[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 26424-26438]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, Admiral Mike G. Mullen, has made a statement to our American 
soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and their families. I was privileged 
to get a copy of this, and I think it is the type of letter every 
Member of the Senate should be allowed to read. So I ask unanimous 
consent it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       To America's Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and your 
     families, I am honored today to begin my term as Chairman of 
     the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As I do, allow me to thank you for 
     your service at this critical time in our Nation's history.
       Whether you serve in Baghdad or Bagram, Kabul or Kuwait--
     whether you find yourself at sea in the Pacific, flying 
     support missions over Europe, on the ground in Africa, or 
     working every day at stateside bases--you are making a 
     difference and so is every person in your family. Your 
     service matters. And I do not take it for granted.
       The world is a dangerous place. The hundreds of thousands 
     of you who have deployed since September 11th--many of you 
     more than once--already know that. You've stood up to those 
     dangers. You have lost friends to them. You may even have 
     lost some of yourself to them. The dangers of this new and 
     uncertain era have hit you and the people you love squarely 
     in the gut. I will not lose sight of that.
       Nor should any of us lose sight of the need to continue 
     serving. The enemies we face, from radical jihadists to 
     regional powers with nuclear ambitions, directly and 
     irrefutably threaten our vital national interests. They 
     threaten our very way of life.
       You stand between these dangers and the American people. 
     You are the sentinels of freedom. You signed up, took an 
     oath, made a promise to defend something larger than 
     yourselves. And then you went out and did it. I am grateful 
     and honored, to be able to serve alongside you.
       The law says my main job is to advise the President, the 
     Secretary of Defense and the National Security Council on 
     issues of military readiness and capabilities. I will do 
     that. But, I also see myself as your representative to those 
     same leaders, an advocate for what matters to you and your 
     families--your voice in the policies, programs, and processes 
     that affect our National security. I will not forget the 
     impact my decisions have on you.
       I will remember that you, too, comprise a great generation 
     of patriots, and that among you are combat veterans with 
     battlefield experience that many at my level have never

[[Page 26425]]

     and will never endure. I will tap that experience. I want to 
     make sure we learn from it.
       I am not interested in planning to fight the last war, but 
     neither am I interested in ignoring the valuable lessons we 
     continue to learn from this one. It would be foolish to 
     dismiss the knowledge you have gained. I will not do that.
       I know the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are taking a toll 
     on you and your families. They are taking a toll on our 
     equipment, our systems, and our ability to train as well. I 
     worry, quite frankly, that they are taking a toll on our 
     readiness for other threats in other places.
       But that does not mean our struggles there are not 
     important. They most certainly are important. They are vital.
       To the degree the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan contribute 
     to or detract from a stable, secure Middle East, they bear a 
     direct effect on the security of the United States. That is 
     why my number one priority will be developing a comprehensive 
     strategy to defend our National interests in the region.
       Next on my list is resetting, reconstituting, and 
     revitalizing our Armed Forces, especially the Army and Marine 
     Corps. I believe our ground forces are the center of gravity 
     for the all-volunteer force and that we need to make sure 
     that force is correctly shaped and sized, trained, and 
     equipped to defend the Nation.
       Finally, I intend to properly balance global strategic 
     risk. We must stay mindful of our many global security 
     commitments and of the core warfighting capabilities, 
     resources, and partnerships required to conduct operations 
     across the full spectrum of peace and conflict. The demands 
     of current operations, however great, should not dominate our 
     training exercises, education curricula, and readiness 
     programs.
       The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan will one day end. We 
     must be ready for who and what comes after.
       There is much to do. The speed of war, the pace of change, 
     is too great for any of us to manage it alone. I need your 
     help, your ideas, and your input. Whenever I travel to the 
     field and to the fleet, I expect you to tell me what's on 
     your mind. Tell me what you think. I need your constant 
     feedback. I can't succeed--we can't succeed--without it.
       You made a promise to defend this country. Let me make one 
     to you: I will listen to you. I will learn from you. And I 
     will endeavor to lead always with your best interest at 
     heart. The way I see it, that is my job now.
                                                     M. G. Mullen,
                                               Admiral, U.S. Navy.


                           Amendment No. 3141

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I want to pick up on the 
earlier debate on the Sessions-Nelson amendment, No. 3141, that was 
offered by Senator Vitter, and just say I do not think this will be 
controversial because it is bringing the appropriations bill in 
conformance with exactly the provision that is in the Defense 
authorization bill on the Aegis BMD Program with an additional $75 
million. This Aegis system has extraordinary effectiveness and promise, 
going after weapons, particularly in the boost phase. It is a sea-based 
system.
  I want to explain what it does and why it is important.
  In the Senate Armed Services Committee fiscal year 2008 Defense 
authorization bill that was recently adopted by the Senate, there is an 
authorization for an additional $75 million for the Aegis BMD program, 
in addition to authorizing the full budget request for the Aegis BMD 
program. That increased funding authorization came from our committee 
markup of the budget request, which was initiated in the subcommittee 
that handles missile defense.
  I have the honor to serve as the chairman of the Armed Services 
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, and I am pleased to have Senator 
Sessions as the ranking member of that subcommittee. For the Armed 
Services Committee markup of the Defense authorization bill, our 
Strategic Forces Subcommittee prepared a proposal for the portion of 
the defense budget within our jurisdiction, which includes ballistic 
missile defense.
  The subcommittee proposal included an additional $75 million for the 
Aegis BMD program, which was allocated as follows: $20 million for an 
increase in the production rate of the interceptor missile for the 
Aegis BMD system, known as the Standard Missile-3, or SM-3); $45 
million for long lead of an additional 15 SM-3 interceptors; and $10 
million to accelerate development of computer software for the Aegis 
system.
  This amendment mirrors exactly the additional funding authorized by 
the Armed Services Committee, and approved by the Senate this last 
Monday. It recognizes that the Aegis BMD system provides an important 
capability against the existing threats by short- and medium-range 
ballistic missiles to our forward deployed forces overseas. It also 
recognizes that the President's budget request did not provide enough 
funds for this capability. So we are proposing to add more funding to 
build additional near-term and effective capability against existing 
threats.
  Last year, when Senator Sessions was the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Strategic Forces, the subcommittee initiated legislation to make it 
U.S. policy that our priority in missile defense should be on effective 
near-term capabilities. That legislation was later enacted into law and 
is now our national policy. This amendment would take an important step 
to implement that policy.
  The Aegis BMD system has had an impressive development and testing 
program, with a commendable track record of successful and 
operationally realistic testing. I would note that the Navy is a 
critical component of the success of this system, since it has operated 
the Aegis weapon system and its standard missile variants for many 
years on its ships. The Navy has ensured that this missile defense 
capability works well with its existing systems and procedures, as is 
necessary to ensure the system would work in real-world combat 
operations.
  I would note that the Aegis BMD system is planned to improve its 
capability significantly over the coming years, especially with a 
larger and faster interceptor we are developing cooperatively with 
Japan. The improved version of the Aegis BMD system is expected to be 
able to defend against intermediate-range missiles and some long-range 
missiles, as well.
  This amendment does what I believe the administration should have 
done. It would place greater emphasis and greater resources into an 
effective, near-term capability to defend our forward deployed forces, 
as well as our allies and friends overseas, against existing and near-
term threats.
  I urge support for this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.


Amendments Nos. 3153, As Modified; 3162, 3152, 3127, 3155, As Modified; 
                             3173, En Bloc

  Mr. INOUYE. I ask unanimous consent that the following list of 
amendments be adopted. It has been cleared by both sides: Senate 
amendment No. 3153, as modified, by Senators Gregg and Sununu, 
regarding the Advanced Decision Kill Weapon System; amendment No. 3162, 
for Senators Levin and Stabenow, regarding advanced automotive 
technology; amendment No. 3152, for Senators Smith and Harkin, 
regarding the Minuteman Digitalization Demonstration Program; amendment 
No. 3127, for Senator Brown, regarding the high altitude airship; 
amendment No. 3155, as modified, for Senators Domenici and Bingaman, 
regarding mid-infrared advanced chemical lasers; amendment No. 3173, 
for Senators Bingaman and Domenici, regarding sunlight beam directors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were considered and agreed to, as follows:


                    amendment no. 3153, as modified

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:
       Sec. 8107.  Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by title IV under the heading ``Research, 
     Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy'', up to $6,000,000 
     may be available for the continuation of the Advanced 
     Precision Kill Weapons System by the Marine Corps.


                           amendment no. 3162

   (Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test, and 
    Evaluation, Army, $6,000,000 for Advanced Automotive Technology)

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:
       Sec. 8107.  Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by title IV under the heading ``Research, 
     Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army'', up to $6,000,000 
     may be available for Advanced Automotive Technology (PE 
     #0602610A).


                           amendment no. 3152

   (Purpose: To make available from Operation and Maintenance, Army 
National Guard, $2,000,000 for the Minuteman Digitization Demonstration 
                                Program)

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:
       Sec. 8107.  Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by title II under

[[Page 26426]]

     the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Army National 
     Guard'', up to $2,000,000 may be available for the Minuteman 
     Digitization Demonstration Program.


                           amendment no. 3127

   (Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test, and 
   Evaluation, Army, up to $1,000,000 for the High Altitude Airship 
                                Program)

       At the end of title VIII, add following:
       Sec. 8107.  Of the amount appropriated by title IV under 
     the heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 
     Army'', up to $1,000,000 may be available for Army Missile 
     Defense Systems Integration (PE #0603308A) for the High 
     Altitude Airship Program.


                    amendment no. 3155, as modified

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.   . Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by title IV under the heading ``Research, 
     Development, Test and Evaluation, Army'', up to $3,750,000 
     may be available for a Mid-Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser 
     at the High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility.


                           amendment no. 3173

    (Purpose: To make available from Research Development Test and 
   Evaluation, Army, $3,750,000 for a High Energy Laser Systems Test 
                   Facility Sea Light Beam Director)

       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       Sec.   . Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by title IV under the heading ``Research, 
     Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army'', up to $3,750,000 
     may be available for a Sea Light Beam Director at the High 
     Energy Laser Systems Test Facility.


