Korea as a ground officer in 
     the First Marine Air Wing. Following his active service, he 
     remained in the Marine Corps Reserve for several years, 
     attaining the rank of captain.
       (5) Senator Warner resumed his legal education upon 
     returning from the Korean War and graduated from the 
     University of Virginia Law School in 1953. He was selected by 
     the late Chief Judge E. Barrett Prettyman of the United 
     States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
     as his law clerk. After his service to Judge Prettyman, 
     Senator Warner became an Assistant United States Attorney in 
     the District of Columbia, and later entered private law 
     practice.
       (6) In 1969, the Senate gave its advice and consent to the 
     appointment of Senator Warner as Under Secretary of the Navy. 
     He served in this position until 1972, when he was confirmed 
     and appointed as the 61st Secretary of the Navy since the 
     office was established in 1798. As Secretary, Senator Warner 
     was the principal United States negotiator and signatory of 
     the Incidents at Sea Executive Agreement with the Soviet 
     Union, which was signed in 1972 and remains in effect today. 
     It has served as the model for similar agreements between 
     states covering the operation of naval ships and aircraft in 
     international sea lanes throughout the world.
       (7) Senator Warner left the Department of the Navy in 1974. 
     His next public service was as Director of the American 
     Revolution Bicentennial Commission. In this capacity, he 
     coordinated the celebration of the Nation's founding, 
     directing the Federal role in all 50 States and in over 20 
     foreign nations.
       (8) Senator Warner has served as chairman of the Committee 
     on Armed Services of the United States Senate from 1999 to 
     2001, and again since January 2003. He served as ranking 
     minority member of the committee from 1987 to 1993, and again 
     from 2001 to 2003. Senator Warner concludes his service as 
     chairman at the end of the 109th Congress, but will remain a 
     member of the committee.
       (9) This Act is the twenty-eighth annual authorization act 
     for the Department of Defense for which Senator Warner has 
     taken a major responsibility as a member of the Committee on 
     Armed Services of the United States Senate, and the 
     fourteenth for which he has exercised a leadership role as 
     chairman or ranking minority member of the committee.
       (10) Senator Warner, as seaman, Marine officer, Under 
     Secretary and Secretary of the Navy, and member, ranking 
     minority member, and chairman of the Committee on Armed 
     Services, has made unique and lasting contributions to the 
     national security of the United States.
       (11) It is altogether fitting and proper that his Act, the 
     last annual authorization Act for the national defense that 
     Senator Warner manages in and for the United States Senate as 
     chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, be named in his 
     honor, as provided in subsection (a).

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment would name the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 after the chairman of 
the Committee on Armed Services, our distinguished friend and colleague 
from Virginia, John Warner. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by 
Senators Frist, Levin, Inhofe, Kennedy, Roberts, Byrd, Sessions, 
Lieberman, Collins, Jack Reed, Ensign, Akaka, Talent, Bill Nelson, 
Chambliss, Ben Nelson, Graham, Dayton, Dole, Bayh, Cornyn, Clinton, 
Thune, Allard, and Allen.
  I am certain that there is not a Senator in this Senate who would not 
agree that Senator Warner, with his grace, courtliness, bipartisan 
attitude, and kindness to all, represents the finest traditions of the 
Senate. All Senators know that the defense authorization bill occupies 
a major place in the annual legislative calendar and takes substantial 
time to complete. Those Senators who do not have the privilege of 
serving on the Committee on Armed Services may not realize the 
tremendous amount of work that goes into hearings, formulation of 
legislative proposals, preparation for markup, and actual markup of 
this bill--the largest annually recurring piece of legislation in 
Congress. When one adds to this the oversight of the largest department 
in the Government, and the processing of thousands of military and 
civilian nominations each year, the demands on the chairman of the 
committee and the need for leadership are obvious. For 6 years, John 
Warner has provided that leadership, and done it in a manner that has 
gained him universal respect.
  John Warner is, first and foremost a Virginian--a lifetime resident 
of that Old Dominion that has stood at the

[[Page 11145]]

