[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 11540-11554]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 2766, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant 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:

       McCain amendment No. 4241, to name the Act after John 
     Warner, a Senator from Virginia.
       Nelson (FL)/Menendez amendment No. 4265, to express the 
     sense of Congress that the Government of Iraq should not 
     grant amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed, or 
     wounded members of the Armed Forces of the United States.
       McConnell amendment No. 4272, to commend the Iraqi 
     Government for affirming its positions of no amnesty for 
     terrorists who have attacked U.S. forces.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my distinguished ranking member, 
I think at this time it would be appropriate if the Senator wishes to 
bring up his amendment.
  We are in business, I say to my colleagues wherever they are, for 
purposes of amendments. The Senator from Michigan and I will be here 
for some period of time in hopes of processing amendments.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota. He 
covered such a wide range of issues with such depth and integrity that 
is really quite extraordinary. We are ready for his amendment. I think 
he is prepared to proceed with the amendment. We look forward to 
hearing from him on that matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                           Amendment No. 4292

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself, 
     Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Harkin, proposes an amendment numbered 
     4292.

  Mr. DORGAN. 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the Senator from 
Virginia for his kind comments. He did not say he welcomed my amendment 
because he probably knows that this amendment is one which we have 
dealt with before. But I feel so strongly the need to continue to offer 
the amendment, if only by voice vote, which says what is going on I 
think is dreadfully wrong and needs to be corrected. I know the Senator 
from Virginia and the Senator from Michigan are legislators with 
goodwill and good skills. I hope they will join with me as I once again 
describe the issues of contracting that exist because we are spending 
so much money in such a hurry that there is waste, fraud, and abuse 
which simply cannot be addressed in the regular order.
  I believe this amendment is once again a proposal whereby there was a 
Truman-type committee, the type that existed when Harry Truman served 
in the Senate, a Democratic Senate then, with a Democrat in the White 
House. Harry Truman, I am sure, caused some real angst at the White 
House by saying: I think there needs to be a special

[[Page 11541]]

bipartisan committee established to take a look at waste, fraud, and 
abuse in military contracting. He traveled all across this country to 
military installations to meet with contractors. His committee 
unearthed a substantial amount of waste.
  I offer it again, as I have offered it on previous occasions. I 
understand I have not been successful, but I offer it again only 
because I don't think the problem has abated. I think the problem still 
exists.
  Just the other day, in a supplemental emergency appropriations bill, 
we spent $92 billion. Some of that was for Katrina relief, but the rest 
of it, by and large, will find its way into the Pentagon accounts--to 
restore accounts.
  The Senator from Illinois just came in, and the Senator from Illinois 
and I have jointly worked on this issue. Senator Harkin has asked to be 
a cosponsor as well. I offer it on behalf of myself and Senators Durbin 
and Harkin. This is something that we have talked about at some length 
over a period of time.
  We have approved emergency supplemental appropriations bills to the 
tune of tens and tens and tens of billions of dollars. I believe it is 
now over $340 billion. Think of that: almost a third of $1 trillion 
approved without being paid for. This adds right on the top of the 
Federal debt.
  This spending is in support of our military. I voted for it because 
we can't send our troops abroad and not provide them the equipment and 
things they need.
  But when you spend this much money, including $18 billion-plus for 
reconstruction in Iraq, and then begin to see who gets hold of this 
money, it is hair raising to hear the stories about what is happening.
  I am not suggesting that there would never be any waste as a result 
of this war. Wartime is a different circumstance. I understand that. 
But I think it is safe to say that there has been more waste, more 
fraud, and more abuse of the taxpayers' money in the recently short 
time, several years, than in the history of this country. I think it is 
unparalleled. I think we have a responsibility to deal with it.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DORGAN. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Through the Chair, I am happy to join him in this effort 
in which we are trying to have some oversight on tax money being spent 
on this war. The Senator and I have worked on this concept together. We 
went back to a day when the Senator from Missouri, Harry Truman, 
decided to ask the same hard questions of the administration during the 
Second World War, trying to find instances where tax dollars were being 
wasted and people were profiteering and soldiers were getting equipment 
that wasn't up to standard.
  I ask the Senator from North Dakota: Isn't it curious that Senator 
Harry Truman, a Democrat from Missouri who created this commission and 
asked hard questions, when there was a Democratic President named 
Franklin Roosevelt, was suggesting that when it comes to profiteering, 
Congress doesn't do the administration nor the people of this country 
any favors by saying we are going to protect our own party in the White 
House? Shouldn't we be dealing with a nonpartisan issue of waste at the 
expense of taxpayers and, more importantly, at the expense of soldiers?
  Isn't it true that at the hearings which Senator Dorgan has chaired 
bringing together whistleblowers who tell us these terrible stories of 
waste of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money, that absent these 
hearings there has been very little done on Capitol Hill by way of 
oversight of the giants who are winning these no-bid contracts, 
multibillion-dollar contracts, and wasting too much of taxpayer 
dollars?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it is the case that whistleblowers from 
Kuwait, Iraq, and various parts of the United States have come to me 
and said: What is going on is wrong. We have held some hearings through 
our policy committee to take a look at it. They have wanted to testify.
  Let me give you one example. I talked about Rory before. A man named 
Rory, an engaging fellow, who was a supervisor at a food service 
operation in Iraq, he said to us that what was going on was wrong. He 
worked for Kellogg, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton.
  No. 1, he said we were charging for thousands of meals that we 
weren't serving.
  No. 2, we were feeding the troops food that had expired date stamps 
on them.
  He brought it to the attention of his superiors. They said: It 
doesn't matter. Feed it to the troops. It doesn't matter.
  He said: We had convoys of trucks that were attacked on the road with 
food in them. He was told: You go into that truck bed and you find out 
what food has shrapnel in it. If you find good pieces of shrapnel, you 
give it to your supervisors as souvenirs, but feed the food to the 
troops.
  The other thing that was very interesting, talking about employees of 
Kellogg, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, he said: We were 
told that when Government auditors come around, don't you dare talk to 
them. You are forbidden to talk to them. If you do, one of two things 
will happen. You will either be fired, or you will be sent to a part of 
Iraq where there is active, hostile shooting going on.
  This fellow, in fact, was sent to one of the active areas of Falluja. 
He had the courage, guts, and temerity, and decided he would talk to 
Government auditors.
  It is unbelievable to me to hear a whistleblower say that a 
contractor which was being paid with Government funds told the 
employees: Don't you dare talk to Government auditors. If you do, you 
will be fired.
  That is so fundamentally wrong.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if I may ask one more question, in one of 
the hearings that I attended, I recall that Senator Dorgan brought in 
one of these whistleblowers who talked about the monogrammed towels 
they were charging the Government to be put into certain facilities. 
The Senator talked about running up the price of gasoline that they 
were charging to the Government. I hope the Senator will recount those 
particular instances.
  But I would like to ask the Senator, when Members of Congress get up 
here and say: We love our soldiers and we love our troops and we stand 
behind them, how can we then cast a blind eye and overlook the obvious? 
When our soldiers aren't getting the right equipment, when our soldiers 
aren't getting the goods they deserve, when they are not getting the 
supplies they need to be safe and successful, how can that reflect any 
love of our troops? If we are truly committed to these soldiers, 
wouldn't we be holding oversight hearings, bringing in under oath these 
whistleblowers and their bosses? Let us bring them in and put them 
before the cameras and ask them if they are wasting taxpayer dollars 
and endangering the lives of our troops. Wouldn't that be the true 
measure of our commitment to these men and women in uniform?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, clearly that is what we ought to do on 
behalf of soldiers.
  I tell the Senator that the most recent allegations have been made by 
two people who worked for, once again, Kellogg, Brown & Root, a 
subsidiary of Halliburton Corporation, about the water that was 
provided to the military installations. Let me describe that.
  Taking water from the Euphrates River--and some of it goes into a 
system where it is purified and used as potable water to drink. Some of 
it is used as nonpotable water. But the way they designed the lines to 
serve nonpotable water to the base, which is used for showering, 
shaving, and brushing teeth, and so on, the water that was coming out 
nonpotable areas was actually more contaminated with E. Coli, bacteria, 
than the raw water coming out of the Euphrates River from the sewage 
disposal.
  Halliburton said it is not true. The Pentagon said it is not true.
  It just wasn't one base. We have a memorandum from the person from 
KBR, a Halliburton subsidiary in charge of water to all the military 
installations in Iraq. That memorandum, which has now been made public, 
was

[[Page 11542]]

from the person who was in charge on behalf of Halliburton, or KBR, of 
all the water for all the installations. That memo admits that they 
have a serious problem, and they have made big mistakes that could have 
caused serious problems, including death.
  After we held hearings, a young woman, an Army captain in Iraq, wrote 
us a long, unsolicited e-mail. She said: There is something going on on 
my base. I saw there was some questions about water to our military 
installations in Iraq. I am here. I am treating people for all kinds of 
skin problems. And I began to see things that made me suspicious that 
there was something wrong with the water.
  She said: I had my staff track back to the water line.
  She said: What I found out was they were providing nonpotable water 
to the soldiers on this base that was contaminated.
  This is from a doctor who is there today. This isn't conjecture, 
speculation, or accusation. This is from a doctor who is actually 
treating people. Yet, once again, the company that we are paying as a 
contractor to provide water service to these bases, connect and purify 
the water and provide the water to soldiers, denied publicly that 
anything was wrong. We have two eye witnesses who have testified, 
whistleblowers one that worked for the company. We have the internal 
document from the company that discussed how they had made these 
mistakes, and we have a doctor, a physician, who works for the Army. 
This is like the old Western movie: Who are you going to believe, me or 
your own lying eyes?
  The fact is, we know what is happening there, yet no one seems much 
concerned about it. I write to the Defense Secretary about this and say 
it is quite clear that unhealthy water is being supplied to troops for 
showering, brushing their teeth, and shaving. No one seems to get 
really excited over that. It seems to me the Secretary of Defense ought 
to say, Wait, what on Earth is going on? Let's put a stop to this.
  I will talk in a few minutes about how all of this happens. It 
happens because we have sole-source, no-bid contracts and very little 
oversight.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield for one last question, what 
strikes me is there is not a sense of outrage that American tax dollars 
are being wasted but, even more important, that American troops are 
being shortchanged.
  What do we ask of these men and women in uniform? Quite simply, we 
say, take an oath to wear this uniform and risk your life for America--
how much more could we ask--and they do it. And then they expect from 
us support--support when they are in the field and support when they 
come home.
  I don't understand why there isn't a sense of outrage in this 
Congress on a bipartisan basis, on both sides of the aisle, that we are 
not only being ripped off as taxpayers by these no-bid contracts but 
that we are shortchanging these men and women who are risking their 
lives while we stand in the comfort and safety of this Senate.
  I know Halliburton is a big political force in this town. I know in 
some quarters you are not supposed to question Halliburton. This is 
some sacred institution politically. I don't buy it. I count the 
soldiers that are putting their lives on the line to be much more 
sacred and much more valuable than any big, huge, no-bid corporation.
  I say to the Senator from North Dakota, we have done this before, the 
two of us have joined together, and said let's put together a 
bipartisan commission that will ask the hard questions, a commission 
that will bring people in and put them under oath, find out if they are 
cheating us, find out if they are profiteering during a war, find out 
if they are shortchanging our soldiers, and let the chips fall where 
they may. If we find there is a violation of law, even if it reaches 
all the way to the boardroom, so be it.
  How many times have we come to the Senate, I ask the Senator from 
North Dakota, refresh my memory, how many times have we brought this 
option to the Senate and said to our colleagues, please, for the sake 
of the troops, let's have real oversight, let's ask these questions.
  How many times have we done this during the course of this 3-year 
war, I ask the Senator from North Dakota who has been the leader in 
this effort, and I have been glad to join him, how often have we tried?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we have had three recorded votes on this, 
and we have brought this to the Senate maybe six times now, altogether. 
I know it is repetitious. I know it probably is not pleasant to hear 
all of these things again, yet I don't think there is any choice.
  If I might, just for the benefit of my colleague from Illinois, 
Senator Durbin and I began talking about this some long while ago when 
we began to see the evidence of waste. We have worked at it since then.
  When Senator Durbin was asking a question, I described the water 
issue. I want to read a quote from a memorandum that was written May 
13, 2005, an internal Halliburton memorandum, written by Will Granger, 
the man who was paid with taxpayer funds to do this contract for 
Halliburton for all of the water issues in Iraq. These are the water 
issues for the U.S. bases in Iraq that directly affect United States 
soldiers.
  Will Granger, the Halliburton employee:

       No disinfection to the non-potable water was occurring [at 
     Camp Ar Ramadi] for water designated for showering purposes. 
     This caused an unknown population to be exposed to 
     potentially harmful water for an undetermined amount of time.
       This event should be considered a ``NEAR MISS'' as the 
     consequences of these actions could have been VERY SEVERE 
     resulting in mass sickness or death.
       The deficiencies of the camp where the event occurred is 
     not exclusive to that camp; meaning that country-wide, all 
     camps suffer to some extent from some or all of the 
     deficiencies noted.