                           Amendment No. 3162

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, earlier this afternoon, the Senate 
unanimously adopted an amendment offered by myself and Senator Stabenow 
to increase the budget of the Army's National Automotive Center by $6 
million.
  The National Automotive Center, NAC, part of the U.S. Army Tank-
Automotive Research, Development, and Engineering Center, works to 
support and leverage advancements by the automotive industry to improve 
military ground vehicles. The funds provided by our amendment will 
allow the NAC to help meet current and future automotive technology 
needs.
  These funds will support the development of new technologies that are 
critical to the success of the Future Combat Systems program and will 
help our military to meet the fuel efficiency goals that have been set 
by the Department of Defense, while improving the safety of military 
ground vehicles.
  I am pleased that the Senate adopted our amendment.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3206

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on behalf of the leadership of the Senate, 
Senators Reid and McConnell, I say to the desk the following amendment 
and ask for its immediate consideration and that it be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for Mr. Reid and Mr. 
     McConnell, proposes an amendment numbered 3206.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is considered 
and agreed to.
  The amendment is as follows:

     (Purpose: To make technical corrections to Public Law 110-81)

       On page 207, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
       Sec. 8107.  Paragraph 1(b) of rule XXXV of the Standing 
     Rules of the Senate is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(3) It is not a gift for a commercial airline to allow a 
     Member, officer, or employee to make multiple reservations on 
     scheduled flights consistent with Senate travel 
     regulations.''.

  The amendment, (No. 3206) was agreed to.


Amendments Nos. 3204, 3116, 3182, 3135, as Modified; 3177, 3163, 3176, 
                        3136, 3175, 3137 En Bloc

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that managers' 
package No. 3 be considered and agreed to. It consists of the 
following: amendment No. 3204, for Senator Sununu, regarding harbor 
surveilling applications; amendment No. 3116, for Senator McCaskill, 
regarding a Web site link for the DOD Inspector General; amendment No. 
3182, for Senator Coleman, regarding the Laser Perimeter Awareness 
System; amendment No. 3135, as modified, for Senator Kennedy, regarding 
high temperature superconductor motors; amendment No. 3177, for Senator 
Inhofe, regarding Ground Warfare Acoustical Combat Systems; amendment 
No. 3163, for Senator Harkin, regarding MSOGs for F-15 aircraft; 
amendment No. 3176, for Senators Hutchison and Cornyn, regarding the 
improvement of barriers at the border; amendment No. 3136, for Senator 
Landrieu, regarding the Cyberspace Innovation Center; amendment No. 
3175, for Senator Bennett, regarding Internet observer threat 
mitigation tools; amendment No. 3137, for Senators Obama, Coburn, and 
Reid of Nevada, regarding the Federal tax liability certifications.
  I ask for their immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are 
considered and agreed to.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 3204

   (Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test, and 
  Evaluation, Navy, $1,000,000 for the development of Low-Cost, High 
   Resolution, remote controlled Side Scan Sonar for USV and Harbor 
                       Surveillance Applications)

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:
       Sec. 8107.  Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by title IV under the heading ``Research, 
     Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy'', up to $1,000,000 
     may be available for the development of Low-Cost, High 
     Resolution, remote controlled Side Scan Sonar for USV and 
     Harbor Surveillance Applications.


                           amendment no. 3116

 (Purpose: To require the establishment on the Internet website of the 
 Department of Defense of a link to the Office of Inspector General of 
                       the Department of Defense)

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:
       Sec. 8107.  Not later than 30 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     establish and maintain on the homepage of the Internet 
     website of the Department of Defense a direct link to the 
     Internet website of the Office of Inspector General of the 
     Department of Defense.


                           amendment no. 3182

   (Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test, and 
 Evaluation, Navy, $5,000,000 for the Laser Perimeter Awareness System 
      for integration into the Electronic Harbor Security System)

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:
       Sec. 8107.  Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by title IV under the heading ``Research, 
     Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy'', up to $5,000,000 
     may be available for the Laser Perimeter Awareness System for 
     integration into the Electronic Harbor Security System.


                    amendment no. 3135, as modified

       On page 207, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
       Sec. 8107.  Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by title IV under the heading ``Research, 
     Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy'', up to $5,000,000 
     may be made available for the High Temperature Superconductor 
     AC Synchronous Propulsion Motor.


                           amendment no. 3177

   (Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test, and 
   Evaluation, Navy, $1,200,000 for Ground Warfare Acoustical Combat 
                       System of netted sensors)

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:
       Sec. 8107.  Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by title IV under the heading ``Research, 
     Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy'' and available for 
     Program Element #0603640M, up to $1,200,000 may be available 
     for Ground Warfare Acoustical Combat System of netted 
     sensors.


                           amendment no. 3163

   (Purpose: To make available from Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, 
    $5,000,000 for the retrofit of upgraded Molecular Sieve Oxygen 
           Generation Systems into F-15C/D fighter aircraft)

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:
       Sec. 8107.  Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by title III under the heading ``Aircraft 
     Procurement, Air Force'', up to $5,000,000 may be available 
     for the integration, procurement, and retrofit of upgraded 
     Molecular Sieve Oxygen Generation Systems (MSOGS) into F-15C/
     D fighter aircraft.

[[Page 26427]]




                           amendment no. 3176

  (Purpose: To provide local officials and the Secretary of Homeland 
  Security greater involvement in decisions regarding the location of 
                            border fencing)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. IMPROVEMENT OF BARRIERS AT BORDER.

       Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
     Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``Attorney General, in 
     consultation with the Commissioner of Immigration and 
     Naturalization,'' and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland 
     Security''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``in the Border 
     Area'' and inserting ``Along the Border'';
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) as 
     paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (5), respectively;
       (C) in paragraph (2), as redesignated--
       (i) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``Security 
     features'' and inserting ``Additional fencing along southwest 
     border''; and
       (ii) by striking subparagraphs (A) through (C) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(A) Reinforced fencing.--In carrying out subsection (a), 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security shall construct reinforced 
     fencing along not less than 700 miles of the southwest border 
     where fencing would be most practical and effective and 
     provide for the installation of additional physical barriers, 
     roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors to gain operational 
     control of the southwest border.
       ``(B) Priority areas.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall--
       ``(i) identify the 370 miles along the southwest border 
     where fencing would be most practical and effective in 
     deterring smugglers and aliens attempting to gain illegal 
     entry into the United States; and
       ``(ii) not later than December 31, 2008, complete 
     construction of reinforced fencing along the 370 miles 
     identified under clause (i).
       ``(C) Consultation.--
       ``(i) In general.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall consult with the 
     Secretary of Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, States, 
     local governments, Indian tribes, and property owners in the 
     United States to minimize the impact on the environment, 
     culture, commerce, and quality of life for the communities 
     and residents located near the sites at which such fencing is 
     to be constructed.
       ``(ii) Savings provision.--Nothing in this subparagraph may 
     be construed to--

       ``(I) create any right of action for a State, local 
     government, or other person or entity affected by this 
     subsection; or
       ``(II) affect the eminent domain laws of the United States 
     or of any State.

       ``(D) Limitation on requirements.--Notwithstanding 
     subparagraph (A), nothing in this paragraph shall require the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security to install fencing, physical 
     barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors in a 
     particular location along an international border of the 
     United States, if the Secretary determines that the use or 
     placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means 
     to achieve and maintain operational control over the 
     international border at such location.''; and
       (D) in paragraph (5), as redesignated, by striking ``to 
     carry out this subsection not to exceed $12,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``such sums as may be necessary to carry out this 
     subsection''.


                           amendment no. 3136

(Purpose: to make available from Operation and Maintenance, Air Force, 
   $4,000,000 for the 8th Air Force Cyberspace Innovation Center at 
                  Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana)

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:
       Sec. 8107.  Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by title II under the heading ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Air Force'', up to $4,000,000 may be available 
     for the 8th Air Force Cyberspace Innovation Center for Cyber 
     Combat Development at Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana.


                           amendment no. 3175

  (Purpose: To make available from Intelligence Community Management 
Account, $5,000,000 for Internet Observer and Inner View insider threat 
                           mitigation tools)

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:
       Sec. 8107.  Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by title VII under the heading ``Intelligence 
     Community Management Account'', up to $5,000,000 may be 
     available for the Office of Counter Intelligence of the 
     National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency for Internet Observer 
     and Inner View insider threat mitigation tools.


                           amendment no. 3137

 (Purpose: To provide that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
 made available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in an 
 amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in excess of such 
   amount unless the prospective contractor or grantee makes certain 
            certifications regarding Federal tax liability)

       On page 207, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
       Sec. 8107.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act may be used to enter into a 
     contract in an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a 
     grant in excess of such amount unless the prospective 
     contractor or grantee certifies in writing to the agency 
     awarding the contract or grant that, to the best of its 
     knowledge and belief, the contractor or grantee has filed all 
     Federal tax returns required during the three years preceding 
     the certification, has not been convicted of a criminal 
     offense under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and has not, 
     more than 90 days prior to certification, been notified of 
     any unpaid Federal tax assessment for which the liability 
     remains unsatisfied, unless the assessment is the subject of 
     an installment agreement or offer in compromise that has been 
     approved by the Internal Revenue Service and is not in 
     default, or the assessment is the subject of a non-frivolous 
     administrative or judicial proceeding.

  Mr. INOUYE. What is the pending business, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment in question is the Vitter 
amendment.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I request the clerk make us a list of 
pending amendments, amendments that have been qualified as pending on 
this bill.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Amendments Nos. 3130, 3167, 3145, and 3141

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce that the 
following amendments have been cleared by the leadership of both sides 
and we are ready to consider them en bloc: First, 3130, 3167, 3145, and 
3141. I ask unanimous consent they be considered en bloc and passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 3130, 3167, 3145, and 3141) were agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3144

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have a couple of minutes of comment. I 
know Senator Kyl withdrew his amendment. But I do want to have the 
Record corrected, because I was listening to part of the debate when I 
was back in my office. I think it is important to have an accurate 
Record.
  My colleague from Arizona indicated that the space-based test bed 
program which I oppose is not a program that would primarily be a 
space-based missile defense program. He said it is about protecting 
satellites. That the space test bed is about protecting satellites. 
That is what my colleague was saying.
  Let me read the unclassified portion of the Pentagon budget 
justification for the program.

