[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18288-18317]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 3001, which the clerk will report.

[[Page 18289]]

  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 3001) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2009 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities for the Department of Energy, to prescribe 
     military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for 
     other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid amendment No. 5290, to change the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 5291 (to amendment No. 5290), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Armed 
     Services with instructions to report back forthwith, with 
     Reid amendment No. 5292 (to the instructions of the motion to 
     recommit), to change the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 5293 (to the instructions of the motion 
     to recommit to the bill), of a perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 5294 (to amendment No. 5293), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Levin (for Leahy/Byrd) amendment No. 5323, to provide for a 
     suspension of certain statutes of limitations when Congress 
     has authorized the use of military force.


                           Amendment No. 5323

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the distinguished senior Senator from 
Michigan on the Senate floor, the chairman of the committee, and the 
distinguished Senator from Alabama, a key member of the committee. I 
will speak on the Wartime Enforcement of Fraud Act. This was introduced 
last night. It is one I hope the Senate will wholeheartedly accept.
  For more than 5 years, America has been fighting wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. In fact, we have been there longer than we were in World 
War II. But efforts to investigate contracting fraud during these wars 
continue to lag. Part of the reason is not because the authorities 
don't want to find out whether there has been fraud, but it is 
difficult to uncover fraud when you are in a shooting war and conflicts 
continue.
  The problem is not new--this has happened before--and the solution is 
not new. Current law extends the statute of limitations for contracting 
fraud offenses during wartime to address this problem. In other words, 
if fraud has occurred, you have a certain statute of limitations. We 
would simply extend it. This commonsense law was passed by Congress 
during World War II with the support of President Roosevelt. A similar 
provision was passed in World War I. Those were wars in which we were 
involved for less time than we have been involved in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Current law only applies to declared wars and not to 
circumstances where Congress only authorizes the use of military force 
rather than officially declaring war. So the extension of the statute 
of limitations doesn't apply to the ongoing wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  The bipartisan Wartime Enforcement of Fraud Act will close that 
technical loophole. It will apply the law that we already have on the 
books, but it will apply it not only to declared wars but also to the 
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was pleased to join with Senator 
Grassley of Iowa earlier this year to introduce this legislative fix, 
and the Judiciary Committee reported this measure before the August 
recess. With each passing day, we are losing the legal authority to 
prosecute fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan because the existing law that 
extends the statute of limitations does not apply to these wars.
  We have an obligation, no matter whether one is for or against the 
war in Iraq, to protect the public interest and certainly to protect 
taxpayer dollars during times of war. This simple amendment will allow 
us to do so. We have done that in past wars. Iraq and Afghanistan 
should be no different.
  We have well-documented reports of fraud and abuse, as we have seen 
in other wars. When we are spending billions of dollars, often in a 
hurry, it is an open invitation for people to put their own interests 
ahead of the interests of the country, and those people who then 
defraud our great Nation at a time of war should be punished for it. 
They should not be let off the hook. Too many brave men and women are 
putting their lives on the line in Iraq and Afghanistan. Too many 
brave, patriotic Americans are doing everything they possibly can over 
there, risking and often losing their lives every day. We should not 
allow those who want to make money out of their sacrifice and defraud 
the Government to get away with it. The bill being paid by the American 
taxpayers for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is high enough. As in 
past wars, Congress should do all it can to ensure their money is not 
lost to waste and fraud.
  I hope Senators will join in this effort. This is not creating a new 
crime. It is simply saying those who do commit crimes, who do defraud 
America, who do defraud people who are over there serving our country, 
ought to be punished. I find it hard to think Members would disagree 
with that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Leahy for his amendment 
and his interest in dealing with a difficulty that has impacted real 
life. Contractors should be held to account, and there is difficulty in 
gathering the evidence necessary in a prompt way in a time of conflict 
to effectively carry out prosecutions--I can see as a former Federal 
prosecutor--within the time of the statute of limitations. There is 
only one concern I have about it, and I will address that in a moment.
  But, fundamentally, the Senator is correct. We have discussed this a 
good bit in the Judiciary Committee, where Senator Leahy is chairman. 
We did the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act that I sponsored 
and led the first one of those. We do have to be careful because it can 
have unintended consequences.
  The trial of a marine in California for an act in Iraq that he was 
acquitted for just a few days ago resulted from the bill that we 
passed. I don't think any of us at the time thought that we were 
subjecting military persons to a civilian trial when we were dealing, 
we thought at the time, with defense contractors. We need to be careful 
as we deal with the issue. I know Senator Leahy agrees with that. For 
the most part, I understand and support what he is attempting to do.
  The statute of limitations is an important principle of law. It is 
something as a Federal prosecutor, as attorney general of Alabama, I 
had to deal with on many occasions. My colleagues probably know that an 
individual who commits armed bank robbery, if he is not prosecuted 
within 5 years, cannot be prosecuted. If a person commits arson, they 
can't be prosecuted. It is not from the time of discovery of the 
offense, it is from the commission of the offense because we are 
talking about criminal law. We have a great heritage of understanding 
the difficulties faced when we put somebody in jail based on old 
evidence that is somewhat difficult to deal with.
  With regard to civil actions, we have a number of statutes of 
limitations that commence on discovery of the wrong, but for the most 
part, except for murder, certain crimes, I think for almost all crimes 
dealing with death and maybe one with child sexual abuse, there is a 
limited statute of limitations.
  The statute of limitations on most crimes in the Federal court, even 
serious ones, is 5 years. I do believe during the debate that we 
extended the statute on S&L fraud to 8 years. The truth is, these 
savings and loans would go bankrupt 4 or 5 years after the crime was 
committed. Then it takes 2 or 3 years to investigate it. By then the 
statute had run, and you have, red-handed, defrauding the people, and 
you couldn't prosecute the case. I understand the difficulties we are 
dealing with here.
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.
  Mr. LEAHY. We also have the case that most jurisdictions are under a 
statute of limitations. If you have a crime within a jurisdiction, but 
then the person flees to escape prosecution, the statute does not run 
in that circumstance. While this is not on all fours, when you have a 
war situation where people are shooting each other, it is very 
difficult to go over and just gather the evidence.
  The Senator is absolutely correct. The bank robbery that occurs, you 
know it occurred at that moment.

[[Page 18290]]

Somebody came in, put a gun to the teller's face, and stole the money 
and left. The investigators immediately start investigating the crime. 
Because of the person's jurisdiction, you have to investigate the crime 
and arrest them within the 5 years. Here the difficulty is 
investigating the crime when many times it is hidden. The crime is 
hidden, using the savings and loan example. I am simply trying to do 
what we did in World War II and World War I--I don't recall whether we 
did it in Korea or not--in past wars. I have a reluctance to give any 
cover to those who defraud us. We have so many contractors over there 
who are putting their own lives on the line, playing by the rules, 
doing everything right. They should be commended for that. We have 
others who try to take advantage of this situation when others are 
putting their lives on the line and sometimes losing their lives. We 
ought to nail them. I think we ought to nail them very hard.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I agree. That is why we have passed the Military 
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, why we have expanded it, under the 
leadership of the chairman. I supported making sure that contractors 
were fully covered from the original act based on a crime that came to 
my attention where a young person was sexually molested and the host 
country didn't want to prosecute it and they couldn't be tried and 
court-martialed because the person was a contractor, not a military 
person. We made that possible.
  Since we are in a world in which some of these authorizations to use 
military force may be very long indeed, it is determined not by what we 
do so much as by the actions of the enemy; that is, if they continue to 
attack us, I think our authorization of military force will continue 
many years perhaps. If the conflict ends, it could be ended sooner. So 
we could be in a position, just as a matter of law, of limiting the 
amount we are exposing a contractor to of criminal prosecutions for 
something that happened many years before, when actually in the fog of 
war, sometimes it is more difficult to handle things correctly. It 
would be certainly more difficult to gather evidence, and it is more 
difficult to get witnesses here and that kind of thing.
  My suggestion would be that we do as we did with the statute of 
limitations on S&L fraud but have some sort of definite end to it 
because some of these extended wartime efforts could go on for a number 
of years. I don't see as a matter of principle, not specific facts, why 
a contractor who commits fraud in the United States gets the protection 
of a 5-year statute, even if it is against the Department of Defense, 
but one in Iraq, in the chaos of war that even affects them--their 
ability to maintain discipline over their workers is sometimes more 
difficult, frankly--that they would be prosecuted with an unlimited 
statute of limitations. That is something we could discuss, and I ask 
the Senator to think about it. I don't take any fundamental objection 
to the work he is doing. It is fundamentally sound and good, and I 
support it.
  I will say this, if I could: In Toussie v. United States, the Supreme 
Court held:

       The purpose of a statute of limitations--

  Which I want to say is available in all cases, for all kinds of 
crimes, except very few, such as murder--

       The purpose of a statute of limitations is to limit 
     exposure to criminal prosecution to a certain fixed period of 
     time following the occurrence of those acts the legislature 
     has decided to punish by criminal sanctions. Such a 
     limitation is designed to protect individuals from having to 
     defend themselves against charges when the basic facts may 
     have become obscured by the passage of time and to minimize 
     the danger of official punishment because of acts in the far-
     distant past. Such a time limit may also have the salutary 
     effect of encouraging law enforcement officials promptly to 
     investigate suspected criminal activity.

  The Court has further held:

       Passage of time, whether before or after arrest, may impair 
     memories, cause evidence to be lost, deprive the defendant of 
     witnesses, and otherwise interfere with his ability to defend 
     himself. . . .Possible prejudice is inherent in any delay, 
     however short; it may also weaken the Government's case. . . 
     .Such a [statute of] limitation is designed to protect 
     individuals from having to defend themselves against charges 
     when the basic facts may have become obscured by the passage 
     of time and to minimize the danger of official punishment 
     because of acts in the far-distant past. Such a time limit 
     may also have the salutary effect of encouraging [cases to be 
     prosecuted promptly].

  But I will say that is the only concern I have. I thank the Senator 
for raising this issue. It will definitely close a loophole.
  I would note I had the honor last night to be on an airplane coming 
back from Alabama sitting by a young individual who served 2 years as a 
contractor in Iraq. He is going back for a third year. We talked about 
some of these things. I did not know this amendment was coming up. But 
he talked about that some of the people do not perform very well. Many 
of them are very hard working. Many of them are former military people 
who served with great distinction.
  But in this time of war, some people do lose their discipline, and 
fraud is a matter of real risk. We do need to watch every penny, and we 
certainly do not need to have unscrupulous contractors billing the 
American people for work they do not perform, for making false claims 
to the Government. I think a statute of limitations probably needs to 
be extended in this case.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this is an important amendment that 
appropriately recognizes the United States is now engaged in combat 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan without a formal declaration of war. 
The amendment takes the appropriate step of modifying the statute of 
limitations to cases in which the use of force has been authorized 
without a formal declaration of war.
  I very much welcome--and I am sure Senator Leahy does as well--the 
support of the Senator from Alabama. I do not know of anybody else who 
wants to speak on this amendment. Unless the Senator from Alabama does, 
I will suggest then that we move on to the next amendment.
  I understand there is going to be a unanimous consent request that 
may interrupt that flow, but before we get to that, if the Senator from 
Alabama knows of no other--first of all, let me ask the Senator whether 
he does know of any other speaker on the amendment.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am not aware of any.
  Mr. LEVIN. Is the Senator willing to have this amendment voice voted 
at this time?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would like to discuss that a little more with Senator 
Leahy, and perhaps he will convince me that my suggestion is not wise, 
so I would object at this time.
  Mr. LEVIN. All right. If we could get the yeas and nays on this 
amendment so we could move on.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I understand, under the current order, we 
would now be moving to consideration of the Vitter amendment regarding 
missile defense for 2 hours of debate. Those who are interested in that 
amendment are urged to come to the floor so we could begin that debate. 
But at this time I will yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized for 10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Government Spending

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I heard, this morning, the majority leader 
talk about the objection to the request by Senator Gregg. I do not 
believe there is anybody in this body who does not want us to fix the 
highway trust problem, and it will probably be the fact that there will 
be no amendments offered at the direction of the majority leader, which 
I think is probably somewhat tragic because we would not be able to 
have the debate we need to have on this issue.

[[Page 18291]]

  But it should not be lost on the American public that some $16 
billion in the last highway bill was not for roads, bridges or 
highways. One of the amendments that was going to be discussed, had we 
had the opportunity to amend it--which we are not because the majority 
leader is not going to grant that opportunity--was the idea that of the 
$8.5 billion we are going to put in there, no new projects ought to be 
started unless they are for roads, bridges or highways. In other words, 
we should not be building museums. We should not be building parking 
garages. We should not be doing ancillary work that does not have 
anything to do with true transportation needs associated with the trust 
fund. That was the only amendment we were going to offer.
  All the States are going to be at a significant disadvantage if we do 
not do this. But I found it somewhat curious that before we left we had 
an omnibus bill that had to spend $10 billion. We had to do it. We were 
contrasted as terrible because we did not agree with it. Now we have $8 
billion, and we want to do it, we want to debate it, and we are not 
going to be allowed to debate or amend it. I would think that is to the 
detriment of the body, that, again, we are losing the history of this 
body, we are losing the deliberative nature of the body, and at the 
whim of the majority leader, because we have an emergency, we have to 
have a unanimous consent, we do not even have to have a vote, and that 
is the only way we can do it. I think it hurts the institution in the 
long run.
  As far as what Senator Reid said about the omnibus package he put 
forward, let me correct the Record. First of all, the childhood cancer 
bill was agreed to by unanimous consent. It was not even a part of that 
package he claimed it was. The irony is, as we heard from the majority 
leader's statement today his disdain for the largest deficit in 
history, do you realize the President of the United States cannot spend 
one penny unless we let him? If there is a deficit in this country, it 
says a whole lot more about this body and the House than it says about 
the President. We are the ones who approve the spending.
  So far, this year, we are going to spend off-budget about $270 
billion. Where is that money going to come from? It is going to come 
from the next two generations paying it back. So I find it curious we 
have to have a bill that spends $10 billion and then we are critical of 
the deficit and now we have to have a bill that is going to spend $8 
billion, but we cannot have any amendments and we cannot debate it in a 
thoughtful way and still get it done this week. We could get it done in 
less than 2 or 3 hours.
  It shows you the lack of consistency. To be fair, Senator Reid has a 
very difficult job. This is a hard place to manage, there is no 
question about it. But we are getting on the edge of a lack of 
fairness. We are getting very close to an edge where the traditions of 
the Senate are going to be thrown out the window.
  As we look at it, as Senator Reid complains about the deficit, I 
would remind that he sponsored $531.2 billion worth of new spending in 
the 109th Congress. So far, he has sponsored $56.7 billion in the first 
8 months of 2007. So it is another $150 or $200 billion in this 
Congress. We cannot continue to have more and more new spending without 
getting rid of some of the spending that is not effective.
  So when we have the claims that we are disgusted with the deficit, 
and then we can have $500-plus billion sponsorship of new spending and 
routine votes against an earmark moratorium, against the idea of 
stealing money from Social Security to spend new money, against 
amendments that say we have a moral obligation to offset the cost of 
new spending so we do not charge it to our children, against 
prioritizing the reconstruction of Louisiana bridges instead of 
earmarks in Alaska, these are the votes of Senator Reid.
  So the disdain for the--and I have three pages of them by the way, 
all similar. So the fact is, our country is in trouble right now. We 
are going to have a trillion-dollar--a trillion; that is with a ``T''--
deficit next year. We have $382 billion worth of documented waste and 
fraud every year in this Government. We have not had one amendment to 
get rid of any of it in this body this year that has passed, save the 
hippie museum in New York. That is it. We saved $1 million out of $380 
billion of waste, fraud, and duplication.
  So it rings hollow to come down and complain about the administration 
when they cannot spend one penny we do not send to them. We are at 
least as culpable and liable as the administration in terms of this 
deficit. To say we cannot debate and clean up the priorities of the 
transportation fund by saying it is going to be spent on some of the 
240,000 bridges that are in desperate shape in this country and spend 
the money on highways and roads and bridges and not other things that 
benefit Members of this body but do not benefit the majority public and 
are outside the transportation goals of every State transportation 
department in this country rings hollow.
  There are a lot of great things we can do. We can help people with 
disease. We can solve problems. He mentioned the Emmett Till bill. He 
objected twice to a compromise that the Emmett Till board had agreed 
to--twice--that Senator Dodd had agreed to, that Senator Biden had 
agreed to. As far as the child pornography, Senator Dodd and Senator 
Biden had agreed to that too. It was offered as a unanimous consent 
request twice. Both had agreed to it.
  Is this about politics or is this about doing things for the country? 
I would tell you the evidence shows it is about politics. We need to 
wake up. Our country is at a crossroads. We had Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac 
taken over. The first number, of course, is low: $200 billion. It is 
going to be $600 or $700 billion that we are going to charge to our 
kids for the mismanagement of those two agencies. That is going to get 
added next year. We are getting ready to do another emergency 
supplemental that everybody is piling things on. It is going to be $50 
or $60 billion. It is going to be another free-for-all. It is going to 
fly through here in spite of my votes against it. We are going to do 
another stimulus package--none of it we have the money for. We are 
going to borrow every bit of it. We are compounding to make the 
problems worse. Because we will not work on the $350 to $380 billion 
worth of waste, and we would not even put an effort out toward that, we 
are going to continue to see a downward spiral in our economic position 
in this world.
  So I would think most Americans, as we add $8.5 billion back to the 
highway trust fund, would want us to see that it goes for highways, 
bridges, and roads, not for earmarks, special pork projects that make 
us look good at home that are outside the boundaries and the priority 
lists of the State departments of transportation. That was the 
amendment I was going to offer. I knew I was going to lose, but we 
ought to have the debate.
  The fact is the majority leader does not want us to have the debate. 
We could dispense with the bill in less than 3 hours, be done with it, 
and it could be going to the President, but we have decided we want to 
make it political. It is not about what is best for the long-term 
interests of this country, but about what is best for the upcoming 
election in November. To me that is a disservice to this body and it is 
a disservice to the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vitter Amendment No. 5280

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up Vitter 
amendment No. 5280.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter], for himself, Mr. 
     Inhofe, and Mr. Kyl, proposes an amendment numbered 5280.


[[Page 18292]]

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

(Purpose: To authorize, with an offset, an additional $100,000,000 for 
Procurement, Defense-wide, and an additional $171,000,000 for Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, for near-term missile 
                    defense programs and activities)

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

     SEC. 237. ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY 
                   FOR NEAR-TERM MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAMS AND 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Additional Amount for Procurement Activities.--
       (1) Additional amount for procurement, defense-wide.--The 
     amount authorized to be appropriated by section 104(1) for 
     Defense-wide procurement is hereby increased by $100,000,000.
       (2) Availability.--Notwithstanding section 1002, of the 
     amount authorized to be appropriated by section 104(1) for 
     Defense-wide procurement, as increased by paragraph (1), up 
     to $100,000,000 may be available for the Missile Defense 
     Agency for the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) 
     system for the purpose of advanced procurement of interceptor 
     and ground components for Fire Unit #3 and Fire Unit #4, 
     including component AN/TPY-2.
       (3) Supplement not supplant.--The amount available under 
     paragraph (2) for the purpose set forth in that paragraph is 
     in addition to any other amounts available in this Act for 
     such purpose.
       (b) Additional Amount for Research, Development, Test, and 
     Evaluation Activities.--
       (1) Additional amount for research, development, test, and 
     evaluation, defense-wide.--The amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 201(4) for research, development, 
     test, and evaluation, Defense-wide, is hereby increased by 
     $171,000,000.
       (2) Availability.--Notwithstanding section 1002, of the 
     amount authorized to be appropriated by section 201(4) for 
     research, development, test, and evaluation, Defense-wide, as 
     increased by paragraph (1), amounts are available to the 
     Missile Defense Agency as follows:
       (A) Up to $87,000,000 for Ground Based Midcourse Defense 
     for purposes as follows:
       (i) To implement a rolling target spare.
       (ii) To maintain inventory for additional short-notice test 
     events.
       (B) Up to $54,000,000 for the purpose of equipping two 
     Aegis Class cruisers of the Navy with Ballistic Missile 
     Defense Systems (BMDSs).
       (C) Up to $30,000,000 for the purpose of reducing the 
     technical risk of the Throttleable Direct and Attitude 
     Control System (TDACS) for the SM-3 Block 1B missile in order 
     to meet the needs of the commanders of the combatant commands 
     as specified in the Joint Capabilities Mix Study.
       (3) Supplement not supplant.--Amount available under each 
     of subparagraphs (A) through (C) of paragraph (2) for the 
     purposes set forth in such paragraph are in addition to any 
     other amounts available in this Act for such purposes.
       (c) Offset.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     this division (other than the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated for Defense-wide procurement, and for research, 
     development, test, and evaluation, Defense-wide, for the 
     Missile Defense Agency) is hereby reduced by $271,000,000, 
     with the amount the reduction to be allocated among the 
     accounts for which funds are authorized to be appropriated by 
     this division in the manner specified by the Secretary of 
     Defense.