  That is what was covered up. This was not made public until I was 
able to dig it out. But when a whistleblower said this is happening--
and I am not referring to Will Granger, but to a whistleblower who said 
this is happening in his testimony to our committee--Halliburton said 
that it is not happening, you are not telling the truth, the Pentagon 
says there is no evidence of it.
  And here is the internal Halliburton report that says it is 
happening, No. 1; and, No. 2, this camp was a ``near miss'' and:

     . . . the consequence could have been VERY SEVERE resulting 
     in mass sickness or death.

  A lot of people are making a lot of money, spent by this Congress, in 
support of our soldiers who are at war, and we have some contractors 
who are not playing straight with the soldiers or the American people.
  I ask consent to show two items on the floor of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. A man whose name was Henry Bunting came to a hearing I 
held. I believe Senator Durbin was at that hearing. Henry Bunting 
worked for Kellogg, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton in 
Kuwait. In Kuwait, he was the purchaser of supplies for the U.S. Army. 
They wanted some hand towels, needed some towels, so a purchase 
requisition goes to Henry. Henry is going to buy some towels. Except 
when he put in the order for the towels, his company said, no, no, no, 
you cannot buy those regular towels that way. Towels have to have our 
logo embroidered on them.
  So this is what he had to buy, at more than double the cost of the 
regular towels, so that the company logo could be put on the towels, 
and the taxpayers could be charged twice as much.
  I am sure the soldiers didn't care one way or another whether there 
was that embroidered logo on the towel. But Henry, the purchaser, was 
told: You buy these. And don't ask any questions.
  Henry says, You know, the American taxpayer got charged double and he 
didn't like it and he want to speak publicly. And not just this, it was 
a thousand other examples of costs being run up, from $45 for a case of 
Coca-cola, to $7,500 a month to lease an SUV. Henry said, It is not 
just the towels, but he

[[Page 11543]]

brought the towels along to show us what is going on is really wrong. 
The American people are taking a bath here and it undermines the 
soldiers, as well.
  Thank God there are some whistleblowers who are willing to come 
forward.
  What we need now, of course, is the opportunity to legislate and see 
if we can't stop this.
  I will not go much longer, although I don't see anyone preparing to 
offer another amendment yet. I do want to make a couple of points I 
made the other day on the broader amendment that was turned down by the 
Senate. That amendment dealt with contracting as well, but it was a 
much broader amendment than this.
  I made the point then, and this actually had to do with Bunnatine 
Greenhouse. I know there are some who do not want to hear about this 
anymore. But I don't think we have any choice. This was the top 
civilian contracting official at the Corps of Engineers. She was the 
one responsible for overseeing the contracts.
  Through the Corps of Engineers, Halliburton and KBR got no-bid, sole- 
source contracts, giant contracts. Over one half of the contracts in 
the war theater are Halliburton.
  By the way, this has nothing to do with the Vice President. Whenever 
you mention that term, they say, You are attacking the Vice President. 
No, he has been gone a long time. It doesn't have anything to do with 
him. It has to do with a company that got over 50 percent of the 
contracts in Iraq.
  Bunnatine Greenhouse, the top contracting officer at Corps of 
Engineers who lost her job, now, as a result of telling the truth, 
says:

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

  For that, she got demoted. Pretty harsh treatment for people who are 
whistleblowers in this town. She has been replaced, by the way, by 
someone without experience. When I have asked the general who runs the 
Corps of Engineers, he said the person that is replacing Bunnatine 
Greenhouse is now being trained. Not much consolation or confidence, in 
my judgment, in that for the American people.
  One final story. If the issue of water does not motivate someone, let 
me talk again about Custer Battles. I have plenty of people come to me 
about Mr. Custer and Mr. Battles. This is an example of what is going 
on with so much money available.
  Mr. Custer and Mr. Battles show up in Iraq without any money, without 
much experience in contracting, and decide, I will get some of this; I 
want to get some of this contracting that is available. It was not very 
long and they got some contracts very quickly. In fact, they ultimately 
got over $100 million in contracts.
  The first contract was to provide security. They set up a little firm 
to provide security at the Baghdad airport. Now, among other things, 
whistleblowers from their own company came forward and said, Here are 
the things they were doing. They are cheating you blind. They took the 
forklift troop trucks out of the Baghdad airport, took them somewhere 
else, put them in the warehouse, painted them blue and sent them back 
and sold them to the Coalition Provisional Authority. They do not 
belong to them. They repainted them and sold them back to us. They set 
up subsidiaries in Lebanon and other places to buy and sell to and from 
themselves, and inflate the price, and, therefore, injure the taxpayer.
  Here is what the fellow who runs the security system at the Baghdad 
airport said. The Baghdad airports director of security in a memo--a 
guy, also, that was trying to provide some warning--a memo to the 
Coalition Provisional Authority, and that is us in Iraq; it was set up 
by Donald Rumsfeld and that was the United States--here is what he 
said:

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

  This from the director of security at the Baghdad airport. These guys 
ended up getting over $100 million in contracts. I will show you a 
little bit of their money. This is a picture of $2 million in cash, 
$100 bills wrapped in Saran Wrap. I happen to know this guy; you do not 
see his head, just his body standing in front of the $2 million. He 
showed up here. He wanted to talk about this. Here is what he wanted to 
say.
  What he wanted to say was, When I was there, standing in Baghdad, 
working on these accounts, the word went out to all of the contractors: 
We pay in cash; bring a bag. He said it was like the Wild West. Bring a 
sack because we pay in cash.
  This $2 million actually went to Custer Battles. They took a picture 
of it. He said they used to throw these around as footballs, Saran 
Wrapped $100 bills. They threw them around as footballs in the office. 
And down below they had billions and billions of dollars, apparently.
  Lest there be any question about the misuse of money, let me show $2 
million Saran Wrapped just before it went to Custer Battles. How did 
this happen? Because this guy right here, this fellow right here, told 
me that our message to everyone was ``bring a bag because we pay in 
cash.''
  Does anyone doubt there is going to be dramatic waste, fraud, and 
abuse in those circumstances? Does anyone doubt that at all, and after 
all of these stories? Doubling the price of hand towels; 25 tons, 
50,000 pounds of nails laying on the sands of Iraq because they were 
ordered in the wrong side, dumped in the sand.
  I could go on forever from what I learned from whistleblowers. I will 
not do that, only to say this: The next step for this Congress, I 
think, is to establish a Truman-type committee. We have done it before 
and we can do it again. Never has it been more needed than now. There 
is, I think, plenty of evidence that the most significant waste, fraud, 
and abuse that has ever been visited on the taxpayers of this country 
is occurring now and has occurred in the last 3 years.
  The remedy for that? It is not to blame anyone here. The remedy for 
that is for us to fix it, for us to do something. What should we do? 
Let's put together the type of thing that worked previously. Harry 
Truman had the guts to do it.
  Harry Truman was a Democrat. There was a Democrat in the White House. 
I am sure they all were gnashing their teeth at what Harry Truman was 
trying to do, but on a bipartisan basis Harry Truman put together, with 
the consent of the Senate, the Truman Committee that sunk their teeth 
into this issue and really did investigate and came up with a massive 
amount of waste, fraud, and abuse.
  That is a minnow compared to the whale that exists at the moment in 
waste, fraud, and abuse. It is required of us, in my judgment, required 
of us to pass this legislation.
  Having said all of that, let me compliment the chairman and the 
ranking member, but let me not do it because it is obligatory but 
because I really do think they do a great job. I hope they decide to 
strongly support this amendment. Then I will come back and compliment 
them some more.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first let me compliment the Senator from 
North Dakota. He has been absolutely steadfast on this issue. He has 
made a major contribution on this issue.
  If the Senator will stay for a moment, I want to ask him a question 
about the Truman Committee which he has made reference to. Perhaps I 
will make a brief statement and then ask him if he concurs with this 
history.
  When then Senator Truman was appointed to head up the special 
committee to look into the abuses of contracting during World War II, 
he did an incredible job for a lot of reasons. One, he took on the 
abuse, the waste, the fraud that existed. He unearthed it. He brought 
it out in the daylight. He made a major contribution to our troops and 
to the taxpayers. It was such an important contribution that his 
temporary ad hoc special committee then became