       The space test bed is being explored as a potential 
     solution to enhance ballistic missile defense.

  I guess you can come to the floor and say: Well, that is not what it 
is. But you probably would have to ask the Pentagon to cut out this 
page from its budget justification book.
  I want the Record to reflect something that is half way accurate. All 
of us understand what that program was intended to be. This is what the 
Defense Department says it was intended to be. So when I come to the 
floor and talk about why this program ought not proceed, it is not 
authorized, it has not been funded in either the House or Senate 
appropriations bills and, besides, it is a program that will eventually

[[Page 26428]]

weaponize space by putting ballistic missile defense interceptors in 
space, I have the facts on my side.
  Then to have someone say: Well, that is not what it was. Gosh, you 
must not understand it, Mr. Dorgan. Well, I am sorry; I do understand 
it. So does the Pentagon. They say again:

       The Space Test Bed is being explored as a potential 
     solution to enhance ballistic missile defense capability in 
     the future.

  I went to a small school, but I can understand this. And I read 
fairly fast. There is not a lot of reading on this page. So I wanted 
the Record to reflect what is accurate about the issue of the space 
test bed.
  I think this country has an enormous responsibility with the question 
of nuclear weapons, stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, attempting 
to find ways to reduce the number of nuclear weapons and delivery 
vehicles to protect this country in dozens of different ways against 
threats that exist against our country.
  I think it would be a profound mistake for this Congress to decide, 
without authorization, with very little debate, to begin funding a 
program that eventually will provide weapons in space. We would be 
apoplectic if we believed a program existed or was begun today in the 
Duma or in China, because we would believe it would be a threatening 
approach for them to weaponize space. I think they would view the same 
with activities we would undertake.
  My hope is we can work with others in the world with respect to 
nonproliferation and with respect to protecting all of us from those 
who would be aggressive in our future.
  By the way, my colleague suggested, because I said you can almost 
always find a general to support a program at the Pentagon--that I 
denigrated generals. My point was not to denigrate generals. But every 
program that exists, and every idea, has sponsors and support. You show 
me a program, I will show you a number of people who are involved in 
that program, believe in that program, and want that program to move. 
It is the generals and colonels and captains and lieutenants, and that 
is the way the system works.
  Now, I promised I was going to compliment the manager and the ranking 
member. I did it before, but let me do it again. This is a big piece of 
legislation, hard to put together, and not easy to manage. But they 
have been on the floor now for some while trying to move this 
legislation through. Much of it is very important for this country. I 
hope we can move to final passage in an expedited way.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3198

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3198.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Mr. LEAHY. I make a point of order that it is legislation on an 
appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment 
falls.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair.
  While I have the floor, I understand my good friend, the Senator from 
New Jersey, is concerned. There appears not to be parity between the 
northern border and the southern border. I share his concern about some 
of the issues of racism that have been floated into the debate 
regarding our southern border. I think he would admit that there are 
differences between the northern border and the southern border. We are 
blessed to have friends on both our northern and southern borders. The 
failure of the administration to take a truly bipartisan approach to 
comprehensive immigration reform and the failure of this body to go 
forward and work its way all the way through to a final immigration 
bill reflects some of the problems we have.
  The way to solve them is not to close the border to a historic 
neighbor on the longest unguarded frontier in the world, one of our 
largest trading partners. We already have policies of this 
administration that are about to cost us hundreds of billions of 
dollars in jobs in the United States, which do nothing to enhance our 
security, with the cockamamie idea from the State Department and the 
Department of Homeland Security requiring passports to cross between 
Canada and the United States. This will do very little to improve our 
security. Instead of working with Senators on both sides of the aisle 
to find a way where we could have safe, easy transfer between the two 
countries, keep commerce going, especially after this administration 
has so badly handled our economy that our dollar has slipped 
dramatically, the administration wants to hastily implement ill-
conceived barriers to cross-border travel. We seem to want to poke our 
thumb in the eye of a good neighbor.
  I do not fault the Senator from New Jersey for his amendment. I 
understand the reason he does it. As he can well understand, I disagree 
with the idea of a fence along the Canadian border, just as I voted 
against erecting a fence along the southern border last year. I wish we 
could show some sense in real immigration policy with our southern 
border. It is a fault in this country to pretend we don't have illegal 
immigrants looking for a better life and to think that we are going to 
solve the problem by denying them access to social programs, deny their 
children access to our schools, deny them access to assistance with 
food, deny them access to health care, and to threaten prosecution of 
our churches if they show their respect for the commandments and 
actually want to help the least among us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I appreciate the views of my 
distinguished colleague from Vermont. I particularly appreciate his 
support for comprehensive immigration reform for which he has been a 
champion. However, I must take the opportunity to note that the 
underlying amendment Senator Salazar and I were addressing, for which 
no point of order was raised against and which, in essence, was adopted 
by the Senate, goes to the very heart of this issue.
  As a matter of fact, there was a colloquy between Senator Tester and 
Senator Graham that basically said to some degree that, in fact, the 
resources Senator Graham had in his amendment, adopted by the Senate, 
could go to the northern border. What Senator Salazar and I want to 
make clear is that, in fact, either we protect all of the country or we 
protect none of it.
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I am happy to.
  Mr. LEAHY. I want to make sure: The Senator would have been within 
his rights to have made a point of order against the Graham amendment 
had he wanted to; is that correct?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Unfortunately, I didn't have notice of it before it was 
called up for a vote; otherwise, I would have had the opportunity.
  Mr. LEAHY. I had heard about an hour before the vote that we were 
having it.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I would note for the Senator, however, that his concern 
was in the underlying Graham amendment as well. So here we are, where 
we as a body consistently pursue one course of action on one part of 
the U.S. border, and on the other border we actually say it is quite 
different. The reality is, some of us on this issue believe there has 
to be some consistency because, if not, some of us believe either it is 
about securing the country or it is not. If it is about securing the 
country, you can't secure one border and say the other border is free 
for people to cross undetected, as has been well documented by the 
Government Accountability Office, by the 9/11 Commission, and by the 
fact that the millennium bomber came through, and a host of other 
things. Either we are going to have security, which means north and 
south, or we are not going to have security. If it is only about the 
southern

[[Page 26429]]

border, then it is about a lot more than security. It is about who 
happens to be crossing we don't like. What is the color of their skin? 
What is their ethnicity? Why is that such a threat when the only real 
terrorist threat we have ever had came through the northern border?
  This Senator, for one, intends to ensure moving forward that as we 
have other appropriations bills, I will make it my business to be on 
the Senate floor to raise points of order because either it is about 
securing all of the country or it is about securing none of it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the will of the Senate?
  Mr. INOUYE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Amendment No. 3146 Withdrawn

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, with the approval of Senator Allard, I ask 
unanimous consent that amendment No. 3146 be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. That is the Allard amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Allard amendment.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President: I want to speak at this point with 
Senators Inouye and Stevens on the amendment offered by Senator Salazar 
and myself designating $5 million--the amount requested by the Pentagon 
and previously approved by the House--for the Missile Defense Space 
Experimentation Center, a facility within the Missile Defense 
Integration and Operations Center on Schriever Air Force Base in 
Colorado Springs, CO. May I ask, are the chairman and ranking member of 
the Defense Subcommittee aware of the potentially valuable work 
proposed for this center?
  Mr. INOUYE. I am.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am as well, and I note that this amendment was 
submitted yesterday--coincidentally on the day when it became obvious 
that our Nation's missile defense system is, according to today's New 
York Times, ``up and running.''
  Mr. ALLARD. Exactly. We hear frequent mention on this floor about the 
other, non-Iraq dangers facing this country, and our national missile 
defense system is designed to deal with some of the most worrisome of 
those threats--an accidental or rogue nation launch of ballistic 
nuclear weapons against our country. I am sure the chairman and ranking 
member agree on the value of this system, and that a system as 
technologically complex as this one requires constant analysis, 
demonstration, and integration?
  Mr. INOUYE. Certainly.
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
  Mr. ALLARD. I further, then, suggest that the Missile Defense Space 
Experimentation Center fulfills this role, and also supports advanced 
technology and algorithm development, and other mission areas such as 
space situation awareness, technical intelligence, and battle space 
characterization.
  The MDSEC facility buildout began in fiscal year 2006 and continued 
through fiscal year 2007 under the STSS program. As the MDSEC supports 
multiple satellite operations and experiments, the fiscal year 2008 
request of $5 million is contained within the MDA Space Program 
Element. The MDSEC provides the Missile Defense Agency a common support 
infrastructure and connectivity to the BMDS for the two satellites to 
be launched in 2008. It will also integrate space data in support of 
the missile defense mission such as ongoing experiments using Defense 
Support Program data for missile defense, planned experiments with data 
from MDA and other defense and national security systems. MDSEC further 
supports mission integration of space-based missile track--boost and 
midcourse phases--sensor and weapons cueing via C2BMC, features and 
discrimination, kill and impact point assessments into C2BMC, Aegis, 
terminal high altitude area defense--THAAD--global missile defense--
GMD--and other non-MDA mission areas to include space situation 
awareness, technical intelligence, and battle space characterization.
  I believe the mission and task for the MDSEC require our support and 
I urge the distinguished chairman and ranking member of this committee 
to give their full support to this program.
  Mr. INOUYE. I pledge to my friend from Colorado that when we sit down 
to discuss this matter with the House I will continue to support the 
ballistic missile defense system. Let me assure you, as well, that we 
will carefully examine the merits of the programs at the MDSEC and the 
unique capabilities of the MDIOC when we have our conference 
negotiations with the House.
  Mr. STEVENS. I concur.
  Mr. ALLARD. I thank you both.
  Mr. INOUYE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I call up Senate amendment No. 3166.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.


                Amendment No. 3207 to Amendment No. 3166

  Mr. STEVENS. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its 
consideration. It is an amendment to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3207 to amendment No. 3166.