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues, Democrats as 
well as Republicans, to come together on this important amendment to 
ensure that we have robust, full missile defense capabilities in this 
era of real threat, real uncertainty from terrorists, rogue nations, 
and others.
  Tomorrow is September 11. It will mark the 7-year anniversary of one 
of the most tragic days in our Nation's history--a day in which 19 
radical Islamic extremists believed their actions could cripple this 
great Nation. The good news is that those 19 extremists were wrong. 
Rather than cripple our Nation, they focused our Nation on the threat 
we face. They brought our Nation together with new resolve and with new 
strength. They gave our generation a new central and defining challenge 
to work to prevent any future attacks, particularly on our soil, and to 
make sure that terrorists and rogue nations never acquire weapons of 
mass destruction.
  As part of facing this clear and present danger, the American public 
understands that we need a robust missile defense system. According to 
a national poll released today by MDAA, 87 percent of Americans believe 
the United States should have a robust missile defense system--the 
highest percentage of support ever recorded. The poll also showed that 
58 percent of Americans believe there is a real threat from missiles 
carrying weapons of mass destruction, and that missile defense is a 
preferred option over preemptive military action.
  Rogue nations, regardless of sanctions or disarmament deals, continue 
to pursue ballistic missile technology capable of one day carrying 
nuclear weapons, and this poses an enormous threat. On July 9 of this 
year, Iran tested nine ballistic missiles as part of their escalation 
in terms of military exercises and political rhetoric, and they are a 
clear example of this threat I am talking about. Currently, the United 
States has fully operational, deployed missile defense systems that can 
stabilize the region that Iran sits in--the Middle East--but we need to 
make sure we have the full capability to bring to bear to do this. In 
this situation, missile defense can stabilize a situation, can provide 
enormously important defense for our country and for our allies, and 
can avoid much more widespread war. That is the reason 26 countries of 
NATO have fully endorsed this missile defense plan, with a third site 
in Europe. It is the reason the Czech Republic agreement on missile 
defense is valid and is moving forward. It is the reason why 11 
Congresses and 4 U.S. Presidents have moved forward on this important 
part of our national defense. The Vitter amendment No. 5280 will move 
that part of our national defense forward in a significant way.
  What does it do specifically? Specifically, this amendment provides 
$271 million to the Missile Defense Agency so that it responds to near-
term--very near-term--ballistic missile threats to the United States, 
our deployed forces around the world, and our allies. This amendment is 
fully offset within the bill.
  The Senate Armed Services Committee itself noted in its committee 
report that the Joint Capabilities Mix Study conducted by the Joint 
Staff concluded that the United States needs about twice as many THAAD 
and Standard Missile 3 interceptors as the number currently planned. So 
we need twice as many as what is currently planned. Yet, at the same 
time, the committee unfortunately cut $411 million from the budget of 
the Missile Defense Agency. This Vitter amendment would reinstate $271 
million of that cut. It would do that in four areas in particular:
  Aegis cruisers. It would authorize $54 million to accelerate upgrade 
with an additional two Aegis cruisers to equip it with ballistic 
missile defense systems.
  It would authorize an additional $100 million for THAAD fire units 3 
and 4 interceptor and ground component advanced procurement.
  SM-3 Block 1B risk reduction. It would authorize another $30 million 
to reduce SM-3 Block 1B schedule and technical risks.
  Targets. It would authorize $87 million to implement a rolling target 
spare and maintain minimal inventory to have full targets for our 
testing and production capability.
  This is sorely needed so that we ensure our citizens that we have the 
missile defense deployed that we need in this very dangerous world.
  Again, this concept was first developed by President Reagan when the 
Cold War was still raging, when the Soviet Union was still our primary 
threat in the world. Obviously, the world has changed in fundamental 
ways since then, but it has only changed in ways that make missile 
defense even more important than ever before, because the threat from 
rogue nations, from terrorist States, and from terrorist groups has 
grown enormously and missile defense is even more important in light of 
that growth.
  I urge all of my colleagues to come together in light of that on the 
eve of September 11, on the eve of the seventh anniversary of that 
tragic attack on our Nation. We must restore this $271 million, at a 
minimum, in this bill to the Missile Defense Agency. As I said, the 
committee itself noted that the

[[Page 18293]]

Joint Chiefs report says the United States needs about twice as many 
THAAD and Standard Missile 3 interceptors as the number currently 
planned. Yet the committee cut $411 million from that missile defense 
budget. We must restore at a minimum this $271 million to continue to 
meet this vital need for our citizens' safety.
  With that, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to support 
Senator Vitter's amendment to authorize the additional $271 million 
which is fully offset--it is fully offset--to the Missile Defense 
Agency.
  The importance of missile defense is increasingly crucial to the 
safety of the United States and our allies. The United States must 
maintain the capability to respond to near-term ballistic missile 
threats that present grave danger to the United States, our deployed 
forces, and our allies.
  We know that rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea will have the 
capability to use nuclear weapons. We cannot escape the fact that this 
widespread proliferation of ballistic missile technologies makes it 
increasingly possible for dangerous States and terrorist organizations 
to obtain and use them for harm.
  We are in a crucial time in our Nation's history and we should 
understand the importance of defense of the homeland. I am frustrated 
that as other nations continue to develop nuclear programs, that as 
Russia has demonstrated a renewed capacity for aggression, that as 
China and North Korea press forward on missile technology, the Armed 
Services Committee cut more than $411 million from the administration's 
request for the Missile Defense Agency's program.
  The United States has worked hard to reach agreements with the Czech 
Republic and Poland to establish ballistic missile defense radar sites. 
This was a monumental and important step in our efforts to protect the 
United States as well as our NATO allies from the growing threat by the 
proliferation of ballistic missiles. Radar will provide precision 
tracking of ballistic missiles launched out of the Middle East and will 
be linked to other U.S. missile defense facilities in Europe and the 
United States. Cuts to our missile defense program simply undermine 
this progress and signals to NATO that the United States is backing 
away from our commitments to a European missile defense.
  This amendment will authorized $54 million to accelerate and upgrade 
an additional two Aegis cruisers to equip with ballistic missile 
defense systems.
  Admiral Hicks, program director for Aegis BMD, recently stated the 
need for additional Atlantic fleet ships for defense of the United 
States, our allies, and our deployed forces.
  The amendment will authorize an additional $100 million for THAAD 
fire units interceptor and ground component advanced procurement. It 
will authorize an additional $30 million to reduce SM-3 schedule and 
technical risk. This is the premier missile defense cooperation program 
with our Japanese allies. And it will authorize $87 million for a 
target spare and to maintain minimal inventory as contingency for 
additional short notice test events for the Ground Based Midcourse 
Defense. This is Missile Defense Agency's top unfunded priority. The 
SASC Committee report notes that for some MDA systems the Director of 
Operational Test and Evaluation requires additional tests to prove out 
capabilities, which necessitates additional target sets.
  There is no doubt that the United States will continue to face 
missile threats. Missile defense is needed and should have been made a 
priority of this committee and by this Senate. I thank Senator Vitter 
for bringing this amendment to the floor, and I urge this Senate to 
vote yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I, too, very strongly support the amendment 
offered by Senator Vitter. This is an amendment that restores only part 
of the funding that was cut from the missile defense programs--only 
$270 million of the $411 million that was cut--and it is targeted to 
very specific things that have near-term applicability, and that 
enables us to do more testing, which has been the only criticism of 
which I am aware of the Missile Defense Program--that we need to do 
additional testing. Part of this money, as I will discuss in a moment, 
gives us the ability to conduct some of those tests.
  So the key point is, we are talking about near-term ballistic missile 
threats to the United States. This isn't some long-term, pie-in-the-sky 
proposition. It would assist both our allies and also U.S. forces 
deployed abroad as well. It is common sense. I hope it receives wide 
bipartisan support. I believe there is bipartisan support for this 
issue.
  Let me discuss, first, a little about what some of the near-term 
threats are. They are both from belligerent nations and, as we will see 
in a moment, one from a country in particular that is not yet capable 
of communicating appropriately with its forces, with the result that 
there is a threat of accidental or unauthorized launch. We sometimes 
forget that. We are consumed with North Korea and Iran, and therefore 
we appreciate the fact that we have to have some capability of 
protecting ourselves and our allies from potential threat from those 
countries. But one of the reasons President Reagan first thought it 
would be a good idea to have a missile defense system is, he said it is 
moral. Not only does it give an alternative to massive retaliation 
against an enemy, but it also provides protection in the event there is 
an unauthorized or accidental launch.
  In the early days of missile development, that was not at all outside 
the realm of possibility. With what happened to the Soviet Union when 
it broke up, that possibility was raised again. Now, as we note in the 
case of China, developing sophisticated weapons, but without the 
infrastructure to control those weapons, there is again the potential 
for an unauthorized or accidental launch, not to mention the situation 
with countries such as North Korea or Iran. We are not just talking 
about a threat of belligerency but also the potential for an accident, 
and missile defense, of course, is the primary way of defense against 
an accidental launch.
  Just to summarize briefly, there are now 27 nations that have 
ballistic missile capability. We tend to think of Russia, China, North 
Korea, Iran, and maybe a few other countries, but 27 nations have 
ballistic missile capability, and the knowledge to build and use them 
is proliferating rapidly. Much of this is because countries such as 
North Korea are willing to sell missiles, such as the Scud which Iraq 
used, and they then develop their own types of missiles with that 
technology. But there are 27 countries. We will not be able to put that 
genie back in the bottle. Talk about Iran.
  Some people say, well, the launch of all of these missiles earlier 
this year they took pictures of and then doctored the pictures might 
have been clumsy and didn't demonstrate new technology. It did 
demonstrate that Iran wants to be part of the club of nations with 
ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction capability. They 
have that capability. There is no question they have it. The only 
question is, how far beyond Israel does its capability currently go?
  As the latest IAEA report informed us, the Iranian missile threat is 
real and growing. I mentioned North Korea. With the difficulty of 
knowing who is in charge of North Korea today, we need to be concerned. 
We don't even know if the ``dear leader,'' or however he is referred 
to, is still alive or is functioning as the leader of the country. As a 
result, that country that has nuclear weapons, other weapons of mass 
destruction, and the means to deliver them by ballistic missiles that 
can even reach the United States ought to be a matter of concern for 
us.
  Fortunately, the United States had made operational our first land-
based system just before the big July 4 launch a couple years ago by 
the North

[[Page 18294]]

Koreans. We could have defended against that test launch had we had to 
do so, but with very rudimentary capability. The intelligence community 
``deems that North Korea is nearly self-sufficient in developing and 
producing ballistic missiles and is willing to provide them to existing 
and new customers.'' Some of these are capable of reaching the United 
States. So you have a real and growing threat from a country that is 
clearly not stable.
  I mentioned China. It has for a long time had the capability of 
delivering weapons of mass destruction to the United States with its 
ballistic missiles. There is an interesting new twist. The 2008 annual 
report on the People's Republic of China raises serious questions about 
the potential for an accidental or unauthorized launch. This is a 
nation which, by the way, is increasing its arsenal of ballistic 
missiles. In addition to that, it has a very robust program to 
modernize its nuclear weapon warheads. So it has the combination of the 
warhead and improved capability. This report says China has problems 
communicating with its submarines at sea. This is very dangerous, with 
a navy that has no experience in performing strategic protocols of the 
kind Russia and the United States have performed for years. What's 
more, the land-based strategic missile forces ``face scenarios in which 
missile batteries use communication links with higher echelons and 
other situations that would require commanders to choose alternative 
launch locations.''
  The bottom line is, whatever you think about a potential threat from 
an enemy, you have to be concerned about protecting against an 
accidental or unauthorized launch. Missile defense is the way to do 
that. As a result, I hope those folks who say, well, China isn't an 
enemy of the United States today, would at least acknowledge while that 
may be true, it is also true it has the capability of harming the 
United States accidentally or in an unauthorized fashion, and missile 
defense is our only way to protect against that. I think it would be an 
awful situation if something like that were to occur and the United 
States Congress would be asked by our constituents: Did you all know 
about this?
  Well, yes.
  Did we have the ability to do something about it?
  Yes.
  How much did it cost?
  Not all that much, as these numbers reflect.
  And you didn't put into place a program to protect us against that?
  I think we ought to put this program into effect. I support the 
amendment of the Senator from Louisiana.
  Let me describe again what specifically is in the amendment to assure 
our colleagues that this is not some massive expansion or pie-in-the-
sky proposition. It authorizes funding, first, for the advanced 
procurement of two THAAD fire units. That is the terminal high altitude 
area defense, the near-term threat--our capability of meeting that 
threat.
  Second, risk reduction for the development of an advanced version of 
the SM-3 missile--that is kind of a standard critical missile in the 
U.S. inventory--additional target sets to respond to additional testing 
requirements set by the Defense Department's Director of Operational 
Test and Evaluation.
  Frequently, the concern is expressed: Well, we should not be moving 
forward with missile defense programs because we have not adequately 
tested yet. These are, of course, programs that have been tested a lot. 
They are the near-term threats. But to the extent that the Department's 
Director indicated there are additional tests that could be done, this 
provides the target sets for those tests. You cannot conduct the tests 
without it. For those who criticize the program for not having enough 
tests, this is the sine qua non for getting tests done. You have to 
support this.
  The amendment also authorizes funding to accelerate upgrades of two 
additional Aegis cruisers to equip with the ballistic missile defense 
systems. This is something that I think virtually everybody in 
Congress, and certainly at the Pentagon, is supportive of--the ability 
of the Aegis cruisers to carry this defense to other parts of the globe 
so that it can more readily respond to a launch. This would be the 
perfect way of responding to that accidental launch I mentioned.
  Admiral Hicks, the program director for the Aegis BMD program, stated 
the need for additional Atlantic fleet ships to keep a presence there 
as well. That would defend against a threat from a country such as 
Iran. The Armed Services Committee, in its report accompanying the 
bill, stated the joint capabilities mixed study, conducted by the joint 
staff and combatant commanders, concluded that the United States needs 
about ``twice as many THAAD and standard missile interceptors as the 
number currently planned.'' This doesn't by any means fulfill that 
entire requirement, but it lays the foundation for doing so. I think 
that is another critical reason for this amendment.
  As I said, the committee cut $411 million from the budget of the 
Missile Defense Agency to procure these systems. I don't understand why 
the committee would both acknowledge the need for additional missiles 
and then cut the items out. I understand the committee has a lot of 
different constraints, different needs, and it is difficult to satisfy 
everybody. You have to cut somewhere. But I think my colleagues would 
agree that the relatively modest increase that the Vitter amendment 
provides is for very specific things, recognized by the committee 
itself, recognized by the combatant commanders, as needed. There is 
nothing new here or nothing that is pie in the sky. These are things 
that are required. We need them now.
  With regard to the testing, if the criticism is that we need more 
tests, this provides funding for those tests.
  Mr. President, it is a commonsense amendment. It is limited. It is 
all backed up; all of the requirements are fully supported. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment. There is a lot going on in this 
world. Unfortunately, when you are doing something as complex as 
developing missile defense systems, there is a long lead time. It takes 
a lot of technology and testing and so on. So you cannot wait until the 
last minute to put this into effect. That is why this should be carried 
forward in the authorization for this year's defense programs.
  I commend the committee for its work. It basically acknowledged the 
need for these things. I appreciate that it sometimes has to make cuts. 
I ask my colleagues to recognize this is an area in which we cannot 
afford to try to do it on the cheap. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to 
support the Vitter amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I want to respond to the 
Senator from Arizona, who is my friend. But I want the Senator to 
understand that the committee did not cut THAAD nor the Aegis. To the 
contrary, the committee raised, for the very reasons the Senator from 
Arizona said--that we need more THAAD for our area commanders--we 
raised that $115 million, as well as the Aegis ballistic missile 
defense. We raised that $100 million from what was requested. So let's 
make sure we know what we are talking about.
  Mr. President, what this all boils down to is the National Missile 
Defense Program is requested by the administration for $9.3 billion of 
authorization in this bill. In essence, this whole argument is that the 
committee has pared back that $9.3 billion request by $400 million.
  That is what all this argument is about. It is an attempt to increase 
back that funding of a de minimis cut in a $9.3 billion program. Given 
all the other requirements we have in the U.S. Government and given all 
of the other requirements we have in the Department of Defense, should 
we have a modest decrease from the President's request of $9.3 billion 
in 1 year?
  I suggest that there are so many other demands. Think about body 
armor. Think about getting the V-shaped hulls of MRAPs that are so 
resistant to the improvised explosive devices they run over on the road 
and that are saving marines' and soldiers'

[[Page 18295]]

lives. Ask any commander in Iraq or Afghanistan what are their high 
priorities. Ask the commanders if THAAD, which is an intercept that can 
be launched from a mobile launcher, is an important program to them to 
intercept an incoming intermediate-range missile and you will get a 
quick answer from those military-area commanders that is what they 
want.
  That is the philosophy we have tried to adapt in this bill and at the 
same time allow national missile defense research to continue but 
recognizing there are other priorities besides national missile 
defense. So we just took a de minimis cut out of a $9.3 billion request 
by the President. That is what all of this flap is about here: Is 
national missile defense going to have a minor cut so that we can do 
some of these other priorities for protecting our troops and satisfying 
their commanders' requests? That is what all this is about.
  The Vitter amendment proposes to cut $271 million from the rest of 
the Defense Department and add it to the Missile Defense Agency. This 
is not funding that the Defense Department has requested. These are 
programs that are fully funded in our Armed Services Committee bill. 
But this amendment would give the Secretary of Defense an extraordinary 
and unwarranted power; that is, the power to cut any items in the 
defense budget that the Congress is putting in here in order to pay for 
this increase in an already flush national missile defense budget we 
have provided.
  As the chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee, I can tell you that we 
have some of the Nation's most sophisticated weapons systems, many of 
which we cannot even speak about here because of their classification. 
This is not a good allocation of priorities.
  I don't think we would want to give the Secretary of Defense the 
authority to ignore the will of Congress.
  For example, would we want the Secretary of Defense to be able to go 
in and, in order to fund this amendment, cut body armor or would we 
want him to be able to go in and cut what the commanders in Afghanistan 
now are begging for--more of these V-hulled vehicles, which replace the 
humvees, that are saving our boys' and girls' lives called the MRAPs? 
Of course, we don't want that.
  Would we want the Secretary of Defense to have the authority to go in 
and cut $271 million from the $430 million in the bill for sustaining 
the Joint Strike Fighter, its alternate engine which the Department 
supports? Of course, we wouldn't want to give the Secretary power to do 
that.
  Would we want to give the Secretary the power to go in and totally 
wipe out the additional $118 million we provided in this bill for 
operating a full B-52? The Department opposed that. Would we want to 
give the Secretary the ability to override the will of Congress to do 
that?
  How about the F-22, the most sophisticated fighter aircraft? Would we 
want to give the Secretary of Defense the power to go in and cut half 
of the $500 million we have provided in this bill for advance 
procurement of the F-22? I don't think we would want to do that, but 
that is what we would do, is give the Secretary the power to do that if 
this amendment is adopted.
  Would we want to give the Secretary the power of reducing the Army 
budget request of $512 million for the Patriot missile? Talk about 
countries and allies and force protection for our own troops of 
incoming warheads--the Patriot missile is a quick-reaction missile that 
intercepts those incoming missiles on our troops in a theater. Would we 
want to cut the increase we provided in this bill? This amendment would 
give the Secretary the power to do that.
  Would we want to eliminate the proposed addition of $170 million for 
advance procurement of another amphibious ship called the LPD-17? I 
don't think that is what we want to do, but that is what this amendment 
is going to do, all under the ideology that we haven't provided enough 
for national missile defense. But we have provided almost $9 billion in 
this bill for it.
  We have to set priorities and we have to allocate for programs that 
we want to make sure are there for the protection of our troops and our 
allies, and that is what we tried to do. Didn't we have a unanimous 
vote coming out of the committee for all of these priorities? We did. 
So why do we want to suddenly change the unanimous, bipartisan support 
of the Senate Armed Services Committee to adjust all of these 
priorities? Why would we want to change that? Because there are some 
people who say ideologically we want to pour more and more money into 
national missile defense. Isn't $9 billion enough for 1 year?
  This Senator respectfully requests that the Senate listen to reason 
and common sense in the allocation of priorities. The committee 
recommends already--as I stated to Senator Kyl, we have added $215 
million for THAAD, which is the terminal high-altitude aerial defense 
which commanders are requesting, and we have also added that total 
amount of money, including the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Program, 
which is launched from a ship and is very effective for incoming 
warheads.
  We certainly agree there are potential threats from North Korea and 
places such as Iran, but those threats are generally in the 
neighborhood of where they are. That is why Aegis from a ship is so 
effective, and that is why THAAD from a mobile platform is so 
effective. We have plussed up those programs. They shouldn't be cut. 
But the Secretary of Defense, under this amendment, would have that 
authority.
  The Vitter amendment would not make any choices about where the 
additional money to provide for this plus-up to an already rich and 
robust national missile defense budget would come from. This amendment 
would not make any choices about where that additional money would come 
from. So what it says is that this $271 million in additional funding 
for missile defense, programs that we have either fully funded at the 
level requested by the Pentagon or increased in our committee bill by 
$215 million--that program is so important that the Secretary of 
Defense could cut any other funding program in the Pentagon to pay for 
it. I don't think that is a responsible way to go.
  This Senator, as the chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee, will 
oppose the amendment. It is my hope that Members on both sides of the 
aisle, members of the Armed Services Committee, will support the 
committee product.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me respond to a couple of points that 
were made, and then Senator Vitter wishes to make some additional 
comments.
  The Senator from Florida suggested that I have said that THAAD was 
cut. I don't believe I said that. What I did was quote from the Armed 
Services Committee in its report on this bill in which it is stated 
that the Joint Capabilities Mix Study, conducted by the Joint Staff and 
combatant commanders, concluded that the United States needs ``about 
twice as many THAAD and Standard Missile-3 interceptors as the number 
currently planned.''
  My point was that by what the Senator from Florida calls a de minimis 
and minor cut of $411 million--I guess only in the Senate could someone 
consider $411 million de minimis money. That is a lot of money, and it 
is taken out of the Ballistic Missile Defense Program. I guess what the 
Senator was saying is that cut doesn't hurt the THAAD Program or the 
Aegis Program. The committee referred to the study which said we need 
twice as many THAAD and Standard Missile-3 interceptors, and part of 
what this add-back does is enable the military to acquire some more of 
those missiles.
  I didn't suggest they had cut it. What I said was they didn't meet 
the requirement they themselves identified in the committee report, and 
one of the things the amendment does is add money for those two items.
  The other two points I would like to make are these:
  No. 1, we provide that the Secretary of Defense does have the ability 
to fund