center of American history for over two centuries and has given Nation 
so many of its eminent men, from Washington forward. John Warner has 
continued that tradition of service to country from his youth. The son 
of a decorated Army physician in World War I, John Warner left high 
school to enlist in the Navy late in World War II. He served until 
1946, when he was discharged as a petty officer 3rd class. Like 
millions of other young Americans, he then attended college on the G.I. 
bill, graduating from Washington and Lee University in 1949. He then 
entered the University of Virginia Law School. He interrupted his 
education to serve in the Korean war, volunteering for active duty and 
accepting a commission in the Marine Corps. He served in the combat 
zone as a ground officer in the First Marine Air Wing, and remained in 
the Marine Corps Reserve for several years. Upon returning from the 
Korean war, he resumed his legal education, graduating from the 
University of Virginia Law School in 1953.
  Upon graduation, John Warner's outstanding qualities were recognized 
when he was selected to serve as the law clerk to the late Judge E. 
Barrett Prettyman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit, one of the most outstanding jurists of the period. 
Many years later, Senator Warner would be instrumental in naming the 
U.S. Court House in Washington, DC, for his old mentor. After his 
clerkship, John Warner became an Assistant United States Attorney in 
the District of Columbia, and later was engaged in the private practice 
of law.
  In 1969, President Nixon nominated John Warner to serve as Under 
Secretary of the Navy. The Senate confirmed the nomination, and he 
served as Under Secretary until he was confirmed and appointed as the 
61st Secretary of the Navy in 1972. During his tenure as Secretary, the 
United States and the Soviet Union signed the Incidents at Sea 
Executive Agreement, for which he was the principal United States 
negotiator and signatory. This agreement remains in effect today, and 
has served as a model for similar agreements governing naval vessels 
and aircraft around the world.
  After leaving the Department of the Navy in 1974, John Warner's next 
public service was as chairman of the American Revolution Bicentennial 
Commission. He oversaw the celebration of the Nation's founding, 
directing the Federal Government's role in a commemoration that 
enbraced all 50 States and over 20 foreign nations.
  In 1978, the voters of Virginia elected John Warner to a full term in 
the United States Senate. Upon beginning his service in 1979, he was 
elected a member of the Committee on Armed Services. Upon leaving the 
chairmanship next year, he will have served on the committee for 28 
years, almost half of the committee's existence. Senator Warner served 
as chairman of the committee from 1999 to 2001, and again since 2003. 
He also served as ranking member from 1987 to 1993, and again from 2001 
to 2003. For 14 years of American history, years that saw the end of 
the cold war, the first gulf war, the attacks on September 11, 2001, 
and the global war on terror, John Warner has served in a leadership 
role on the committee.
  No Member of this body has done more for our national security than 
John Warner. As sailor, Marine officer, Under Secretary and Secretary 
of the Navy, and United States Senator, he has always answered his 
country's call. The dignified and evenhanded way in which he has 
presided over the business of the committee has enabled it to continue 
its noble tradition of being an island of bipartisanship in an 
increasingly unpleasant political era. I submit that it is exceedingly 
appropriate that this year's defense authorization act, the last which 
John Warner will manage as chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, 
be named in his honor.
  If my colleagues will indulge me for just another moment, I would 
like to relate a personal story, and that has to do with when I 
returned from prison in Vietnam. John Warner was then serving as 
Secretary of the Navy. Secretary Warner greeted us all with the 
greatest warmth and affection, but very importantly in my case I had 
requested to attend the National War College as the next tour of duty. 
That meant objections for several very good reasons, and yet then-
Secretary Warner made sure I was allowed to attend that institution of 
higher learning. He and I have remained friends and comrades since the 
day I returned home in March of 1973, now some 33 years.
  It has been a privilege and an honor to hold my dear friend, John 
Warner, in my highest esteem and affection. This is a very small token 
for the esteem in which all of us hold John Warner as a great and 
wonderful leader of this Senate. I could go on for many hours 
recounting the many wonderful achievements he has made for the people 
of Virginia and for the people of this Nation, but I will refrain from 
doing so as I know many of my colleagues will want to add their voices 
and sponsorship of this amendment to name the Defense authorization 
bill for 2007 in his name.
  I ask the vote to be held at the appropriate time, and whether the 
yeas and nays are called for would be up to my colleagues.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am deeply moved by the thoughtful 
remarks of my longtime friend. I express my everlasting gratitude first 
and foremost for that friendship and, indeed, the friendship of your 
father, commander and chief of the U.S. Forces in the Pacific, who 
helped guide me in those difficult days of Vietnam when I was entrusted 
with the Department of the Navy.
  I say to my friend, it is my fervent hope when I step down as 
chairman, as prescribed by the rules of our caucus, I will have the 
privilege to nominate you to become the next chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee. And I am confident that will be confirmed in our 
caucus and eventually by the full Senate and that you will lead this 
committee to greater levels and higher achievements, as has been the 
case of almost every step of your career.
  I wish you well and also your family, dear friend.
  Now, Mr. President, I believe we are going to turn to another 
amendment by the distinguished Senator from Arizona, and I am 
privileged to be a cosponsor of that amendment.
  I commend the Senator. This is a very important step that you are 
initiating with regard to the future of how financing the Department of 
Defense is handled in the Congress of the United States.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am honored to join my colleague from 
Arizona and to cosponsor his amendment to name this year's Defense 
authorization bill after our good friend, Senator John Warner, the 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
  This tribute is eminently well deserved. Senator Warner has had a 
long and distinguished career of outstanding service to our Nation. He 
enlisted in the Navy at the end of World War II and served with 
distinction. He then attended Washington and Lee University on the GI 
bill. He volunteered for active duty during the Korean war and served 
as an officer in the Marine Corps, interrupting his studies at the 
University of Virginia Law School.
  After graduation, he had an impressive legal career. He clerked for 
Chief Judge Barrett Prettyman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit and became a Federal prosecutor in the 
District of Columbia before entering private practice.
  He then returned to Government service as Under Secretary of the Navy 
in the Nixon administration, and I was honored to support his promotion 
to be the 61st Secretary of the Navy in 1972.
  He was elected to the Senate in 1978 and was a natural for the Armed 
Services Committee. I joined the committee in 1983, and it has been a 
very great privilege to serve with him and learn from him for the past 
two decades. No one cares more about our national defense or our men 
and women in uniform. As chairman of the committee, he has the immense 
respect of all of us. His leadership ability, eloquence, and dedication 
have served the Senate, our Armed Forces, and the Nation brilliantly.
  These annual Defense authorization acts demonstrate our chairman at 
his

[[Page 11146]]

best, and naming this bill for him is a fitting tribute to his 
extraordinary leadership and the enduring respect and affection that 
all of us have for him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend again for his kind 
words. If I am so fortunate as to succeed him, I would obviously rely 
on him for his continued guidance and stewardship.


                           Amendment No. 4242

  Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration. The amendment is on behalf of myself, Senator 
Warner, Senator Levin, Senator Graham, Senator Byrd, Senator Gregg, 
Senator Hagel, Senator Chambliss, Senator Collins, Senator Coburn, 
Senator Conrad, and Senator Reid.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself, Mr. 
     Warner, Mr. Levin, Mr. Graham, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Gregg, Mr. 
     Hagel, Mr. Chambliss, Ms. Collins, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Conrad, 
     and Mr. Reid, proposes an amendment numbered 4242.

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

(Purpose: To require regular budgeting for ongoing military operations)

       At the end of subtitle I of title X, insert the following:

     SEC. _. BUDGETING FOR ONGOING MILITARY OPERATIONS.