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


                Amendment No. 3207 to Amendment No. 3166

       On page 1 of Amendment 3166, after line 7 insert the 
     following:
       ``Not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a report on mechanisms for 
     expanding public-private partnerships with military and 
     family organizations for the purpose of increasing access to 
     family support, in particular, for the minor dependent 
     children of deployed servicemembers.
       ``Such report shall identify: the adjustment needs of minor 
     children of deployed service personnel, including children 
     who have experienced multiple deployments of one or more 
     parents or guardians; alternative support and recreational 
     activities which have been shown to be effective in improving 
     coping skills in young children of deployed servicemembers; 
     support networks beyond educational settings that have been 
     effective in addressing the needs of children of deployed 
     servicemembers, to include summer and after-school 
     recreational, sports and cultural activities; programs which 
     can be accessed without charge to military families; gaps in 
     services for minor dependent children of deployed personnel, 
     and; opportunities for expanding public and private 
     partnerships in support of such programs.
       ``Prior to submission of the report required by this 
     section, the Secretary shall consult with military family 
     advocacy organizations, and include the comments of such 
     organizations within the required report to congressional 
     defense committees.
       ``Plan Required:
       ``Not later than 60 days after submission of the report 
     required by this section. the Secretary shall submit a plan 
     to the congressional defense committees to address the needs 
     and gaps in services identified in the report. Such a plan 
     shall also address the comments and recommendations of 
     military family advocacy organizations. as required by this 
     section.''

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I would say to the Senate that this is 
an addition to the Boxer amendment that does not affect the Boxer 
amendment per se.
  I ask unanimous consent that the amendment to the amendment be agreed 
to.

[[Page 26430]]


  Mr. INOUYE. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3207) was agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3166), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be listed as 
a cosponsor of the Boxer amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, to my knowledge, the Senator from 
Alabama is here now for his amendment. The Sessions amendment is the 
last amendment that I know of on this side. Does the Senator from 
Hawaii have additional amendments on his side?
  Mr. INOUYE. No.
  Mr. STEVENS. We would be prepared to enter into an agreement that 
there be no further amendments.
  Mr. INOUYE. I ask unanimous consent that the Sessions amendment be 
the last one considered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I would ask for a moment before making 
that final decision to talk to the chairman about an amendment. It is 
the amendment you have in front of you, but I came down to speak to the 
chairman about that. So I wonder if we might take a moment to consider 
the Sessions amendment and allow me to have just a moment before that 
decision is made.
  Mr. STEVENS. So we will proceed at this time with the Sessions 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3192

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 3192.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3192.

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


                           Amendment No. 3192

  (Purpose: To fund Operation Jump Start, the deployment of National 
  Guard personnel, to the southern border, through September 30, 2008)

       On page 114, lines 6 and 7, strike ``$22,445,227,000: 
     Provided,'' and insert ``$23,239,227,000: Provided, That not 
     less than $794,000,000 of such amount shall be made available 
     for Operation Jump Start in order to maintain a significant 
     durational force of the National Guard on the southern land 
     border of the United States to assist the United States 
     Border Patrol in gaining operational control of that border, 
     in addition to any other amounts made available under this 
     Act for such purpose: Provided further,''.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Domenici, Dole, and Ensign be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, it is unfortunate and sad, I think, 
that the Senate--and I would say the administration--has made a 
decision to prematurely draw down the National Guard presence at the 
southern border. That is an unwise event, and it signals uncertainty 
about our commitment to completing the lawful strategy we have for 
immigration at our border.
  It is not impossible for us to create a lawful system of immigration, 
but we have to do some things. We have allowed unlawfulness to continue 
for an extraordinary amount of time, to the extent that it is going to 
take us some effort now to reestablish a rule of law. But the whole 
world will be better off and everyone who wants to come to our country 
will be better off if they know what the rules are, how to apply, and 
have an understanding that their competitors who would like to come 
here are not going to be allowed to come illegally and then be rewarded 
by amnesty while they wait in line to come lawfully.
  So the amendment I have offered will fully fund Operation Jump Start 
at its original level--the 6,000 National Guard troops--through the end 
of fiscal year 2008. Currently, the Department of Defense has plans 
only to keep 3,000 at the border instead of the full 6,000 who were to 
be deployed through 2008. Furthermore, Operation Jump Start is actually 
now scheduled to end completely on July 1, 2008. So the increased 
funding provided for here--and I do believe it is an emergency and it 
is a legitimate emergency expenditure to create lawfulness at our 
border, which will protect the national security of the United States--
this increased funding will be needed to do these things: keep 
Operation Jump Start at the deployment level that has been so 
successful and keep Operation Jump Start running until this time next 
year.
  On May 15, 2006, President Bush announced Operation Jump Start, which 
was the employment of up to 6,000 National Guard members to the 
southern land border. According to Operation Jump Start Year 1 Review, 
its intent was to provide:

       An immediate means to enhance border enforcement operations 
     while Border Patrol increased its own internal enforcement 
     resources through hiring additional Border Patrol agents, 
     mission support personnel, and procuring and applying new 
     technology and infrastructure.

  It goes on to say:

       OJS is providing interim support as Border Patrol recruits, 
     hires, and trains 6,000 additional Border Patrol agents by 
     the end of calendar year 2008--

  End of calendar year 2008; that is December of 2008.
  My amendment would simply carry the strength of the National Guard 
through September 30, 2008, the fiscal year. That is important because 
we are facing a rather substantial drawdown without this amendment.
  So deployments began on June 15, 2006, to give us a bit of a 
background. By August 2006, an average of 5,677 National Guard 
personnel were deployed. By June 2007--that is June of this year--an 
average of 5,759 were deployed.
  Since the beginning, on the border, the National Guard has supported 
the Department of Homeland Security by providing, among other things, 
the following skills: construction of tactical infrastructure; that is, 
fencing, roads, and lighting and those kinds of things that are really 
critical if we are serious about making sure people just don't walk 
across our border. You have to have those things. We made some progress 
in that regard, although, in truth, we should have made more. They are 
involved in fence repair, welding, and facility maintenance. Many of 
these are engineer Guard units with a lot of capabilities in this area. 
They provide vehicle and fleet maintenance. Many of these are 
transportation units that are skilled at fleet maintenance. Entry 
identification teams, surveillance and reconnaissance teams, law 
enforcement communication assistance, intelligence analysis--we have a 
lot of those capabilities in the National Guard.
  So I would say they are not being utilized on a daily basis to patrol 
the border and make arrests. We decided that would not be what they are 
deployed for. But they are really providing a lot of capability that 
frees up a limited number of Border Patrol agents to be the front-line 
troops, to go out and make the arrests and do the day-to-day work that 
has to be done.
  The success of the operation is undeniable. By early December of 
2006, just 6 months after the deployment began, Robert Gilbert, the 
chief Border Patrol agent for the Border Patrol's El Paso sector, 
stated:

       Jointly, we are making a definite impact on the border. The 
     professionalism and dedication and training the Guard units 
     have brought to our mission and our fight, the way they have 
     made it their mission and their fight, is more than we 
     expected.

  That same month, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, LTG Steve 
Blum, stated:

       I was here 2\1/2\ months ago and things that I didn't think 
     would be possible in a year have already been accomplished. 
     Infrastructure is up, fencing is up, roads are built, 
     lighting is up, and apprehensions are down.

  Those aren't just words. The success of Operation Jump Start is 
tangible.

[[Page 26431]]

  According to the Year 1 Review:

       Force multiplication has allowed more Border Patrol agents 
     to remain in the enforcement mode, not the support mode. The 
     additional manpower has allowed DHS to return 563 agents to 
     frontline positions. The result is referred to as ``badges 
     back to the border.''

  The Guard presence has added 337 miles of expanded border 
surveillance capabilities along the southwest border. Guard personnel 
provide 6,500 hours of camera monitoring. Somebody has to monitor the 
cameras. There is no doubt that an electronic fence, as some have said, 
is not a worthless idea. You can use cameras and electronic technology 
to enhance our capabilities at the border, but in the high-traffic 
areas, it is not a question of seeing people, it is a question of how 
you can detain them if they are coming illegally. So I think we made 
progress there with the help of the National Guard.
  Guard personnel have assisted in apprehending more than 10 percent of 
the aliens apprehended during the past year--a total of 84,878 
apprehensions. Overall, apprehensions of illegal immigrants trying to 
cross the border are down by 25 percent. What most experts conclude 
that means is that an estimated 25 percent fewer illegal immigrants are 
attempting to cross. The Guard's presence is, in fact, having a 
deterrent effect.
  With the help of the National Guard, marijuana seizures are up 22 
percent. The Guard was responsible for seizing 201,000 pounds of 
marijuana at the border.
  As a matter of fact, when we talk about security and the need to do 
something about openness and illegality at our border, we have to 
consider drugs to be a big part of that. Guard personnel have assisted 
in the seizure of 4,783 pounds of cocaine, 703 vehicles, and $60,000 in 
currency. So this is an important matter in the success we are having.
  The Guard presence has produced sizable gains in critically needed 
tactical infrastructure along the border. They have already repaired 
428 miles of roads. You have to have roads if you are going to be 
effective in maintaining a border. And 16 miles of all-weather roads 
have been repaired and maintained. They have installed 58 miles of 
vehicle barriers. At least it prohibits people from driving into our 
country loaded with drugs or illegal items.
  They have constructed 18.2 miles of fencing, which is a disappointing 
number. After all that we funded in this Congress, which was 700 miles 
of fencing, we have only 18 miles completed. We voted for it. We talked 
about it. We go back home and tell our constituents we have done it. 
The President says we are doing it. The Secretary of Homeland Security 
says we are doing it. We have not accomplished much, but the Guard has 
played a role by using their engineering capability. Frankly, if they 
had been focused more on actual barriers, they probably would have 
accomplished more.
  The real reason is the way we planned this out has been very slow in 
development, in terms of building our fencing. In fact, we are informed 
that the fencing numbers are improving right now; that miles of fencing 
are appearing and coming much more rapidly on line than before. If you 
examine the situation closely, you will see there appears to be a move 
afoot to draw this out and end up with far less fencing than the 
Congress contemplated both with our authorization and appropriations 
bills.
  The Department of Homeland Security indicates that the Guard's 
presence will have an even greater impact on tactical infrastructure 
over the next year:

       The deployments will be focused on providing a greater 
     residual value by raising the percentage of troops that are 
     working on tactical infrastructure projects. This 
     infrastructure will greatly enhance the ability of the men 
     and women of the border patrol to access the border and be 
     more effective in the enforcement efforts for many years to 
     come.