[[Page 18296]]

this out of some programs. The Senator from Florida says this is 
extraordinary power. No, it isn't. This is the way it is frequently 
done. And I am not going to assume the Secretary is going to make 
irresponsible decisions about where he would get the money. Some of the 
items the Senator from Florida mentioned--MRAPs and body armor--are not 
in the program from which the Secretary could get the money to offset 
this $271 million. So that is not a response.
  Finally, those people who support these requirements, those of us who 
have supported the Vitter amendment, take some exception to the 
reference to this amendment as an ideological amendment. If it is 
ideological, then the committee's report is ideological because we are 
quoting from the committee report and saying we would like to fulfill 
the requirements which the committee report said existed and which the 
committee did not fully fund. If that is ideological, so be it. If that 
is intended to be a pejorative term, I take exception to it. If it is 
ideological to protect the American people from an accidental or 
unauthorized launch of a ballistic missile, then I guess maybe my 
position would be ideological.
  I call it common sense to try to restore some of the $411 million 
that was cut for programs that the military says it needs, the 
commander who says he needs the additional Aegis cruisers, for example, 
the additional SM-3, the additional THAAD missiles that are needed. It 
seems to me that you can argue over whether, in view of all of the 
priorities, this is a priority that should be funded, but you cannot 
say it is not a priority or that the committee and the military don't 
believe it is important or that it somehow is ideological when the 
committee and the Pentagon and the Navy, in the one case, for example, 
have all said these are items that need to be done.
  Finally, with regard to those people who say: Well, we never have 
enough testing, we are trying to respond to that criticism by saying: 
All right, in order to have tests, you need the equipment for the test. 
Part of what this amendment does is to restore funding for those items.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I would say to my good friend 
from Arizona, first of all, recognize how much we have spent on 
national missile defense. We have spent over $150 billion on national 
missile defense. In this 1 year, the request is $9.3 billion, of which 
the committee felt like there were other priorities for $400 million of 
that. That is a reduction of only 4.2 percent in a program that has 
spent $150 billion--$150 billion--to date. Now, that is a de minimis 
cut when you have so many other priorities in the budget of the 
Pentagon.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, if I could also respond briefly, again, I 
simply disagree with my distinguished colleague from Florida that $411 
million is pocket change, de minimis, doesn't make a difference. It 
will make a difference in terms of missile defense, our capability, and 
the defense of the American people.
  It is important to restore a good part of that, and specifically this 
amendment proposes restoring $271 million. That is real money. It makes 
a real difference. And in today's world of threats such as North Korea 
and China and Iran, this is a top defense priority.
  Secondly, I appreciate the Senator's support of very crucial systems. 
He is exactly right, they are bottom-line crucial systems such as THAAD 
and Aegis. But again, the committee didn't cut those programs. It put 
some more money into those programs but not enough to meet the need 
that the committee itself recognized. In fact, even this Vitter 
amendment doesn't get us the whole way there. The committee itself 
recognized, citing reports of the Joint Chiefs, we need about twice as 
many THAAD and Standard Missile-3 interceptors as the number currently 
planned. The committee's bill doesn't get us there. In fact, even this 
Vitter amendment doesn't get us fully there, but it goes much further 
down the line in terms of getting us there, in terms of immediate near-
term needs, such as THAAD, such as Aegis. I agree with the 
distinguished Senator from Florida, those are crucial programs with 
real near-term impact.
  Third, all the possible offset cuts that the distinguished Senator 
from Florida mentioned are not allowed under this amendment. Every 
example he gave cannot be used as an offset cut under this amendment. 
Under this amendment, this $271 million can only be offset with cuts to 
defense-wide accounts, not program-specific accounts, not service-
specific accounts. Therefore, every one of those examples was a 
program-specific account, was a service-specific account and can't be 
cut, will not be cut. We are talking about broad defense-wide accounts, 
such as administrative accounts, O&M accounts. I appreciate the 
Senator's concern, but those specific examples cannot come to pass. 
Those programs cannot be cut.
  Fourth and finally, I agree with the distinguished Senator from 
Arizona. This isn't an ideological amendment. This is a practical 
amendment in defense of the American people. When we look around the 
world today, in a very dangerous time, with all sorts of new looming 
threats, this is bottom-line practical. The three examples the 
distinguished Senator from Arizona gave are perfect examples. North 
Korea, with nuclear capability, with ballistic missile capability. It 
is very practical to make sure we have a robust defense against that 
very unpredictable country in a time of dangerous leadership 
transition.
  China, as my colleague from Arizona said, is a power that is coming 
into its own, but there are real dangers there because, as the Senator 
from Arizona said, it doesn't have the communication capabilities it 
needs to match the enormous force and strength of its military. So 
there are real threats and real possibilities of accidental or 
unauthorized launch.
  The best example, the most worrisome example of all, is Iran. We 
debate, with increasing frequency, the choices we may have to make, 
sooner rather than later, in terms of Iran's march to be a nuclear 
power. Whatever we think about what measures we should consider, 
nonmilitary as well as military, however we come down on that very 
difficult issue, certainly we should all agree that having a robust 
missile defense system is something that is useful and important to 
have in that scenario on the military side. Certainly, that is better 
than simply being more limited to offensive-only capabilities, only the 
capability to take preemptive action. Certainly, we can all agree it is 
better to have that robust missile defense capability rather than 
purely offensive or preemptive capabilities.
  So with North Korea and China and Iran, this is very practical. This 
is setting the right priorities in terms of looking around the world 
and understanding a wide array of very worrisome threats. And $411 
million is real money. We don't restore all of that. We restore $271 
million. It goes to specific uses that, again, will help advance 
important systems such as THAAD and Aegis toward the full capability 
the committee itself recognized and that is fully offset and paid for 
within the bill.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I wish to respond to the 
Senator from Louisiana, but I would first like to ask unanimous consent 
that after my response, the majority leader have time as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, is my understanding correct that we will 
then return to the Vitter amendment? I ask unanimous consent that we 
then return to the Vitter amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Well, Mr. President, I wish to respond, but 
all I can do is read the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana.
  On page 4, starting at line 6:

       The amount authorized to be appropriated by this division . 
     . . is hereby reduced by $271 million, with the amount the 
     reduction--


[[Page 18297]]


  And it goes on to say--

     to be allocated . . . in the manner specified by the 
     Secretary of Defense.

  What do the words ``this division'' in his own amendment mean? It 
means everything in the Pentagon, the Department of Defense spending, 
minus military construction. So when he says the amendment would not 
allow the Secretary of Defense, at his discretion, to cut all these 
things I have listed, that is incorrect. That is what the amendment 
says, as it is drafted.
  I would add this gets down into the weeds, but since a lot of this is 
very arcane, there are some additional concerns regarding the Vitter 
amendment that I will mention for the record. The amendment proposes an 
additional $87 million for targets, for flight tests. But those funds 
would, instead, go to the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense Program. That 
is in the wrong place because the targets program is managed in a 
totally separate office. So any additional funds for targets should go 
to the test and targets funding line, not to the Ground-Based Midcourse 
Defense Program.
  I said this is in the weeds, but we have to get in the weeds to talk 
about how this amendment is flawed.
  Another example is the proposed $54 million to convert two Aegis 
cruisers to the missile defense configuration. Well, the Navy doesn't 
plan on doing two such cruiser conversions, and this amendment might be 
a problem for the Navy. It is better to simply refer to ``ships'' 
rather than cruisers. In any event, we should get more information 
before we authorize something where we don't know what we are doing.
  Additionally, the amendment would propose $30 million for technology 
risk reduction to one component of the Standard Missile-3, called the 
Throttling Divert and Attitude Control System, pronounced TDACS. Well, 
rather than put all those funds into this one piece of the Standard 
Missile-3, it would seem like it would be better--and this is according 
to the Missile Defense Agency--it would be better to provide funds for 
the overall Standard Missile-3 Development Program. That would be doing 
a lot more good than the proposal in this amendment.
  So I think even down in the weeds there are a lot more objections to 
this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                              Afghanistan

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I deeply appreciate the Senators engaged in 
the debate on the amendment offered by Senator Vitter allowing me to 
step forward and give a speech. I have been looking for an opportunity 
to do this. I traveled in August to Afghanistan with a bipartisan 
Senate delegation. I remember a lot of things about that trip, but 
probably the most stunning was a statement made by Ambassador Wood, the 
American Ambassador to Afghanistan. He said you could take Afghanistan, 
pick it up and move it to the poorest country in all of Africa, and the 
African country would say: Now, that is really poor.
  Afghanistan is very poor. I have had the good fortune, in my many 
years in Congress, to travel to many places in the world. I have seen 
some very economically depressed areas, but Afghanistan is the topper.
  During my trip to Afghanistan, I met with general officers, I met 
with troops. We traveled to Kyrgyzstan, to Kazakhstan, allies in our 
fight against terror, and every place I went, I had the opportunity to 
meet with officers and, of course, the troops. They are fighting on the 
frontlines every day. During my meetings with the generals and the 
troops, they reinforced to me their courage and determination to win 
the fight against the Taliban and the terrorists.
  I learned a lot about Afghanistan, but one thing in particular I 
learned about is the terrain. Oh, is it mountainous. High mountains.
  I attended a funeral not too long ago in Boulder City, NV, because a 
young Navy SEAL by the name of Eric ``Shane'' Patton was killed in 
Afghanistan. When I attended the funeral, I didn't understand the full 
implications of what this young man and the SEALs who were there with 
him--who served with him and trained with him--had gone through. But 
there is a book out, and I would recommend it to everyone. Every 
Senator who is interested at all in what is going on around the world 
and loves history should read this book. It is called ``The Lone 
Survivor.''
  Shane Patton is one of those who didn't survive. As I indicated, I 
better appreciate now what the SEALs were doing there and why and how 
Eric ``Shane'' Patton was killed.
  I knew his family. I was from a neighboring town. I went to a high 
school in a town called Henderson, NV, where his great-uncle Charlie 
and I were competitors athletically, football and baseball. I remember 
very clearly the funeral, after having been to Afghanistan.
  We didn't spend all of our time with the troops. We traveled to other 
parts of the country. One part of the trip took us to a vocational 
school where young Afghani women and men were receiving training in 
computers, English, car repair, and other skills so they could pull 
their families and their country out of poverty toward a brighter day. 
I can remember, I went to the back of the room and there were some 
young women there. I don't know how old they were, but they were young. 
They were teenagers or maybe in their early twenties. I talked to them. 
Some of them spoke fairly good English.
  One girl wouldn't talk to me. When I asked a question, she would 
write things on the palm of her hand. It was not because she couldn't 
talk. It was just she was not used to being out, I guess, with men, in 
public places. They are so happy to be able to be out of the clutches 
of the Taliban and learning something.
  Despite the years of chaos and bloodshed, despite many families being 
torn apart by this war, the young people I met there were brimming with 
hope, for lack of a better description. Seeing these young men and 
women study together I was reminded of the difference the United States 
had made by aiding their fight against the Taliban.
  One of my long-time Nevada friends, Harriett Trudell, who worked for 
me when I was in the House of Representatives, asked me if I would meet 
with Eleanor Smeal, who runs an organization in town called the 
Feminist Majority. She was concerned about how women were being treated 
by the Taliban, as well she should be. It was awful what this group of 
people did to women. These people, hopefully, see the light and will 
not have to go back to that day.
  The courage of our troops and the Afghan people was inspiring to me, 
but I was reminded of the difference the United States has made by 
aiding in the fight against this Taliban. But there is another 
conclusion you cannot avoid if you go to Afghanistan. The progress I 
saw is being undermined by the security situation that is deteriorating 
day by day.
  I returned home more convinced than ever that the greatest threat to 
our national security lies in Pakistan and Afghanistan. These places 
must be our central focus on the war on terror. Today, 1 day from the 
seventh anniversary of the most violent terrorist attack ever to take 
place on American soil, the mastermind of the attack, Osama bin Laden, 
is still free. For all the tough rhetoric of the Bush administration of 
chasing bin Laden to the gates of hell--he has been joined in that by 
Senator McCain--the Bush administration has failed to put the necessary 
resources and manpower in the hunt for America's No. 1 enemy. We had 
him trapped in a place called Tora Bora, but our eyes were taken off 
that. Troops were taken out of Afghanistan and sent to the unnecessary 
war in Iraq.
  President Bush has rightly said the war on terror is about more than 
just one man. Yet 7 years after 9/11, the President has allowed that 
group called al-Qaida to regroup in its safe haven in Pakistan. And in 
Afghanistan, the sad fact is that the Taliban, the brutally oppressive 
regime that housed bin Laden and al-Qaida, is on the rise, attacking 
our troops and innocent Afghan civilians. So we must be clear-eyed in 
the realization that the same

[[Page 18298]]

people who attacked us then continue to regain strength and threaten us 
now.
  This dire situation could have been avoided. When President Bush took 
us to Afghanistan following 9/11, Democrats, our country, and the world 
stood with him. We knew it was a fight that we must wage and we must 
win. But after a series of military victories the President lost focus 
and turned, instead, to an ill-conceived war in Iraq. With the job 
unfinished in Afghanistan, the President devoted our troops and 
treasure to another battlefield.
  Predictably, with the focus shifted, the Afghan people joining with 
us found no one at their side. The progress in Afghanistan began to go 
backward, with neighborhoods once reclaimed from the enemy becoming 
battlegrounds once again. The reason for this failure is no mystery. No 
matter how hard the Republican spin machine tries to rewrite history 
and obscure the truth, the fact is, the terrorists who attacked us on 
9/11 were in Afghanistan, not in Iraq. As much as we are glad about 
Saddam Hussein, and we all are, during his reign--and that is what it 
was in Iraq--there were no terrorists there. Afghanistan is a far 
larger country than Iraq, with a larger population and far, far more 
difficult terrain. Yet today we have about 34,000 American troops in 
Afghanistan and about 150,000 in Iraq.
  Afghanistan is much poorer than Iraq. I have explained to the 
Presiding Officer and those listening how important that is, according 
to Ambassador Wood. It may not be the poorest country in the world, but 
it is right up there. Yet the money we have spent in Afghanistan is a 
small fraction of what we have spent in Iraq--approaching $1 trillion 
in Iraq. Afghanistan is the home of al-Qaida, home of the Taliban, the 
central front of the war on terror. Yet there are 4\1/2\ times as many 
troops in Iraq, and we have spent huge amounts more money in Iraq than 
Afghanistan.
  The result of this, the Republican failure led by President Bush, is 
clear. After a drop in violence early in the war, the Taliban came back 
with a vengeance in mid-2006. By that time we didn't have enough troops 
on the ground to respond. The troops needed were 1,500 miles away.
  This is not just Harry Reid giving an anti-Bush speech. The commander 
of American forces in the region, the No. 1 man, ADM William Fallon, 
put it this way in January of this year:

       Back in 2001, early 2002, the Taliban were pretty much 
     vanquished.

  Just what I said. He continued:

       But my sense looking back is we moved focus to Iraq, which 
     was the priority from 2003 on, and the attention and 
     resources focused on a different place.

  That is what Admiral Fallon said, and that is what I have said in my 
remarks prior to this quote. With resources focused on a different 
place, Admiral Fallon said, here is what we are now seeing. In July, 
nearly twice as many U.S. troops were killed in Afghanistan as in Iraq. 
June was the second deadliest month in Afghanistan for coalition and 
U.S. troops since the start of the war. In eastern Afghanistan, attacks 
on coalition troops increased by more than 40 percent over the first 5 
months of the year. Roadside bombings have increased. Opium production 
is up.
  Mr. President, 93 percent of all the world's opium is produced in 
Afghanistan--heroin. Coincidentally, right before we had our break, 
before I went to Afghanistan, I received a call from a woman. I, of 
course, recognized her name. Her former husband was the first criminal 
client I ever represented. I was appointed by the court to represent 
this indigent. I walked into that jail and looked through the bars and 
here was this man. He should have been in the movies, not in jail--
handsome. His name was Gregory Torres, Humbert Gregory Torres. He put 
his wife through hell. They had a little baby. She was a showgirl in 
Las Vegas, also as beautiful as he was handsome. She called me to tell 
me he had died. I represented him in the 1960s. He survived, in and out 
of prison; off of heroin for short periods of time, but it is an 
addiction that is very hard to fight.
  Mr. President, 93 percent of the stuff used to create hell in 
people's lives comes from Afghanistan--heroin. We have to do better 
than that; 93 percent of the world's opium is produced in one country.
  President Bush's failures in Iraq and Afghanistan have had 
consequences beyond the borders of those two countries. This morning, 
the bipartisan American Security Project issued a report noting that 
attacks by violent terrorist groups around the world are at an all-time 
high. This is without the terrorist attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq. 
Their report also notes that ungoverned spaces continue to provide 
sanctuary for terrorist organizations, including Afghanistan, east and 
north Africa, and Somalia. Yesterday President Bush had one last chance 
to meaningfully change the strategy and begin to reverse all these 
backsliding trends, but he chose not to do so. He chose to stick with 
the status quo and not make the significant changes that were 
necessary. Unfortunately, we have seen no reason to believe a John 
McCain Presidency would offer any break from the failed Bush foreign 
policy.
  For all his talk about listening to commanders on the ground, George 
Bush--and John McCain--are dangerously deaf to the calls of our 
commanders in Afghanistan. Listen to what Admiral Mullen said--Admiral 
Mullen, not Fallon. Here is what he said in addition to what Fallon 
said. Fallon said, back in 2001 early 2002:

       The Taliban were pretty much vanquished. But my sense 
     looking back is that we moved focus to Iraq, which was the 
     priority from 2003 on, and the attention was on a different 
     place.

  Here is what Admiral Mullen said, also one of the leading commanders 
of the American military:

       I have made no secret of my desire to flow more forces, 
     U.S. forces, to Afghanistan just as soon as I can, nor have I 
     been shy about saying that those forces will not be available 
     unless or until the situation in Iraq permits us to do so. . 
     . .