       The President's budget submitted pursuant to section 
     1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, for each fiscal year 
     after fiscal year 2007 shall include--
       (1) a request for funds for such fiscal year for ongoing 
     military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq;
       (2) an estimate of all funds expected to be required in 
     that fiscal year for such operations; and
       (3) a detailed justification of the funds requested.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment would require regular 
budgeting for ongoing military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The 
war on terror has been going on for nearly 5 years, since that tragic 
day in September 2001. Yet since that time the administration has 
sought to fund the war operations almost entirely through emergency 
supplemental appropriations measures instead of through its annual 
budget submissions.
  The most recent supplemental measure, which the Senate is expected to 
pass soon, is the ninth supplemental bill since September 2001. With 
its enactment, we will have provided over $420 billion to pay for 
ongoing military operations, reconstruction, and training of Iraqi 
security forces--defense spending that I fully support. And all of that 
money is designated as ``emergency'' expenditures--provided without any 
offsetting revenues, as if it were free money. But it is not. It is not 
free money.
  I think we can fund this war--and, indeed, win this war--while also 
budgeting for the war. We know the war is going to cost more than the 
$420 billion to date, and we know the war is not going to end as 
quickly as most of us would prefer. In fact, many of us see ongoing 
operations in Afghanistan for an extended period of time, hopefully at 
a low level, hopefully taken over by NATO, hopefully Americans not in a 
major role. But certainly as long as NATO is involved, we will continue 
to see American participation. But we need to continue, and we need to 
continue our military operations until the job is done. Withdrawing our 
military presence prematurely is not an option in my view, the view of 
many of my colleagues, nor the view of the President or his advisers. 
We are in it to win.
  Unfortunately, the administration's unwillingness to budget for the 
war through the regular process means that neither the White House nor 
the Congress is making the tough decisions about how we are going to 
pay for the ongoing wars. If we continue down this same path, that job 
will be left to future generations because the expenditures are being 
made regardless, and eventually their impact on our budget will have to 
be addressed. The longer we wait to make the tough decisions, the 
bigger the problem will become, and the more difficult making those 
tough decisions will be.
  Our Nation's future economic success rests in part on the decisions 
we make today--and the ones we put off. We are facing some dire fiscal 
challenges in the days ahead. According to the Government 
Accountability Office, the unfunded Federal financial burden--such as 
public debt, future Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid payments--
totals more than $46 trillion, or $156,000 per man, woman, and child in 
America. According to David Walker, the head of the GAO, for a family, 
this burden is ``like having a $750,000 mortgage--and no house.''
  But instead of fixing the problem--and fixing it will not be easy--we 
are only succeeding in making it bigger, more unstable, more 
complicated, and much more expensive. And adding hundreds of billions 
of dollars that are more conveniently designated as ``emergency'' 
expenditures--so they do not have to be budgeted for along with other 
national priorities--is only making our fiscal problems that much 
greater.
  Somehow the concept of true emergency funding bills has gotten lost 
along the way. Take the most recent supplemental appropriations bill. 
The President requested a total of $94.5 billion to fund our operations 
in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as additional funding to aid in the 
recovery efforts along the hurricane-affected gulf coast and other 
urgent needs.
  I believe the war funding is the largest amount yet proposed in what 
is now almost a routine series of supplemental requests to fund this 
ongoing war. A Senate-passed bill provided $108.9 billion in spending--
$14.4 billion above the level the President has indicated he is willing 
to sign. Despite the efforts of several of us to trim that bill of 
unrequested earmarks and questionable spending, the Senate did not have 
the will to do so prior to the bill's passage. It wasn't until 
conference, with the looming threat of a sustainable veto, that the 
bill was trimmed. But the fact remains that the funding provided for in 
that bill is enormous, and it would be more fiscally responsible to be 
dealt with in the annual authorization and appropriations bills.
  Of course, that supplemental is only the most recent example of why 
this amendment is necessary. Since 2001, the administration and 
Congress have routinely funded our ongoing operations in Afghanistan 
and Iraq through emergency supplemental appropriations bills. In 
addition, many defense-related activities that should have been 
financed through the normal appropriations process have been funded 
through these emergency supplementals. And in the process, more and 
more nondefense-related spending has also been creeping into these 
bills, greatly undermining the budget process.
  There are several criticisms of the supplemental appropriations 
process that I hope the Senate will agree are egregious enough to lend 
overwhelming support for the adoption of the amendment.
  First, unless we take action, ``emergency'' funds will continue to be 
employed as a way to add spending above that contained under the budget 
caps. It has become all too routine for the administration to omit what 
should be normal spending items for the budget it sends to Congress in 
February. Instead, the administration relies on supplementals to fund 
critical ``must-pass items,'' such as operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, as well as more routine defense spending. Congress then 
approves these requests and regularly tries to augment them with 
nonemergency, nondefense items.
  Second, supplemental appropriations have diminished responsible 
budget decisions and proper oversight by Congress. Put aside for a 
moment that authorizing committees are not consulted with regard to 
supplemental appropriations in the same manner that occurs during the 
normal annual budget process. Emergency supplemental appropriations 
requests are not forwarded to Congress with the same level of budget

[[Page 11147]]