  OK. What they are saying is they have projected in the coming months 
that the Guard is going to be even more effective because they will be 
providing a greater residual value by raising the percentage of troops 
working on infrastructure projects. Now, there are people who don't 
want infrastructure at the border, and they would like to bring the 
troops home, I suppose, before that happens. That would be a big 
mistake.
  The National Guard is helping the border to save lives. In the last 
year, they have rescued 91 people--illegal aliens--in the area who were 
in desperate trouble for lack of water or being lost. They rescued 
them. Now, this is what has happened. Despite the proven success of the 
program, the operation is scheduled to stop by next July. Troops are 
already being reduced. By the end of July, troops were down to 4,500; 
that is July of 2007. By the end of August of this year, troops were 
down to 3,500. So it dropped even more. Today, only 3,000 personnel are 
on Operation Jump Start orders, and, of those, only 2,300 are actually 
at the border.
  So already there has been a drawdown of more than half of the 
National Guard personnel, and not communicating that to the American 
people is leaving us in a difficult situation, I suggest. The National 
Guard was supposed to fill the gap until 6,000 new Border Patrol agents 
could be recruited, hired, trained, and stationed at the border. That 
goal has only been accomplished halfway. Only 3,000 new agents have 
joined the 1,000 who were on the border when President Bush announced 
Operation Jump Start. The National Guard is assisting in fence and 
other critical infrastructure construction.
  The Secure Fence Act that we passed mandated that the Department of 
Homeland Security construct more than 700 miles of new fencing. The 
administration's goal apparently is not to do that. Apparently it is to 
just complete 300 miles by the end of the whole next year, 2008. So 
with 2 years of authorization and funding, they will have only 
completed less than half of the fencing. To date, only 70 new miles 
have been constructed, for a total of 145 miles of fencing on the 
border. That is not the kind of signal we need to be sending.
  The reason that is important is because it has a psychological 
impact, as well as an actual apprehension impact. What about alien 
apprehensions? To date, alien apprehensions on the border are down 25 
percent. While this is positive, because it indicates the attempts at 
crossings are likely down by 25 percent as well, the job is certainly 
not finished. The year before that, we arrested 1 million people at the 
border. Can you imagine that? One million people were arrested at the 
border. It is not an exaggeration to say that it is a wide-open, 
lawless area that needs attention from our Government. If we don't give 
it, we are breaking faith with the American people because we have said 
we are going to fix that, we are going to do something about it. We 
just haven't.
  I have to tell you there are some people who really don't care about 
it. They talk about it, but they don't care. We have some progress; 25 
percent is a lot. It is not insignificant. But if we really got that 
fencing up and built, if we kept the National Guard down at the border, 
if we broaden the Border Patrol and motivate them to be as effective as 
they possibly could be, I absolutely believe--absolutely believe--we 
can reach a tipping point where the whole world begins to say the 
border of the United States is no longer wide open; that you can get in 
trouble going across there. Most people are getting caught. It is an 
entirely different place, so maybe we better not try it this time. 
Maybe somebody suggested we can do that, but that is not a good idea. 
But for the last 20 years-plus, it has been a well-known fact worldwide 
that you can just walk across our border, if you have very much 
initiative, and be successful at it. If they catch you, nothing ever 
happens.
  Now, I will conclude by noting that, according to the year review of 
Operation Jump Start:

       OJS is one of the many enforcement initiatives employed to 
     expand enforcement capabilities to gain better operational 
     control along the Southwest border. OJS, combined with other 
     initiatives, such as Operation Streamline, Zero Tolerance, 
     Arizona Border

[[Page 26432]]

     Control Initiative, and the Expedited Removal Program, has 
     resulted in a cumulative, positive impact on current levels 
     of border control.

  Good news. A positive impact. What it should do is give us 
encouragement. If we will just follow through, expand what we are 
doing, adjust to the changing tactics of those who want to enter 
illegally, and do it with will and determination and a positive 
attitude, we can make a difference. We can end this open border, end 
the illegality that has made the immigration system a mockery of law 
and an embarrassment to our people.
  Operation Jump Start is a proven success. It is a critical component 
of our strategy. Guardsmen are filling critical law enforcement roles. 
They are building fencing and infrastructure and interdicting narcotics 
and conducting surveillance and reconnaissance; and, by the way, a 
substantial majority of our cocaine and methamphetamines, for that 
matter, are coming into our country through Mexico. I talk to law 
enforcement officers in Alabama all the time. They say we used to get a 
lot out of Miami and south Florida. Now it is all coming across the 
Mexican border. So we have a law enforcement interest in this also.
  There is no reason Operation Jump Start should end this June. At a 
minimum, it should be extended until all 6,000 Border Patrol agents are 
on duty. The way we have been going, we authorize it and say we are 
going to add 6,000 Border Patrol agents, and they don't get added, if 
you want to know the truth. We have seen that happen time and time 
again. They said we were going to continue this Operation Jump Start 
and the National Guard, but we have already reduced our Guard personnel 
by more than half. That adds credibility problems with the American 
people. No wonder they are suspicious about what we are doing here. 
This amendment will provide the needed funding to keep Operation Jump 
Start at its original capacity, 6,000 Guard personnel, instead of what 
they have planned now. It makes no sense to the American people to say 
we found something that is effective, that is beginning to work to 
reduce the illegality we are facing, but we are stopping the program 
before the job is done. The border is not yet secure. It is too early 
to end this program. We need to step it up, and I think we will be in a 
position to have greater progress than anyone can imagine.
  Madam President, to sum up, the good news is we have made some 
progress, but we have not really begun to get to finishing up. If we 
get the fencing up and keep our Guard there full-time and get our new 
Border Patrol agents up and we move to ending the catch-and-release and 
adopt the Texas plan, where individuals are prosecuted for violating 
the laws by entering illegally--that has reduced border crossings in 
that area by 45 percent or more--and if we can do other things like 
that, this will work and we can make good progress.
  The problem is, I think some are not desirous of us being successful. 
Everything that tends to work seems to be delayed and slowed down and 
undermined. If we move forward, we can send a message to the world that 
our National Guard is there, our troops are there, the Border Patrol 
has been increased, we are building barriers, and you are not going to 
get in easily anymore, so you better wait in line and come here 
lawfully, and the whole country will be better off. This amendment will 
be a big part of doing that.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. What is the pending amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sessions amendment is the pending 
amendment.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask that amendment be accepted by 
voice vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. We agree.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without 
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3192) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3131

  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I send to the desk an amendment in 
behalf of Senator Stabenow and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for Ms. Stabenow, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3131.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test, and 
    Evaluation, Army, $4,000,000 for the Virtual Systems Integrated 
  Laboratory-Armored Vehicle Components and Systems Simulated In Cost-
             Effective Virtual Design and Test Environment)

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:
       Sec. 8107.  Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by title IV under the heading ``Research, 
     Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army'', up to $4,000,000 
     may be available for the Virtual Systems Integrated 
     Laboratory-Armored Vehicle Components and Systems Simulated 
     In Cost-Effective Virtual Design and Test Environment.

  Mr. INOUYE. I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, without 
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3131) was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                      Stryker Brigade Combat Teams

  Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with my 
good friend, the Senior Senator from Hawaii, chairman of the Senate 
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Inouye, ranking member of the 
Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Stevens, and my 
colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, regarding the need for additional 
Stryker Brigade Combat Teams in our Army National Guard.
  Mr. INOUYE. I would be happy to discuss this important issue with the 
Senators from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH. Sir, we have all watched with pride the bravery of our men 
and women in uniform as they defend freedom around the world. We are 
particularly proud of the members of the National Guard, who fight 
side-by-side with active duty forces. These guards men and women 
deserve the same protection and equipment as the active force with 
which they stand shoulder to shoulder. In combat operations, the 
Stryker vehicle has performed exceptionally and proven itself to be a 
superior fighting vehicle that protects the precious lives of our 
servicemembers. I would like to express my strong support for our 
guards men and women and ask that the Army ensure that funding for 
additional Stryker vehicles with the intent of forming a second Stryker 
Bridge Combat Team for the National Guard figures prominently in 
immediate planning.
  Mr. WYDEN. I would like to join my colleague from Oregon in 
recognizing the Guard soldiers who leave their community to fight for 
their country. And I agree that they deserve the best equipment 
available, including the Stryker vehicles. I think it is also important 
to point out that in the hands of the Guard the Stryker vehicles would 
also be used during domestic disaster situations as well as combat 
overseas. Our citizen soldiers deserve the same equipment as the active 
duty Army, and I too hope that the Army will see the wisdom of 
establishing a Stryker Brigade Combat Team for the National Guard.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senators from Oregon for unwavering support 
of

[[Page 26433]]

our men and women in the Army National Guard. We all recognize and are 
deeply grateful for the service that the National Guard has provided in 
domestic disasters and international conflict. It is well-documented 
that the Stryker brigades have indeed performed exceptionally in Iraq. 
The House has added over $1 billion for Strykers. Your and your 
colleagues' views on Strykers for the Guard are noted and will be taken 
into consideration as we enter into conference.
  Mr. STEVENS. I wish to echo my colleague's support for the men and 
women in the National Guard. I am extremely grateful for their service 
and dedication to our country. I reiterate my colleague's sentiment 
that we will take into consideration our colleague's views on a Stryker 
Brigade for the National Guard.


                  improved engineering design process

  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise to express my support for a 
program sponsored by the U.S. Navy, which will significantly streamline 
the process for planning and executing repair and modernization of our 
submarine fleet at our naval shipyards. The Improved Engineering Design 
Process uses advanced 3-D digital scanning techniques to accurately 
capture the ``as is'' layout of specific ship spaces that will be 
impacted in the repair process. These digital 3-D images can then be 
easily shared to allow collaboration among our public shipyards to 
facilitate greater efficiency in planning and executing repairs and 
modernization. Because of the high operating tempo of our fleet, it is 
essential that we find ways to accomplish these repairs faster and 
return our submarines to operational readiness more quickly. I 
understand that implementation of this process in our public shipyards 
has the potential to produce annual savings of $30 million. I ask the 
distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee if he 
would agree such a program should be further developed and implemented 
as quickly as possible?
  Mr. STEVENS. The project described by the Senator from Maine appears 
to have great merit. Savings of this magnitude are especially important 
at a time when our resources are stretched very thinly.
  Ms. COLLINS. The distinguished ranking member makes a very important 
point regarding the need for pursuing initiatives of this kind so that 
our scarce dollars can go further. I understand that the Navy believes 
strongly in the merits of this program and has considered this program 
for inclusion in future budget requests. I encourage the Navy to not 
only include it in its budget request, but to also identify existing 
funds that may be applied to keeping this program moving forward. In 
addition, I ask the committee ranking member to join me in encouraging 
the Navy to continue supporting this critical program and, if possible, 
to identify potential fiscal year 2008 funds that could be made 
available as we finalize those budget deliberations. I thank the 
Senator for his interest in and support for this important initiative.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator from Maine for bringing this 
important program to my attention.