  We know today that no more than a token shift of troop levels will 
take place until we have a new President, a new President committed to 
winning the war on terrorism by fighting the actual terrorists, not 
creating war but winning war. That will require a new approach to Iraq, 
Afghanistan, and Pakistan. We have seen in Pakistan a dangerous 
approach by this administration, placing all of our bets on one man, 
General Musharraf.
  Senator Daschle and I were the first two American elected officials 
to meet him after the coup. We went there and we met with him. 
Obviously, all the talking to him by us and others did not do a lot of 
good because what President Bush did was place everything on this one 
man. It was a fatal and avoidable--certainly an avoidable--blunder. 
Musharraf did not implement democracy, did not uphold human rights, and 
did not stop the terrorists operating inside Pakistan's borders. He 
fired all the judges. American dollars meant to fight terrorism were 
wasted, the Pakistani people suffered, and the United States lost 
credibility with them for supporting a dictator who did not want to 
uphold their basic human rights.
  Because of President Bush's failed approach to Pakistan, we now have 
seen al-Qaida regroup within its borders. According to the declassified 
key judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate of July 2007 
entitled ``The Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Homeland,'' al-Qaida has 
``protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack 
capability, including a safe haven in the Pakistani Federal 
Administered Tribal Areas.''
  The intelligence agencies reiterated this a few weeks ago, saying 
that al-Qaida ``has maintained or strengthened key elements of its 
capability to attack the United States in the past year.''
  During our time in Afghanistan, from our meetings with President 
Karzai to our meetings with American generals, one message was clear: 
We cannot solve the problem in Afghanistan without solving the problem 
in Pakistan.
  Those concerned with the writing of our history books will have ample 
opportunity to delve into the Bush failures in Iraq, Afghanistan, and 
Pakistan

[[Page 18299]]

in far greater detail than I have done in these brief remarks. The 
historians will note that on George Bush's watch the Taliban grew 
stronger, running their operations from terrorist bases inside 
Pakistan.
  They will note, the historians, that under George Bush's watch, al-
Qaida regrouped, ready to carry out other attacks against our great 
country. They will note on George Bush's watch, our national security 
was jeopardized, and the threats that led to the attacks in 2001 are as 
grave if not graver in 2008.
  So our job in Congress is not to do the job of the historians, but to 
answer one question: Where do we go from here? President Bush gave his 
answer to that question yesterday. His answer was: We do not go 
anywhere. We stay exactly where we are.
  John McCain has made it clear that he stands in place with George 
Bush. So with due respect to President Bush and Senator McCain, the 
status quo has failed. They are out of touch with the realities and 
ramifications of our efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
  I saw in Afghanistan a people eager, desperate, and ready to lift 
their country to democracy, equality, and economic opportunity, but 
held down by the weight of an enemy we failed to destroy.
  The military, our military, has expressed to me how impressed they 
are with the Afghan fighters. They do not leave battle. They are ready 
to fight. So I hope in the coming months, our courageous, overworked, 
overstretched, overstressed troops can continue to hold off the enemy. 
I am confident they will. They will do it without the full resources 
and manpower necessary to complete the mission, which is too bad.
  I hope the American people have the wisdom to choose a leader who 
will take the war on terror back to the terrorists and look the Afghan 
people in the eye and say that help is on the way.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar.) The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I regret that we had hearings all morning 
in the Environment and Public Works Committee on another crisis; that 
is, we are going to have to do something about the trust fund to get it 
jarred loose before we can get out of here. There is going to be a 
serious problem in the Nation's infrastructure, and it was necessary 
that I be there. However, I regret that I missed the discussion of the 
Vitter amendment.
  Many members of the Armed Services Committee are very concerned about 
the ability of the missile defense system. Some of us have been around 
long enough to remember back in the Reagan administration when this 
whole thing started. At that time, there was an attempt to denigrate 
the threat that was out there, calling it Star Wars and other things. 
But, in fact, the problem was very real. It took a lot of vision. That 
administration set about to give us the capability that we would need, 
when the need was there. We were pretty much on course.
  Missiles have become a key component to the militaries of many 
countries now that were not a problem back at that time. Our enemies 
are advancing their ability to reach out and hit us, our allies, and 
our forward-deployed forces in a devastating way. We have a different 
threat now than we had at one time. People are now aware of it.
  I can recall that I disagreed with President Clinton when he took a 
lot of the money out of the national missile defense system. I think it 
was the 1996 Defense authorization bill he vetoed. The veto message 
said that we are spending too much money on a threat that is not out 
there for the foreseeable period. Now I think we realize this problem 
is there.
  This is a complicated subject. One of the problems we have--and I 
have this with a lot of my conservative friends-- is that people will 
look at it and say: We don't need to have all this redundancy in a 
missile defense system. Right now, we are talking about the boost 
phase, the midcourse phase, and the terminal defense segment. In these 
areas, we need to have at least two capabilities such as the airborne 
laser and the kinetic energy booster in the boost defense segment. So 
people who say that perhaps we don't have that need and that it is 
redundant don't think of the consequences.
  As tragic as 9/11 was, I am sure all of us have thought about what 
could have happened or what could have been or might have been 
prevented as a result of the increase in some of our collection systems 
to prevent a missile from coming in. We know countries have missiles. 
They have weapons of mass destruction, and they have delivery systems. 
The combination is varied. We are talking about potentially hundreds of 
thousands of people or millions of people who could be killed. There 
are a lot of areas where the midcourse defense segment was the only one 
that would be effective in knocking down an incoming missile. We are 
working hard now on the terminal defense segment.
  I applaud the Missile Defense Agency and the work they have been 
doing because they have been able to analyze this and see where the 
threat is, why it should be dealt with. When they developed a budget, 
they put the amount of money in there they thought was necessary to 
keep on course to get us to the point where we would be able to 
adequately defend America against an incoming missile. I think they 
have done that.
  We took some 400, I believe, out of that amount, and the Vitter 
amendment is trying to reinstate that. In 1993, the Clinton 
administration cut $2.5 billion from the Bush missile defense budget 
request for fiscal year 1994; terminated the Reagan-Bush Strategic 
Defense Initiative program; downgraded national missile defense to a 
research and development program only; cut 5-year missile defense 
funding by 54 percent from $39 billion to $18 billion; and reaffirmed a 
commitment to the ABM Treaty, saying any defense must be ``treaty-
compliant.''
  A lot of people honestly in their hearts--and I respect them for 
having a different opinion than mine--think that the answer is not in 
missile defense system but in arms control. This is what we went 
through during the middle 1990s. But we have reached a level of 
sophistication now where we have watched our tests become successful. 
People used to ridicule those of us who were for this program a long 
time ago: You will never be able to hit a bullet with a bullet. But we 
have done it now. So the technology has come along. To not stay on 
track is something that would be devastating.
  Right now, we are looking at countries such as North Korea and Iran 
developing ballistic missile capabilities and delivery systems. There 
should not be any doubt that these countries would actually use them. 
The only way to deter that is to have a defense system.
  I think it is wise for us--and I think all of America agrees that the 
threats are out there; we need to have the capability of deterring when 
it comes in--that we do what is necessary to meet that test. We have 
relied upon the experts in the Missile Defense Agency and those of us 
who have studied this to determine what it should cost. Making a 
mistake here is not like making a mistake in some other area. If we 
make a mistake here and are incapable of knocking down something that 
is coming into a populated area, that is a disaster that is beyond 
description. As tragic as 9/11 was, multiply that by 100 or whatever it 
might be in the case that we don't stay on course.
  So what I would encourage us to do is to go ahead and adopt the 
Vitter amendment. What he has done is said: Take it from other areas. 
It will be covered. But this shows that there should be that priority. 
I believe that priority is certainly justified.
  As we follow through what has happened over the past few years, what 
happened in 1998 when they opposed and helped kill the legislation that 
called for the deployment as soon as technologically possible--we 
remember that well. Those of us on the Armed Services Committee have 
watched that

[[Page 18300]]

moving target as time has gone by. But that is really the key, to be 
sure we have a national missile defense system deployed as soon as 
technologically possible because we know what other countries are 
doing. We know people are trading technology. We know that China is 
trading technology, that North Korea is trading technology, and 
countries such as Iran are rapidly gaining this capability. Our enemies 
out there don't like America. This is the most defensive program we 
should have in defending my 20 kids and grandkids and all of America.
  I strongly encourage in this process that we reinstate the amount of 
money that the experts say is necessary to stay on course to defend 
America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I oppose the Vitter amendment for a number 
of reasons. Let me begin by saying we have already placed into our bill 
more money for the areas that the Vitter amendment would add additional 
money for than was requested by the administration. In other words, in 
these areas--terminal high-altitude area defense, the THAAD Program; 
the Aegis ballistic missile defense, DMD, and its Standard Missile-3 
interceptor--we have added money in our committee to the budget 
request. So this is not restoring cuts in these programs. If the Vitter 
amendment were passed, it would add additional funds to programs that 
we on the committee unanimously already have added additional funds to 
above the administration's request.
  I would like to go through these one by one.
  For the THAAD system, the administration's budget requested $865 
million. The committee bill, approved by all committee members, added 
$115 million.
  The Targets Program, which provides targets for flight tests, the 
budget request was $665 million. The Armed Services Committee fully 
funded the administration request. The Vitter amendment adds money the 
administration is not requesting. The administration is not requesting 
the money that the Vitter amendment adds to the committee bill.
  Next, the Aegis BMD Program, the budget request was nearly $1.2 
billion. The committee bill would authorize an additional $100 million 
for systems improvement and additional procurement. The Vitter 
amendment adds to what the committee already added to the 
administration request--$74 million on top of the committee increase, 
$54 million to convert two additional ships and $30 million for 
technology improvements.
  So point No. 1, in the areas to which Vitter amendment would add 
funds, the committee has either fully funded the administration request 
or we have added to the administration request. The administration is 
not requesting additional funds in the areas to which the Vitter 
amendment adds funds. That is point No. 1.
  Point No. 2, how does the Vitter amendment pay for these add-ons? 
What it does is it allows the Secretary of Defense to cut $271 million 
from any part of the Defense Department budget except for the specified 
accounts which we are not authorizing the Secretary of Defense to cut. 
But except for those very precise, specific, enumerated exceptions, the 
Secretary of Defense is given carte blanche to cut any program which 
the Secretary of Defense wants to cut. That is an abdication of 
congressional authority. It is a serious abdication. We have not done 
this. Where we have put weapons systems money in, frequently at the 
request of Members of this body, going over this at great length in 
committee, we have not given the Secretary of Defense a blank check to 
cut whatever procurement programs he might want to cut in order to pay 
for other add-ons that are offered on the floor of the Senate.
  Now, when the Senator from Florida gave examples where these cuts 
could come from, the Senator from Louisiana denied those cuts could 
come from these examples. But the Senator from Florida is right. So I 
am going to repeat the examples, and then we can debate later on 
whether the Senator from Louisiana is correct or the Senator from 
Florida is correct in terms of the amendment which has been offered.
  These are some of the examples the Senator from Florida used where if 
the Secretary of Defense wanted to make cuts in programs, in his 
discretion, he would be given the authority to do it. He could cut 
funds for the Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine. He could wipe out 
money for operations of the B-52. He could cut money for advance 
procurement funds for the F-22. He could reduce the Patriot missile 
request. These are areas where the committee has added funds and where 
if the Vitter amendment is adopted, the Defense Secretary could, at his 
discretion, make cuts in these program or any other program in his 
discretion.
  It is a serious abdication of congressional budget authority to say 
the Secretary of Defense may make cuts in programs wherever he wants, 
with the specific two exceptions that are enumerated in the Vitter 
amendment.
  So we ought to defeat the Vitter amendment, No. 1, because it adds 
funds not requested, No. 2, it adds funds to accounts we have already 
added funds to, and, No. 3, because of the broad authority that would 
give the Secretary of Defense to pay for these add-ons by cutting other 
programs in the discretion of the Secretary of Defense--a very serious 
abdication of our budget power and something we should not do.
  So I will oppose the Vitter amendment and support the position, the 
argument of the Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson, who is the chairman 
of our subcommittee, who earlier today made the presentation in chief, 
as we would say in a court, against the Vitter amendment.
  I yield the floor now. I would ask unanimous consent--if my friend 
from Alabama might hear this--that if we go into a quorum call now the 
time be charged equally against both sides on the Vitter amendment.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum with the unanimous consent request 
that any time during this quorum call be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time remains on the Vitter 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proponent has 2 minutes. The opponents 
have 19 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Vitter 
amendment be set aside, and that when we return to the Vitter 
amendment, the Senator from Louisiana have 10 minutes on his side, and 
that the full 19 minutes remain on our side, the opponents, and with 
that understanding we move to the regular order, which I believe would 
be the Senator from Florida offering his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4979

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4979.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Nelson], for himself, Mr. 
     Hagel, Mr. Sessions, and Mrs. Murray, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4979.

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

(Purpose: To repeal the requirement for reduction of survivor annuities 
 under the Survivor Benefit Plan by veterans' dependency and indemnity 
                             compensation)

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

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

       (a) Repeal.--

[[Page 18301]]

       (1) In general.--Subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended as follows:
       (A) In section 1450, by striking subsection (c).
       (B) In section 1451(c)--
       (i) by striking paragraph (2); and
       (ii) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs 
     (2) and (3), respectively.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Such subchapter is further 
     amended as follows:
       (A) In section 1450--
       (i) by striking subsection (e);
       (ii) by striking subsection (k); and
       (iii) by striking subsection (m).
       (B) In section 1451(g)(1), by striking subparagraph (C).
       (C) In section 1452--
       (i) in subsection (f)(2), by striking ``does not apply--'' 
     and all that follows and inserting ``does not apply in the 
     case of a deduction made through administrative error.''; and
       (ii) by striking subsection (g).
       (D) In section 1455(c), by striking ``, 1450(k)(2),''.
       (b) Prohibition on Retroactive Benefits.--No benefits may 
     be paid to any person for any period before the effective 
     date provided under subsection (f) by reason of the 
     amendments made by subsection (a).
       (c) Prohibition on Recoupment of Certain Amounts Previously 
     Refunded to SBP Recipients.--A surviving spouse who is or has 
     been in receipt of an annuity under the Survivor Benefit Plan 
     under subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 10, United States 
     Code, that is in effect before the effective date provided 
     under subsection (f) and that is adjusted by reason of the 
     amendments made by subsection (a) and who has received a 
     refund of retired pay under section 1450(e) of title 10, 
     United States Code, shall not be required to repay such 
     refund to the United States.
       (d) Repeal of Authority for Optional Annuity for Dependent 
     Children.--Section 1448(d) of such title is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Except as provided in 
     paragraph (2)(B), the Secretary concerned'' and inserting 
     ``The Secretary concerned''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``Dependent children.--'' and all that 
     follows through ``In the case of a member described in 
     paragraph (1),'' and inserting ``Dependent children annuity 
     when no eligible surviving spouse.--In the case of a member 
     described in paragraph (1),''; and
       (B) by striking subparagraph (B).
       (e) Restoration of Eligibility for Previously Eligible 
     Spouses.--The Secretary of the military department concerned 
     shall restore annuity eligibility to any eligible surviving 
     spouse who, in consultation with the Secretary, previously 
     elected to transfer payment of such annuity to a surviving 
     child or children under the provisions of section 
     1448(d)(2)(B) of title 10, United States Code, as in effect 
     on the day before the effective date provided under 
     subsection (f). Such eligibility shall be restored whether or 
     not payment to such child or children subsequently was 
     terminated due to loss of dependent status or death. For the 
     purposes of this subsection, an eligible spouse includes a 
     spouse who was previously eligible for payment of such 
     annuity and is not remarried, or remarried after having 
     attained age 55, or whose second or subsequent marriage has 
     been terminated by death, divorce or annulment.
       (f) Effective Date.--The sections and the amendments made 
     by this section shall take effect on the later of--
       (1) the first day of the first month that begins after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act; or
       (2) the first day of the fiscal year that begins in the 
     calendar year in which this Act is enacted.

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I 
may have printed in the Record a letter from The Military Coalition.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                       The Military Coalition,

                                    Alexandria, VA, June 19, 2008.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bingaman: The Military Coalition (TMC), a 
     consortium of nationally prominent military and veterans 
     organizations, representing more than 5.5 million members 
     plus their families and survivors, is writing to ask for your 
     support of Senator Bill Nelson's Defense Authorization Bill 
     amendment (S. amendment 4979) that repeals the law requiring 
     a doIlar-for-dollar deduction of VA benefits for service 
     connected deaths from the survivors' SBP annuities. The 
     elimination of this survivor benefit inequity is a top 
     legislative goal for TMC in 2008.
       We strongly believe that if military service caused a 
     member's death, the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation 
     (DIC) the VA pays the survivor should be added to the SBP 
     benefits the disabled retiree paid for, not substituted for 
     them. In the case of members who died on active duty, a 
     surviving spouse with children can avoid the dollar-for-
     dollar offset only by assigning SBP to the children. But that 
     forces the spouse to give up any SBP claim after the children 
     attain their majority--leaving the spouse with only a $1,091 
     monthly indemnity from the VA. Surely, those who give their 
     lives for their country deserve fairer compensation for their 
     surviving spouses.
       The Military Coalition urges you to restore equity to this 
     very important survivor program and vote in favor of Senator 
     Nelson's SBP amendment when it comes to the floor for 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                           The Military Coalition,
                                            (signatures enclosed).

       Air Force Association; Air Force Women Officers Associated; 
     American Logistics Association; AMVETS (American Veterans); 
     Army Aviation Assn. of America; Assn. of Military Surgeons of 
     the United States; Assn. of the US Army; Commissioned 
     Officers Assn. of the US Public Health Service, Inc.; CWO & 
     WO Assn. US Coast Guard; Enlisted Association of the National 
     Guard of the US; Fleet Reserve Assn.; Gold Star Wives of 
     America, Inc.; Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America; Jewish 
     War Veterans of the USA; Marine Corps League; Marine Corps 
     Reserve Association.
       Military Officers Assn. of America; Military Order of the 
     Purple Heart; National Association for Uniformed Services; 
     National Military Family Assn.; National Order of Battlefield 
     Commissions; Naval Enlisted Reserve Assn.; Naval Reserve 
     Association; Non Commissioned Officers Assn. of the United 
     States of America; Reserve Enlisted Assn. of the US; Reserve 
     Officers Assn.; Society of Medical Consultants to the Armed 
     Forces; The Retired Enlisted Assn.; USCG Chief Petty Officers 
     Assn.; US Army Warrant Officers Assn.; Veterans of Foreign 
     Wars of the US.

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, following one of the bloodiest 
wars in America, the time that this Nation was put asunder and split 
right down the middle, in those dark days, President Abraham Lincoln, 
in his second inaugural address, said that one of the greatest 
obligations of war is to take care of those who had borne the fight and 
to take care of his widow and orphan.
  What he said was:

       As God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to 
     finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to 
     care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his 
     widow and orphan.