justification and details that are routinely sent to Congress when the 
President's annual budget is forwarded in February of each year. If the 
authorizing and appropriations committees are not allowed to scrutinize 
fully the effectiveness of defense programs and are unwilling to end 
programs that are not effective, we will continue to have an 
ineffectual budget.
  Third, budgeting annually through emergency supplemental 
appropriations bills encourages pork-barrel spending. I think the 2-
week debate on the most recent supplemental is fresh in everyone's 
mind, so I will not mention the many provisions that objections were 
raised against. But the fact is, unrequested add-ons which ultimately 
make it into the final supplemental appropriations conference reports 
are almost never the subject of a hearing in the authorization and 
appropriations committees. They are seldom, if ever, subjected to a 
recorded vote in a committee or on the floor of the House or the 
Senate. These items very often are not even included in legislation 
initially passed by the House or Senate but are instead added by a 
conference committee.
  Here is a very important aspect of this which I hope all my 
colleagues will pay attention to because unless we look back in 
history, it is hard for us to understand how egregious this process has 
become.
  For the Korean war, which lasted 3 years, there was one supplemental 
appropriations bill.
  During the 11-year Vietnam war, there were four supplemental 
appropriations bills. As soon as troop levels in Southeast Asia stopped 
climbing, the Johnson and Nixon administrations requested funding for 
ongoing operations in the regular Defense authorization and 
appropriations bills.
  Since 9/11, there have been nine supplemental appropriations bills, 
in 5 years, to fund the ongoing war on terror, including two in each of 
the years of 2002, 2004, and 2005. Over 90 percent of the funding for 
Iraq and Afghanistan ongoing operations--ongoing operations--has been 
funded through one to two emergency supplemental appropriations bills 
each year for the past 5 years. It now totals over $420 billion in 
emergency supplemental funding.
  So we pass budgets, we put caps on budgets, and then we add $80 
billion, $90 billion, $100 billion--in total, over the last 5 years, 
$420 billion--despite the fact that during this time Congress provided 
over $2.2 trillion for defense-related expenditures in the regular 
annual defense spending bills.
  We are blowing the budget process. We are carving gigantic holes in 
the system. And we are removing the authorizing committees and, to a 
degree, the appropriating committees from the scrutiny and oversight 
that is our responsibility. It is not our privilege to oversight the 
spending of our taxpayers' dollars and the authorization and 
appropriation of it; it is our responsibility. When we look at these 
emergency supplementals, we find more and more items which really have 
nothing to do with the war in Iraq. They may be replacements for 
equipment that was used in Iraq, but haven't we reached the point, in 
both Iraq and Afghanistan, where we can plan ahead in a normal 
budgetary process?
  I wish to emphasize, again, if there is a genuine emergency, I will 
be the first Member of the Senate to suggest and approve of a genuine 
emergency. This in no way--this in no way--reduces the executive 
branch's or the legislative branch's ability to approve emergency 
supplemental bills if they are genuine emergencies.
  Now, if someone objects to this amendment, I wonder how we were able 
to need only one supplemental appropriations bill during the entire 
Korean war or why during the entire 11-year Vietnam war there were only 
four. But somehow, now we have had to have nine emergency supplemental 
bills in 5 years, and it now totals over $420 billion in emergency 
supplemental funding.
  Now, in the interest of straight talk, if I were a member of the 
executive branch, I would find this a very convenient way. Isn't it a 
lot easier to just ask for an emergency supplemental and write out the 
details of it and have it passed rather than going through the normal 
budgeting process, which I will admit is somewhat cumbersome? But it 
was intended to be because of Congress's responsibilities to oversight 
the taxpayers' dollars.
  So this amendment is about fiscal responsibility. Most of us have 
voted in recent years to support several sense-of-the-Senate amendments 
stating that the war should be budgeted for in the regular process. In 
fact, just this past April 27, the Senate voted 94 to 0 to approve such 
an amendment. I have supported that proposition each time it has been 
offered. The amendment before us would put real meaning into the 
positions we have previously voted to support.
  Let me also be clear about what this amendment does not do. It does 
not seek to prevent any future emergency funding requests for war 
operations. It does require budgeting for the ongoing expenses we know 
are going to occur. If next year, after the budget is submitted in 
February, a totally unforeseen expenditure arises that must be urgently 
addressed, the administration would have the ability to submit a 
supplemental request. But simple cost-of-doing business expenditures--
costs that can be estimated and budgeted for--would not be allowed.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to extend the time 
for the vote by 5 minutes and that I be recognized at the conclusion of 
the 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Since my colleagues anticipate a vote, I will be brief.
  We could sit down now and figure out probably most of the costs for 
operations in the coming year, 2 years, in Afghanistan and Iraq. We 
have a good idea as to what kind of budgeting we are going to have to 
be involved in and what the necessary authorization and appropriation 
will be. I want to emphasize: This amendment in no way impairs the 
ability to enact another emergency supplemental if it is required. What 
we are doing now is an end run around the authorizing, appropriating, 
and budgeting processes, and we are lying to the American people when 
we say we are only going to spend so many dollars on the various 
functions of Government; in this case, on Defense and military 
expenditures.
  I yield the floor and ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. May I inquire of the distinguished Senator if he has any 
way of estimating the amount of further debate on this amendment 
because we could quite likely schedule it for a vote this evening, 
subject to his concurrence.
  Mr. McCAIN. In response, I ask my colleague from Michigan, I don't 
know of others who have asked to speak on it.
  Mr. WARNER. I understand Senator Byrd would like to.
  Mr. LEVIN. My remarks in support of the McCain amendment will be 
fairly brief, but Senator Byrd does wish to speak on the amendment. We 
are trying to ascertain how much time he desires.
  Mr. WARNER. Fine, then I ask unanimous consent that upon the 
conclusion of the scheduled vote, the Chair recognize the Senator from 
Arizona for such additional remarks as he may wish to make.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Stevens be added as 
a cosponsor to my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me congratulate Senator McCain, not 
just for his honesty in the budgeting amendment, but also for the 
previous amendment which he brought up while I was absent from the 
floor and which I am proud and pleased to cosponsor, which would name 
this bill after our esteemed colleague, Senator Warner.

[[Page 11148]]

We will have a lot more to say about that later, but it is the right 
thing to do. I know there will more Members on the Senate floor when we 
accomplish that wonderful goal.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my longtime colleague and friend, Senator Levin, 
for his remarks.
  I advise the Senate at this time we will proceed to the vote. I will 
momentarily make a tabling motion, and then upon conclusion of the 
vote, we will return to the McCain amendment. It would be my fervent 
hope that we can have a vote on that amendment prior to the time the 
leadership desires that floor activities be terminated.


                           Amendment No. 4230

  I move to table the Dorgan amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kerry) and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 169 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

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

                                NAYS--43

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Kerry
     Rockefeller
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will now propound a unanimous consent 
agreement which I think is in the possession of my colleague.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
until 5 o'clock today be equally divided between myself and Senator 
McCain and the Democratic leader or his designee, with 20 minutes of 
the Democratic leader time under the control of Senator Byrd, and that 
at 5 o'clock a vote occur in relation to the McCain amendment No. 4242, 
with no further intervening action or debate, and no second-degree 
amendments in order prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not, I wonder if 
the Senator can make room in there for an additional 3 minutes under 
our control so I can speak in favor. We can work that out.
  Mr. WARNER. I assure the Senator he will have time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to advise colleagues that it may be 
that we can expedite the vote prior to 5 p.m. So it really, in a sense, 
is no later than 5 o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, may we have order, please.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be order in the Senate.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator is entitled to be heard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished senior 
Senator from West Virginia, the West Virginian, the gentleman from West 
Virginia.