[[Page 11544]]

a Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
  So that the origin of our Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations 
which now exists over at the Homeland Security Committee was the 
special Truman Committee. That is how big an impact that Truman 
Committee had. And I am wondering whether or not that little bit of 
history shows us in addition to all of the reasons that were given by 
the Senator from North Dakota how vitally important these special 
committees can be, what a contribution they can make to the war effort 
and to saving taxpayers' dollars.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator is absolutely correct, first, 
about the history and, second, about the importance of this. Harry 
Truman used to have a sign on his desk saying, ``the buck stops here.'' 
Well, the buck stops here in the Congress on this issue. We are the 
ones who have to go find this waste, fraud, and abuse and put a stop to 
it. If we don't do it, it won't happen.
  Harry Truman was a straight talker, a straight thinker. He used to 
say he would only accept one-armed economists because he didn't want 
people around him saying ``on the one hand'' and ``on the other hand.'' 
He decided to sink his teeth into the issue of waste, fraud, and abuse, 
and he made a big difference at a time when there was substantial 
waste, fraud, and abuse.
  But I would venture to say there has never been a case in our history 
where we have pushed hundreds of billions of dollars out the door in a 
very large hurry and put them in the hands of no-bid, sole-source 
contracts with big companies and said, ``Have a good time.'' It is 
unbelievable what is going on, and it is our responsibility to stop 
it--not tomorrow; it is our responsibility to stop it now.
  This is the bill in which we should do it. This amendment fits 
exactly in this piece of legislation. My hope is that when the dust 
settles, we will have decided to accept this amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. I again thank the Senator from North Dakota for the 
amendment and I hope that we can get some bipartisan support for it.
  There have been reports on abuses. Reports are no substitute for 
hearings. When you have hearings following a special committee 
investigation, you have people who are put under oath, who are in the 
public spotlight so that we can bring a focus on these whistleblower 
complaints, and that is what has been missing. We have not had a place 
where the whistleblowers and the people who defend against their 
charges are brought together, both put under oath in a public forum so 
that we can then try to end what seems to be so clearly the abuses 
which have existed.
  One of these contracts is a $10 billion contract-plus, basically. It 
is for indefinite delivery of goods, and it is for an indefinite amount 
quantitatively. So you have this contract which exists with 
Hallliburton or the company that they own which allows them to have the 
total, complete, unilateral sole-source ability to be given a work 
order--sometimes the money is agreed upon in advance, sometimes the 
amount of the contract is not agreed to until afterwards--indefinite 
delivery for indefinite quantities of indefinite goods.
  Now, that kind of a contract just automatically lends itself to 
abuses, which should not happen here. This is something I spoke about 
yesterday. There should have been at least two and perhaps three 
contractors who were put in the exclusive contract to provide goods and 
services in support of the troops.
  This is an open-ended contract of undefined scope which then later on 
billions of dollars of work orders are then put in place. It just lends 
itself to excess and to abuse. This is something again which I have 
spoken on a number of times. You need to have competition--not just for 
who is going to get an open-ended contract but in the implementation of 
work orders you need some competition. The only way you are going to 
get it in this circumstance when we are at war is if you have two or 
three contractors that are awarded these so-called IDIQ contracts so 
that when it comes to supplying the goods underneath it, they can 
compete against each other. It is the only hope that you have for a 
fair price for an amount of goods that is not known at the beginning 
but which has to be then supplied during the contract.
  What these hearings which Senator Dorgan has spearheaded have shown 
is this kind of a contract and the potential for abuse that it leads 
to. It has raised all kinds of questions as to whether Halliburton 
overcharged the Coalition Provisional Authority for several million 
dollars for oil that was purchased in Kuwait and delivered to Iraq.
  It raised the question of whether Halliburton overcharged the 
Department of Defense for thousands of meals that were not actually 
served.
  It raised the question of whether Halliburton had the estimating 
subcontracting and financial management systems needed to run two 
multi-billion-dollar contracts in Iraq.
  It raised the question of why did Halliburton receive a follow-on 
contract for the reconstruction of the Iraqi oil industry at a time 
when the DCAA, the Defense Contract Audit Agency, had warned that the 
company's systems were not up to this challenge.
  It raised the question, these hearings that were spearhead by Senator 
Dorgan, as to whether Halliburton knowingly supplied our troops with 
spoiled food or unsafe drinking water.
  It raised the question as to whether Halliburton intentionally 
withheld information from the Government to avoid raising questions 
about the quality of its performance.
  There have been only two hearings in our subcommittee. I compliment 
our chairman. Our committee and our subcommittee every year have to 
deal with a bill, and this bill is in the Chamber. It takes a huge 
amount of our time as a practical matter. The two subcommittees that 
have hearings on this issue which Senator Dorgan raises simply have not 
been able to put in the kind of time that a special Truman Committee 
can to focus on this kind of issue. And that is why I very much support 
the appointment by the Senate of a Truman Committee on Iraq 
contracting.
  When you have this many tens of billions of dollars which are being 
spent and when you have allegations by whistleblowers, people who are 
in the know, that we have been unable to get into or have not gotten 
into for one reason or another, they have not been investigated or 
overseen by the other committee that might do this, this really needs a 
focus if we are going to have some credibility in the expenditure of 
these huge amounts of money in the Iraq war. And this should be done on 
a bipartisan basis. It would be with a Truman Committee. It needs to be 
done in a way which is free of any kind of political taint or political 
slant. But it needs to be done. We have to restore credibility and 
confidence in this contracting system, and the only way we are going to 
do that I can see is to have a bipartisan Truman-like committee that 
spends the time, has the staff focus on it, making recommendations 
which I think will be similar to the ones that were defeated yesterday 
but they should not be prejudged. In any event, it could make 
recommendations to this body, and I would hope we would all welcome 
those kinds of recommendations.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I could engage my distinguished ranking 
member in a colloquy, historically this amendment is almost identical 
in form to what came before the Senate on 14 September last fall, 2005. 
It was defeated by a vote of 53 to 44. And that was on the Commerce-
State-Justice appropriations bill. Then, with the tenacity of our good 
friend from North Dakota, he brought the same amendment up again on 
October 19, 2005. Again, it was defeated by a vote of 54 to 44 on the 
Transportation appropriations bill.
  So the Senate on two occasions has examined this before other 
committees and defeated it.
  Now, let's go back a little bit in history, and this is a part of 
Senate history that you have greater familiarity with than do I. Your 
distinguished

[[Page 11545]]

predecessor, Senator Nunn, when I worked with him--he was chairman, I 
was the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee--there would be 
times when he would say, ``John, I simply have to take off a week; I 
have this special committee.'' He was then on the committee on which 
you served, I think, throughout your tenure in the Senate; now called 
Homeland Security, it used to be called Government Operations. And the 
Senate as a body some time ago decided to take the roots of the Truman 
Commission, which, indeed, was a successful operation, and repose it, 
place it into the Government Operations Committee, now the Homeland 
Security Committee.
  Mr. LEVIN. I have been on that committee as long as I have been here.
  Mr. WARNER. Another 28 years.
  Mr. LEVIN. That subcommittee has a major agenda and a whole host of 
areas that the chairman has identified, frequently with my support, and 
it has a very full plate. This committee, our committee, has something 
that that committee does not have, and that is we have the knowledge, 
we have the information because we are the committee that specializes 
in the work of Halliburton in the field. We are the people who have the 
experience in terms of what the troops need and how it is provided to 
the troops. And so our committee also has the ability to handle these 
hearings. Neither committee has seen fit, either because it has too 
full a plate already--and I think our committee from firsthand 
knowledge is in that situation--has a very full plate, and therefore 
has not been able or for whatever reason has decided not to look at 
what are clearly excesses which need to be reviewed.
  So it is a matter of finding, identifying Senators who have an 
interest in this matter who would focus on this matter because of the 
attention that it deserves.
  Now, it could be an outside commission. If the chairman would prefer 
that there be an outside commission to do this, perhaps Senator Dorgan 
would be willing to do it. But this requires a major undertaking with 
an investigative--you have to identify and set out special staff that 
will do the investigations on this, and then prepare for hearings. If 
our committee were able to do this, I would be all for it.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my good friend, yes, there are 
instances of fraud and abuse, and work has been done by the Armed 
Services Committee Readiness Subcommittee. I believe Senator Akaka is 
on that committee from your side of the aisle. It is a lot of work. It 
is not as if somebody is sitting on their hands.
  Fraud, waste and abuse within the Federal contracting system, while 
not pervasive, is a significant problem that we as a Congress must, and 
are, addressing.
  The potential for fraud, waste and abuse is not limited to just Iraq 
and Afghanistan. Through the use of normal committee legislative tools 
and processes we have uncovered fraudulent and wasteful cases and are 
conducting systemic oversight.
  The Armed Services Committee has conducted numerous hearings and 
briefings on acquisition oversight and reform (including oversight of 
contracting in Iraq) and has initiated investigations by the GAO and 
the Inspector General on DOD acquisition practices and programs.
  Other committees, such as Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
and Foreign Relations, with jurisdiction over government contracting, 
have similar oversight records.
  The Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction 
was established to look at Iraqi contracting. The special IG routinely 
briefs this Committee and others on its findings.
  Just yesterday we approved an amendment to expand the special IG's 
oversight to include a broader range of funds being used to contract 
for Iraq reconstruction activities.
  And, as I noted earlier this week, the special IG submits quarterly 
and semi-annual reports to Congress. The inspector general operates a 
hotline for reports of possible waste, fraud and abuse and has 
uncovered criminal activity that has been referred for prosecution.
  The special inspector general's efforts have yielded important 
oversight results and have prompted three specific lessons learned 
initiatives.
  The lessons learned initiatives are: (1) human capital management; 
(2) contract management; and (3) program management.
  The contract management report should be out later this summer.
  The committee has also addressed contract and acquisition reform 
through a series of legislative provisions and initiatives.
  I will highlight three recent examples:
  No. 1, Section 817 of last year's defense authorization act addressed 
the need for a joint contingency contracting plan;
  No. 2, Section 841 of that same legislation required GAO to review 
efforts of the Department to identify and assess areas of vulnerability 
for contracting waste, fraud and abuse. This report should be completed 
soon;
  No. 3, the committee included a provision in this year's bill to 
build on previous oversight efforts in the contracting area. Section 
864 of our bill would require the Department to develop contingency 
program management plans. This section is part of a series of 
provisions designed to improve acquisition and contracting outcomes 
across the department through better overall program management.
  I believe our activities, which I have very briefly outlined here, 
represent the best approach to conducting oversight. We bring in the 
experts and have them address systemic and specific problems.
  We want to avoid an approach that would lead to wasting much of our 
oversight efforts on anecdotes of individual fraudulent acts which 
mayor may not show that we have a systemic problem.
  We need to prosecute those singular cases and protect against fraud, 
waste and abuse in a way that can still deliver goods and services to 
the warfighter as quickly as possible.
  So I say to my colleague, I appreciate his concerns and I look 
forward to working with him to address problems with Federal 
acquisition.
  However, I do not support the establishment of a new special 
Committee which would duplicate the work of this Committee and would 
only look at selected Federal expenditures and contracts.
  I come back to this creation of the entity that the Senator from 
North Dakota wants and I again draw attention to the fact that Homeland 
Security has been given by the Senate the overall responsibility and an 
investigating committee with special funding, special staff to do 
investigations. Senator Nunn utilized it frequently when he was 
chairman of our committee. But there isn't a committee in this body 
that is not faced from time to time with the subject of fraud, waste, 
and abuse. And the Senate decided, rather than have each of the 
committees have their own special investigating team, to put together 
this subcommittee in the Government Operations Committee to do this 
work.
  So I come back to my friend and just ask, why should we create 
something additional to what is already present, structured by the 
Senate to address the fraud, waste, and abuse problems in all the 
committees that we serve on and it was placed in the Homeland Defense 
Committee?
  Mr. LEVIN. There have been requests--I believe from the chairman of 
the Homeland Security Committee--to get into this. And if the chairman 
would be willing to sign a letter with me making another request to 
that chairman to try to find time in either her committee work or in 
Senator Coleman's committee, I would again be very happy to join in 
that request.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would certainly entertain that.
  Mr. LEVIN. If we are unable do that on our committee, which we have 
not been able to do anything that needs to be done here--and I 
understand the time pressures on the committee because of this annual 
bill we have; I know what is on the plate over at the Governmental 
Affairs Committee and on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations--

[[Page 11546]]


  Mr. WARNER. You serve on that committee.
  Mr. LEVIN. That is exactly right. I have been there throughout my 
tenure. I am personally familiar with the work they have undertaken. 
But if Senator Warner would be willing to sign a request to Senator 
Collins, I would be delighted to join in that.
  Mr. WARNER. What I would suggest we do is have a consultation with 
Senators Collins and Lieberman and then follow up with a letter, if we 
deem appropriate.
  Mr. LEVIN. That would be fine.
  Mr. WARNER. That committee has done a prodigious amount of work. I 
certainly commend the chairman and ranking member of the Homeland 
Security Committee. They are workers.
  Mr. LEVIN. I am on that committee, as you pointed out. I know the 
workload they have. Just yesterday, they completed a markup on one bill 
which took 2 days. I don't know of any people who work harder in the 
Senate than do Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman.
  Mr. WARNER. So we have a procedure on that. For the moment, I suggest 
we set aside the pending amendment and turn to the matter of trying to 
clear some amendments on this side. Is that appropriate at this time?
  Mr. LEVIN. That would be fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.