  That is the quote of Lincoln in that very memorable second inaugural 
address.
  This amendment has to do with widows and orphans. This Senator, for 8 
years now, has brought this amendment up, and on most every occasion we 
have passed it in the Senate. But because it has a fiscal consequence, 
because what we are going to do is help widows and orphans, when it 
gets through here on almost a unanimous vote and gets into a conference 
committee with the House, it gets whacked. We had a minor victory last 
year in that some of this offset that I am about to tell you was 
reduced, but it was a very minor achievement.
  I have offered this amendment, which is cosponsored by Senators 
Hagel, Murray, and Sessions. So you can see that this is bipartisan. It 
is going to eliminate the unjust offset on the survivor benefits for 
widows, widowers, and orphans. The U.S. Government, when it plans for 
cost of war, has to go through--and understand that the cost of war is 
not just guns, ammunition, tanks, and airplanes.
  A cost of war is also taking care of the veterans and also taking 
care of the deceased servicemembers' widows, widowers, and orphans. It 
is both a cost of war and of peace.
  Now, before August, back in July, the Senate supported sweeping 
changes to the GI bill, which certainly is providing greater 
opportunities for today's members of the military and their families to 
have the ability to earn a college education. Well, now, in this 
amendment, we have the privilege of honoring the families whose loved 
ones have given their lives in service to the country.
  Today, we can remove one of the last unjust benefit offsets that face 
our veterans and our families. On both sides of the aisle, over the 
last several years, the Senate has tried to correct these benefit 
offsets that penalize our Nation's heroes. Back in 2004, in the Defense 
authorization bill, we passed combat-related special compensation that 
allowed veterans who were injured during war, and awarded a Purple 
Heart, to receive both their disability pay and their earned retirement 
income. Back then, in 2004, we reviewed

[[Page 18302]]

the veterans concurrent receipt disability pay, otherwise known as 
concurrent receipt. We agreed that military retirees with 20 or more 
years of service and a 50-percent or higher disability would no longer 
have their retirement pay reduced by the amount of their VA disability 
compensation. That was the offset that was known as concurrent receipt. 
So we eliminated that offset if the veteran had a 50-percent or higher 
disability.
  Well, through the National Defense Authorization Act, back then, in 
2004, we authorized concurrent receipt of the retired pay and the 
disability pay for military retirees but not so with the widows and the 
orphans.
  Last year, in the Defense authorization bill, we reasoned that those 
veterans rated as 100 percent unemployable should receive both their 
retirement pay, which they have earned through years of service, plus 
their disability pay, which they earned through injury. Before the law 
was changed, a veteran suffering from PTSD, post-traumatic stress 
disorder, or TBI, traumatic brain injury, and was unable to work due to 
the service-connected disability--back before that, that veteran was 
penalized because he or she was not 100 percent physically disabled. 
Prior to our efforts, our veterans could not concurrently receive their 
hard-earned retirement pay and their well-deserved disability pay.
  That is what brings me now to the widows and orphans. We treated our 
veterans that way in the past. We have acted to get rid of these unjust 
offsets. But there is one offset that remains, and that is the one that 
affects the survivors--the offset between the survivor's benefits under 
the Department of Defense Survivor's Benefit Plan, or SBP--that is on 
one hand--and the Veterans Department Dependency and Indemnity 
Compensation, or DIC, there is an offset there. Here is what happens. 
The Survivor's Benefit Plan is purchased by the retiree, like an 
insurance annuity. It is issued automatically in the case of 
servicemembers who die while on active duty, and retired members of the 
military pay for this benefit from their retired pay. Again, it is as 
if they pay premiums for an insurance policy. Upon the death of the 
servicemember, their spouse or dependent children can receive up to 55 
percent of their retired pay as an annuity--a straight kind of 
insurance annuity. Understood.
  But there is another law. The other law is that the Department of 
Veterans Affairs Dependency and Indemnity compensation, or DIC, is 
given to a surviving spouse of an active-duty or retired military 
member who died from a service-connected cause. Here is the catch: 
Under current law, even if the surviving spouse of such a servicemember 
is eligible for SBP, that purchased insurance annuity is reduced, or 
offset, by the amount they get under the Dependency and Indemnity 
Compensation from the Veterans' Administration. Well, why should that 
be, because they are entitled to both. In one case, they purchase it; 
in the others, they are a veteran and they are entitled to it. The 
Survivor Benefit Plan is that purchased insurance annuity plan.
  In my previous life as the elected insurance commissioner of the 
State of Florida, I want you to know I have never heard of any other 
purchased insurance annuity program that can justify refusing to pay 
the insured the benefits that the insured purchased by saying: Oh, by 
the way, because you are getting a different benefit somewhere else. So 
for the past 8 years, this Senator has been trying to fix that 
situation. This amendment is going to end that injustice and completely 
remove this offset to take care of the widows, the widowers, and the 
orphans who have lost a loved one to combat or service-connected 
injuries.
  In 2006, the Senate passed a similar amendment 92 to 6. What happens, 
it gets down into the conference committee between the Senate and the 
House and they say: Oh, we can't afford it. It got watered down into a 
special payment that provides a $50 monthly payment to a deceased 
servicemember's beneficiaries. So at least it is offset $50. But the 
real offset is about $1,100. Fifty dollars is better than zero, but we 
have a long way to go to make this right by our veterans and their 
families.
  I hope the Congress now is going to face the music and come up with 
the responsible thing and recognize that the cost of war is taking care 
of the families, the widows, and the orphans. Under current law, 
because of that offset, all of our military are going to find it 
difficult for their families to make financial ends meet. These are the 
families of the men and women who do not return home. They have already 
lost so much, they should not have to endure the financial hardships 
because of a benefits offset.
  The Senate has an opportunity to change this injustice as we get into 
this Defense authorization bill. If we respond to it as we did a couple 
of years ago by passing legislation with overwhelming support and then 
again with the special offset of only $50, if we can take it to the 
full offset and remove it, then we will have achieved what we ought to 
be doing, which is to do right by our families, recognizing that it is 
our obligation as a government to take care of the one who shall have 
borne the burden of war and of his widow and orphan.
  That ends my remarks. I do not see any other Senator in the Chamber 
wanting to offer any comments. So if other Senators are not ready to 
speak, I wish to speak on another subject. I ask unanimous consent to 
speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Oil Drilling

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, next week we are going to be on 
the Energy bill, and we are going to be acting on one of the most 
important challenges facing our Nation. In fact, the single greatest 
threat to our national and economic security may well be our dependence 
on oil, not just foreign oil but oil.
  No one among us would argue that we need to drill in places where it 
makes sense. But we all know that more drilling will not do anything to 
bring down the price of gasoline. A report from the White House has 
said that, and we have stated that on the floor of the Senate. Nor will 
more drilling take us down the path to making America energy 
independent in 10 years. But let's acknowledge that we need to drill 
for oil in places where it makes sense.
  This Senator has come to the floor and said over and over that 68 
million acres of Federal lands, both on land and submerged lands, 
leased by the oil companies, is a good place to start. We need to drill 
for oil in places where it makes sense. If there are expanded places 
offshore that do not have a counterbalancing reason not to drill there, 
then let's use that standard. Let's drill in places where it makes 
sense but understanding all along that is not going to affect the price 
of gasoline now.
  The White House report said it would not affect the price of gasoline 
until the year 2030. But people are hurting now. They want something 
done about gas prices now.
  Recognize also there is a fundamental truth that the United States 
has only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, but the United States 
consumes 25 percent of the world's oil production. Common sense tells 
us, if we only have 3 percent but consume 25 percent, drilling is not 
going to get us out of the problem. We have people such as Texas oilman 
T. Boone Pickens who are on the TV saying exactly the same thing.
  If we cannot drill our way out of the problem, what should we do? It 
is clear that we could bring the price of gas down a lot more and right 
away if we would cut some of the waste, if we would conserve. What is 
one way to conserve? Higher-miles-per-gallon cars because 50 percent of 
the oil we use goes into cars and trucks. It does not take a rocket 
scientist to realize this is where we ought to focus. So let's focus on 
raising the mileage standards for our personal vehicles. It took us 30 
years to just a few months ago raise the mileage standards to a paltry 
35 miles per gallon, but that is phased in over the next decade and a 
half.
  In the meantime, Europe is driving around on an average of 43 miles a 
gallon. By the way, it is American manufacturers in Detroit that are 
selling

[[Page 18303]]

their products, American automobiles, that add to that 43-mile-per-
gallon average in Europe. And in Japan, they are driving around in 
vehicles that get 50 miles per gallon.
  In other words, we are wasting a lot of oil right here in America 
that we could be saving, and we could do it with serious conservation 
measures. One of those ways is to increase our miles per gallon in our 
vehicles in the fleet average, which we could start doing tomorrow.
  There is another way, and the other way is to start giving tax 
incentives to Americans to go out and buy fuel-efficient cars. We ought 
to require at least 40 miles per gallon on our vehicles, and we should 
provide to the American consumer tax incentives to encourage them to 
buy those higher-miles-per-gallon, fuel-efficient cars.
  In the long run, we have to rapidly build cars that run on batteries 
and hydrogen, not petroleum, and we need to develop alternative fuels, 
such as ethanol, from products that we do not eat. While we are at it, 
we are going to have to pay attention to how we power our homes and 
industry. We are going to need to develop solar, wind, thermal energy, 
and safer nuclear power, and we are going to need to increase our oil-
refining capacity.
  Our Government must enact this national energy program to transition 
us from petroleum to alternative and synthetic fuels. President Kennedy 
said we were going to release ourselves from the bonds of gravity and 
go to the Moon and back within 9 years, and we did it. We need to act 
on this energy crisis with the same urgency. If we put our minds 
together, then we can realize a number of these items that I have 
mentioned--drill in places where it makes sense; raise the miles per 
gallon on our automobiles; give our people tax incentives so that they 
will be encouraged to buy fuel-efficient cars; develop solar, wind, 
thermal, safer nuclear power; and increase our oil-refining capacity. 
These are the ways we are going to solve our energy crisis.
  This is what I hope as the Senate goes into session next week working 
on the Energy bill. These are the commonsense ways that we can, with 
divergent views, come together and build consensus.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                           Amendment No. 5280

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I will return to my pending Vitter 
amendment. I ask the majority side, and perhaps the distinguished 
Senator from Florida is the appropriate person on the floor to give 
consent to a modification of the Vitter amendment, which is in the last 
paragraph, only to clear up any uncertainty and confusion about this 
offset issue which we have discussed.
  This modification, which I provided to the majority side, would make 
crystal clear and ensure that the full offset of this amendment would 
have to come out of research, development, test, and evaluation 
accounts only, and therefore it could not come out of O&M. It could not 
come out of procurement. It could not come out of any of those broad 
categories about which the Senator and others were most concerned.
  I ask unanimous consent for that modification so that there is 
certainty on that issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, 
out of consideration for Senator Levin, the chairman of the committee, 
who is off the floor right now and is considering the request of the 
Senator from Louisiana, I suggest the Senator withdraw the request 
until Senator Levin returns. I have been instructed to say that he is 
considering that request right now. So will the Senator withdraw the 
request?
  Mr. VITTER. Pending that answer, Mr. President, I will withdraw the 
request and look forward to that response so that we can modify the 
amendment. It is a good-faith attempt to address and clear up any 
possible ambiguity about some of the issues we discussed on the Senate 
floor. I think this modification would do that by, beyond argument, 
limiting any offset to research, development, test, and evaluation 
accounts.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Mental Health Parity

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I often try to come to this Chamber and 
offer remarks without reading a text, but this text that I have 
prepared is of such a personal nature and so difficult to give that I 
think I am going to try to read it.
  I also want to note for the record that in this hyperpolitical 
season, sometimes we forget that we are just Americans. Senator Kennedy 
somehow knew I was going to give this speech, and I was just called to 
the Republican cloakroom to take a call from our colleague who 
struggles with a terrible illness. He wished me well in this speech 
because we share a common bond when it comes to human loss and the 
passion for the issue of mental health. I also want to report, Mr. 
President, that he sounded great, and I am confident he will be back.
  Mr. President, 5 years ago this week--it was actually 5 years ago on 
Monday--my wife Sharon and I received the worst news that any parent 
can receive when a police officer showed up at our door to inform us 
that our 21-year-old son Garrett had taken his life. That day and the 
days and weeks that followed were the most painful imaginable. But 
instrumental to Sharon and me being able to persevere through those 
weeks was the love and support we received from my colleagues here in 
the Senate.
  To note just a few, Senators Wyden, Reid, Stevens, Bennett, DeWine, 
and Chambliss traveled all the way to Pendleton, OR, a little town in 
northeastern Oregon, for Garrett's service. When I returned to this 
Chamber weeks later, Senators Kennedy and Biden, who had experienced 
the loss of family members in their lives, were just two of many who 
reached out to me with compassion and wise counsel. Senators Leahy and 
Santorum lit candles for us in their Catholic parishes, Senator 
Lieberman remembered us in his synagogue, and many protestant 
colleagues included us in their prayer circles. Sharon and I were 
reminded again and again that human heartache has no political 
affiliation.
  Sharon and I were also blessed to receive the support and 
understanding of the people of Oregon. We were overwhelmed with cards, 
letters, and kind words, many from individuals who had lost a loved one 
battling depression or who had lost a loved one to suicide. Indeed, as 
a result of the publicity surrounding Garrett's death, Sharon and I had 
become the focus of an immense fraternity of sorrow. I had never been 
aware of or imagined the size of this silent and shapeless society, but 
the avalanche of letters confirmed what my studies later taught me: 
There are 30,000 suicides and as many as 600,000 attempts at suicide in 
America every year. Suicide is the third leading cause of death in the 
United States for those ages 15 to 24. It is the second leading cause 
of death among college students, with more than 1,000 taking their 
lives each year.
  I began to wonder what I, as a Senator, could do about this epidemic 
which had claimed the life of my son. Six months after Garrett's death, 
our then-colleague Mike DeWine provided me with an answer. He told me 
that the epidemic of youth suicides had been weighing on his mind as 
well and that he had coauthored two pieces of legislation he hoped 
might make a positive difference. The first bill, authored with Senator 
Dodd, increased screening for children to detect those predisposed to 
depression and suicide. The second, written with Senator Reed of Rhode 
Island, provided funding necessary to improve suicide prevention 
programs on college campuses.
  I reviewed the two bills and felt more and more that I had found my 
cause: to bring suicide's brutal toll and mental health subordinate 
status out of our society's shadows. I believed that the shame and the 
stigma our society feels about mental health must stop and a

[[Page 18304]]

national conversation needed to begin. I believed that if Government 
policy and insurance priorities did not change, then more lives would 
be tragically lost, more families would be shattered, more of our 
citizens would wander our streets and needlessly fill our jails, and 
higher costs would be borne by taxpayers or be shifted to overburdened 
private policyholders. In short, our society would be diminished and 
too many of our fellow citizens would continue to suffer needlessly.
  Senators DeWine, Dodd, and Reed graciously offered to let me take the 
lead in advancing the legislation through Congress. Because of their 
support, the support of countless others in the House and Senate, and 
the support of the President of the United States, George W. Bush, we 
were able to make a difference and for the first time put the Federal 
Government on the front lines in the battle against youth suicide.
  This week marks another anniversary, Mr. President. It was on 
September 9, 2004, on what would have been Garrett's 23rd birthday, 
that final passage was achieved on what my colleagues' named the 
Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act. So I rise today during what is also 
National Suicide Prevention Week to reflect on what has been 
accomplished these past 4 years thanks to the provisions of the Garrett 
Lee Smith Act and to remind my colleagues of the work that still must 
be done.
  Since its enactment into law, the Garrett Lee Smith Act has provided 
funding for youth suicide prevention programs in 31 States, 7 Native 
American tribes or tribal organizations, and 55 colleges and 
universities. Incredibly, more than 150,000 people across our Nation 
have been trained in youth suicide prevention activities under the 
Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act. This includes more than 40,000 college 
students who can now look for the warning signs of depression in peers, 
more than 11,000 parents and foster parents who can spot the warning 
signs in their children, 9,000 teachers who can better identify the 
needs of their students, and 1,300 primary care providers who can 
better serve the mental health needs along with the physical needs of 
our children and youth they seek to heal. We also know that 13,000 
youth have been screened for mental illness through the Garrett Lee 
Smith Memorial Act grants. Of these youth, more than 2,800 were found 
to be at risk of suicide and 95 percent were referred for mental health 
services. Amazingly, of these children, 90 percent received care.
  In my home State of Oregon alone, more than 900 people have been 
trained in suicide prevention activities. They have been taught these 
new skills in a way that will allow them to share what they have 
learned to train others. This ``train the trainer'' type of program has 
created a sustainable program which will continue to grow the number of 
caring people in our communities who have the know-how to spot mental 
illness and suicide risks in our children and youth.
  Mr. President, much has been accomplished in the battle against youth 
suicide, but there is still much more that needs to be done, and I 
would like to provide a roadmap of five actions this Congress can and 
should take before adjournment.
  First, Congress needs to reauthorize the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial 
Act. Last May, I joined with Senators Dodd and Reed in introducing just 
such a reauthorization proposal. Our bill would provide some important 
updates to the program, including allowing States and tribes to get 
more than one grant so that many States can expand on the work they 
started with the initial youth suicide prevention grants they received. 
Our bill would also allow for increasing funding levels and allow for 
the current youth suicide resource centers to serve those of other 
ages.
  Second, mental health parity has passed both the House and the Senate 
and is awaiting final passage. I urge the conference committee to get 
this to final passage. This final version has been included in the tax 
extenders package drafted by Senator Baucus that is awaiting 
consideration. I am very hopeful that through this package, mental 
health parity will soon be completed. Placing mental health on parity 
with physical health will send a very important message to our family 
members and friends with mental illness. It says to them: We support 
you, we love you, and we are working to ensure that you get the help 
you need.
  Third, mental health parity must also be provided to children under 
SCHIP. Low-income children suffer at higher rates of mental illness. We 
must ensure that the State Children's Health Insurance Program better 
supports their needs. We know that the earlier we can identify and help 
children with any mental health issues, the better chance they will 
have in obtaining a long-term recovery and learning the ability to 
manage their illness.
  Fourth, along with many colleagues, I have long been concerned with 
the mental health needs of our older veterans as well as those who are 
returning from our current conflicts. I held a field hearing in Oregon 
last year on the issues that our aging veterans face and convened two 
roundtables on the issue with veterans, mental health professionals, 
and local officials. Senator Kohl and I also held an Aging Committee 
hearing in the fall of last year that looked at veterans' mental health 
issues. I was honored that Senator Bob Dole was able to testify at this 
important hearing.
  In response to the findings I gathered from these hearings and 
discussions, I introduced in July of this year, along with my colleague 
and friend Senator Wyden, the Healing Our Nation's Heroes Act of 2008. 
This bill would improve the oversight of the Department of Veterans 
Affairs and the Department of Defense as it relates to the mental 
health services they provide to our service men and women and veterans. 
It would also work to increase the number of their mental health 
professionals and train them to better understand the unique issues of 
our men and women who have seen combat.
  Finally, I have worked to introduce a package of bills with Senator 
Reed of Rhode Island that would support and enhance our community 
mental health centers. These centers are the safety net of our local 
mental health systems and work to ensure care to so many low-income 
individuals. These bills would help to better integrate the physical 
and mental health at these centers. This package would also help to 
provide funding for infrastructure expansion and improvements that are 
so desperately needed as local centers struggle under low funding and 
increased community needs. Currently, the reauthorization is pending in 
the HELP Committee.
  Mr. President, I know we are in the midst of a partisan season. Two 
of our colleagues are campaigning for the Presidency of the United 
States, and one is campaigning for the Vice Presidency. In my State of 
Oregon, my colleague, Mr. Schumer of New York, is spending millions 
upon millions of dollars running very partisan and negative ads in the 
hopes of defeating me, and that is certainly his right. I know Mr. 
Schumer has put pressure on many of my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle these past few months not to continue any bipartisan work 
with me. But just as passage of the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act was 
not a partisan issue, taking action on the five items I have just 
listed is also not partisan. Mental illness does not differentiate 
between Republican and Democrat. It is an American issue. It is a human 
issue. And as Americans, we have a duty to act.
  Perhaps the best counsel I received in the days and weeks following 
Garrett's death came from Dr. Lloyd Ogilvie, who served with such 
distinction as the Chaplain of the Senate. Lloyd had recently lost his 
beloved wife Mary Jane and called me from Los Angeles to commiserate. 
His message to me was that ``gratitude'' is a miraculous antidote for 
grief, and that, whenever I was feeling overwhelmed by bewilderment and 
remorse, I should remember to be grateful that the Lord gave us Garret 
for 22 years less a day. It sounded simple enough--gratitude as an 
antidote for grief--so I tried it, I tried it again, and I discovered 
that it works.
  I stand here today, 5 years after losing my son, with profound 
gratitude in

[[Page 18305]]

my heart: gratitude for the countless Oregonians who continue to let 
Sharon and me know that we are in their thoughts and prayers; gratitude 
for my colleagues here in this Chamber, without respect of party, who 
helped me persevere and recover; gratitude for public servants such as 
Mike DeWine and Chris Dodd and Jack Reed and many others--and I must 
mention Orrin Hatch, who has been an incredible brother to me. They 
allowed me to turn my grief into action through the Garrett Lee Smith 
Memorial Act. I express gratitude for President Bush signing this act. 
He did it on a misty day, on an October morning in 2004, just before 
election day. I express gratitude for those who are on the front lines 
of the battle against suicide, and countless mental health 
professionals who are implementing the programs authorized by the 
Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, who are often overwhelmed by the demand 
and underfunded by resources.
  And above all, I express gratitude that a remarkable boy graced 
Sharon's and my life for so many years, and that his memory lives on 
through the good works implemented by legislation that bears his name 
on the statutes of the United States of America.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4979