                           Amendment No. 4242

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote on an emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill that would bring the total amount of 
funds appropriated for the war in Iraq to $318 billion. That is $318 
for every minute--every minute--since Jesus Christ was born. Think of 
it. That is a staggering amount of money. The total amount of funds 
appropriated for the war in Iraq is $318 billion. But that is not the 
whole story.
  According to a recent report by the Congressional Research Service, 
the monthly cost of the war in Iraq is going up, up, up, right into the 
stratosphere.
  During the opening phases of the war, the cost of the war was 
estimated to be $4.4 billion per month. According to the new CRS 
estimates, that pricetag will rise to an average of $8.1 billion for 
each month of the next year $8.1 billion. In other words, $8.10, or 
more, for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. How can this be? 
How is it that after 3 years of war the cost of operations in Iraq has 
gone up by 80 percent?
  Part of the problem is that funding for the war is being hidden--yes, 
hidden. Where is it?--hidden from the normal budget authorization and 
appropriations process. Instead of the President providing Congress 
with an estimate of how much the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--there 
are two of them--how much the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost 
each year, the administration has chosen to hide those costs. Where? In 
emergency spending bills.
  Since the war in Iraq began in March 2003, the Congress has enacted 
eight emergency supplemental appropriations bills. None of these 
measures received the full scrutiny--the full scrutiny--that is so 
necessary for such massive expenditures. The President refuses to 
include the full cost of these wars in his regular budget request. 
Instead, the President sends to the Congress emergency requests with 
little or no detailed justification.
  Five times I have offered amendments in the Senate urging the 
President to budget for the cost of the two wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Five times. And five times those amendments have been 
approved, most recently on April 24, 2006, by a unanimous vote--hear 
me, a unanimous vote--of 94 to 0. However, the White House has shown no 
sign that it will take the fiscally responsible course of beginning to 
budget for the cost of the wars.
  There are two wars going on. One, I supported the war in Afghanistan. 
The other war in Iraq, I did not support our invasion of Iraq for 
constitutional reasons.
  I am pleased to work with my colleague, Senator McCain, to build on 
my previous efforts to urge the administration to budget for the war. 
We are there. We are in there. Our men and women are there, and we are 
going to support them. I didn't support the policies that sent them 
there, but I support them, the men and women, our men and women who are 
over there.
  The amendment before the Senate, of which I am a proud cosponsor, 
would create a requirement in law to force the administration to give a 
full year's estimate of the cost of military operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. What is wrong with that? The amendment before the Senate, 
of which I am a proud cosponsor, would create a requirement in law--a 
requirement in law--to force the administration to give a full year's 
estimate of the cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[[Page 11149]]

  The amendment also requires the administration to submit a detailed 
justification of the administration's budget request. As the ranking 
member of the Appropriations Committee, I expect that this 
justification would include a breakdown of the funding request by each 
appropriations account and detailed information about prior years' war 
spending. The very last thing that Congress wants to see is a 
gargantuan request of scores of billions of dollars in the form of a 
slush fund or a no-strings-attached transfer account.
  This is the people's money. Do my colleagues know that? Think about 
it. Whose money is this that we are talking about? It is the people's 
money, those people out there who are watching this Senate through 
those lenses. That is their money, the people's money that we are 
talking about, and the American public has the right to demand 
accountability.
  With this amendment, the Senate is charging a fiscally responsible 
course which can generate a real debate on the cost of these wars. That 
is a debate that is long overdue--long overdue--and I urge my 
colleagues to support this important amendment.


                                Flag Day

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, ``Hats off! Hats off! The flag is passing 
by. Hats off! The flag is passing by.''
  Those are the powerful words of Henry Holcomb Bennett in his stirring 
poem, ``The Flag Goes By.''
  I recite those words because today, this day, is June 14, Flag Day. 
Yes, Flag Day. There by the President's desk, that flag. This day is 
Flag Day, the day that Americans pause to celebrate and show our 
respect for our great national emblem, the American flag. This, 
unfortunately, is not a Federal holiday but, in my opinion, is one of 
the most important days of the year. This is a day filled with so much 
meaning, so much symbolism, so much history.
  It was on June 14, 1777, that the Continental Congress adopted the 
Flag Act that established the official flag of the United States of 
America. The 13 Colonies assembled in the Continental Congress took 
this action because they understood the need for a symbol of our 
national unity.
  During the early days of the American Revolution, the Colonial Armies 
were fighting under the banners of their individual Colonies or, in 
some cases, of their local militia units. The banner of New England, 
for example, was the Liberty Tree. Do you remember the Liberty Tree? It 
showed a green pine tree on a field of white, with the words ``An 
Appeal To Heaven.'' Oh, the Liberty Tree, which showed a green pine 
tree on a field of white, with the words ``An Appeal To Heaven.'' The 
Minutemen from Culpepper County, VA waved a flag with a coiled 
rattlesnake which carried the motto ``Liberty or Death'' and the 
warning ``Don't Tread on Me.'' The flag of militia units in Charleston, 
SC proclaimed ``Liberty'' in white letters on a field of blue.
  This diversity of flags seemed to reflect a lack of unity among the 
Colonies. Feeling the need to establish a symbol of national unity, on 
June 14, 1777, 229 years ago today, the Congress resolved:

       That the flag of the thirteen United States be thirteen 
     stripes, alternate red and white; that the union be thirteen 
     stars, white in a blue field, representing a new 
     constellation.

  Mr. President, I have always been impressed with the wisdom and the 
foresight of the Founders of our country, and here again, we can see 
their brilliance. The simplicity of that chosen pattern, alternating 
stripes and crisp new stars, white stars on a field of blue, allowed 
our flag to evolve along with the ever-changing map of America. The 
flag they chose has become the most visible symbol of our Nation. The 
flag they chose has become our most beloved and respected national 
icon. That flag symbolizes our Nation's strength, our Nation's honor, 
our Nation's ideals, and our national purpose. It recognizes our 
glorious past while it celebrates a more glorious future.
  Legends abound regarding who actually created the first American 
flag. The American Naval hero John Paul Jones and Francis Hopkinson, a 
signer of the Declaration of Independence, have both been cited as 
possible creators, as has John Hulbert of Long Island, NY. Tradition, 
of course, generally attributes the first flag to Betsy Ross. I like to 
believe in that version of the story, because it appeals to my sense of 
the American spirit and to my belief that each and every citizen has a 
responsibility to our Nation. It is a story of the powerful father of 
our country visiting a humble needle woman in her house and asking her 
to undertake the monumental task of making the first American flag.
  Whoever created the first flag, within a few months of its unveiling, 
the flag was under fire for the first time in the battles of Bennington 
and Brandywine. A few months later, on November 1, 1777, our national 
banner went to sea for the first time when Captain John Paul Jones set 
sail in his sloop, the ``Ranger,'' from Portsmouth, NH, for France. 
When the French fleet saluted his ship off the coast of that country on 
February 14, 1778, it marked the first time that foreign vessels had 
acknowledged the American flag. With the winning of independence in 
1783, the American flag was recognized as the banner of the United 
States of America throughout the world.
  Twenty years later that flag was under fire again, this time in the 
War of 1812. On the night of September 13, 1814, British ships on their 
way to Baltimore, not far from here, bombarded Fort McHenry, which 
blocked their entry. When morning came--yes, when morning came, the 
star spangled banner was still waving, revealing to Francis Scott Key 
that the enemy had failed to penetrate the American lines of defense. 
Impressed by this awesome, awesome, glorious sight, Francis Scott Key 
was inspired to write the immortal lyrics that Congress later adopted 
as our National Anthem.
  How we all love to recall the stirring words from the second stanza.