         Amendments Nos. 4254 and 4295, 4296, and 4297, En Bloc

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send a series of amendments to the desk 
which have been cleared by myself and the distinguished ranking member. 
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the amendments en 
bloc, the amendments be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid 
upon the table, and that any statements relating to any of these 
individual amendments be printed in the Record.
  Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not, I just 
wonder if the Senator would identify the Senator who has sponsored the 
amendment so that they will hear their amendments have now been 
cleared.
  Mr. WARNER. Fine. The Senators I have indicated here on my sheet are 
Senators Sessions, Obama, Allard, Salazar, and I judge that scribbling 
is Senator Warner of Virginia.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 4254

  (Purpose: To require the use of competitive procedures for Federal 
contracts worth over $500,000 related to hurricane recovery, subject to 
    existing limited national security, public interest, and other 
                              exceptions)

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

     SEC. 1084. IMPROVED ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMPETITIVE 
                   CONTRACTING IN HURRICANE RECOVERY.

       The exceptions to full and open competition otherwise 
     available under (2), (3), (4), and (5) of section 303(c) of 
     the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 
     (41 U.S.C. 253(c)) and paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (5) of 
     section 2304(c) of title 10, United States Code, shall not 
     apply to Federal contracts worth over $500,000 for the 
     procurement of property or services in connection with relief 
     and recovery efforts related to Hurricane Katrina and the 
     other hurricanes of the 2005 season.


                           amendment no. 4295

 (Purpose: To require a report on reporting requirements applicable to 
                       the Department of Defense)

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

     SEC. 1066. REPORT ON REPORTING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO THE 
                   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

       (a) Report Required.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than March 1, 2007, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional 
     defense committees a report on each report described in 
     paragraph (2) that is required by law to be submitted to the 
     congressional defense committees by the Department of Defense 
     or any department, agency, element, or component under the 
     Department of Defense.
       (2) Covered reports.--Paragraph (1) applies with respect to 
     any report required under a provision of law enacted on or 
     after the date of the enactment of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136) 
     that requires recurring reports to the committees referred to 
     in that paragraph.
       (b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall 
     set forth the following:
       (1) Each report described by that subsection, including a 
     statement of the provision of law under which such report is 
     required to be submitted to Congress.
       (2) For each such report, an assessment by the Secretary of 
     the utility of such report from the perspective of the 
     Department of Defense and a recommendation on the 
     advisability of repealing the requirement for the submittal 
     of such report.


                           amendment no. 4296

 (Purpose: To prohibit the acquisition by the Secretary of the Army of 
   real property to expand the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site until the 
Secretary submits a report analyzing such expansion and provides to the 
  congressional defense committees the extent to which the expansion 
 could be carried out through transactions with willing sellers of the 
                          privately held land)

       On page 546, after line 22, add the following:

     SEC. 2828. REPORTS ON ARMY TRAINING RANGES.

       (a) Limitation.--The Secretary of the Army may not carry 
     out any acquisition of real property to expand the Pinon 
     Canyon Maneuver Site at Fort Carson, Colorado until 30 days 
     after the Secretary submits the report required under 
     subsection (b).
       (b) Report on Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than November 30, 2006, the 
     Secretary of the Army shall submit to the congressional 
     defense committees a report containing an analysis of any 
     potential expansion of the military training range at the 
     Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site at Fort Carson, Colorado.
       (2) Content.--The report required under paragraph (1) shall 
     include the following information:
       (A) A description of the Army's current and projected 
     military requirements for training at the Pinon Canyon 
     Maneuver Site.
       (B) An analysis of the reasons for any changes in those 
     requirements, including the extent to which they are a result 
     of the increase of military personnel due to the 2005 round 
     of defense base closure and realignment, the conversion of 
     Army brigades to a modular format, or the Integrated Global 
     Presence and Basing Strategy.
       (C) A proposed plan for addressing those requirements, 
     including a description of any proposed expansion of the 
     existing training range by acquiring privately held land 
     surrounding the site and an analysis of alternative 
     approaches that do not require expansion of the training 
     range.
       (D) If an expansion of the training range is recommended 
     pursuant to subparagraph (C), the following information:
       (i) An assessment of the economic impact on local 
     communities of such acquisition.
       (ii) An assessment of the environmental impact of expanding 
     the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site.
       (iii) An estimate of the costs associated with the 
     potential expansion, including land acquisition, range 
     improvements, installation of utilities, environmental 
     restoration, and other environmental activities in connection 
     with the acquisition.
       (iv) An assessment of options for compensating local 
     communities for the loss of property tax revenue as a result 
     of the expansion of Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site.
       (v) An assessment of whether the acquisition of additional 
     land at the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site can be carried out by 
     the Secretary solely through transactions, including land 
     exchanges and the lease or purchase of easements, with 
     willing sellers of the privately held land.
       (c) Report on Expansion of Army Training Ranges.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than February 1, 2007, the 
     Secretary of the Army shall submit to the congressional 
     defense committees a report containing an assessment of the 
     training ranges operated by the Army to support major Army 
     units.
       (2) Content.--The report required under paragraph (1) shall 
     include the following information:
       (A) The size, description, and mission essential training 
     tasks supported by each such Army training range during 
     fiscal year 2003.
       (B) A description of the projected changes in training 
     range requirements, including the size, characteristics, and 
     attributes for mission essential training of each range and 
     the extent to which any changes in requirements are a result 
     of the 2005 round of defense base closure and realignment, 
     the conversion of Army brigades to a modular format, or the 
     Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy.
       (C) The projected deficit or surplus of training land at 
     each such range, and a description of the Army's plan to 
     address that projected deficit or surplus of land as well as 
     the upgrade of range attributes at each existing training 
     range.
       (D) A description of the Army's prioritization process and 
     investment strategy to address the potential expansion or 
     upgrade of training ranges.
       (E) An analysis of alternatives to the expansion of Army 
     ranges to include an assessment of the joint use of ranges 
     operated by other services.

[[Page 11547]]




                           amendment no. 4297

 (Purpose: To make technical corrections to provisions related to the 
                 National Museums of the Armed Forces)

       On page 65, line 16, insert ``facility designated by the 
     Secretary as the'' before ``National''.
       On page 65, line 24, insert ``facility designated by the 
     Secretary as the'' before ``National''.
       On page 66, line 17, insert ``facility designated by the 
     Secretary as the'' before ``National''.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan and I have been 
here, together with the leadership of both sides, making it clear we 
are ready to conduct business on such amendments as may be brought 
before the Senate on this bill. I believe at this time we have now 
completed such business as was ready. I anticipate the leadership will 
advise us with regard to the schedule on Monday, and most certainly we 
will be back up at some point in time during that day to continue. I 
hope I will be joined by my distinguished colleague from Michigan 
urging Senators to come to the floor.
  On our side of the aisle, I only know of perhaps two amendments that 
might be offered--one, as you are quite familiar with, by the Senator 
from Georgia with regard to certain aircraft programs. That is clear on 
its face. The other one I will work through. Frankly, I would have to 
say to my colleagues throughout the Senate, most particularly to my 
ranking member, I begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel, 
certainly as regards the amendments that could be forthcoming from this 
side of the aisle.
  Mr. LEVIN. I was hoping the Senator was referring to Iraq, but since 
he is referring to our bill, I also see that we ought to be able to 
finish this next week. We will have a good debate on Iraq, I guess 
probably next Tuesday. Next Monday, I believe we have an amendment 
lined up.
  Mr. WARNER. I know the Senator from Georgia wishes to offer his.
  Mr. LEVIN. On your side of the aisle. After Senator Dorgan offered 
his today, it would then go to your side of the aisle to offer the next 
amendment, if we want to keep that informal order which has been 
established.
  Mr. WARNER. Correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. Then we could perhaps pick up the debate on the Dorgan 
amendment on Monday after the debate on the judge.
  Mr. WARNER. I think the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts 
intends to revisit his strong approach to some of the situations in 
Iraq, particularly regarding troop structure.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wouldn't want to speak for the Senator from 
Massachusetts. I do believe, though, he is working on an amendment. 
There will be at least two amendments on this side relative to Iraq.
  Mr. WARNER. In addition to the one from the Senator from 
Massachusetts?
  Mr. LEVIN. There is one Senator Jack Reed and I are working on, and I 
think there is one Senator Kerry is working on. I can't speak for 
others. There may be a number of amendments on this side.
  Mr. WARNER. I see the distinguished minority whip here. Maybe he 
could advise us what his ascertainment might be with regard to the 
balance of amendments on that side.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment related to the 
rendition of prisoners which I would like to say a word about before we 
adjourn today. There may be an indication that there are still a few 
more amendments to be forthcoming. I will bring my amendment to your 
attention today, and I hope all Members will do the same so that you 
can plot the schedule for the upcoming week.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we believe there are a number of amendments 
which will need debate. It would be useful for all Senators on either 
Monday or Tuesday morning, if they could, to let us know what 
amendments they are planning on offering so we could get an estimate--I 
know you would agree as the floor manager--as to how many amendments 
are out there.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, Senator Frist and I have discussed that. I 
believe he is in conversation with the leadership on your side. I 
heartily endorse that approach. Perhaps we could formalize it in some 
way.
  Mr. LEVIN. I think we might be better off not formalizing it.
  Mr. WARNER. Only in the sense that the two leaders and you and I come 
to the floor. I am not suggesting cloture or anything of that nature. I 
would hope this bill could be passed on by the Senate without the 
benefit of any cloture motion.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to ask through the Chair, if 
this would be an appropriate moment, I would like to speak to the 
amendment which I will offer and a few other remarks not to exceed 5 or 
10 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Whatever the distinguished Senator from Illinois wishes, 
please proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to recognizing the Senator 
from Illinois for 10 minutes?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, after wars are completed, history stands 
in judgment of the leaders, not just whether there was a victory or 
defeat in the war but whether the war was conducted properly. Almost 
without fail, history has been a brutal, sometimes difficult judge of 
the conduct of war. Caught up in concern about protection and security, 
nations do things which don't stand the test of time and reflection. 
The man I think was our greatest President, Abraham Lincoln, in the 
course of the Civil War suspended the writ of habeas corpus. By 
suspending that writ, he held prisoners without charges and without due 
process for long periods of time. It was controversial. Later on, it 
was judged that perhaps President Lincoln had gone too far.
  In the midst of the First World War, with our concern over espionage, 
Congress enacted the Sedition Act which unfortunately tarred and 
condemned innocent Americans, and later on we came to realize that. In 
World War II, the most notorious conduct by our own Government was 
against our fellow citizens of Japanese ancestry who were interred in 
camps, innocent people. I know some of them. I have grown up with some 
of them. I know they carry scars from that incarceration. Throughout 
our history, as we reflect, we find there are things we should not have 
done in the course of a war.
  I have said on this floor several times that I believe eventually 
history will be a very strenuous judge of our conduct in this war on 
terror when it comes to the use of torture. For decades, the United 
States had established a clear standard that we would never engage in 
torture--cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Then after 9/11, in 
the shock and fear that followed, this administration ended up trying 
to rewrite the standards for interrogation and torture. It wasn't a 
proud chapter in our history. We now know the administration abandoned 
that effort after some time. We know as well that some of the people 
who were involved in it have been reluctant to even discuss what they 
were doing. But there was a good ending when last year Senator John 
McCain offered an amendment in the Senate to state unequivocally that 
the United States would not engage in the torture of prisoners, not 
engage in cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of prisoners.
  The reasons are obvious. Prisoners who are being tortured will say 
anything. It doesn't have to be true. Secondly, the standard we set in 
the treatment of our prisoners could one day be used against Americans 
who are taken as prisoners. So not only does it give you invalid 
information, it sets a standard that we never want our soldiers to be 
subjected to.
  By a vote of 90 to 9, the Senate enacted John McCain's standard for 
torture, saying that we were not abandoning our longstanding commitment 
to it. I was happy to cosponsor that effort. There was a debate where 
Vice President Cheney came forward and said we need to make an 
exception for agents of intelligence agencies in our Government. Thank 
goodness, the Vice President's recommendation was rejected. The 
President signed it, and I hope he is living by it. Sadly, most of that 
is being done behind closed doors, and we won't know for a long time, 
if ever, whether it is being followed. I trust the word of the 
President when