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, right now the pending business, as I 
understand it, is the Bill Nelson amendment, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. INHOFE. Let me first compliment Senator Nelson for bringing this 
up. This has been something we have been wrestling with now for more 
than 8 years and we are finally going to have an opportunity to make it 
happen. It is a long overdue fix in the Survivor Benefit Plan and I am 
honored to be a cosponsor of this amendment. It clearly states that a 
surviving spouse and dependents of our veterans should receive the full 
value of the SBP and the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation--DIC--
without an offset.
  Here is what the problem has been in the past. They would receive one 
or the other, but the other would be offset against it so our surviving 
spouses would not have the full benefit. Let's look at what it is. They 
have distinct purposes. The DIC, the Dependency and Indemnity 
Compensation, is tax free and it compensates for a service-connected 
death and the resulting economic loss. That is what that stands for.
  The SBP, the Survivor Benefit Plan, is more like a life insurance 
policy. Survivors are qualified for SBP only because their spouses 
bought it with monthly premiums.
  It is time we gave back these benefits to families of those who have 
served bravely in the defense of our Nation. I think it is an insult to 
their honor and their memory to do anything else.
  Many of us have fought for years to ensure the SBP pays survivors as 
it was intended. I, along with 38 colleagues, sponsored the SBP 
Benefits Improvement Act of 2001. We are talking about quite a number 
of years ago. It amended the Federal provisions concerning the Military 
Survivor Benefit Plan to adjust the basic annuity amount for surviving 
spouses of former military personnel and adjust similarly the 
authorized percentage amounts of SBP supplemental annuity authorized 
for such spouses.
  Again, I cosponsored, with 45 colleagues, the Military Survivor 
Benefits Improvement Act of 2003 to accomplish the same thing.
  We have worked diligently to change the laws covering the concurrent 
receipt and have been successful. This legislation is the logical 
expansion of the same principle, acknowledging that the surviving 
spouses and dependents should not be left behind. Every year for the 
last 3 years we voted to include this legislation in our version of the 
National Defense Authorization Act. We have the authorization bill--I 
should say the reauthorization bill--every year. We put it in. Then, 
somehow, in conference it comes out.
  As the Chair knows, we cannot discuss what happens in conference 
other than we know the results. The results were this was something we 
wanted to do, we had it in, it came out. In 2006, 2007, and 2008, we 
agreed to repeal this SBP/DIC offset and every year it has been dropped 
by the conference committee.
  Again, that is something nobody knows why. I, frankly, do not know 
why and I am on the conference. With this amendment we rectify a 
longstanding injustice to widows and dependents whose spouses or parent 
died, of a military service-related cause, who are sacrificing a dollar 
of the DOD Survivor Benefit Plan for every dollar of the VA Dependency 
and Indemnity Compensation they receive.
  Finally, after all these years it is going to become a reality. I 
applaud the Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson, for bringing it up. I 
encourage everyone to agree to this amendment. I think it will be 
agreed to because it has had favorable treatment from our defense 
committee, our Armed Services Committee, for a number of years now.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, before I ask for a quorum call, if the 
quorum call is put in motion here, is the time charged against both 
sides on the Vitter amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are on the Nelson amendment so no time 
would be charged.
  The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first I wish to say to our colleague and 
fellow member of the Senate Armed Services Committee from Oklahoma, I 
was very moved by your remarks on this particular program, as requested 
by our colleague from Florida. This will have my support. But your 
voice has added a great deal of significance to the fundamental 
necessity for this body to go ahead with this amendment. I judge you, 
too, are a cosponsor on this amendment?
  Mr. INHOFE. That is correct. I say to the Senator from Virginia, we 
have been working on this, you and I together, along with several other 
Senators on both sides of the aisle, for 8 years now that I know of. 
This should be the day that we come to the happy conclusion and make 
sure it does happen.
  I wonder why things that are so right are so long in coming. He and I 
both know, after the years we have served, it is not all that easy 
sometimes. I thank the Senator for all of his support for the survivor 
benefits and all the things we have done since--actually prior to 2001.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. If it is one hallmark 
he has in the Senate, it is his tenacity, year after year after year. 
So stick with it--whether it is this program or your beloved highway 
programs, which you fight for, or your beloved WRDA bill, which you 
fight for. It is a long list.
  I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. LEVIN. 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. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Would the Senator from Oregon yield?
  Mr. WYDEN. I will yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized following the presentation from the Senator from Oregon.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. First, I wish to note that my friend and colleague, 
Senator

[[Page 18306]]

Smith, was just on the floor. I wish to commend him for all the work he 
has done for the vulnerable families in our country. He and Sharon, of 
course, have suffered the loss, a loss almost unbearable to all of us 
who are parents. They have done everything they possibly could to stand 
up for other families across the country.
  Since our colleague spoke, and very movingly, on the floor, I wish to 
take a special note, before I begin my comments on another subject, of 
his advocacy because I think it has been extremely important for 
millions of families in our country.


                      Minerals Management Service

  Mr. President, I have come to the floor to talk about a new report 
that the Interior inspector general has released on the offshore oil 
and gas leasing program.
  Several years ago, I stood on the floor and spoke for several hours 
in an effort to draw the Senate's attention to the mismanagement of 
this offshore oil and gas leasing program. Today we have learned, with 
the inspector general's report, that nothing has changed. What they 
have shown, the inspector general in this report, is that the Royalty-
in-Kind program, one of the key royalty programs that they looked at, 
is a horror story of mismanagement and misconduct.
  The inspector general looked at the Minerals Management Service, and 
said, with respect to this royalty program, there is a ``culture of 
ethical failure.'' Nearly one-third of the entire staff of the Royalty-
in-Kind program accepted gifts and gratuities from the oil and gas 
companies with which they were conducting official business.
  There are stories of drug use. There are stories of inappropriate 
sexual relationships. The inspector general confirmed that two Royalty-
in-Kind employees were running a side consulting business for oil and 
gas companies with which the Royalty-in-Kind program was doing 
business.
  The inspector general's report detailed how Royalty-in-Kind managers, 
instead of working for the taxpayers' interests, were working for their 
own self-interest, ingratiating themselves with the very oil companies 
they were charged to negotiate fair deals with on behalf of American 
taxpayers.
  Now, some are probably wondering exactly how much money has been lost 
as a result of this mismanagement and misconduct. The bottom line from 
the inspector general's investigation is there is no way to determine 
how extensive the abuses in this program have been. There is no way to 
determine exactly how much money the American taxpayer has lost. 
Because the record keeping has been so shoddy, it is not possible to 
figure out exactly what these losses are.
  I am very hopeful, as a result of this extraordinarily important 
report by the inspector general, that it will be possible to clean 
house finally at the Minerals Management Service. I hope it will be 
possible.
  You say to yourself: How can it be that these things are done at this 
agency today? What would it take to get a serious audit program at the 
Mineral Management Service? I hope it will be possible now to make 
changes in this program, to make it crystal clear that the Federal 
Government will no longer employ someone serving an interest other than 
the public's.
  Whether you are a secretary or manager or the guy or the gal who is 
cleaning up, if you want to work for the public, then you need to take 
the public's trust seriously.
  Now, you say to yourself, this should pretty much go without saying. 
But particularly this afternoon, as the Congress is on the eve of a 
historic debate about the future of energy policy, you ought to say: 
Let's clean up the abuses that are taking place in existing leasing 
programs that are going to continue and possibly be expanded under the 
legislation that the Congress will consider shortly.
  Some of the Minerals Management Services problems also involve a law 
that was written originally in the mid-1990s, when the price of oil was 
low. When the price of oil was around $15 a barrel, the Congress said: 
Let's give oil companies a financial incentive to drill on new leases 
in the Gulf of Mexico. The law said that while the oil companies were 
drilling on public land, they didn't have to pay the Federal Government 
the required royalties until the price of oil rose high enough for the 
companies to make a profit, obviously a little bit different time than 
today. Oil prices, of course, have not stayed low. It turns out that 
royalty relief didn't phase out the way it should have.
  We learned the Minerals Management Service, the part of the Interior 
Department charged with issuing and administering offshore leases, 
bungled things so badly they forgot to include provisions in the leases 
requiring royalties on those particular leases. The Government 
Accountability Office has estimated that just this dereliction of duty 
would cost American taxpayers as much as $11.5 billion. The Government 
Accountability Office recently has updated that amount and the impact 
is several billions of dollars higher.
  The Congress has held hearings on this management failure, but the 
fact is, nothing has been done to fix the problem.
  To add further insult to the injuries suffered by taxpayers, the oil 
companies operating in the gulf, led by Kerr McGee, sued the Federal 
Government, claiming they shouldn't pay royalties on any of the oil 
from any of the 1995 to 2000 leases, no matter how high the price of 
oil went. They got a judge in Louisiana to agree with them. The Federal 
Government is appealing the case.
  Senator Kyl and I have been working on a bipartisan basis to try to 
get this corrected, but in the 2005 Energy bill, the Congress extended 
the exemptions for new leases in the Gulf of Mexico from royalty 
payments for both oil and natural gas wells, despite the fact that oil 
was already $50 a barrel. This is a loophole that remains in effect 
until June of 2010 and is going to allow current and future leases in 
the Gulf to continue to avoid even more royalties while additional 
profit is generated at record prices.
  The Bush administration has proposed repealing these 2005 royalty 
relief provisions, but they are still in place.
  This is the time to get control of this runaway stallion. We are 
talking about millions, certainly billions, in terms of the cumulative 
cost of the program, and these practices take your breath away.
  Let me read from one paragraph from the summary the inspector general 
has issued. One paragraph talking about three employees says: The 
results of this investigation paint a disturbing picture of three 
senior executives who were good friends and remained calculatedly 
ignorant of the rules governing postemployment restrictions, conflict 
of interest, and Federal acquisition regulations to ensure that two 
lucrative contracts would be awarded to a company created by one of 
them and then later joined by another.
  These are such clear examples of abuse that no matter what one says, 
you have to say this is unacceptable. The inspector general found that 
between 2002 and 2006, nearly one-third of the entire Royalty-in-Kind 
staff socialized with and received a wide array of gifts and gratuities 
from oil and gas companies with which the Royalty-in-Kind Program was 
conducting official business. We are talking about 135 occasions 
involving gifts and gratuities. They went on to say that the inspector 
general discovered a culture of substance abuse and promiscuity in the 
Royalty-in-Kind Program, alcohol abuse associated with the program, 
where there was socializing by staff with the industry.
  I have suggested two steps today that strike me as obvious changes 
that should be put in place. First, there needs to be an effort to 
clean house at the Minerals Management Service so that we get these 
practices behind us. We also have to get back in the serious business 
of auditing these programs where millions and billions of dollars are 
involved.
  I want to commend particularly the inspector general of the 
Department of the Interior for his outstanding work in putting together 
this report. This is one of a series of reports that the inspector 
general has issued in this area.

[[Page 18307]]

I and the chairman of the Energy Committee, Senator Bingaman, have 
worked closely with colleagues to try to get these changes put in 
place. Senator Bingaman in particular has offered a number of promising 
legislative changes to deal with the royalty issue.
  I wanted colleagues to know in particular about this Office of 
Inspector General inquiry into the Minerals Management Service, given 
the debate that is about to begin in the Senate.
  We will be, as far as I can tell, spending much of the remainder of 
this session talking about these and similar programs. I happen to 
think it is possible for us to do our work in a bipartisan fashion, get 
in place energy changes that will allow us, in the area of alternative 
energy supplies and renewables, to make significant progress. I have 
made it clear that particularly with respect to additional 
opportunities for drilling, be it in the Gulf of Mexico, and maybe 
other areas, I am open. What I am not open to is the continued abuse of 
taxpayers in these essential programs involving public resources. We 
are talking about public lands. We are talking about public resources. 
It is one thing when private companies drill on private lands. It is 
quite another when they are developing energy on public lands and, in 
my view, taking advantage of programs that were set up years ago when 
the price of oil was $15 a barrel.
  It is time to clean house at the Minerals Management Service. It is 
time to get back in the business of accountability and rigorous 
oversight of these leasing programs that involve such extensive amounts 
of taxpayer funds.
  I hope all colleagues will look at the report issued by the inspector 
general of the Department of the Interior. It provides a clear roadmap 
for how the Congress ought to proceed in terms of correcting these 
programs, ending the pattern of abuse and mismanagement, and changing 
the channel from the current horror show of mismanagement and 
misconduct at the Minerals Management Service.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DORGAN. Yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Could we have a time set for the Senator's presentation? 
Can he give us an idea about how long he would be?
  Mr. DORGAN. I would expect to be about 15 minutes. Is there some 
intervening business the Senator wishes to conduct?
  Mr. LEVIN. That is helpful. I wonder if Senator Dorgan could be 
recognized for 15 minutes. I will ask unanimous consent to extend it, 
if necessary, but it will give us an idea how we can proceed, and then 
I ask unanimous consent that following Senator Dorgan, the Chair 
recognize the managers.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Senator Dorgan is recognized for 15 minutes, and then the managers 
will be recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. I thank Senators Levin and Warner for their leadership on 
the Defense authorization bill and the Armed Services Committee which 
brings to us the Defense authorization bill. They held a hearing on the 
subject of Iraq contracting at one point in their committee, and I went 
to testify before that hearing. It is interesting that at that hearing 
my testimony about a range of issues with respect to subcontractors 
doing contracting in Iraq was contradicted by an Army general. That 
Army general is now under investigation because it is anticipated that 
Army general did not provide truthful testimony to the committee. One 
of the things I wanted to talk about today was about the issue of 
profound waste of money with respect to Iraq contracting. But then I 
want to talk about how much money we have committed and how much we 
have appropriated and, for that matter, authorized to Iraq at a time 
when the special inspector general for Iraq tells us that that country 
is pumping out about 2 million barrels of oil a day, selling it on the 
open market, amassing substantial cash for their own country, and the 
Iraqi treasury is now expected to have a surplus of around $50 billion. 
The Government of Iraq is accumulating a surplus of about $50 billion 
currently, and it is estimated to be $79, perhaps $79 billion by the 
end of the year.
  Contrast that with this country. Iraq is pumping oil, 2 million 
barrels a day, selling oil. We go up to the gas pump and put gas in our 
cars and pay money that ends up in Iraqi banks. In fact, that Iraqi 
money is in the Federal Reserve Bank in the United States. Meanwhile, 
Americans are paying high prices for oil, part of which ends up in 
Iraqi coffers, and Iraq has about $50 billion, while we are up to our 
neck in debt. It is unbelievable. We have a fiscal policy that is 
wildly out of control. We are going to borrow $600 to $700 billion this 
year. We are spending money for reconstruction in Iraq.
  Let me show a picture of something called the Whale. The Whale is a 
facility that has been built in Iraq, and it is a facility called the 
Kahn Bani Sa'ad prison. If we take a look at this picture, we see 
bricks falling all over, an unbelievable mess. This doesn't look like a 
building. It looks like a construction site that is under substantial 
disrepair.
  Let me tell the story about the Kahn Bani Sa'ad prison. Our 
Government told them that they had to build this prison. We are going 
to build this with American money. The Iraqi said: We don't need this 
prison. We won't use this prison. If you are going to build it, it is 
built in the wrong location, but we don't want this built.
  The American Government said: We are going to build this prison. They 
contracted with Parsons Corporation for $30 million. My understanding 
is that after spending $30 million, they actually got rid of that 
contractor and brought another contractor in and spent another $10 
million. Here it sits. They call it the Whale. It sits on the sands of 
Iraq, paid for with American taxpayer money, never used, will never be 
used. It is shoddy construction, bricks are falling apart. It is 
unbelievable. It is a hood ornament on incompetence in my judgment, the 
Whale.
  How much more of this should we do? I have spent a career on the 
Senate floor talking about how miserable the oversight has been with 
respect to these contractors. Here is one small but illustrative 
example. A contractor was supposed to be buying towels for the troops, 
little hand towels, Kellogg, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, 
buying hand towels for the troops. Henry Bunting, a purchasing 
employee, is told: Buy hand towels for the Army. So he orders some 
white hand towels.
  His supervisor said: You cannot do that. You have to buy hand towels 
with ``KBR'' embroidered on them, the name of the company.
  He said: That will triple or quadruple the price of these towels.
  His supervisor said: That doesn't matter. This is a cost-plus 
contract. The taxpayers will pay for that.
  So the towels ordered for American troops were towels with ``KBR'' 
embroidered on them--Kellogg Brown & Root--at triple or quadruple the 
cost to the American taxpayer.
  There were $85,000 trucks left behind to be torched--brandnew $85,000 
trucks left beside the road in Iraq to be torched--because they had a 
flat tire, they did not have a wrench to fix it, or had a plugged fuel 
pump and they did not have the tools to fix it. These weren't dangerous 
areas where there was a concern about being attacked. These were 
pacified areas where a repair could have been made. But the decision 
was to just have the truck torched, because taxpayers could just buy 
new ones.
  You think these are stories that are wild? No. That is just the 
beginning. I have held 17 hearings on it.
  I say to Senator Warner, he will recall the day I came to the 
committee

[[Page 18308]]

and testified about this issue. He will recall a General Johnson who 
testified just after me and said: Senator Dorgan is wrong about this. 
Then he told you what he thought the truth was. It turns out he 
deceived the committee.
  That General Johnson is now under investigation by the Secretary of 
Defense. I asked the Inspector General to look into the testimony--my 
testimony and his. Several weeks before General Johnson came before the 
Armed Services Committee, the Inspector General had furnished a report, 
an interim report, to the military saying exactly the opposite of what 
General Johnson told the Armed Services Committee.
  I appreciate the fact that Senator Warner held that hearing, and I 
also appreciate the fact that Secretary Gates is now investigating 
because, if anything, we desperately need people who come to this 
Congress to testify to tell the truth and not deceive the Congress. 
That particular issue was a water issue that was providing water--this 
was Halliburton and Kellogg Brown & Root providing water--to the 
military bases in Iraq. The allegation has been since sustained, by the 
way, by the inspector general's report.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I do recall very vividly the Senator 
coming before the Senate Armed Services Committee--I believe I was 
chairman at that time----
  Mr. DORGAN. I say to the Senator, you were the chair of the hearing
  Mr. WARNER. For the purpose of bringing to the attention of the 
committee this very important issue.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, that particular issue was the provision of 
water to the military bases in Iraq. We discovered the nonpotable water 
that was sent to the bases for showering, shaving, brushing their teeth 
was twice as contaminated as raw water from the Euphrates River because 
the contractor was not doing its job and not testing the water.
  Well, I will not go on. I could go on at great length talking about 
the unbelievable waste. But what I do want to say is this: In recent 
months, what we have discovered is that in the county of Iraq they are 
amassing a very substantial amount of money. At the moment, we believe 
it is $50 billion and expected to grow to $79 billion in budget surplus 
in their bank accounts by the end of this year.
  It seems to me from an infrastructure standpoint it is time--long 
past the time, in fact--for Iraqis, who have money in the bank--and a 
lot of it--to begin providing their own needs and infrastructure and 
investment. It is interesting to me and somewhat depressing, I would 
say, that in this year we are building somewhere close to 950 water 
projects in the country of Iraq. Let me say that again: about 950 water 
projects in the country of Iraq--with American taxpayers' money at the 
same time the President has recommended that we cut $1 billion out of 
water project investment in this country. It does not make much sense 
to me.
  Now, here is what I propose. There are three accounts for which we 
have appropriated American taxpayers' dollars in which a substantial 
amount of that is as yet unspent and, in fact, a substantial amount 
unobligated. I believe when we have some billions of dollars that have 
previously been appropriated but are unobligated, that at this point--
given the fact that Iraq has substantial surpluses and we have 
substantial deficits, given the fact that we have spent somewhere now 
over two-thirds of a trillion dollars in the pursuit of the war in Iraq 
and Afghanistan, and so much of it has been infrastructure investment 
in addition to replenishment of the military accounts--I believe it is 
time for us to take at least a baby step and say: Do you know what. 
With respect to that which has been appropriated but is yet 
unobligated, it is time to ask the Iraqis to pay for the cost of this 
with their surplus that sits in a Federal Reserve bank.
  Now, let me provide some evidence of all of this.
  The New York Times of August 6, that is last month:

       Soaring oil prices will leave the Iraqi government with a 
     cumulative budget surplus of as much as $79 billion by year's 
     end, according to an American federal oversight agency. But 
     Iraq has spent only a minute fraction of that on 
     reconstruction costs, which are now largely borne by the 
     United States.

  Does this make sense? Does anybody think this makes sense? We are 
deep in debt. They have massive cash reserves they are building every 
single day by pulling up 2 million barrels of oil and selling it on the 
market, and we are told we should keep paying for these costs? It does 
not make much sense to me.
  A Government Accountability Office report to Congress from last 
month:

       [From 2005 to 2007], the Iraqi government was unable to 
     spend all the funds it budgeted, especially for investment 
     activities.

  I am not talking about the surplus now. The surplus is that which is 
over the amount of money the Iraqi Government was going to spend. They 
could not spend the amount of money they decided to spend, and yet they 
have accumulated large surpluses beyond that.

       Significant amounts of unspent money from the 2006 and 2007 
     Iraqi budgets remain available for further infrastructure 
     investment by the Government of Iraq.

  That is from the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction 
Report to us dated July 30.
  Iraq Deputy Prime Minister Salih said, as noted in the special 
inspector general's report to Congress on July 30:

       Iraq does not need financial assistance.

  ``Iraq does not need financial assistance.''
  This is just another example of that which I have held 17 hearings 
on. This is an April 30, 2006, article:

       A $243 million program led by the United States Army Corps 
     of Engineers to build 150 health care clinics in Iraq has in 
     some cases produced little more than empty shells of 
     crumbling concrete and shattered bricks cemented together 
     into uneven walls. . . .