       'Tis the Star-Spangled Banner: O long may it wave O'er the 
     land of the free and the home of the brave.

  In 1824 came that eventful day in Salem, MA, when a group of women 
presented a beautiful 12- by 24-foot flag to Sea Captain William 
Driver, who was about to embark upon a global voyage. After the flag 
was hoisted from the ship's masthead, Captain Driver looked at the flag 
waving so heroically in the wind, and he exclaimed, ``Old, Glory! Old 
Glory!'' Ever since that time, the name has been used to symbolize our 
love and our respect for our national emblem.
  There it is, Old Glory.
  In our dangerous and uncertain world, Old Glory has always been 
there. It was there before you were born, before I was born--yes. It 
was there, always there, guiding us, inspiring us, giving us hope as 
well as direction.
  President Woodrow Wilson--I was born during his administration--
President Woodrow Wilson once remarked, ``Though silent, it speaks to 
us.'' How right he was. Its mere presence stirs emotions. Look at it 
there by the President's desk. Its mere presence--there it stands--its 
mere presence stirs emotions.
  The flag embodies our ideals of freedom, justice, and brotherhood, 
values that are deeply rooted in the best of our political and 
spiritual emotions and traditions. The flag means home, the safety and 
security of home, and tells us that freedom still lives in this land we 
love.
  The flag symbolizes our values and ideals as well as our power, our 
economic and military might. The flag rallies the courage of American 
men and women and children.
  Our flag has been a guide and an inspiration to our Armed Forces. It 
has inspired our men and women to deeds of valor and sacrifice. Who can 
think of the American flag without thinking of the marines heroically 
planting that flag on top of Iwo Jima during World War II or American 
astronauts planting it on the moon or those New York City firefighters 
hoisting the American flag in the rubble of the Trade Towers on 
September 11, 2001?
  Flag Day was first officially observed in 1877 to celebrate the 100th 
anniversary of the selection of the American flag. For the next 70 
years, people and movements across the country promoted efforts to 
establish a national

[[Page 11150]]

Flag Day. In one of those attempts, Congressman Joseph Goulden of New 
York, in 1914, introduced legislation to make June 14 a national 
holiday, to celebrate Flag Day. In testimony to the House Judiciary 
Committee, Congressman Goulden explained:

       We would honor ourselves by making it a holiday. I think 
     the love and devotion we all have for the flag and what it 
     represents will tend to make us better citizens.

  And so it was on August 3, 1949, that Congress approved a joint 
resolution that designated June 14 as Flag Day, in commemoration of the 
adoption of the flag of the United States by the Continental Congress.
  How glad I am that Congress took this action. The American flag sums 
up all the best of our Nation, all that is good and decent in America. 
Throughout our history, it has transcended our differences. It has 
affirmed our common bond as a people and our solemn unity as a Nation.
  Unfortunately and tragically, some people will always try to use this 
national icon to stir disunity. This is a shame and a sham because, 
above everything else, our flag is representative of our national 
unity:

       One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and 
     justice for all.

  ``Indivisible, with liberty and justice for all,'' those words, of 
course, come from the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, our oath to 
generations past and future that we stand together as one great Nation. 
Think of how often throughout the course of the history of our country, 
our Nation, citizens have risen, hands over their hearts, and uttered 
those words together, knowing that their destinies were interwoven. We 
are bound together like the threads that form the fabric of that flag. 
We should put our energies to strengthening that bond, not unraveling 
it.
  That pledge to our flag was originally written in 1892 by Francis 
Bellamy and was first used at the dedication of the World Fair in 
Chicago. The pledge initially read:

       I pledge allegiance to my flag and the Republic for which 
     it stands, one nation indivisible--with liberty and justice 
     for all.

  The original wording was altered slightly in 1923 and 1924. In 1954--
and I was there in the House of Representatives when Congress added the 
phrase ``under God'' to the pledge, which President Eisenhower 
explained:

       In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of 
     religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way 
     we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which 
     forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace 
     and in war.

  That was Dwight Eisenhower.
  As a result, the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag now reads:

       I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of 
     America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation 
     under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

  So on this birthday of Old Glory, Flag Day, 2006, I join with my 
colleagues and my fellow citizens in urging that we protect the 
American flag as a force to unite us, not as a tool to divide us. As 
Henry Holcomb Bennett says in his poem, ``more than a flag is passing 
by.''

     Hats off!

     Along the street there comes
     A blare of bugles, a ruffle of drums,
     A flash of color beneath the sky:
     Hats off! The flag is passing by!

     Blue and crimson and white it shines,
     Over the steel-tipped, ordered lines.
     Hats off!
     The colors before us fly;
     But more than the flag is passing by.

     Sea-fights and land-fights, grim and great,
     Fought to make and to save the State:
     Weary marches and sinking ships;
     Cheers of victory on dying lips;

     Days of plenty and years of peace;
     March of a strong land's swift increase;
     Equal justice, right and law,
     Stately honor and reverend awe;

     Sign of a nation, great and strong
     To ward her people from foreign wrong:
     Pride and glory and honor, all
     Live in the colors to stand or fall.

     Hats off!
     Along the street there comes
     A blare of bugles, a ruffle of drums;
     And loyal hearts are beating high:
     Hats off!
     The flag is passing by!

  Happy birthday, Old Glory. Long may you wave. ``O'er the land of the 
free, and the home of the brave.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, may I commend our distinguished senior 
colleague, former majority leader of the Senate, for that brilliant 
speech, most appropriate on this day. I am certain that speech will be 
carried and viewed by our troops wherever they are in the world. In 
well over 60-some nations our men and women are standing guard tonight, 
protecting our freedoms.
  I congratulate you, sir. Thank you very much.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished--yes, very 
distinguished Senator from the great State of Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. President, I fully support the McCain amendment.
  This amendment would require regular budgeting for ongoing military 
operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  Since 2001, the administration and Congress has funded our ongoing 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through emergency supplemental 
appropriation bills, as has been the case in previous times in our 
Nation's history. As the Congressional Research Service noted in a June 
13, 2006 report, ``Supple-
mentals have been the most frequent means of financing the initial 
stages of military operations.''
  The report continues:

       In general, however, past administrations have requested, 
     and Congress has provided, funding for ongoing military 
     operations in regular appropriations bills as soon as more 
     accurate projections of costs can be made.