[[Page 11548]]

he says we are not engaging in torture. Now comes the next chapter.
  If the President's words are an indication, Guantanamo Bay is likely 
to be closed. That is a good thing. Guantanamo Bay and the prisoners 
who are being held there have to be moved to a different situation. If 
they are in fact a danger to the United States or to any soldiers or 
any person we value, they should be charged and held or held as enemy 
combatants. But if they are being held for intelligence purposes, we 
should be honest. After 3 years, for goodness' sake, what value could 
they possibly bring to our intelligence?
  Several hundred men are being held. Last week, there was the 
startling discovery that three had committed suicide. It is an 
indication to me that Guantanamo Bay should be closed, as the President 
has suggested. I hope it is sooner rather than later.
  Then what will happen to the prisoners? The amendment I will offer 
says that if we are going to be involved in the rendition of these 
prisoners, the transfer of these prisoners to some other place, some 
other country, we need to make sure that country abides by the same 
standards of humane conduct to which the United States ascribes. We 
cannot be content in sending these prisoners to some other place where 
they will be subjected to torture if, in fact, we have expressed a 
value in the United States that we are opposed to torture. That is what 
the amendment will say, that we make that effort to ascertain and to 
review regularly those detention facilities to make sure they live by 
that same standard.
  There has been a debate this week in Washington over the war in Iraq. 
It was also a week when the Department of Defense reported that we have 
lost 2,500 soldiers. White House spokesperson Tony Snow was asked to 
comment on this loss of 2,500. I am sure the statement he made doesn't 
reflect what he really feels in his heart when he said:
  It's a number.
  I am sure he feels as we all do that it is more than a number. It is 
more than an aggregate. It is 2,500 precious lives that have been lost 
by men and women in uniform willing to stand and serve and risk their 
lives for America.
  I have attended some of the funerals. They are heartbreaking. Most of 
the soldiers are very young. I recall going down to southern Illinois 
where the funeral service was right outside the farmhouse where this 
young man grew up, down in Perry County. His mom and dad brought out 
for us to see, around the tent where the service was taking place, 
little souvenirs from his life--his fishing rods, his hunting rifle. We 
were just a few feet away from the tree house he and his dad built. I 
will never forget that scene as long as I live. It was a reminder that 
before he was in uniform, he was a son, he was a boy. Their 
heartbreaking experience will be with them for a long time. There are 
2,499 other stories just like that of grief which will be shared by 
families for years to come.
  We are debating now what should we do in Iraq. The idea that we pull 
out our troops quickly, precipitously, is unacceptable. It would leave 
a situation which I am afraid would descend further into chaos and 
maybe create more instability and more problems to come.
  But here is what worries me. When the President of the United States 
goes to Iraq and says to our enemies in Iraq that we are here to stay, 
that may be a strong message to our enemies of our resolve, but it is 
the wrong message to our allies and friends. The Iraqis have to 
understand we are not going to stay indefinitely. Think of what we have 
done in this country, not only giving 2,500 of our best and bravest 
lives, not only having 20,000 of our soldiers come home, half of them 
with serious permanent injuries, 2,000 of them with head injuries, not 
only spending $300 billion in behalf of this effort in Iraq, not only 
sacrificing at home where we can't afford to fund medical research, 
Amtrak, education, health care, and the programs which Americans value, 
not only all these things, but we have been successful; we have deposed 
their dictator, Saddam Hussein; we dug him out of a hole in the ground 
and put him on trial.
  We have given the Iraqis more than ample opportunity to control their 
fate and future. We offered them free elections. We have given them a 
chance to form a government. We have given this country so much in the 
3 years we have been there. Now we must say to them: The day has come 
when you must stand and defend your own country. If you value Iraq as a 
nation, be prepared to stand and fight and maybe even die on behalf of 
that nation. But if we say to the Iraqis that we are staying there 
indefinitely, it is the best deal on Earth because it is the best 
military on Earth that will be there for them serving as a babysitter 
and a referee in an ongoing civil war for an indeterminate amount of 
time.
  How many more lives will America give to this conflict before the 
Iraqis stand and defend their own nation? And when the President and 
many in the Chamber here don't want to speak to any kind of withdrawal 
date, they are suggesting to the Iraqis we are there to stay. That is 
the wrong message. We need to tell them that we have fought and offered 
our best for their future and that they need to accept that 
responsibility from this point forward.
  This week, I stood in silence at my desk on the floor of the Senate 
with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in reverence to the 2,500 
lives that have been lost, saying a prayer for their memory and their 
families, thinking as well of the veterans who have come home, some 
broken in body and in spirit, who have done so much for this country. 
We owe it to them, we owe it to their families to reach a point where 
we can come home with our mission truly accomplished.
  It is more than just a number. Mr. President, 2,500 of our soldiers 
have given their lives. When this came up initially, I voted against 
authorization for war. I believed at the time that the administration 
had misled us as to what was happening there, this threat of weapons of 
mass destruction and nuclear weapons and connections with 
9/11. It turned out they were all false. None of it was true, and we 
went to war anyway. We were told as soon as we arrived that the Iraqi 
Army would turn on Saddam Hussein and join us in the fight, and that 
didn't happen. We were told the Iraqi people would greet us with open 
arms, and I know many are appreciative for what we have done, but it is 
still so unsafe in that country. The average soldier just going down 
the street in a military vehicle is risking his life every single day, 
more than 3 years after our invasion.
  Having voted against that authorization for war, though, I have voted 
for every penny this President asked for. I lived through Vietnam. I 
remember what happened. An unpopular war was taken out on our soldiers, 
and that is not fair. Our soldiers did what we asked of them in the 
Vietnam war, as they are doing today. Politicians and elected officials 
can debate and differ on policy, but the bottom line is our soldiers 
are serving us and we should stand by them. I voted for every penny 
because of one basic standard: If it were my son or daughter in 
uniform, I would want them to have everything they needed to come home 
safely. That is the way I feel, and that is why I voted this week for 
the supplemental appropriation. But that won't stop me today and in the 
coming days from challenging this administration and challenging this 
Congress to make it clear that the Iraqis have to stand and fight and 
defend, and the American troops are coming home. It is only when that 
happens that we can truly say that our mission is accomplished.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to share a few thoughts 
about the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Armed Services 
Committee, which I chair, which deals with space, missile defense, 
satellites, and many of the other high-tech systems on which our 
Defense Department relies. But I just want to respond to my colleague, 
Senator Durbin. I don't think he actually meant to say that our 
soldiers are coming home broken in body and spirit, but he came close.

[[Page 11549]]

That is not what I am hearing. Go out to Walter Reed. They may have 
broken bodies and broken bones, but they are not broken in spirit.
  The night before last, I attended a wonderful ceremony of the 231st 
birthday of the U.S. Army. I was talking with soldiers there. We were 
talking about the war and the politics of the Capitol. They are aware 
of what is going on. I told them that I thought the Congress would not 
vote for any immediate withdrawal, and indeed we voted yesterday 93 to 
6 against any kind of withdrawal requirement for this year. That vote, 
represents a strong bipartisan consensus of the Senate. One of those 
soldiers said: I will tell you what we want, Senator; ``We want to 
win.'' We want to win this war. That is what the American people want, 
that is what the soldiers who have gone there and sacrificed want, and 
that is what they believe in. The soldiers who have been there believe 
in what they have done. They have been courageous in performing their 
mission.
  It is difficult for me and for them to understand this idea that we 
can support the soldiers but not support the mission we sent them on, 
sent them by a three-fourths vote of this Senate. A majority of 
Democrats and Republicans voted for this war, and we are going to stay 
the course, we are going to help our military succeed, and we are going 
to help them win.
  The point I pick up more and more as I talk with these soldiers, what 
I am hearing from them, is they are afraid we are going to mess it up. 
They believe they are winning. They believe they are doing their job. 
They believe they will be successful. And they are really worried that 
this Congress will be the one that will lose its nerve and not stand 
with them after they put their lives on the line for this country.
  I believe this is a big deal, and that success in Iraq is important 
for our Nation. I visited that region recently. I talked to the leaders 
of Turkey, Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. What would it mean for us 
if we had a disastrous event in Iraq where the terrorists take over 
that country? What would it mean to their neighbors? What would it mean 
to the region? All nations of good will know we must succeed.
  Iraq is stepping up. There are now 260,000 Iraqi soldiers and 
security personnel in uniform and reaching higher and higher levels of 
performance. They are doing a much better job every day. They will soon 
be at 350,000 by the end of this year. They are being better equipped 
and better trained, and I believe we are doing a much smarter job of 
imbedding our soldiers with the Iraqi units so we can call in air 
support, we can provide mentoring, we can provide advice, we can call 
on other kinds of support, if they need it, to be effective.
  A majority of the raids and actions that are taking place in Iraq are 
taking place by the Iraqis. Iraqi soldiers are taking more casualties 
than American soldiers. We are not babysitting them. This image of 
millions casting their ballots for a freely elected government of Iraq 
is not a bad image for us to remember. We need to remember that, and it 
is important for us, let me note first and foremost, that this Nation 
not allow the terrorists to win in Iraq.
  We are going to be successful. But I realize the American people are 
concerned. They don't like to see violence and continued death. They 
don't like to see our soldiers at risk. I certainly understand that; 
neither do I.
  I have been an admirer of General Abizaid, CENTCOM commander, and his 
team of generals because General Abizaid has always resisted the 
temptation to see how many troops we can put in Iraq. He said that is 
not the way to win this war. We need the right number of troops, and we 
need to begin to draw them down as soon as it is appropriate to draw 
them down and lift up the Iraqi Army. That is what we need to do.
  Some want to have the President set forth a detailed plan so they can 
criticize it, basically. How will some sort of formalized plan help our 
soldiers be effective in the battle? It just tells your enemy what you 
are going to be doing. More importantly, a detailed plan is not going 
to be permanent. It will have to change because the enemy changes. As 
soon as you shut off one avenue of enemy success, they take another one 
and you have to respond to that. That is the history of warfare. That 
is the way wars have always been fought: you constantly adjust and 
constantly alter your efforts to be successful toward your ultimate 
goal of victory. That is what our military is doing.
  Trying to demand a date from our military to withdraw or trying to 
demand from them a plan of what they are going to do 5 months from now 
fails to understand and recognize the nature of this conflict, and this 
conflict more than most conflicts because we face an asymmetrical 
enemy, a nontraditional enemy, who knows it cannot stand and fight our 
military successfully, so it devises devious and sneaky ways to pit one 
religion against another, to attack American soldiers, to attack the 
local police, all designed to crumble the Government of Iraq. But it 
hasn't happened. Iraqis are still signing up and becoming policemen. 
Iraqis are still signing up and the army is growing. The Government of 
Iraq has elected, for the first time, their permanent leadership.
  Prime Minister Maliki is in office. His whole Cabinet now has been 
established. The two key Cabinet positions on which they spent extra 
time, Defense and Interior, have now been established, confirmed and 
voted by the 275 member Parliament. So they have their government now, 
fully elected, a permanent government, just like any other nation in 
the world. There is no interim government now.
  I believe they are going to be successful, and I tell you, it is 
going to be important for the United States that they are. We have 
invested a lot; our soldiers have invested a lot. They are proud of 
what they are doing. They are not broken in spirit. They want to be 
successful and win.
  I have some numbers I will share with my colleagues and those around 
the country who might be listening. In this conflict, the Army has had 
the largest number of people serving in Iraq, yet their enlistment rate 
through May of this year was 104.3 percent. They have exceeded their 
enlistment goals for this year. They have exceeded their reenlistment 
goals. The Army for a few months did miss their goals, and some critics 
said it was a broken Army and predicted disaster. The Army said: No, we 
are not broken, and we are going to meet our goals. For 13 consecutive 
months, the Army has met its goals. The highest retention reenlistment 
rates come from the units that have just come back from Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  Staff Sergeant Barr, who was at Walter Reed, was injured by an 
explosive device. He was punctured by as many as 100 different pieces 
of shrapnel. He was told he would have difficulty walking and would 
probably never run again. He said he was going to run again, and he was 
going back to Iraq with the unit that he came with. And he worked at it 
and he worked at it and he ran. He eventually went back to Iraq and 
served again. That is the kind of spirit that we have. That is the kind 
of spirit that you see in our Army.
  I was told by an officer who knew that story that every single 
soldier in his squad reenlisted. This is the spirit that this Congress 
needs to strive to be worthy of. This is the kind of professional 
commitment and courage that inspires us, or should inspire us. We 
should not be whining around here and trying to find some error that 
was made somewhere where body armor did not get to a soldier. Body 
armor is out there protecting soldiers. It is not a problem. To say 
that there has never been a shortage somewhere or somehow a supply 
failed to get where it was supposed to, I can't say; but it is not a 
systemic problem. But to go around and suggest to the citizens of our 
country that this Congress and the military is not committed to 
providing body armor to our soldiers is bogus and false and undermines 
what they are doing. It must be most confusing to our soldiers there.
  But I think the vote yesterday should give them confidence that most 
of this talk is simply politics. Most of it is just complaining and 
second-