  This is a picture of a man named Judge Al Radhi. Judge Al Radhi was 
selected by us, by the Coalition Provisional Authority, by Mr. Bremer, 
to be the Commissioner of Public Integrity in Iraq. He found $18 
billion of graft and corruption. He found examples where we 
appropriated money for Iraq to buy airplanes, warships, and tanks, and 
there are no airplanes, warships, and tanks purchased with that money. 
The money is gone, but the equipment does not exist. By the way, one of 
the Ministers from the Government is now living in a plush place 
overseas, and the money apparently is in a Swiss bank. This man, by the 
way, was not even supported by our own State Department. Eventually, 
the Iraqi Government wanted to get rid of him, and they did. A 
substantial number of the people who worked for him were assassinated. 
They tried to kill him a couple of times. He came. He had the courage 
to come and testify before a committee hearing that I requested before 
the Senate Appropriations Committee.
  He said $18 billion was taken--most of it American money. He talked 
about the Ministers who took it and where they are now and the tanks 
and ships and planes that were supposed to have been purchased with our 
money that did not exist. The money is gone. The equipment does not 
exist.
  Well, Mr. President, that is a long way of saying that, obviously, I 
am impatient about all of these issues, having held a lot of hearings 
on all this. My colleague, Senator Levin, has spoken of this issue 
often, recently, and going back some long while on the subject of who 
should bear these costs.
  If the Iraqi Government has substantial amounts of money in bank 
accounts in surplus--$50 billion now and $75, $79 billion by the end of 
the year--should they not bear the cost of some of their own 
reconstruction rather than continue to ask--after 5 long years--the 
United States, which is deep in debt, to have to bear this cost and 
bear the burden? The answer clearly is yes. We ought to ask Iraq to do 
more.
  Now, I am going to offer an amendment. I am not asking us to take a 
giant step. But let's at least take a baby step in the right direction, 
a reasonable step toward common sense, to say: Do you know what. We are 
off-track in fiscal policy. We have an unbelievable mess, and it is 
time to start taking a look at some of this spending and using a deep 
reservoir of common

[[Page 18309]]

sense on this issue. At this point in time it is reasonable for us to 
say if the county of Iraq is selling 2 million barrels of oil a day, 
amassing very large amounts of surplus in their treasury, we ought to 
be relieved of the burden of using American money to build 
infrastructure in Iraq that could easily, and should be, built with 
Iraqi money.
  It is not the case of us abandoning the Iraqi Government. But it is 
the case of saying we ought to expect them to do for their own, which 
they can. Again, I just refer to the comment that was made by the 
Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq, who said:

       Iraq does not need financial assistance.

  That ought to be an invitation, finally, at long last, for us to use 
some common sense in the way we begin to address these issues.
  There are appropriated funds that are as yet unspent and unobligated. 
It seems to me appropriate for us at this point to begin to look at 
finding ways to decide that those funds, rather than being spent and 
burdening the American taxpayer, should be covered by the surpluses 
that exist in bank accounts with the name of the county of Iraq on the 
account.
  Mr. President, I intend to work with my colleagues on the amendment I 
will offer. But I did want to describe the reason for it today. I 
appreciate very much the time offered to me by the chairman and ranking 
member.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan is 
recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from North Dakota. 
This subject, which he has described, is a subject which every 
American--at least those I have spoken to--understands. Regardless of 
their position on the Iraq war, regardless of whether they believe we 
did the right thing going in, regardless of whether they are critics of 
the Bush administration's policies, this cuts across every single line. 
I have not talked to anybody, at least in my State of Michigan, who 
believes that when Iraq has $80 billion in surplus funds sitting in 
banks, some of which are our banks drawing interest from our 
taxpayers--we have paid billions of dollars in interest on Iraqi 
surplus accounts coming from sales of oil, much of which comes to 
America, much of which ends up in our tanks at $4 a gallon, enriching 
themselves at the expense of the American taxpayers. Why in heaven's 
name they are not paying for the kinds of items which Senator Dorgan 
has described beats me and I think it absolutely stuns at least every 
American I have spoken to when they hear about it. This cuts across all 
the positions on the war and the success of the surge or the lack of 
success because it hasn't accomplished its purposes.
  This issue is a critically important issue. It is shocking. It is 
unsustainable, it is untenable, it is unconscionable that Iraq is not 
paying for the kinds of reconstruction efforts the Senator has 
described.
  Senator Warner and I wrote a letter some months ago, and we received 
a response on this subject which provides a lot of the information to 
which Senator Dorgan has referred. I commend Senator Warner because he 
has been active in trying to probe this area: How many surplus funds 
are there and how much is being added every day and what are they being 
spent for? So we have been able to accumulate a lot of information 
which I believe will be very supportive of an amendment which Senator 
Dorgan may offer and hopefully will put in a form which can command 
bipartisan support of the Senate.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if I might just make an observation, let 
me also thank Senator Warner from Virginia for his work on this, and 
the Senator from Michigan, and say that this publication--and I know 
the two of you have been very supportive of it--by the special 
inspector general for Iraq--this is dated July 30, so it is 2 months 
ago, a month and a half old. This publication has some unbelievable 
information in it about what is necessary, what kinds of expenditures 
exist in the major reconstruction accounts. There is at the moment $7 
billion in the three reconstruction accounts that is unspent and 
unobligated.
  As I move this amendment, I wish to work with both of you to see if 
we can construct the amendment in a manner that meets your needs and my 
needs because I believe this will make real progress.
  Again, I thank both the chairman and the ranking member for their 
work on these issues. I am well aware of the letter they wrote some 
months ago.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might add, I appreciate the 
sentiments of both of my colleagues. It has been a joint effort by 
Senator Levin and me.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the letter we prepared 
printed in the Record after this colloquy.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. WARNER. I wish to also bring to the Senator's attention--he 
already knows, but those following the debate should have been advised 
that this letter prompted a GAO study, and that study, which was 
released recently, received widespread attention, not only here in the 
Senate and in the House of Representatives but throughout the 
Government and other circles. So I would say we are well along in 
achieving some--what I would call better accounting for these dollars, 
better control over the expenditures.
  We have heard that the report is prepared by Stuart Bowen, whom I see 
regularly, three or four times a year, and I know my colleague and 
others feel likewise. I have a high regard for the work he and his 
staff have done through the years with that report. There was a time 
when there were elements of the Government--I won't get into 
specifics--which wanted to abolish that department. I think the Senator 
from Michigan remembers that. We stepped in and said in very simple 
language: No way; they are going to continue.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a question 
or comment, I think the special inspector general, Stuart Bowen, has 
done a terrific job. I would commend all of my colleagues to take a 
look at the reports the special inspector general has issued. They are 
unbelievably valuable to us.
  The Senator is correct. There were some who were pushing very hard to 
eliminate the special inspector general, and it was the fight waged by 
Senator Levin and Senator Warner to say that would not make sense at 
all. So I appreciate the work of Inspector General Bowen, and I 
appreciate the work of my colleagues.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                  Committee on Armed Services,

                                    Washington, DC, March 6, 2008.
     Hon. David M. Walker,
     Comptroller General of the United States,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Walker: Nearly five years ago, on March 27, 2003, 
     then Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, in testimony 
     before the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations 
     Committee, was asked whom he expected would pay for the 
     rebuilding of Iraq. He answered that ``there's a lot of money 
     to pay for this. It doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money. 
     And it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people . . . the 
     oil revenues of that country could bring between 50 and 100 
     billion dollars over the course of the next two or three 
     years. . . . We are dealing with a country that can really 
     finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.''
       In fact, we believe that it has been overwhelmingly U.S. 
     taxpayer money that has funded Iraq reconstruction over the 
     last five years, despite Iraq earning billions of dollars in 
     oil revenue over that time period that have ended up in non-
     Iraqi banks. At the same time, our conversations with both 
     Iraqis and Americans during our frequent visits to Iraq, as 
     well as official government and unofficial media reports, 
     have convinced us that the Iraqi Government is not doing 
     nearly enough to provide essential services and improve the 
     quality of life of its citizens.
       According to the U.S. Department of State's Iraq Weekly 
     Status Report for February 27, 2008, the Iraq Oil Ministry 
     goal for 2008 is to produce 2.2 million barrels per day 
     (MBPD). To date through the 24th of February, the 2008 weekly 
     averages have ranged from a low of 2.1 MBPD to a high of 2.51 
     MBPD, missing that goal for one week only. Exports are over 
     1.9 MBPD, with revenues estimated at $41.0 billion in 2007 
     and $9.4 billion in 2008 year to date.
       Extrapolating the $9.4 billion of oil revenues for the 
     first two months of 2008 yields an estimate of $56.4 billion 
     for all of 2008.

[[Page 18310]]

     And that figure will probably be low given the predictions 
     for oil prices to continue to rise over the coming year. In 
     essence, we believe that Iraq will accrue at least $100.0 
     billion in oil revenues in 2007 and 2008.
       We request you look into this matter and provide answers to 
     the following questions:
       What are the estimated Iraqi oil revenues each year from 
     2003-2007?
       How much has Iraq and the United States, respectively, 
     spent annually during that time period on training, equipping 
     and supporting Iraqi security forces, and on Iraq 
     reconstruction, governance, and economic development?
       What are the projections for oil revenue and spending for 
     2008?
       What is the estimate of the total Iraqi oil revenue that 
     has accumulated unspent from 2003-2007, and the expected 
     estimate at the end of 2008?
       How much money does the Iraqi Government have deposited, in 
     which banks, and in what countries?
       Why has the Iraqi Government not spent more of its oil 
     revenue on reconstruction, economic development and providing 
     essential services for the Iraqi people?
       Your assistance in this matter would be appreciated.
           Sincerely,
     John Warner,
       Member.
     Carl Levin,
       Chairman.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan has the 
floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation to 
Senator Levin and Senator Warner and the staff and other members of the 
Armed Services Committee who have worked hard to produce a bill that I 
think does the job pretty well to meet the challenges we have and at 
the same time has bipartisan support, which is important for passage as 
it is one of the realities of this Senate. So I think we have done 
fairly well.
  I wish to share some thoughts about some issues in general.
  I think it was Fareed Zakaria who wrote a book not too long ago 
noting that perhaps we had reached the end of history or beyond 
history. I understand he has since indicated that is not a viable 
philosophy anymore. I saw the cover, I believe, in the Weekly Standard 
recently which said: ``The Return of History.'' History teaches us that 
this is a dangerous world. We wish it were not so. We wish we did not 
have to have a Defense Department. We wish there were no such thing as 
war. I respect people who are prepared to be total pacifists in their 
lives, but for most of us who lack that kind of faith, we believe we 
have to be prepared to defend our legitimate national interests around 
the globe and do those things with courage and fidelity and to think 
ahead, to be prepared, and that peace is most often accomplished 
through strength. I believe we have a pretty good recognition of that 
in this bill, and that is why I support it out of committee.
  I wish to note the unease we have seen in some of the nations of the 
world. We know about the rogue nations. But it has been very troubling, 
I have to say, what Russia is doing today. It seems in their 
statements, in their comments, in their actions, and in their military 
aggression that they are not seeking to align themselves with nations 
of good will that seek to work in ways that avoid military conflict, 
that act in ways that are just and fair to their neighbors. So that is 
a big problem, some of the things they have been saying to the Czech 
Republic and Poland about missile defense; some of the threats they 
have raised toward the Baltics; the military attack they launched in 
Georgia, their rhetoric in Georgia; their rhetoric toward the United 
States represents almost bizarre activity. That is something I had 
hoped wouldn't happen. I think President Bush has done everything he 
could, saying that he divined in examining Mr. Putin that he had a good 
heart, but it looks as if that heart is--if it was good then, it is 
getting darker and darker today. I just wish it weren't so, but I am 
afraid it is so.
  We are looking at what is happening in China, whose economy continues 
to grow. There is a very nationalistic impulse in China. Their military 
is growing at a rapid pace. It is technologically advanced. We spend 
billions and billions of dollars on developing weapons systems and 
research and development. Too often, China steals that information and 
then produces a system that may well be comparable in some aspects for 
a far less investment than we put into it.
  So those are things we face in the world today. I think a wise 
nation, a mature nation understands that you have to be prepared, that 
you have to be ready to defend your values, and that allowing nations 
that do not share our values to achieve military parity or advantage is 
not a good thing.
  I wish to share, along those lines, a resolution I will be offering. 
It will be to call on this Senate to exercise its prerogative to make a 
statement through a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that we affirm the 
action taken by the Czech Republic and Poland to accept and participate 
in our goal of establishing a third site for missile defense in Europe. 
Missiles launched by Iran would pass over Europe before they reached 
the United States. Truly, Iran does not have that capability today, but 
our intelligence experts tell us they are moving forward with progress 
toward that goal. They also seem totally unrepentant with regard to 
their determination to build nuclear weapons, which is even more 
problematic as we think about the possibility that they could launch a 
nuclear weapon attack against our allies or even against the United 
States. Central Europe represents a good location to place another 
missile defense system.
  I heard someone suggest: Well, the Russians have a right to be 
concerned. We were concerned when the Russians put missiles in Cuba. 
But, of course, those were offensive nuclear weapons designed to kill 
people. What we are talking about is operating with independent, 
sovereign nations to put a system up that would have limited capability 
to protect us from missile attack. It has no offensive capability. It 
is a defensive, peacekeeping weapons system.
  For reasons that go beyond my comprehension, the Russians have 
apparently felt that they have a right to decide what the people of 
Poland do or what the people of the Czech Republic do. They are going 
to tell them that they can't have such a system. They at one time were 
under the Soviet boot, so now the Russians have a right to tell them 
that they can't--as an independent, sovereign, democratic Nation--make 
a decision that is in their interests and in the world's interests and 
in Europe's interests and in NATO's interests to place a limited 
missile defense system there. What kind of mentality is that? I say 
that because that ought to give us concern in this body. We ought to be 
concerned about that kind of mentality. It spilled out in a military 
attack in Georgia. It was not coincidental that while the Russian 
troops were still attacking in Georgia, high Government officials from 
Poland and the Ukraine and, I believe, Estonia came to Georgia and 
stood with them because they have a real sense that they might be next. 
They have not forgotten what Mr. Putin said last year or the year 
before--less than 2 years ago. He said the greatest disaster of the 
20th century was the collapse of the Soviet Union.
  What does that have to say about Russia's mentality and approach to 
life today? We were at a NATO conference not too long ago, and one 
nation that had been under the Soviet Communist boot, in response to 
that, and after our discussion, said they thought that may have not 
been the worst thing in the 20th century. They said they thought it was 
the best thing that happened in the 20th century. That is the kind of 
reality we are dealing with in the world. It tells us we are not beyond 
history. History is here. It has not gone away.

[[Page 18311]]

  We need to be very smart about how we utilize our limited financial 
resources to prepare ourselves for the future. These are problems we 
have to think about. Of course, we have the immediate threat of 
terrorism. We know the history of the attacks on the United States, on 
our warship, the USS Cole, in a neutral harbor; marines have been 
attacked; the Khobar Towers--by a group of people whose stated 
objective was to destroy us. Bin Laden declared war on the United 
States. That is what he said on his Web site--that he was at war with 
us. He killed so many of our people on 9/11, and destroyed the trade 
towers and attacked our own Pentagon, our own military headquarters 
right here in the United States. Is that not an act of war? Is that not 
consistent with a desire to destroy the United States? They had the 
Capitol or the White House in their sights, had it not been for the 
American heroes who took that plane down in Pennsylvania. So I guess we 
have to prepare for that. I wish it weren't so. I wish we could sit 
down with these terrorists and have a few hours of discussion and reach 
some accord that would result in us not having to prepare to spend 
billions of dollars to defend our interests around the world, and they 
would stop attacking us. But that is not likely to happen. That is not 
going to happen in the short term.
  President Bush was right, fundamentally, in his decision that we 
would not sit on defense and wait to be attacked again. He made a 
fundamental decision that the best way to preserve, protect, and defend 
the United States of America is for our military to quit being on the 
defensive and allowing terrorists to be treated as a law enforcement 
problem and, after they attack you, you see if you cannot investigate 
and figure out who it is and perhaps prosecute somebody. We needed to 
defend America and stop the attacks before they came. That is what I 
believe history will give him high marks for. It has been going on 6 or 
7 years and we have not had another attack on this country. It has been 
a challenge for us. We have called on our military to perform to the 
highest level. We have sent them time and again into dangerous places. 
We have extended their deployment. We hated to do that, but we have 
done it. They have met the challenge and they have answered the call. 
They have been successful in protecting us. We don't know how things 
will come out, but I believe we will be able to see the government 
reach maturity in Iraq--a decent and good government that is a positive 
force in the world, and likewise in Afghanistan.
  I think we should be prepared as a Senate to affirm the action of 
Poland in recent weeks to approve the deployment of 10 missile 
interceptors in Poland. That could be effective against an Iranian 
attack or maybe a mistake. It would not be enough to stop the hundreds 
of missiles the Russians have, for Heaven's sake. It would not be able 
to do that, but it would be able to protect Europe, and even the United 
States, from the long-range missiles that Iran is striving to build 
right now. It is also a good way to bind our countries in mutual 
security and mutual interests, and it affirms the Czechs' and the 
Poles' commitment to democracy and freedom, to the Western way of life, 
to the values we share, and a rejection on their part of terrorism and 
bullying. We will be offering that resolution, and I will talk more 
about it.
  We also need to be sure that we follow through on the authorization 
to send this bill and actually see that the money gets appropriated in 
the next aspect of Defense spending. For example, I will note that our 
committee, I am most proud to say, has fully funded and given the 
authorization to fund the site for the Czechs and the Poles, who have 
supported the President's request in that regard. I think it was a very 
important decision on our committee. Other committees of the Congress 
that have relevant jurisdiction to put out the money have not been as 
supportive. I am proud that our committee has been. It is important for 
these other committees--it is important in the geopolitical world we 
are in that our friends, our allies, free sovereign nations, Poland and 
the Czech Republic, have stood up to pressure from Russia and they have 
stood up to leftist complaints, and they have agreed to deploy this 
system.
  We ought to affirm it with a strong vote on this resolution and, 
ultimately, in passing an appropriation that is adequately funded. It 
is not going to be difficult to put this system in place. It would 
require some little differences in the missile system. We need a two-
stage instead of a three-stage rocket. That is not hard to adjust to. 
But the main guidance systems, the high technology, would be the same. 
We are on track to do this.
  Our bill that Senators Levin and Warner have moved forward to the 
floor does the right thing. I hope this Congress will explicitly 
express our appreciation to the Poles and Czechs and reaffirm our 
commitment to financially complete that project.
  I see other colleagues here. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from Virginia is 
recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I yield the floor to the assistant 
leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 5414

  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk for myself 
and Senators Vitter, Inhofe, Martinez, Warner, and Levin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], for himself, Mr. 
     Vitter, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Levin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 5414.

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

   (Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test, and 
Evaluation, Defense-wide activities, $89,000,000 for the activation and 
         deployment of the AN/TPY-2 forward-based X-band radar)

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

     SEC. 237. ACTIVATION AND DEPLOYMENT OF AN/TPY-2 FORWARD-BASED 
                   X-BAND RADAR.

       (a) Availability of Funds.--Subject to subsection (b), of 
     the amount authorized to be appropriated by section 201(4) 
     for research, development, test, and evaluation, Defense-wide 
     activities, up to $89,000,000 may be available for Ballistic 
     Missile Defense Sensors for the activation and deployment of 
     the AN/TPY-2 forward-based X-band radar to a classified 
     location.
       (b) Limitation.--
       (1) In general.--Funds may not be available under 
     subsection (a) for the purpose specified in that subsection 
     until the Secretary of Defense submits to the Committees on 
     Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     a report on the deployment of the AN/TPY-2 forward-based X-
     band radar as described in that subsection, including:
       (A) The location of deployment of the radar.
       (B) A description of the operational parameters of the 
     deployment of the radar, including planning for force 
     protection.
       (C) A description of any recurring and non-recurring 
     expenses associated with the deployment of the radar.
       (D) A description of the cost-sharing arrangements between 
     the United States and the country in which the radar will be 
     deployed regarding the expenses described in subparagraph 
     (C).
       (E) A description of the other terms and conditions of the 
     agreement between the United States and such country 
     regarding the deployment of the radar.
       (2) Form.--The report under paragraph (1) shall be 
     submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified 
     annex.