  Operations have stabilized to an extent that accurate estimates of 
future years' costs of the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan may be 
made. And, it is now time for the administration to present these costs 
as part of the regular budgeting process.
  Emergency supplemental appropriation requests are not forwarded to 
Congress with the same level of budget justification and details that 
are routinely sent to Congress when the President's annual budget is 
forwarded in February each year. If the authorizing and appropriation 
committees are not allowed to scrutinize fully the effectiveness of 
defense programs, we are not providing the taxpayer with the full 
diligence due for scrutinizing the President's budget request. While, 
I--and I am sure all my colleagues--fully support our troops, and want 
to ensure they have all the resources they need, we must also provide 
strong budgetary oversight.
  We have not always funded our war efforts through routine 
supplemental appropriations measures. It is worth examining history to 
perceive how the practice has been exploited beyond all reasonable 
defense, as Senator McCain recently recounted, and it bears repeating:
  For the Korean war, which lasted 3 years, there was only one 
supplemental appropriations bill;
  During the 11-year Vietnam War, there were four supplemental 
appropriation bills. As soon as troop levels in Southeast Asia stopped 
climbing, the Johnson and Nixon administrations requested funding for 
ongoing operations in the regular defense authorization and 
appropriation bills;
  Since 9/11, there have been nine supplemental appropriation bills in 
5 years to fund the ongoing war on terror, including two in each of the 
years of 2002, 2004, and 2005. It now totals over $420 billion in 
emergency supplemental funding.
  Most of us have voted in recent years to support several Sense of the 
Senate amendments stating that the war should be budgeted for in the 
regular process. Just this past April 27, the Senate voted 94-0 to 
approve such an amendment. I fully supported that proposition each time 
it has been offered. Now, this amendment before us would put real 
meaning into the positions we previously voted to support.
  Let me also be clear about what this amendment does not do. It does 
not seek to prevent any future emergency funding requests for war 
operations. But it does require budgeting for the ongoing expenses we 
know are going to occur. If next year, after the budget is submitted in 
February, a totally unforeseen expenditure arises that must be urgently 
addressed, the administration would have the ability to submit a

[[Page 11151]]

supplemental request. But simple ``costs of doing business'' 
expenditures--costs that can be estimated and budgeted for, but are 
more conveniently funded without any offsets--would not be allowed.
  I simply say that this amendment goes a long way to restore the 
proper balance, as we lay down our Senate procedures in committees, 
between the authorizing process and the appropriators. I do not suggest 
in any way that the appropriators intentionally encroached on the 
authorizing process. To the contrary. It was because of the exigencies, 
the difficulty in predicting the expenditures associated with the 
current military operations that necessitated these large 
appropriations. But this amendment will go a long way to restore that.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  I know my distinguished colleague from Michigan has a few words, and 
then we will go to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will be brief. First, let me thank the 
Senator from West Virginia. He, as always, speaks eloquently. If I can 
make the claim, he speaks for all of us when he talked about our flag 
and what it means to him. I think he reflected the spirit of every 
Member of this body. I thank him for it.
  I also thank Senators Byrd and McCain. The McCain-Byrd amendment, 
which restores honesty and truthfulness to our budget process by 
reflecting the cost of war, is absolutely essential if we are going to 
have a realistic budget. Regardless of whether one supports or doesn't 
support our going to war or how the operations have taken place, it is 
critically important that we pay the cost and know what we are paying 
for and that the budget reflect those costs.
  The effort has been made year after year to do that but so far 
without success because it was not put into law. This amendment of 
Senator McCain and Senator Byrd will put this requirement in law. It is 
essential. I commend both of them for it.
  I believe all Members of this body, regardless of the differences we 
may have about our policy on Iraq, should agree that we should budget 
for and pay for these operations. This week Congress will send to the 
President the second FY2006 supplemental which includes another $70 
billion on the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, on top of the $50 
billion provided in December. That means in the current fiscal year we 
will spend $120 billion, or $10 billion a month, on these operations--
and none of it was included in the President's 2006 budget. I can think 
of no clearer evidence of the need for this amendment.
  In February, I included the following statement in my letter to the 
Budget Committee:

       [T]hese costs should be moved into the regular budget 
     process, rather than continuing to treat them purely as 
     emergency spending. These expenses are not, to use the words 
     of section 402 of last year's budget resolution, 
     ``unforeseen, unpredictable, and unanticipated''. Calling 
     them emergencies does nothing to reduce their impact on our 
     federal deficit and debt. Furthermore, the Quadrennial 
     Defense Review released by the Department of Defense last 
     month asserts that our military is fighting a ``long war'' 
     that ``may last for some years to come''. If this is so, all 
     the more reason to start recognizing the ongoing costs of 
     this ``long war'' in our budget, so we can start paying for 
     it. So far, these costs have been financed entirely by 
     deficit spending. That may be necessary for a short, 
     unforeseen war, but if a ``long war'' is part of our national 
     security reality, it must become part of our fiscal reality, 
     and we must pay for it.
       There is an additional reason why these costs should be 
     built into our regular budget process. Supplementals are not 
     subjected to the oversight of the authorizing committees. I 
     believe it is time for that to change. The costs of war are 
     enormous, and these costs, starting with the $50 billion 
     budget amendment the administration intends to submit, should 
     receive more oversight, and putting this funding through the 
     normal budget process will help Congress do its oversight job 
     better, which will better serve the American public.

  As I also stated at our Armed Services Committee hearing with 
Secretary Rumsfeld in February that:

       Reponsible budgeting means making choices and setting 
     priorities. This budget request fails that test. It 
     understates the true cost of our defense program because it 
     does not fully recognize or pay for the cost of ongoing 
     operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2007. Funds for those 
     will apparently be requested later this year on an emergency, 
     non-paid for, basis. That is not responsible budgeting. Those 
     costs should be planned on and paid for now. Honest budgeting 
     requires no less.