[[Page 11550]]

guessing, like is done on the floor of the Senate every day. We hear it 
every day on many issues and debate and criticism is passed of the 
strength of American Government.
  But I would urge my colleagues to think differently about soldiers in 
conflict, soldiers in harm's way. We need to be careful what we are 
saying here. It may sound good, it may hurt President Bush, to make 
this allegation or that allegation, but is it perhaps creating in the 
eyes of our enemies a belief that we are divided, that we won't stay 
the course, and that if they just kill enough people, civilians, 
Americans, Iraqis, that somehow, it will all just fail. Is that the 
possibility that we are creating? That is why I urge my colleagues to 
be very careful and watch what you say in terms of attacks on the 
efforts that our military have so courageously undertaken in Iraq. 
Things happen in war. Bad things happen. But no military has done a 
better job of striving for perfection than ours has.
  I would also like to respond to charges that this Nation is going to 
be embarrassed historically because we have tortured people that were 
captured in this war on terrorism. We talked about Lincoln. Lincoln 
eliminated the writ of habeas corpus. Roosevelt, as Senator Durbin 
said, locked people up, Japanese Americans, in a way that was not 
justified. He basically takes a view, as so many seem to be saying on 
the left and on the Democratic side, that we have a policy of torture 
in the United States. That is not so. The President has repeatedly, 
time and time again, said: We have no policy of torture; we do not 
torture.
  There is a statute in the United States Code passed shortly before I 
came here that defines and prohibits torture. It does not say you can 
never put any stress on someone, but it says you can't subject them to 
torture, and it defines it precisely.
  They say, well, what about Abu Ghraib. Let me remind everybody, we 
learned about Abu Ghraib when the Army general reported what happened 
in Abu Ghraib. Let me remind people that what happened to those 
prisoners in Abu Ghraib, so wrong that it was, had nothing to do with 
interrogation, had nothing to do with any plan of torture. These were 
not even prisoners who had any intelligence. It was the late graveyard 
shift and a group of soldiers lost their discipline--lost their 
discipline under the stress of war--and performed in a way that got 
them prosecuted and sent to jail by the U.S. military. That was not the 
policy of the United States of America. We have heard this most complex 
chain of thoughts and reasoning, this complex chain of reasoning which 
is almost laughable, and is worthy of the most incredible conspiracy 
theorists, that somehow President Bush is responsible for what happened 
in Abu Ghraib.
  It is not so. The military responded firmly and aggressively to this 
terrible wrong. And do you remember the story--I know the Presiding 
Officer does--of the fine African-American colonel under the stress of 
attacks on his men in Iraq, he fired a gun near the head of an enemy 
that had been captured in order to attempt to frighten him and to get 
intelligence from him. Apparently, he got some intelligence of value 
that he believed helped protect the lives of his soldiers. But do you 
know what. He was booted out of the military because we don't tolerate 
that kind of thing. His actions went beyond what our standards allow, 
and he was cashiered from the Army. A fine person with a fine career 
who made a big mistake, and he paid for it because we don't accept that 
kind of thing.
  It is demeaning, it is dishonest, it is wrong to suggest that we have 
a policy to torture prisoners. With regard to Guantanamo, I know the 
President said he would like to see it closed. Well, I want to know 
what he is going to do with those prisoners. I have been there twice. 
Those soldiers do their jobs under difficult conditions every single 
day. They are highly professional. They do not allow themselves to be 
baited into overreacting when these prisoners display the worst kinds 
of anti-Americanism.
  Until just recently, not a single captive had died at Guantanamo. Now 
we have three suicides. So I suppose that is our fault now, that we had 
three people commit suicide who were being held down there. These are 
not bad conditions at all. They are good conditions. They are treated 
fine. They are given the Koran, given places to worship, given places 
to exercise, and given all kinds of things that most prisons around the 
world don't give to the prisoners of their own countries, much less to 
the people who want to destroy their country.
  But what I would say is this: They committed suicide. Those suicides 
were a political statement. They were their efforts to attack and 
undermine the United States. Their fervent desire was that Members of 
this Senate and the House of Representatives would use their deaths to 
speak on the floor to try to undermine our war against terrorism to 
make us less successful in the war on terrorism. That is exactly what 
their goal was. And, I would say this: does anyone in this Chamber 
doubt that if they had access to a bomb, they would have put that bomb 
on their body and killed anybody they could have? They would have 
killed themselves to promote their terrorist agenda. If they had been 
given the opportunity, wouldn't they have put a bomb on and killed 
others at the same time?
  I say those suicides are an absolute indication that we have in 
Guantanamo some of the most dangerous terrorists in the world.
  Now, I heard an official of our great ally, the United Kingdom, say 
we ought to close Guantanamo. I wanted to write him and say: Do you 
want to take these prisoners to the U.K.? Do you want to hold them? And 
then if you get tired of holding them, are you just going to let them 
go in London on your subways and on your buses? Then the critics worry 
that if we turn them back to their home countries and we have a 
rendition of the prisoners back to their home countries, that we have 
to guarantee that they are going to be treated wonderfully. So we can't 
keep them in Guantanamo, we can't--who else wants them? We can't even 
send them back to their home countries to be held in prison, 
apparently.
  So this reminds me of nuclear waste. Everybody has nuclear waste, but 
nobody wants to do anything with it, and they use the argument that you 
can't dispose of nuclear waste to try to block nuclear power. So this 
is just another attempt to make it more difficult, in my view, for us 
to be successful in handling these prisoners. They are not being 
tortured at Guantanamo. It is not the policy of the United States to 
torture anyone, and they are not being tortured. The few people who 
violated our high standards have been disciplined and punished.
  So let me say this in conclusion, Mr. President. The good news is 
that we have free debate here, and we get to duke it out and we get to 
have our say. We just voted yesterday 93 to 6 to declare we have no 
intention of any precipitous withdrawal from Iraq; that we are going to 
stand there with our soldiers, and we are going to stand with our 
allies in Iraq and help them establish a free, decent, democratic 
government, a government that will be to our national interests to an 
incredible degree. It will be more valuable than most people can 
comprehend to us and to the world to have a decent, peaceful Iraq and 
to defeat the terrorists there who want to take it over and make it 
their place.
  The other good news is that we have had a very successful attack on 
the CEO of terrorism, Zarqawi, and he has been killed. He clearly was 
the No. 1 executive officer of terrorism in the world, and that was a 
big victory.
  We also now completed the confirmation of the Defense Minister and 
the Interior Minister for Iraq, so the entire Cabinet is in place, and 
an entire government is in place. The Iraqi Army continues to get 
better, and it continues to grow, and we are beginning to see the 
possibility that our troops can be withdrawn. If we have to send more 
troops there, I will listen to the commanders. If they can bring the 
troops down, that will make me happy. We are going to listen to our 
commanders and do what it takes and continue this process in a way that 
leads to--what? Victory. That is what the soldiers we

[[Page 11551]]

have sent there want, that is what the American people want, and that 
is what we in this Congress have to do; to figure out how to help our 
military people go forward and achieve victory. That will be my effort, 
and I think for the most part that is the bipartisan consensus of this 
Senate.
  Mr. President, again, I finish with a tribute to the professionalism 
of those in service, to the risk they have incurred; how they have 
attempted to conduct the violence of war in a way that mitigates 
civilian casualties and that reflects the highest ideals of the United 
States of America. I could not be more proud of their service. The 
conduct of this war on terrorism will be received as the most humane 
and careful war in history.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, let me begin by saying I very much share the view of 
the Senator from Alabama about our troops. Day in and day out, they 
bring the utmost professionalism and the utmost courage and valor to 
the cause of standing up for American values. I very much share his 
views with respect to the tribute we ought to be paying to those who 
serve us, who wear the uniform of the United States and who do it with 
such extraordinary patriotism and service to our country.
  (Mr. Sessions assumed the Chair.)
  What I am here to talk about, though, is the political decisions that 
are made and how they affect those courageous troops and how they 
affect the security of the country.
  In March of this year, at a press conference, a reporter asked 
President Bush:

       Will there come a day, and I'm not asking you when, not 
     asking for a timetable--will there come a day when there will 
     be no more American forces in Iraq?

  The President responded:

       That, of course, is an objective and that will be decided 
     by future Presidents and future governments of Iraq.
       . . . decided by future Presidents. . . .
       . . . decided by future Presidents. . . .
       . . . decided by future Presidents. . . .