                                Hawklink

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, along with my colleagues from 
Georgia, Senator Isakson, and Florida, Senator Martinez, I rise to 
address the issue of funding for a key common data link system which 
will provide sensor connectivity for the Navy's MH-60R light airborne 
multipurpose, LAMPS, helicopters with ships in our Navy's carrier 
battle groups. I want to express my sincere appreciation to Chairman 
Inouye for his willingness to consider our concerns regarding this 
vital program. The MH-60R LAMPS helicopter provides the fleet's primary 
capability to detect, identify, and destroy surface and subsurface 
threats to the carrier battle group. Essential air-to-ship sensor 
connectivity will be provided by CDL Hawklink, a high-speed, air-to-
ship, common data link--CDL--compliant, digital data link that 
transmits tactical, video, radar, acoustic, IFF, and raw sensor data 
from MH-60R helicopters to host surface ships. CDL Hawklink will 
provide a significant improvement over current capabilities and will 
greatly improve fleet interoperable communications, dramatically 
enhance transmission of threat identification and targeting data for 
shipboard analysis, and replace current hardware facing critical 
obsolescence and parts non-availability.
  The Navy requested $31.8 million for this shipboard equipment for 
fiscal year 2008. While the House bill would provide full funding, the 
Senate bill would cut $9.6 million from the request. I understand the 
committee cut the request due to excessive cost growth. While we agree 
that this is a reasonable basis for the committee to make such cuts, 
Senator Isakson, Senator Martinez, and I have asked Chairman Inouye to 
consider some of the reasons for the cost growth and the detrimental 
impact such a cut would have on this important program.
  Mr. ISAKSON. I thank my colleagues, Senator Chambliss and Senator 
Martinez, for their work on this issue, as well as Chairman Inouye for 
his consideration and willingness to work with us to restore full 
funding for this critical program. This is an important program for the 
Navy and the Department of Defense. The proposed reduction of $9.6 
million equates to a 30-percent reduction to the Navy's request. A 
funding reduction of this magnitude will result in a quantity reduction 
of seven of the 10 data link units intended to be procured in fiscal 
year 2008. A quantity reduction of this magnitude will significantly 
increase the average unit cost for these units and drive up costs to 
the total program. The initial operational capability for the program 
would also be delayed for at least 1 year, negatively impacting the 
integration of the MH-60R helicopter with the Carrier Strike Group. I 
appreciate the committee's consideration, and I, along with my 
colleagues, appreciate very much the chairman's willingness to work 
with us to restore funding for this essential program in conference.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. I wish to join my friends and colleagues from Georgia 
in supporting funding for the LAMPS MK III procurement line at the full 
authorized level of $31.8 million. This vital program, which the Senate 
Armed Services Committee on which Senator Chambliss and I serve, fully 
authorized the President's request, brings needed capability to the 
pilots and crews of the MH-60 aircraft and the carrier battle groups 
with which they work. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and your committee for 
your hard work on this crucial spending bill and ask that as you go to 
conference with the House you consider our support and the support of 
the Navy and administration for this important program.
  Again, I thank my colleagues from Georgia as well as Chairman Inouye 
and Senator Stevens for their time and hard work.
  Mr. INOUYE. I appreciate very much the diligent work of these three 
Senators in researching this important issue regarding the critical 
air-to-ship sensor connectivity within our Navy's carrier battle groups 
and bringing it to my attention. I appreciate that they understand the 
rationale for the reduction in funding we have proposed for this 
program, and I have listened carefully to their description of the 
impacts that such a reduction might cause in the program. I assure my 
friends, Senator Chambliss, Senator Isakson, and Senator Martinez, that 
I will continue to examine this program carefully as we proceed to 
conference.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the chairman for his generous consideration of 
our concerns, and I also thank my colleagues for their hard work on 
this issue. Senator Inouye is one of the great heroes of our country 
and continues to earn our highest respect and admiration every day here 
in the Senate. It is a privilege and an honor to work with him on these 
important issues.
  Mr. ISAKSON. I join my colleagues in expressing our sincere 
appreciation to Chairman Inouye for his willingness to address our 
concerns. We all appreciate his great service to our Nation--as a 
courageous soldier and a great Senator as well.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. I thank my colleagues for their work on this issue and

[[Page 26434]]

Chairman Inouye for listening to our concerns. We all appreciate his 
commitment to our Nation.


          Battlefield surveillance and Management Radar System

  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the need to 
continue development of a vital next-generation battlefield 
surveillance and management radar system. Battlefield surveillance and 
management is more important than ever for the safety and effectiveness 
of our military, engaged in a variety of combat operations. With the 
advent of increasingly difficult-to-track targets, new technology is 
critically important to keep pace with expanding threats to our men and 
women in uniform. Indeed, U.S. technology should be honed to detect 
threats such as cruise missiles, rockets, as well as slow moving land 
based targets common on the battlefield in counterterrorism operations.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for raising this 
important issue and for his recent letter informing me of the 
criticality of this program.
  Mr. DODD. As the distinguished chairman of the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee knows, production of the Joint Surveillance and Target 
Attack Radar aircraft, or JSTARS--our Nation's principal platform for 
performing these vital missions--was canceled in 2003, with its last 
delivery occurring in 2005. The E-10 multisensor command and control 
aircraft was intended to replace this platform, but that too was 
canceled last year. Fortunately, after constructive discussions with 
the Department of Defense, the Pentagon agreed to continue developing 
the high-tech sensor and radar technologies that were being designed to 
outfit the E-10, the multiplatform radar technology insertion program, 
or MP-RTIP. Unfortunately, the Department of Defense would only commit 
to developing the system via supplemental appropriations instead of the 
standard Defense budgeting process. I remain concerned that such an 
uncertain funding strategy could jeopardize our Nation's ability to 
develop the critical tools our military needs to maintain modern 
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my colleagues for bringing up this critical 
matter. The threats that our troops face on the battlefield continue to 
grow. We, and they, are fortunate that they have JSTARS and its radar 
to give them a critical edge. JSTARS has proven its value on the 
battlefield many times, beginning with Desert Storm when it was rushed 
to the field to give our commanders an unprecedented view of the 
battlefield. Since then, every warfighting commander that has testified 
before us has said that JSTARS is absolutely essential to success. 
Indeed, as the senior Senator from Connecticut has pointed out, the 
cancellation of the E-10 means that JSTARS will remain essential for 
years to come. But the radar on JSTARS is aging at the same time that 
the battlefield is getting more complex and threats harder to detect. 
Fortunately, MP-RTIP can be available to put on JSTARS. I believe we 
must move quickly to develop a version of MP-RTIP and install it on our 
JSTARS aircraft to give our commanders and soldiers the absolute best 
capability that we can. In fact, the Pentagon acknowledged in its most 
recent Quadrennial Defense Review the critical importance of the United 
States improving its ability to detect incoming cruise missiles and 
slow-moving ground vehicles. Current technologies such as JSTARS are 
simply inadequate to track small airborne targets that may easily be 
used to attack our forces with little warning and with horrible effect.
  Mr. DODD. I would like to add to my distinguished colleague from 
Connecticut's remarks. While our troops deserve nothing less than the 
best equipment, it is also essential that we maintain the ability to 
domestically produce this type of advanced technology. I am convinced 
that failure to support MP-RTIPs continued advancement would result in 
a devastating loss to our domestic industrial base, essential for 
producing this type of crucial radar technology. Additionally, it would 
seem as though we had wasted the $1 billion already invested in this 
vital program. Now is not the time to forgo dominance in the realm of 
battlefield surveillance and management--and that is precisely what 
would happen if we ended domestic production of this vital system.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senators from Connecticut for bringing this 
issue before us today. I assure you that I will examine this program 
carefully as the committee reviews the supplemental appropriations 
bill.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the chairman for his leadership on this important 
issue.


                            Patriot Missiles

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a brief 
colloquy with my good friend from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, on Patriot 
missiles. It is my understanding that the Patriot missile is the Army's 
only fielded air and missile defense capability. With only 13 total 
deployable battalions in the force, the Army operational and personnel 
capacity to respond to the needs of the combatant commanders is 
severely stressed.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator for raising this very important 
issue. As the Senator knows, I am a strong supporter of the Patriot.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Your support is well known and very much appreciated. 
This year is a very active year for Patriot--the Patriot pure fleet 
effort will upgrade three tactical battalions from the PAC-2 to the 
PAC-3 configuration and the Patriot ``Grow the Army'' effort to upgrade 
two nontactical battalions of Patriot equipment from the PAC-2 to the 
PAC-3 configuration, and purchase the remaining new equipment for 
stand-up of these battalions.
  It is my understanding that the funding for this effort is a little 
complicated. The Army requested $208 for the Patriot pure fleet effort 
and $294 million in the amended fiscal year 2008 President's budget 
request to fund the activation and equipping of the first additional 
battalion fiscal year 2008 with the second in fiscal year 2010. This 
fiscal year 2008 funding is critical to this schedule to procure long 
lead materials to prevent slip into fiscal year 2012 and beyond. I 
understand that providing these funds in fiscal year 2008 avoids almost 
$100 million in costs. And if that funding is provided, the plan for 
Patriot pure fleet and the ``Grow the Army'' initiative is executable 
and not ahead of the need to establish the two additional battalions. I 
believe that fully funding the Army's amended request in fiscal year 
2008 is in the best interests of the taxpayer and will avoid almost 
$100 million in costs if the Army can award all this work under one 
contract.
  I strongly support conforming the Senate bill to the House mark, 
which included the $294 million for the ``Grow the Army'' effort.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator. As the Senator surely knows, we 
fully funded the Patriot pure fleet effort, one of the Army's top 
priorities in the past 2 years. We will certainly consider the 
additional information provided as we conference the bill.