  It is essential that our budget begin to reflect reality and 
recognize the enormous cost of these ongoing military operations. I 
congratulate Senator McCain and Senator Byrd for this amendment, and I 
urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
Senators be added as cosponsors to this amendment: Senators Snowe, 
Ensign, Lieberman, Obama, Inouye, Akaka, and Salazar.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
4242. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kerry) and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``aye.''
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 170 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Kerry
     Rockefeller
       
  The amendment (No. 4242) was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 4236

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am submitting an amendment today that 
addresses the issue of military assistance to foreign countries. 
Senators Warner and Levin have tried to be responsive to an 
administration request for increased funding and flexibility in 
providing assistance to countries that are partners with us in the war 
against terrorism. I applaud their efforts and will enumerate the 
problems that I do not have with the overarching purpose of section 
1206.
  I agree that there should be a new program that specifically 
addresses the shortcomings that many of our partners in the war against 
terror face in tracking and finding terrorists on their soil or in 
nearby seas.
  I understand that current security assistance programs, the Foreign 
Military Financing program, for example, require a long lead time, 
sometimes 2\1/2\ to 3 years from request to delivery of equipment. 
There are urgent cases now where we need to respond more quickly than 
we currently can.
  Nor do I object to providing significant funding for the program. The 
request of the administration for $750 million does not seem exorbitant 
given the threats that we are trying to address. Nonetheless, I respect 
the opinion of my fellow authorizers on the Armed Services Committee 
that there is only $400 million that can be devoted to the problem at 
this time from the Defense budget.
  While on the ground floor of organizing such a new activity, however,

[[Page 11152]]

my concern is that we get the decisionmaking mechanism right. We must 
make certain that the recipients chosen, the design of the programs, 
and implementation are in the best foreign policy interests of the 
United States. We are in this war on terror for the longterm. This is 
an important program that will go through many changes. Recipient 
countries will change. Areas of the globe where it must focus may 
change. The propensity of subsequent administrations may change as they 
have to make their own hard choices.
  We need to get the basics right now so that we are not faced with a 
situation some years down the road where we have Cabinet Secretaries at 
odds, struggling with decisions on which countries should receive the 
aid, when it should be delivered, and how it should be implemented.
  Those are decisions that we must insist be overseen by the Secretary 
of State on behalf of the President. Foreign policy must drive foreign 
assistance decisions. We cannot have military aid decisions drive 
foreign policy.
  This amendment provides the funding that the Senate Armed Services 
Committee has authorized for the new program while safeguarding the 
primacy of the State Department in guiding and overseeing the program. 
My amendment this year builds on an amendment offered by Senator Inhofe 
last year on the same subject. That amendment passed the Senate 
unanimously when it was accepted by Senators Warner and Levin as the 
proper way to proceed. It, unfortunately, emerged from conference 
altered to authorize a Department of Defense program that is ``jointly 
formulated'' with the Secretary of State and requiring the Secretary of 
Defense to ``coordinate'' with the Secretary of State in program 
implementation. My amendment is more explicit. While the Inhofe 
amendment allowed a direct transfer of funds from the Defense 
Department to the State Department, this amendment explicitly creates a 
new counterterrorism train-and-equip account that is designed for use 
by the Department of Defense but is under the authority of the State 
Department. The Department of Defense would be authorized to contribute 
to and withdraw from the fund and would implement the train-and-equip 
programs funded by the account. Proceeding this way would clarify lines 
of authority and would safeguard the Secretary of State's role as the 
President's chief foreign policy advisor and manager of bilateral 
relationships.
  My amendment retains an important interagency study due at the end of 
this year on the issue of military assistance that was contained in 
last year's section 1206.
  The Department of State is now better organized to manage the new 
account established in this amendment. We can expect decisions to be 
made quickly and efficiently. Randy Tobias is now double-hatted. He has 
been named as the Secretary's foreign assistance advisor in addition to 
his role as the Administrator of USAID. Under his overall guidance, the 
Department can perform the necessary coordination both with Ambassadors 
in the field and with regional bureaus to ensure that such a program 
would be a constructive addition to the bilateral relationship with the 
recipient country and would contribute to regional stability. These are 
judgments that our Government must make about every foreign assistance 
program and the President is best advised on these matters by the 
Secretary of State.
  I hope that my fellow Senators will take a serious look at this 
proposal and join me in offering it as an amendment to the bill. While 
the current language of section 1206 requires Secretary of State and 
ambassadorial involvement, it is difficult to legislate cooperation 
between agencies. A blurring of roles is inevitable if section 1206 
stands unamended, at a time when foreign policy needs to be coherent, 
persuasive, and successful in the war against terror.


                           Amendment No. 4252

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I spoke yesterday about the terrible 
courthouse shooting that took place in Reno on Monday, and what we can 
do in the Senate to help prevent such incidents. In order to move that 
process forward, I will offer the text of Court Security Improvement 
Act of 2005 as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill.
  First, however, I would like to take a moment to update everyone on 
Judge Chuck Weller's condition. Judge Weller, if you remember, was hit 
by a sniper's bullet while standing in the window of his Reno office.
  According to the latest reports, the judge is in ``good spirits'' and 
``out of the woods.'' The bullet seems to have missed his vital organs, 
and for that, we all thank God.
  Now that Judge Weller seems to be stabilizing, it is incumbent on all 
of us to do whatever it takes to prevent similar violence--whether in 
Reno or any other city. Judges like Chuck Weller, their clerks and 
jurors must be free to serve without threats to their lives.
  The amendment I will offer would improve protections for both Federal 
and State judges. I want to thank Senators Specter and Leahy for all 
the work they have done in putting this legislation together, and for 
cosponsoring it today.
  On the Federal level, the amendment allows for better cooperation 
between the judiciary and the U.S. Marshal Service. It also puts in 
place strong measures to protect the personal information of those who 
sit on the Federal bench.
  At the State level, the amendment would authorize Federal grants to 
improve security at State courts, like the Reno Family Court where 
Judge Weller works.
  These Federal grants might be used by States to strengthen courthouse 
infrastructure, such as adding bullet-proof windows, or it might be 
used to hire additional security personnel in the courthouse. In the 
wake of Monday's shooting, I know the city of Reno and the Washoe 
County Commission are looking into both of these steps, and I also know 
they could use our help.
  States such as Nevada should always take the lead in protecting their 
own judicial officers, but we can and should make the Federal 
Government a better, stronger partner.
  In our country, we have 32,000 State and local court judges and 
approximately 2,400 Federal judges. Our democracy depends on these men 
and women. They must be able to do their jobs and uphold the law 
without fearing for their safety.
  The time for us to act is now, not after another wake-up call.
  The shooting of Chuck Weller is a terrible tragedy, but by passing 
this legislation, we can ensure at least some small measure of good 
results.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  The senior Senator from Oklahoma.

                          ____________________