  I found that statement troubling for two major reasons. First, 
staying in Iraq for years and years, in my view, will threaten 
Americans' preparedness to deal with a host of other threats that ought 
to concern all of us. Certainly at the top of that list would be Iran 
and North Korea, but suffice it to say, it is a dangerous world.
  I serve on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. I know the 
distinguished Senator from Alabama has a great interest in military 
affairs. No Senator who looks at the facts and the world in a realistic 
way would conclude otherwise. It is a dangerous world. There are real 
threats to our country. It is my view that to stay and stay and stay in 
Iraq will threaten the preparedness of our country at a dangerous time.
  Second, it seems to me that making this kind of open-ended commitment 
to stay in Iraq, an open-ended commitment that in effect says we will 
be there at least until 2009, doesn't send the right message to the 
Iraqis about getting serious about their most serious challenges. For 
example, when I was recently in Iraq with my colleague, Senator Snowe, 
I was especially troubled by the Iraqis' response to my concerns about 
corruption in the Iraqi oil sector. We all know that 90 percent of the 
revenue generated in Iraq comes from oil, and there has been one 
independent analysis after another documenting widespread corruption in 
Iraq's oil sector. I brought that to the attention of the officials 
Senator Snowe and I met with on our trip. Essentially, the response was 
one of denial: Well, Senator, it really isn't that bad; well, Senator, 
we are getting serious about it; well, Senator, we are thinking about 
trying X, Y, and Z.
  But I say to the Senate today that we continue to read these 
independent analyses which have documented widespread corruption and 
malfeasance in the Iraqi oil sector. Yet it is not being dealt with. My 
view is that to say the future of American forces in Iraq will be 
decided by future Presidents is yet another signal to the Iraqis that 
they have plenty of time to deal with serious problems like corruption 
in the oil sector, which should have been dealt with some time ago.
  Again, I share the view of the Senator from Alabama concerning the 
professionalism of our troops. Our country and the world is better as a 
result of the death of Mr. Zarqawi. The kind of carnage and the brutal 
campaign that Mr. Zarqawi conducted is well understood. We are all very 
hopeful, because we all root for success in Iraq, that this will deal a 
blow to the insurgency. Our soldiers and all concerned ought to be 
proud of what they accomplished in taking down Zarqawi. I am proud of 
them. I know the Senator from Alabama is as well.
  But let us think about the implications of overstretching our Armed 
Forces. That is why I say I am troubled about what is going to happen 
to American preparedness for a dangerous world if we stay and stay and 
stay--until at least 2009. Oregon Guard members, for example, of whom 
we are exceptionally proud, are on their third rotation in the theater. 
Some Active-Duty Forces are on their fourth rotation. Others are 
getting ready for their fifth rotation into harm's way. I am sure that 
is also the case in Alabama. I am sure it is also the case in every 
part of the United States. I will tell the Senate today that I think 
the stress our courageous Armed Forces are dealing with now is at the 
point where, if we can't get the Iraqis to speed up securing their own 
defense, this is going to undermine America's preparedness to deal with 
a dangerous world.
  Our Armed Forces are maintaining an exceptional level of 
professionalism under exceptional stress, but at a certain point it is 
just not possible to continue in that way and be ready for the kinds of 
crises and the kinds of national security challenges that exist today. 
So the preparedness of our U.S. military to deal with a host of 
national security challenges hinges on what happens in Iraq. The more 
responsibility the Iraqis take for their future, the less the United 
States must shoulder, and the sooner we can start bringing our troops 
home.
  When our President says that a future American President will decide 
when to bring U.S. troops home, it seems to me that sends a message to 
the Iraqis that they have a lot more time. For the sake of 
preparedness, for the sake of Iraq securing its own future, we have to 
speed this timetable up. American troops cannot and should not be in 
Iraq forever.
  Shortly, I will introduce a very simple resolution. It is a sense of 
the Senate on the President's intention to keep U.S. forces in Iraq 
until at least 2009. The resolution is very simple. I will just read it 
this afternoon:

       That it is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the members of the Armed Forces deserve the enormous 
     respect and support of the Senate and the American people for 
     the sacrifices that they are making on behalf of our country; 
     and
       (2) the President's intention, as stated on March 21, 2006, 
     that ``future Presidents'' will determine whether to keep 
     members of the Armed Forces in Iraq undermines the 
     preparedness of the United States military to respond to 
     other crises and should not be supported.

  I will close. Again I pick up on the Chair's statement about the 
commitment of our troops and their courage and their valor. This is 
not, today, a debate about whether it was right to go to war. We had 
that debate. I was on the side that voted against, and other Senators 
were for it. We are long past that point. What we are dealing with now 
is how to win the peace. That is something which all Senators should be 
looking to try to work together on and find some bipartisan common 
ground.
  I commend the Senator from Alabama for his statement about our 
troops. But I do believe we have to find a way to get beyond some of 
these artificial choices--like cutting and running or staying the 
course. Hopefully we can do that. I believe one area for bipartisan 
cooperation should be to try to speed up Iraq taking over its own 
future.
  I was very troubled by the statement that it was the President's 
intention that the future of our Armed Forces in Iraq would be dealt 
with by future

[[Page 11552]]

Presidents. We have to deal with it now. We have to find a way to win 
the peace and do it on a bipartisan basis. I intend to work with 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to advance this goal, which is 
not about whether you are for the war or against the war, it is today 
about winning the peace, and that is why I will be offering my 
resolution.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, as chairman of the Budget Committee, I 
regularly comment on appropriations bills that are brought to the 
Senate for consideration and present the fiscal comparisons and 
budgetary data. I believe it is useful to expand that practice, when 
required, for authorization bills that we consider.
  S. 2766, the national Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 
2007, is, of course, one of the most important bills the Congress 
brings up on an annual basis. As Senators know, the Budget Committee 
does not enforce the levels of the authorizations of appropriations 
contained in the bill, even though they constitute the vast majority of 
programs and projects addressed. Ultimately, those authorizations of 
appropriations only spend money once the Appropriations Committee acts 
on its Defense bill.
  But there is another category of spending in the Defense 
authorization bill which the Budget Committee does enforce because 
passage of this bill and its signature by the President would create 
automatic spending. By that, I mean the direct spending or mandatory 
spending provisions in the bill.
  According to a Congressional Budget Office estimate of June 9, 2006, 
S. 2766 as reported increases budget authority for mandatory spending 
by $458 million in fiscal year 2007 and $1.508 billion over the next 5 
years. Corresponding outlays are $307 million in fiscal year 2007 and 
$1.416 billion over the next 5 years.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table of direct 
spending for S. 2766 excerpted from CBO's official cost estimate be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      TABLE 4.--ESTIMATED IMPACT OF S. 2766 ON DIRECT SPENDING AND REVENUES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             2007   2008   2009   2010   2011   2012   2013   2014   2015   2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING
 
Military Housing in Korea:
    Estimated Budget Authority............    160    160    160      0      0      0      0      0      0      0
    Estimated Outlays.....................     10     58    109    126     92     48     22     10      5      0
Pilot Projects for Military Housing:
    Estimated Budget Authority............      0      0     30      0      0      0      0      0      0      0
    Estimated Outlays.....................      0      0      4     14      9      2      1      0      0      0
Maximum Term of Leases for Overseas
 Facilities:
    Estimated Budget Authority............      1      2      5      5      5      5      5      5      5      5
    Estimated Outlays.....................      *      1      3      5      5      5      5      5      5      5
SBP Benefits:
    Estimated Budget Authority............     53     57     61     63     66     68     70     72     74     76
    Estimated Outlays.....................     53     57     61     63     66     68     70     72     74     76
Paid-Up SBP:
    Estimated Budget Authority............    202    213      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0
    Estimated Outlays.....................    202    213      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0
TRICARE Pharmacy Program:
    Estimated Budget Authority............     42     61     62     54     46     39     31     22     12      2
    Estimated Outlays.....................     42     61     62     54     46     39     31     22     12      2
    Total Changes:
        Estimated Budget Authority........    458    493    318    122    117    112    106     99     91     83
        Estimated Outlays.................    307    390    239    262    218    162    129    109     96     83
 
                                               CHANGES IN REVENUES
 
Thrift Savings Plan: Estimated Revenues...      *      *      *      *      *      *      *      *      *      *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES.--Numbers in the text may differ from figures shown here because of rounding. SBP = Survivor Benefit Plan.
  * = between -$500,000 and $500,000.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in evaluating our needs in the Department 
of Defense authorization bill, key factors will be our relationship 
with Iran and North Korea as we face two major problems of two nations: 
one having nuclear weapons and the other appearing to be intent on 
developing nuclear weapons. I applaud the President's recent move to 
agree to bilateral negotiations with Iran subject to certain 
conditions, and I think he was precisely correct in saying that 
notwithstanding the difficulties with Iran and their apparent 
intransigence, that all diplomatic efforts ought to be explored before 
any consideration is given to the use of military force. I think that 
is a way to approach the international issues. While we deal with some 
of these tough adversaries, all options should theoretically remain on 
the table. But to the extent that these problems can be solved through 
diplomacy, that is obviously the preferable course.
  In dealing with countries such as Iran and North Korea, it is 
difficult when the United States has branded them as the ``axis of 
evil.'' But President Reagan invited Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev to a 
dialogue within weeks after labeling the U.S.S.R. as the ``evil 
empire.'' So it is possible to have some tough dialogue and some tough 
rhetoric and, at the same time, work toward negotiations, no matter how 
difficult the adversary or potential adversary may be.
  Early in my activities and public service, when I was an assistant 
district attorney in Philadelphia, I had an occasion to interview 
inmates at the State prison, Rockview, who were under the death 
sentence. Joining the district attorney's office, I was low man on the 
totem pole, and the low man got the job of traveling to the State 
prison and talking to people under the death penalty, people who wanted 
to have their death sentences commuted. It was quite an experience. 
Very, very tough people who had committed heinous crimes, outrageous 
lives, bad backgrounds, about as tough a gang as you could find off the 
streets of Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and other parts of the State who 
had committed murders so atrocious that they had gotten the death 
penalty. That taught me a lesson, leading me to the conclusion that if 
you could talk to people like that, you could talk to anybody. You 
don't have to agree with people, but there is no reason not to talk. I 
am aware that it is a significant transfer to apply that kind of an 
experience to international diplomacy, but I think it has some weight.
  There are those who oppose talking to Iran or North Korea on a 
bilateral basis because we don't want to recognize them, we don't want 
to give them any status. I think a comprehensive answer was made to 
that by Richard Armitage, who was Deputy Secretary of State right under 
Colin Powell during President Bush's first term. This is what Mr. 
Armitage had to say:

       It appears that the administration thinks that dialogue 
     equates with weakness, that we have called these regimes evil 
     and, therefore, we won't talk to them. Some people say that 
     talking would legitimize the regimes. But we are not trying 
     to change the regimes, and they are already legitimatized in 
     the eyes of the international community. So we ought to have 
     enough confidence in our ability as diplomats to go eye-to-
     eye with people, even though we disagree in the strongest 
     possible way, and come away without losing anything.