                        Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

  Mr. BAYH. Madam. President, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the 
esteemed Senator from Hawaii in order to speak about the important role 
medium to high altitude unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, play in 
operations across the world today. We are concerned that the DOD is 
simply not fielding enough of these systems. Despite constant increases 
in procurement and assurance from the Department that they are working 
to address this requirement, medium to high altitude UAVs remain a low 
density high demand asset.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator from Indiana for raising this 
important issue and agree with my good friend that improving our 
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities is a 
critical issue for our military today.
  Mr. BAYH. As my chairman is already fully aware, today's 
counterinsurgency and counterterror operations remain intelligence 
driven. The ultimate success of so many of our military's missions 
depends on the effectiveness of our intelligence capabilities. Truly, 
each and every single operation has an intelligence component.

[[Page 26435]]

  I do not believe that these assets can ever replace people or the 
human intelligence they produce, but they remain highly valuable given 
their limited footprint and ability to collect data across multiple 
spectrums. Simply put, they are force multipliers. Systems like the 
Predator, Reaper, and Sky Warrior have long loiter times and an ability 
to strike immediately. Further, they do not have to wait on the arrival 
of other manned assets before engaging a target, which is something 
that we cannot currently duplicate.
  I have visited Iraq and Afghanistan, where I was told over and again 
the importance of these ISR assets. Further, during a recent Armed 
Services hearing, I was able to question our new Special Operations 
Commander, Admiral Olson, about medium to high altitude UAV 
requirements. He told the committee that there is currently a 30 UAV 
orbit requirement in CENTCOM. However, we only have 12 orbits available 
today. I find this unacceptable.
  In both major theaters of operation, we have been told how difficult 
it can be to have constant surveillance of suspected enemy hideouts. 
Given that insurgents are nearly always local, these hideouts and safe 
havens can often be in the midst of innocent bystanders and be 
difficult to observe covertly. Having eyes on a site to provide the 
target discrimination our commanders need is invaluable.
  No matter how long American forces remain in either theater, I 
strongly believe that some of the last assets to leave will be ISR 
collection in nature. Medium to high altitude UAVs do just that, and I 
ask that my colleague from Hawaii look to address this significant 
shortfall in the upcoming fiscal year 2008 supplemental appropriations 
bill.
  Mr. INOUYE. I can assure the junior Member from Indiana that my 
committee will examine this program carefully and give this request all 
due consideration as the committee reviews the supplemental 
appropriations bill. I thank my colleague for his concern and 
leadership on this important issue.
  Mr. BAYH. And I thank my colleague from Hawaii for his continued 
dedication to the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces.


                            Army R & D--FED

  Mr. LEVIN. I would like to enter into a colloquy with my friend from 
Hawaii, the Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, 
Senator Inouye.
  The bill before us includes two significant cuts to the President's 
budget request in the area of Army research and development on combat 
vehicle and automotive technology. The House-passed version of this 
bill and both the House and Senate-passed versions of the National 
Defense Authorization Act do not include these cuts.
  The first cut of $10 million eliminated funding for a fuel efficiency 
ground vehicle demonstrator, FED. This program is scheduled to be a 3-
year effort by the ground vehicle experts at the U.S. Army Tank-
Automotive Research, Development, and Engineering Center to develop a 
tactical ground vehicle that is significantly lighter and more fuel 
efficient than current high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles, 
HMMWVs. Specifically, this program will focus on the overall design of 
the vehicle as well as components including hybrid electric propulsion 
systems, fuel cells, advanced batteries, and new armor solutions.
  This project is key to advancing technologies that will allow the 
Department of Defense to meet the fuel efficiency goals it has 
established. Additionally, this project is complementary to the 
development of the new joint light tactical vehicle and will provide an 
opportunity to demonstrate a number of new technologies, including on-
board power solutions, that can be spun into the vehicle as its 
development moves forward. Lastly, this project provides the 
opportunity to test technologies that will give our military new 
capabilities, including silent overwatch and mobile power sources on 
the battlefield.
  The second cut of $14.215 million eliminated funding for future 
combat systems, FCS, science and technology activities in the area of 
robotics. FCS is the Army's only major transformation project, and we 
must remain committed to this program. These funds would be used to 
support the development of electronics and control systems for unmanned 
ground vehicles that will eventually be integrated into the FCS 
network. Without these funds, the Army will not have the ability to 
build a large scale unmanned ground vehicle demonstrator to test new 
robotics technologies.
  These funds are critical to advancing and testing new robotics 
technologies so they can be rapidly deployed to our warfighters around 
the world. Cutting these funds will reduce the Army's ability to 
develop and test robotics technologies needed by our troops and 
increase the risk that they will not be available for rapid transition 
into the hands of warfighters.
  I am sure my colleague would agree that we should do more, not less, 
to achieve increased fuel efficiency in our military ground vehicles 
and more rapidly mature the capabilities of unmanned ground vehicle 
technologies.
  Mr. INOUYE. My colleague from Michigan raises some important points. 
Reducing fuel consumption in the field is an urgent need of our 
military. It will not only reduce costs but also reduce the risk to our 
troops because fewer fuel deliveries will need to be made to dangerous 
areas.
  I also agree that future combat systems, and especially the new 
robotics technologies it will bring, are critically important to our 
troops. These technologies will continue to play an important role in 
the transition of our military to a more mobile, lethal, and effective 
force.
  I commit to my colleague from Michigan that the committee will 
reevaluate the cuts he has highlighted when the bill goes to conference 
with the House.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I rise to offer for the Record, the 
Budget Committee's official scoring of H.R. 3222, the Department of 
Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2008.
  The bill, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, 
provides $459.3 billion in discretionary budget authority for fiscal 
year 2008, which will result in new outlays of $312.2 billion. When 
outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account, 
discretionary outlays for the bill will total $476 billion.
  The Senate-reported bill is at its section 302(b) allocation for 
budget authority and $3 million below its allocation for outlays. No 
points of order lie against the committee-reported bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the table displaying the Budget 
Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


        H.R. 3222, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008
  [Spending comparisons--Senate Reported Bill (in millions of dollars)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     General
                                          Defense    purpose     Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-Reported Bill:
    Budget Authority...................    459,332          0    459,332
    Outlays............................    475,977          0    475,977
Senate 302(b) allocation:
    Budget Authority...................  .........  .........    459,332
    Outlays............................  .........  .........    475,980
House-passed bill:
    Budget Authority...................    459,319         13    459,332
    Outlays............................    473,026         53    473,079
President's Request:
    Budget Authority...................    462,879          0    462,879
    Outlays............................    477,836          8    477,844
   Senate-Reported Bill Compared To:
Senate 302(b) allocation:
    Budget Authority...................  .........  .........          0
    Outlays............................  .........  .........         -3
House-passed bill:
    Budget Authority...................         13        -13          0
    Outlays............................      2,951        -53      2,898
President's Request:
    Budget Authority...................     -3,547          0     -3,547
    Outlays............................     -1,859         -8     -1,867
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the Defense Appropriations Act 
for Fiscal Year 2008 is one of the most important of the appropriations 
measures that we will consider this year. This legislation will provide 
critical funding for the men and women in our Armed Forces who, at this 
very moment, are in harm's way. Because we must continue to support 
them, I support the passage of this bill, but I have serious concerns 
over the earmarks contained in the committee report accompanying this 
bill.
  The bill reported out of committee appropriates over $448 billion. 
This is

[[Page 26436]]