  Our relationship with Iran has obviously been extremely difficult 
since the Shah was deposed in 1979. And Iran

[[Page 11553]]

is a proud country with a proud history. There is, at least, some part 
of the motivation to become a nuclear power, nuclear military force to 
be with the big boys as a matter of international status. I think if we 
were willing to meet with Iran in a straightforward, diplomatic way as 
negotiating equals--the United States is never going to be equal with 
Iran because of the great difference in our power in the international 
field--but I do believe that our foreign policy would be enhanced if we 
treated foreign leaders, foreign countries with more dignity and 
respect. I think it would be a significant step forward if Iran were 
treated as a diplomatic and negotiating equal, that it might take some 
of the pressure off their determination to be a nuclear military power 
or, at a minimum, I think it is worth a try.
  I made my first trip to the Mideast back in 1964, and in the 
intervening 42 years I have made almost 30 trips to the region. I tried 
to go to Iran shortly after the Iran-Iraq war ended in 1988, and my 
efforts to go there have never been successful. It is possible to 
travel to Iran as a tourist, but it is not--they are not receptive to 
having an official visit.
  In the absence of being able to go to Iran, I have contacted and had 
discussions with two of the Iranian Ambassadors to the United Nations. 
I made my first contact back in May of the year 2000, a little more 
than 6 years ago, and I discussed with the Iranian Ambassador to the 
United Nations the possibility of an exchange of parliamentarians; that 
a group of Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives might 
meet with a group of parliamentarians from the Iranian Parliament. I 
invited the Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations to a dinner in my 
hideaway, my office here in Washington, attended by a number of 
Members. I then met with his successor in August of 2003 and had moved 
toward concrete plans to have a group of Iranian parliamentarians meet 
with Members of Congress in Switzerland in January of 2004, but 
unfortunately, those plans fell through because there was a concurrent, 
harsh exchange of rhetoric, and the Iranians were not willing to meet 
at that time.
  There was a significant development when the Iranian President, on 
May 8 of this year, sent President Bush an 18-page letter, and the 
President appropriately responded, showing interest in having 
negotiations with Iran. We had been pursuing efforts to have diplomatic 
pressure applied by Iran in concert with our European allies, trying to 
involve China and trying to involve Russia, and then Secretary of State 
Rice signified a shift of U.S. policy by indicating our willingness to 
negotiate directly with Iran by putting conditions on that offer to 
negotiate. To repeat, I believe that we ought to be willing to 
negotiate without conditions. We have similarly sought to deal with 
North Korea in collaboration with other nations, including Japan and 
South Korea, China, and Russia, and here again, it would be my hope 
that we would seek and be willing to have those talks without 
preconditions.
  I was part of a CODEL led by Senator Biden in August of 2001, at the 
time when Senator Biden was chairman of the Foreign Relations 
Committee, and we traveled to the Far East and had plans to meet with 
the North Korean President, and that did not materialize because at 
that same time, the North Korean President made an unexpected trip to 
China. In looking toward the future, it is my hope to be able to go to 
North Korea. I think there is a climate there of receptivity to meeting 
with Members of Congress, and that is a course which I intend to 
pursue.
  I have found that in the meetings I have had on foreign travels that, 
at least in my opinion, they have been a bit productive. In the 25 
years of my service in the Senate, I have been on the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, and for 8 years I served on the 
Intelligence Committee, chairing that committee during the 104th 
Congress in 1995 and 1996, and those committee assignments and my 
interests generally in foreign policy have taken me to some 93 
countries.
  One of the countries I have visited on many occasions is Syria. I 
have visited Syria on 15 trips. On nine occasions I have had an 
opportunity to meet with President Hafez al-Assad. I was the only 
Member of Congress to accompany the Secretary of State to his funeral 
in the year 2000, and I have since had an opportunity to visit on three 
occasions with President Bashar al-Assad.
  In the course of those meetings I got to know President Hafez al-
Assad. The first meeting was in 1988, and it lasted for approximately 
4\1/2\ hours. I had long heard about President Assad's willingness to 
engage in extended discussions. We covered a wide variety of subjects. 
We talked about Syrian relations with Israel. We talked about the 
Palestinian problems. We talked about the Iran-Iraq war. We talked 
about U.S.-Soviet relations. On a number of occasions I suggested that 
I had taken too much of his time. On each occasion he would say: No, I 
am interested in talking more.
  In the course of meeting President Hafez al-Assad on some nine 
occasions, it developed into a cordial relationship, even, you might 
call it, a joking relationship. I would urge President Assad to meet 
with Israeli Prime Ministers and say that our meeting, always attended 
by the local photographers, would appear on the front page of the 
Syrian newspaper, the Damascus newspaper, but if President Assad would 
meet with the Israeli Prime Minister, it would be world news.
  I told him when Prime Minister Rabin and Foreign Minister Perez and 
Palestinian Authority Chairman Arafat got the Nobel Peace Prize, if he 
would work for peace with Israel, that he would get the Nobel Peace 
Prize in Stockholm.
  He replied: Well, I might be welcome in Stockholm under the 
arrangement you suggest, but I might not be able to get back to 
Damascus.
  In 1988 I suggested to President Assad that he permit the Jewish 
women in Syria to leave the country because there were very few Jewish 
men for them to marry. That was a subject which Congressman Stephen 
Solarz had undertaken, and I was carrying forward some of what 
Congressman Solarz had sought to do. President Hafez al-Assad said to 
me that anyone who came to claim a Syrian Jewish bride would be 
permitted to take the bride with him out of the country. I relayed that 
message to the large Syrian community in Brooklyn, NY. Nothing much 
ever came of it. But in 1992, President Assad permitted all the Jews to 
immigrate out of Syria. My exhortations might have had some effect--who 
knows as to what that might have been.
  I consistently would urge President Assad to negotiate with Israel, 
and he would say that he would not do so but entertained the 
possibility of negotiations with Israel if sponsored by the big 5: 
sponsored by the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain, France, and 
the China. Israel was unwilling to engage in those negotiations because 
only the United States would be neutral or perhaps friendly toward 
Israel. Finally, President Assad did agree to go to Madrid, in 1991, to 
negotiate with Israel.
  I had extensive discussions with a very distinguished Syrian 
diplomat, Walid al-Moualem. When Benjamin Netanyahu was Prime Minister 
of Israel, in 1996, upon taking office Prime Minister Netanyahu made a 
forceful declaration that Israel and he would hold Syria responsible 
for the actions of Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. That led to a 
realignment of the Syrian military, and for a time it looked as if that 
was a tense situation. I was in Israel at that time and was asked by 
Prime Minister Netanyahu to carry a message to President Assad that 
Israel wanted peace. I conveyed that message to President Assad, and 
later, when I met with Walid al-Moualem, the Syrian Ambassador to the 
United Nations--met with him here in Washington--he told me that the 
conversations I had and the message I carried from Prime Minister 
Netanyahu to President Assad had been, as he put it, ``helpful in 
deescalating the dangerous tensions.''
  Ambassador Moualem later told me I had gained the trust and 
confidence and personal relationship with President Assad because, as 
he put it, ``they

[[Page 11554]]

viewed me as being objective'' even though, as he put it, ``nobody 
could question my support for Israel.''
  I am not making any major contentions, or making any claims as to 
what effect these visits would have had. But every little bit helps. In 
getting to know Assad and getting to know his son, it does provide an 
opportunity for a statement as to our values in the United States, what 
we would like to see happen. I think it is helpful and certainly can do 
no harm.
  In January of 1989, I made my first trip to Iraq and returned a year 
later with Senator Shelby.
  I will conclude briefly and will supplement my remarks today with 
more specification at a later time on exact dates, based on trip 
reports which I make after coming back from each of my travels.
  I had referenced the conversation which Senator Shelby and I had with 
Saddam Hussein in January of 1990. I do not know if it would have ever 
have been possible to have dissuaded Saddam Hussein from his practices 
of aggression, but on that occasion Senator Shelby and I had a 
professional conversation with him, and it is my view conversations of 
that sort have the potential to be helpful.
  I have had occasion to visit with Palestinian Authority Chairman 
Yasser Arafat on some eight occasions. I have conveyed messages from 
Prime Minister Netanyahu to Chairman Arafat about the terrorism issue. 
Whether it had any effect or not I do not know. I have had occasion to 
visit Cuba on three occasions, meeting with President Fidel Castro on a 
wide range of conversations, urging him to have respect for human 
rights. I questioned him about the deployment of Soviet missiles in 
1962, asking about possible involvement in the assassination of 
President Kennedy, which he denied in talking to him about 
assassination efforts. I believe there is a fruitful basis to have 
cooperation with Cuba on drug interdiction, and it is something I have 
pursued and intend to pursue in the future.
  I have had occasion to visit China on four visits. I have had 
discussions with the Chinese leader about their failure to respect 
human rights, about the detention of a librarian from Dickerson 
College, who later was freed after a condemnatory resolution was filed 
in the Senate, and I have taken the lead in urging Temple University to 
establish a school in Beijing to inform Chinese leaders about the due 
process of law.
  I had an opportunity to meet with President Chavez in Venezuela last 
August. There was a controversy on drug enforcement. The Venezuelans 
would not meet with our ambassador, and I asked for a meeting of 
President Chavez with our ambassador. I met with the Venezuelan 
Minister of the Interior. I don't have time to summarize it now, but 
President Chavez was willing to discuss a protocol for drug 
cooperation.
  I believe the talks with people, even our tough adversaries, our 
toughest adversaries, can be fruitful. As we structure our legislation 
for the Department of Defense and look later to the Department of 
Defense appropriations subcommittee, a subcommittee on which I serve, 
it is my hope that the United States would be vigorous in the pursuit 
of negotiations with Iran to diffuse the risk there, to try to find a 
way of recognizing them in respect and dignity, persuading them not to 
become a nuclear power, and to have bilateral talks with North Korea on 
the same unconditional basis--again treating them with respect and 
seeking to find a way to have an international protocol which would 
contain and control the significant threat posed by North Korea.
  As I say, Mr. President, I have generalized. Most of what I have said 
has come from floor statements which I have made in the past 25 years. 
And I will document this further at a later time when there is more 
time for the presentation.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to thank the Democratic Leader, 
Senator Reid, for his leadership and the hard work he has done to 
include an amendment to National Defense Authorization Act which 
increases protections for the dedicated women and men throughout our 
judiciary. The recent shooting of a State judge in Nevada provides 
another terrible reminder of the vulnerable position of our State and 
Federal judges. Unfortunately, this is not the only recent reminder. 
Last May, the Judiciary Committee heard the courageous testimony of 
Judge Joan Lefkow of Chicago, the federal judge whose mother and 
husband were murdered in their home. We must protect judges where they 
work and where they and their families live.
  The amendment now incorporated into the bill which I cosponsored with 
Senator Reid, Chairman Specter, and Senator Durbin, would enact 
provisions from the Court Security Improvement Act of 2005, CSIA, S. 
1968, which Chairman Specter and I introduced last November. Our bill 
and this amendment authorize additional resources to improve security 
for State and local court systems. We also respond to requests by the 
Federal judiciary for a greater voice in working with the U.S. Marshals 
Service to determine their security needs. This amendment provides 
criminal penalties for the misuse of restricted personal information to 
seriously harm or threaten to seriously harm Federal judges, their 
families or other individuals performing official duties. It provides 
criminal penalties for threatening Federal judges and Federal law 
enforcement officials by the malicious filing of false liens, and 
provides increased protections for witnesses. It also includes an 
extension of life insurance benefits to bankruptcy, magistrate and 
territorial judges, and provides health insurance for surviving spouses 
and families of Federal judges, both of which are provisions that I 
suggested be included.
  Finally, this amendment contains provisions which have passed the 
Senate several times extending and expanding to family members the 
authority of the Judicial Conference to redact certain information from 
a Federal judge's mandatory financial disclosure. This redaction 
authority is intended to be used in circumstances in which the release 
of the information could endanger the filer or the filer's family. I 
hope that the House of Representatives finally takes up and passes this 
extension and expansion of redaction authority.

                          ____________________