more than $3.5 billion below the President's request and, notably, does 
not include any additional funds for ongoing operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. As is the case with so many of the appropriations bills 
that come to the floor, the report accompanying it contains numerous 
earmarks that were neither requested nor authorized, to the tune of 
over $5 billion. During a time of war, we should be making every effort 
to support the President's budget request instead of slashing it and 
then adding earmarks for favored projects.
  Every day, we ask the brave men and women who fight for freedom on 
behalf of our great Nation, and their families, to make sacrifices. 
They sacrifice in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere throughout the 
globe. We in the Congress should exercise some degree of self-restraint 
and sacrifice, as well.
  Let me mention a few of the add-ons that were included in the bill's 
accompanying report: $2 million for a project involving brown tree 
snakes; a total of $3 million for an electronic futures trading 
program; $2 million for research on high-pressure microwave processing 
for meals-ready-to-eat; $2 million for the Marines to buy boot socks 
cushioned with merino wool; $2 million to buy extended cold-weather 
gloves for the Army; $2 million for research on a technology that 
extracts pure water from the air; $2 million for research on a 
multispectral fingerprint device; $4 million to study the Northern 
Lights; $6.5 million for small instrument development for Magdalena 
Ridge Observatory; and $10 million for Eielson Utilidors.
  Once again, there are also many earmarks that may be for worthy 
causes, but there is no compelling national defense reason for these 
items to be funded through this legislation. These earmarks include 
$150 million for a peer-reviewed breast cancer research program; $80 
million for a similar prostate cancer research program; $10 million for 
ovarian cancer research; $27.5 million for the Hawaii Federal Health 
Care Network; $10 million to a program called Ceros, for river and 
oceanic research; $6.1 million for research on a new engine called 
homopolar hybrid drive; $2 million for research into putting humans 
into a state similar to hibernation so they can be kept alive long 
enough for doctors to administer treatments; and $3 million for 
research for a 2D-3D face-recognition system.
  As we are engaged fully in the global war on terror, it is imperative 
that we get the most out of each and every defense dollar. The money 
that is being diverted to projects like the ones I have mentioned could 
instead be used for body armor or other critical needs to protect our 
troops and help win the war on terror. The earmarks I have mentioned 
are just a small sampling of the many unrequested earmarks that fill 
the accompanying report. These earmarks are draining our precious 
resources and are not vital to our long-term national security. I 
strongly encourage the Federal agencies affected to use their judgement 
to ensure they are not allocating resources to projects that are not 
legislatively mandated or authorized but rather, are merely the wish 
lists of the committee.
  In the report accompanying the bill, there are several authorizing 
provisions, which by their nature have no place in an appropriations 
vehicle, including language directing the Air Force to provide funding 
to continue the operation of the 36th Rescue Flight assigned to 
Fairchild AFB in Washington State and a provision requiring funding for 
Naval archeology programs in the Lake Champlain Basin.
  Similarly, in the bill, a provision directs the Air Force to complete 
upgrades and additions to Alaskan range infrastructure and training 
areas, as well as at Hickman AFB in Hawaii. A similar provision calls 
for $3 million to be spent on upgrades and maintenance at the Pacific 
Missile Range Facility. Another provision prohibits the 
disestablishment of the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron in 
Mississippi.
  Some of these authorizing provisions are outside of the scope of 
defense policy, including language providing for the Navy to transfer 
up to $20 million to the Interior Department for any expenses 
associated with the construction of the USS Arizona Memorial Museum and 
Visitors Center.
  I would also like to discuss the ``Buy America'' restrictions that 
cost the Department of Defense and the American taxpayers. Like in 
previous appropriations bills, this year's bill imposes a number of 
``Buy America'' restrictions. For example, the bill would prevent the 
Defense Department's purchase of particular welded shipboard anchor and 
mooring chain; carbon alloy or armor steel plate; ball and roller 
bearings, unless they are manufactured in the United States. It would 
put similar restrictions on the Department's buying public vessels, 
food, certain textile materials, particular Navy supply ships, as well 
as its purchase of coal as a fuel source for certain military 
installations in Germany. Another ``Buy America'' provision prohibits 
the Department's buying any supercomputer that is not manufactured in 
the United States.
  I continue to be very concerned about the potential impact on 
readiness of our restrictive trade policies with our allies. From a 
philosophical point of view, I oppose these types of policies as 
protectionist. I believe free trade is an important element in 
improving relations among all nations and essential to economic growth. 
From a practical standpoint, ``Buy America'' restrictions, such as 
those contained in this bill, could seriously impair our ability to 
compete freely in international markets and also could result in the 
loss of existing business from long-standing trade partners.
  I have no doubt that some of these provisions may be important while 
others are questionable at best. What is important is that we follow 
the authorization process and restrain ourselves from using 
appropriations bills to authorize projects on this bill that have not 
been requested by the Department of Defense, nor approved by the 
authorizing committee.
  Mr. President, there can be no doubt that this legislation is very 
important to the ultimate success of our ongoing war on terror. Yet I 
believe it is important to point out to the American taxpayer where 
some of their money is going and some of it is not going to projects 
that have anything to do with our defense.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam. President, I rise today to express my support for 
H.R. 3222, the fiscal year 2008 Department of Defense Appropriations 
bill. We have no greater obligation as elected officials, than to take 
care of our troops and their families who have sacrificed on our 
behalf. I am proud to support my colleagues on the Appropriations 
Committee who have crafted a bill that sets the right priorities for 
our military and our country by providing critical equipment and 
training, strengthening military health care for our troops and their 
families, and giving our military families the pay raise they deserve.
  The legislation before us today provides over $1 billion more for 
National Guard equipment than the administration requested. This 
funding is critical, not only to support National Guard troops who are 
fighting for our country overseas but to the Guard's ability to protect 
us here at home. National Guard units across the country have been 
giving up the great majority of their equipment to units headed to Iraq 
and Afghanistan. The resulting shortages were felt just recently in 
Greenburg, KS, when that town was flattened by a tornado. Kansas 
Governor Kathleen Sebelius said the State's response was hampered 
because much of the equipment usually positioned around the State to 
respond to emergencies was in Iraq.
  While Maryland does not face the same threat of tornadoes, my home 
State, like every State, has its own unique challenges. Maryland must 
be prepared to respond not only to hurricanes and severe snow storms 
but to attacks against Federal assets in the national capital region. 
After the mobilization of several Maryland Guard units to Iraq, the 
Guard has said it is without the necessary equipment to provide the 
robust response that Marylanders and the rest of our Nation expect. 
H.R. 3222 takes action to address this critical shortfall in my State 
and every State.

[[Page 26437]]

  This important bill provides military personnel 3.5 percent pay 
raise, half a percent more than the administration requested. President 
Bush has threatened to veto this bill over the 0.5 percent additional 
increase stating that the ``[t]roops don't need bigger pay raises.'' 
Well, I disagree.
  The 3 percent raise would be enough to keep pace with the average 
increase in private sector wages last year. The 3.5 percent raise is 
enough to not just match the private sector but to slightly close the 
estimated 4 percent gap that remains between average military and 
private sector raises. This gap hurts recruiting and retention for our 
All-Volunteer Force and is not a handicap our military should shoulder 
when the war effort has forced the military to increase its overall 
size at the same time it has depressed recruiting efforts.
  H.R. 3222 makes care for our mentally and physically wounded military 
men and women a priority. The legislation adds $948.9 million above the 
President's request for military health care, totaling $23.5 billion. 
Of the $23.5 billion, $486 million was added to reverse planned cuts to 
military hospitals.
  In addition, H.R. 3222 provides significant funds to develop 
treatments for the signature injuries of the wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan including brain injury and loss of limbs. Uncontrolled 
internal or external hemorrhage is the foremost preventable cause of 
death in the prehospital period for military combat trauma. Some 50 
percent of the deaths our troops have suffered in Iraq and Afghanistan 
could have been prevented if better products were available to control 
bleeding.
  The measure provides $73 million to fund programs authorized in the 
Senate-passed Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warrior Act. The Wounded 
Warriors bill addresses the urgent medical needs of wounded 
servicemembers, especially those suffering from post-traumatic stress 
disorder and traumatic brain injuries.
  I am particularly proud that H.R. 3222 funds promising techniques 
being pioneered in Maryland to develop bandages that are capable of 
stopping severe bleeding in the field and limb and tissue transplants 
that are viable over the many years we hope our young wounded warriors 
will live after returning home from war.
  H.R. 3222 places a premium not only on providing our troops the 
equipment they need to avoid injury in the first place but to develop 
better technology going forward. The legislation provides $75.4 
billion, $268.9 million above the administration's request for 
research, development, test, and evaluation of new technologies. Some 
money will go to folks in Maryland developing methods of detecting 
explosives at a greater distance as well as hybrid and alternative fuel 
source engines. These engines not only reduce our dependence on oil and 
decrease emissions; they reduce the need to ship fuel along supply 
routes in Iraq and Afghanistan that have been a point of vulnerability 
for our forces.
  Today, I am proud to be part of a body that is meeting its 
obligations to our troops, their families, and our military as an 
institution. I applaud Senators Byrd, Cochran, Inouye, and Stevens and 
my other colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their excellent 
work and look forward to quick passage of this critical legislation.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that no further 
amendments be in order and that the bill be read a third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment of the amendments and third 
reading of the bill
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read 
a third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  Mr. INOUYE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I wish to take a moment to say that my 
wife and I watched closely Ken Burns' production of ``The War'' or, as 
Katharine Phillips Singer from Mobile, called it, ``The Wah.'' Some of 
the people we know there have enjoyed and been so impressed with the 
remarks of Senator Inouye as he was interviewed about his experiences 
during World War II. His heroism and commitment to America was 
demonstrated in so many different ways in that program. He spoke so 
eloquently and so insightfully about the nature of war, the difficulty 
and brutality of war. I think not only did he affirm the courageousness 
of our soldiers, but he gives us cause to look for ways to avoid such 
events in the future. It is worth noting.
  Hopefully, that whole production will be seen around the country and 
more people will get a better picture of the enormity, the breadth, the 
commitment our Nation gave during that decisive period in our history.
  Senator Stevens also, of course, was a person who served courageously 
in that conflict. It is an honor for me today to be with these two fine 
patriots as we apparently move to final passage of this important 
legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Alabama for his 
generous remarks. I thank him very much.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, there will be no more rollcall votes 
tonight. We received permission from both sides to voice vote the 
matter that is now before the Senate.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Kyl be added as cosponsor to amendment No. 3192.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to vote on passage of the bill, that upon passage, the Senate 
insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to 
appoint conferees on the part of the Senate with the subcommittee 
appointed as conferees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill having been read the third time, the question is on the 
passage of the bill, as amended.
  The bill (H.R. 3222), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Under the previous order, the 
Senate insists on its amendment and requests a conference with the 
House, and the Chair appoints Mr. Inouye, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
Harkin, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Feinstein, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Kohl, 
Mrs. Murray, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Specter, Mr. Domenici, Mr. 
Bond, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Gregg, and Mrs. Hutchison as 
conferees on the part of the Senate.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today, I was pleased to support the fiscal 
year 2008 Defense Appropriations Act. I would like to thank the 
Chairman of

[[Page 26438]]

the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, my good friend and colleague 
from Hawaii, Senator Inouye and Ranking Member Stevens for their 
leadership in managing this bill with such impartiality and expediency. 
Not only does this bill fully support the facility, training and 
equipment requirements of our men and women in uniform, but it also 
provides a much needed increase in funds for military health over the 
President's budget request to ensure that members of our Armed Forces 
receive the care that they deserve. As chairman of the Veteran's 
Affairs Committee, I strongly supported the additional inclusion of $73 
million to fund the programs authorized in the Dignified Treatment of 
Wounded Warrior Act which addresses shortfalls in the care provided to 
our injured or ill soldiers.
  I also applaud the inclusion in this bill of a provision which 
recognizes the dedication and sacrifices made by both the members of 
our Armed Forces and their civilian counterparts by providing a 3.5 
percent increase in basic pay for all servicemembers and civilian 
personnel, a 0.5 percent increase above the President's request. I was 
also pleased to support the addition of $1 billion to properly equip 
the National Guard and Reserve forces who risk their lives to defend 
our nation.
  As this bill moves toward conference I will continue to work with my 
colleagues in both the Senate and the House to ensure that our military 
members and their families have the resources they need and the support 
they have earned.

                          ____________________