  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I express my strong support for the 
amendment I offered on deploying an advanced early warning radar to an 
allied country from near term ballistic missile threats.
  This is a commonsense amendment and I hope it receives wide, 
bipartisan support from my colleagues.
  We all know what other countries are developing: We are now living in 
a world in which at least 27 nations have ballistic missile capability, 
and the knowledge to build and use them is rapidly proliferating.
  Most recently, Iran's clumsy missile test earlier this summer may not 
have

[[Page 18312]]

demonstrated new technology, but it certainly demonstrated the desire 
to be in the club of the nations with ballistic missile and weapons of 
mass destruction capability. As the latest IAEA report informed us, the 
Iranian missile threat is real and growing.
  General Obering, director of the Missile Defense Agency, offered 
compelling illustrations of this growing threat in his testimony 
earlier this year to the Senate Armed Services Committee: ``Iran 
continues to pursue newer and longer-range missile systems and advanced 
warhead designs.''
  ``Iran is developing an extended-range version of the Shahab-3 that 
could strike our allies and friends in the Middle East and Europe as 
well as our deployed forces. It is developing a new Ashura medium-range 
ballistic missile capable of reaching Israel and U.S. bases in Eastern 
Europe.''
  ``Iranian public statements also indicate that its solid-propellant 
technology is maturing; with its significantly faster launch sequence, 
this new missile is an improvement over the liquid-fuel Shahab-3.''
  The amendment offered provides funding for the Missile Defense Agency 
to deploy an early-warning X-band missile defense radar to an allied 
nation, which press reports have noted was agreed to in meetings with 
senior DOD leaders and the allied nation's defense leaders. Due to the 
sensitive nature of preparations for this deployment, details 
concerning the specific location and operational concept have not been 
publicly revealed.
  However, spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency said the new system 
could double or even triple a threat missiles' range of identification, 
which would be particularly useful should countries such as Syria or 
Iran launch an attack against a critical allied nation.
  The new capability will improve the allied nation's missile defense. 
capability, allowing it to engage threats such as the Iranian Shahab-3 
ballistic missile. A defense security expert said the significance of 
the deal is that it will add ``precious minutes'' to its early warning 
ability.
  The newly deployed early warning radar will also provide an important 
element of the U.S. missile defense network, providing ascent and mid-
course coverage of missiles, launched from Iran, as well as the eastern 
Mediterranean.
  Mr. President, this amendment is common sense and I urge my 
colleagues to support it. Rogue nations such as Iran are dangerous and 
represent a vital threat to our own security and the security of our 
allies.
  Iran possesses ballistic missiles and is rapidly developing more 
advanced, long-range missiles.
  The U.S. must act responsibly, take this threat seriously, and take 
the necessary steps to protect our deployed forces and our allies.
  Madam President, I thank Senator Levin and Senator Warner for their 
cooperation in considering this amendment. This is a rather last-minute 
request. The committee would not have been able to put it in the bill 
because the request came up very recently from the Department of 
Defense. There is still an aspect of it that is classified. It has to 
do with the deployment of an X-band missile defense radar to an allied 
country. This amendment will allow the administration to go forward 
with that plan. I understand there is no opposition. I don't need to 
discuss it further.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I commend our distinguished colleague 
for this amendment. It is one that was specifically requested by the 
administration. I think in a most cooperative way, our distinguished 
chairman has joined in. It relates to the missile defense system which 
is so essential to our Nation and indeed much of the free world.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I thank Senator Kyl for not just the 
amendment but his willingness to work to craft the language in a way 
that I think has improved it, narrowed it in a number of ways, but also 
meets the needs of the Defense Department and our allies.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I urge consideration of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 5414) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask that Senator Leahy's amendment No. 
5323 be considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is once again 
pending.
  The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, on this side, I saw that the amendment 
was sent to the Judiciary Committee. The distinguished Senator from 
Alabama, Mr. Sessions, reviewed it. I know of no request for a recorded 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered on the 
amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and 
nays be vitiated on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam 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. 5323

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, is the pending amendment now the Leahy 
amendment No. 5323?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it is.
  Mr. LEVIN. I don't know of any further debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to amendment No. 5323.
  The amendment (No. 5323) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KYL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 5280

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
resume consideration of the Vitter amendment No. 5280 and that all 
debate time be yielded back, except for 2 minutes equally divided; and 
that at 6 p.m., the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Vitter 
amendment; that upon disposition of the Vitter amendment, the Senate 
resume consideration of the Nelson amendment and proceed to vote with 
respect to that amendment, provided that the 2 minutes of debate be 
made available prior to the vote; and that the other provisions of the 
previous order governing prohibition on intervening amendments prior to 
a vote and any other appropriate restrictions remain in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I 
will not object, I think we should either order the rollcall votes now 
or inform colleagues there will be rollcall votes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I believe when we say the Senate proceed to vote at 6 
o'clock--the unanimous consent request does intend to provide for 
rollcall votes on both amendments described. I thank my friend from 
Virginia for that clarification.
  Mr. WARNER. I want my colleagues fully informed.
  Mr. LEVIN. I also ask unanimous consent that it be in order to 
request the yeas and nays at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. With respect to both amendments?
  Mr. LEVIN. With respect to both amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WARNER. No objection.

[[Page 18313]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask for the yeas and nays on both amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, we had a very brief discussion whether 
the second vote will be a 10-minute vote. It is part of the order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank all our colleagues. I thank the Senator from North 
Dakota for his patience.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, the bill on the floor of the Senate is 
the Defense authorization bill. It has much to do about the security of 
this country, talking about ``defense.'' Tomorrow will be the seventh 
anniversary of the attacks on September 11, 2001.
  I was sitting here thinking that on that morning at 9 o'clock, I was 
part a regular Tuesday morning meeting of the Democratic leadership 
here in the Capitol Building. We saw on television what happened to the 
trade towers in New York. We heard the television reports, and then we 
saw the plume of smoke come from the Pentagon. Then someone from 
security rushed into the room and indicated they felt there was an 
incoming plane to strike the Capitol Building, and we were very quickly 
evacuated. That was 7 years ago tomorrow.
  Standing in the beautiful morning sun that day looking up into the 
sky and seeing F-16 fighter planes flying air cover over the Capitol of 
the United States was a pretty remarkable sight, knowing our country 
had been attacked. Then in very short order we discovered who attacked 
our country that day, who attacked the World Trade Towers, who attacked 
the Pentagon, who brought down the plane in Pennsylvania. We discovered 
it was a group called al-Qaida and a leader named Osama bin Laden who 
not only plotted the attack but boasted and took credit for the attack. 
That was 7 years ago tomorrow.
  Because we are talking about national security in the Defense 
authorization bill, I wanted to call my colleagues' attention to the 
fact that on August 12, 2008, a speech was given here in Washington, 
DC, by the National Intelligence Officer for Transnational Threats. He 
addressed the Washington Institute Special Policy Forum. What he said 
in many ways tracks with what we heard last summer from the National 
Intelligence Estimate.
  Let me put up a chart with some words from the National Intelligence 
Estimate because it is relevant to what we are talking about here on 
the Defense authorization bill, that is, defending our country, keeping 
America free. Here is what last year's July 2007 National Intelligence 
Estimate says. This is the declassified version of what had previously 
been and what was a classified intelligence estimate:

       Al-Qaida is and will remain the most serious terrorist 
     threat to the homeland . . . we assess the group has 
     protected or regenerated key elements of its homeland attack 
     capability, including: A safe haven in the Pakistan Federally 
     Administered Tribal Areas, operational lieutenants, and its 
     top leadership.

  Think of that. In July 2007, 6 years after America was attacked by 
Osama bin Laden, and our National Intelligence Estimate was telling us 
that organization has regenerated its leadership, has developed new 
training camps, has, in fact, a secure hideaway. This says ``safe 
haven.'' Can you imagine? Now it is 7 years after the attack, and our 
intelligence community still says those who boasted of murdering 
thousands of innocent Americans have a ``safe haven.'' There ought not 
be an acre of ground on this planet that is safe for those who murdered 
those innocent Americans 7 years ago tomorrow.
  Let me read what was said by Mr. Ted Gistaro, who is the National 
Intelligence Officer for Transnational Threats. Here is what he said in 
August:

       Al-Qaida remains the most serious terrorist threat to the 
     United States. We assess that al-Qaida's intent to attack the 
     U.S. homeland remains undiminished. Attack planning 
     continues. In spite of successful U.S.-allied operations 
     against al-Qaida, the group has maintained or strengthened 
     key elements of its capability to attack the United States in 
     the past year.

  This from our intelligence community.
  Finally:

       Al-Qaida has replenished its bench of skilled midlevel 
     lieutenants capable of directing global operations. It now 
     has many of the operational and organizational advantages it 
     once enjoyed across the border in Afghanistan. Al-Qaida is 
     identifying, training, and positioning operatives for attacks 
     in the west, likely including in the United States.

  All of this from top intelligence officials in our country. Seven 
years after we were attacked by those who boasted about engineering and 
planning the attack to murder innocent Americans, those who have 
promised to do it again, we are told by our national intelligence folks 
that they have regenerated their capability, they have resurrected 
their training camps, they are recruiting new recruits to al-Qaida, and 
that the most significant threat to the United States is al-Qaida, the 
most serious terrorist threat to our homeland.
  Now, I don't understand. We are, of course, bogged down in a lengthy 
war in the country of Iraq. Iraq did not attack our country on 9/11/
2001; al-Qaida did. We are bogged down in a war in Iraq. We see 
Afghanistan slipping through our fingers with the resurrection of the 
Taliban. And even more important, we are told that the most serious 
threat to our country--we are told by intelligence estimates--is al-
Qaida, which is growing in strength. So here we go again.
  In August of 2001, the Presidential daily brief said that Osama bin 
Laden wanted to:

       Bring the fight to America; wanted to conduct terrorist 
     attacks in the U.S.; wanted to retaliate in Washington; 
     wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft.

  The August 2001 intelligence briefing to President Bush talked of 
``Patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with 
preparations for hijackings or other types of attack.'' It said that 
``The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations 
throughout the United States that it considers bin Laden related.''
  That was August of 2001. Seven years later, the greatest threat to 
our country is al-Qaida and its leadership. That is unbelievable to me. 
And we see, beginning last year--and I have shown my colleagues this 
before--beginning last year, September 11:

       Al-Qaida's Return. The Terrorists Have a Sanctuary Once 
     Again.

  October 3 last year:

       Pakistan seen losing the fight against the Taliban and al-
     Qaida. Military officials say the insurgents have enhanced 
     their ability to threaten not only Pakistan, but the United 
     States and Europe as well.

  The same article says:

       Pakistan's government is losing its war against emboldened 
     and insurgent forces, giving al-Qaida and the Taliban more 
     territory in which to operate and allowing the groups to plot 
     increasingly ambitious attacks.

  CIA Director Hayden, on ``Meet the Press'' this year, just months 
ago, said this:

       It is very clear to us that al-Qaida has been able, over 
     the past 18 months or so, to establish a safe haven along the 
     Afghanistan-Pakistan border area that they have not enjoyed 
     before; that they are bringing operatives into that region 
     for training.

  I have flown over that area in an airplane. You can't see a border. I 
understand you can't distinguish between Afghanistan and Pakistan. You 
look down and see mountains and you see rugged terrain. You don't see 
any kind of border. I understand how difficult it might be to deal with 
al-Qaida in that region. What I don't understand is why it has not been 
the singular priority of our country to bring to justice those who 
planned the attacks against our country on 9/11/2001. And if someone 
says it has been a priority, show me the evidence. Seven years later 
and we have ``safe havens'' or ``secure areas,'' both terms used by our 
intelligence to describe areas of the ground on this planet where it is 
safe and secure for

[[Page 18314]]

al-Qaida to recruit new soldiers, to train new soldiers, to plan new 
attacks against our country. That is unbelievable.
  In my judgment, it must be a priority for us to deal with the most 
serious threat to our homeland. That is not my assessment, that is the 
assessment of the CIA Director and it is the assessment of the National 
Intelligence Estimate. That simply must be a priority.
  In August 2001 the intelligence community said ``Bin Laden is 
determined to strike U.S.'' That is what we knew. That is what U.S. 
leaders we were told in the intelligence briefings. In July 2007 the 
intelligence community told us: ``Al-Qaida better positioned to strike 
the west.'' One would have hoped, with the hundreds and hundreds of 
billions of dollars we have spent in defense of this country and in 
this country's national security interests, that one of the major 
priorities would have been to bring to justice those who plotted the 
attack of 9/11/2001. Regrettably, that has not been the case.
  I hope very much, as we pass this legislation, that things will 
change. We have very big challenges. A terrorist threat exists. It is 
serious. It is relentless. It seems to me we will best be served not by 
moving--as we have now for 5 years--our money, our effort, our 
treasury, and the lives of our soldiers to continue the war in Iraq 
but, rather, by addressing the worsening condition in Afghanistan and 
addressing the question of why we have not brought to justice Osama bin 
Laden and the al-Qaida leadership that is in a safe or secure sanctuary 
in the Pakistan border area.
  Now, Madam President, this country has a lot at stake, and the fight 
against terrorism is a real fight. We have made a lot of very serious 
mistakes in the last years. Mistakes aren't Republican or Democratic, 
they are just mistakes our country has made. We are bogged down in a 
long, difficult war in Iraq. We have spent $20 billion training Iraqi 
soldiers and police forces. We have trained half a million people in 
the country of Iraq. We have spent $20 billion doing it. We have spent 
two-thirds of a trillion dollars in that war, and yet we are told we 
must remain in Iraq because the Iraqi people aren't capable of 
providing for their own security. We have trained half a million of 
them. If able-bodied Iraqis don't have the will to provide for security 
in Iraq, this country can't do that forever. It is their country, not 
ours. It is their responsibility, not ours.
  This country was diverted to Iraq when, in fact, this country should 
have been in a position where, 7 years after the 9/11 attack of 2001, 
we wouldn't be describing Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida as the greatest 
threat to the homeland. But that is what has happened. We can't change 
what has happened, but it seems to me what we can change is what we are 
determined to do about it in the future.
  It is my hope, as we discuss in some detail our national security and 
defense, the authorization of Defense expenditures, that we will decide 
this is not Osama bin Forgotten; this is Osama bin Laden, who threatens 
this country, who is the most significant threat to our homeland, and 
who is resurrecting training camps and recruiting new soldiers for al-
Qaida. It is our responsibility as a country to address that and to 
address it now.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The Senator from Florida.


                    Department of Interior IG Report

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, yesterday, I warned publicly 
that we could not trust the oil companies that want to drill in the 
waters off our most protected coastlines nor the Federal watchdogs 
charged with keeping a watchful eye over them. Now we have proof 
because just this afternoon the inspector general at the Department of 
the Interior has released this scathing report about the Mineral 
Management Service in the U.S. Department of the Interior and 
specifically an office that manages revenue from offshore oil drilling, 
and it concludes:

       We also discovered a culture of substance abuse and 
     promiscuity in the Royalty-in-Kind Program, both within the 
     program--including the supervisor, Greg Smith, who engaged in 
     illegal drug use and had sexual relations with subordinates--
     and in concert with the industry. Internally, several staff 
     admitted to illegal drug use as well as illicit sexual 
     encounters. Alcohol abuse appears to have been a problem when 
     program staff socialized with the industry. For example, two 
     program staff accepted lodging from industry after industry 
     events because they were too intoxicated to drive home or to 
     their hotel. These same program staff also engaged in brief 
     sexual relationships with industry contacts. Sexual 
     relationships with prohibited sources cannot, by definition, 
     be arm's-length.

  The inspector general's report goes on to say:

       More specifically, we discovered that between 2002 and 
     2006, nearly one-third of the entire program staff socialized 
     with and received a wide array of gifts and gratuities from 
     oil and gas companies with whom the Royalty-in-Kind Program 
     was conducting official business. While the dollar amounts of 
     the gifts and gratuities was not enormous, these employees 
     accepted gifts with prodigious frequency. In particular, two 
     Royalty-in-Kind Program marketeers received combined gifts 
     and gratuities on at least 135 occasions from four major oil 
     and gas companies with whom they were doing business.

  This is in the offshore leasing program, Madam President.
  I continue the quote:

     . . . A textbook example of improperly receiving gifts from 
     prohibited sources. When confronted by our investigators, 
     none of the employees involved displayed remorse.

  It is bad enough that the Government employees who oversee offshore 
oil drilling are literally, as well as figuratively, in bed with big 
oil. The rest of the U.S. Government doesn't need to jump in bed with 
them.
  Offshore drilling will not solve our energy crisis nor will it bring 
down prices at the pump. Instead, it will enrich the oil companies and 
reward the culture of corruption that has been fostered, funded, and 
now exposed by the inspector general of the Department of the Interior.
  This comes out at a time that we are being told: Drill here, drill 
now, drill, baby, drill--as if that were the solution. We should simply 
not allow ourselves to become a part of the agenda of the oil 
companies. Here we have an example from the inspector general of what 
is supposed to be the Government watchdogs overseeing a part of this 
offshore leasing program that uses sex and drugs and illegal gifts to 
foster their program.
  I commend to my colleagues the three parts of the inspector general's 
detailed report along with the memorandum which is the cover memorandum 
from the inspector general, Earl Devaney, on the subject of the office 
of the inspector general investigation of the MMS, the Minerals 
Management Service, employees.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record what is moving across the wire right now, the Associated Press 
story by Dina Cappiello, about this expose.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            Gov't Officials Probed About Illicit Sex, Gifts

                          (By Dina Cappiello)

       Washington (AP).--Government officials handling billions of 
     dollars in oil royalties engaged in illicit sex with 
     employees of energy companies they were dealing with and 
     received numerous gifts from them, federal investigators said 
     Wednesday.
       The alleged transgressions involve 13 Interior Department 
     employees in Denver and Washington. Their alleged 
     improprieties include rigging contracts, working part-time as 
     private oil consultants, and having sexual relationships 
     with--and accepting golf and ski trips and dinners from--oil 
     company employees, according to three reports released 
     Wednesday by the Interior Department's inspector general.
       The investigations reveal a ``culture of substance abuse 
     and promiscuity'' by a small group of individuals ``wholly 
     lacking in acceptance of or adherence to government ethical 
     standards,'' wrote Inspector General Earl E. Devaney.
       The reports describe a fraternity house atmosphere inside 
     the Denver Minerals Management Service office responsible for 
     marketing the oil and gas that energy companies barter to the 
     government instead of making cash royalty payments for 
     drilling on federal lands. The government received $4.3 
     billion in such Royalty-in-Kind payments last year. The oil 
     is then resold to energy companies or put in the nation's 
     emergency stockpile.
       Between 2002 and 2006, nearly a third of the 55-person 
     staff in the Denver office received gifts and gratuities from 
     oil and gas companies, the investigators found.

[[Page 18315]]

       Devaney said the former head of the Denver Royalty-in-Kind 
     office, Gregory W. Smith, used illegal drugs and had sex with 
     subordinates. The report said Smith also steered government 
     contracts to a consulting business that was employing him 
     part-time.
       Smith, contacted by e-mail by The Associated Press, said he 
     had not seen the report and could not respond. He and nine 
     other employees in the Denver office are mentioned in the 
     reports.
       The findings are the latest sign of trouble at the Minerals 
     Management Service, which has already been accused of 
     mismanaging the collection of fees from oil companies and 
     writing faulty contracts for drilling on government land and 
     offshore. The charges also come as lawmakers and both 
     presidential candidates weigh giving oil companies more 
     access to federal lands, which would bring in more money to 
     the federal government.

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, all of this is happening 
while we are considering what to do about energy. I hope we will 
remember that what we ought to do, what we need to do, is drill where 
it makes sense. But if you want to lower gas prices, we need higher 
miles per gallon on our cars. We need to increase our tax incentives to 
our consumers so they can buy more efficient automobiles and tax 
incentives to the industry so they can retool, as well as we need to 
increase our oil refining capacity. That is the way we solve the 
problem of being dependent on oil in this energy crisis we are facing.
  Madam President, I see my colleague from New Jersey, who has been a 
kindred spirit on this question of drilling offshore, off of our two 
respective States. I do not know if the Senator heard what I just 
talked about, about the inspector general's report, about what has been 
going on, the hanky-panky that has been going on over at the Minerals 
Management Service at the Department of the Interior.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, while I did not come to the floor for 
purposes of talking about something both Senator Nelson and I are 
passionate about, which is making sure the Nation's energy challenge is 
met but making sure it is met in a responsible way, I must say I 
appreciate him coming to the floor with a revelation that just came out 
and is being reported. It calls into question the nature of the 
decisions, the information and the substance of looking at drilling 
policy, as has been suggested, when there are clearly influences here 
that are geared toward supporting big oil versus what is the ultimate 
interest of the American people in achieving energy security and 
independence. I will be speaking about that and joining Senator Nelson 
in the near future.
  I am concerned at what the inspector general's report says. It should 
be alarming to every Member of the Senate. I appreciate the Senator 
from Florida bringing it to the attention of the Senate.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning 
business.
  Mr. WARNER. If I might ask the Senator, about how long would the 
Senator wish to speak?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. About 10 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, what I came to the floor to talk about 
is Osama bin Laden. None of us will ever forget--no one in this country 
will ever forget--the shock and the horror we felt, 7 years ago 
tomorrow, when we realized that a group of terrorist murderers had 
taken 3,000 American lives, taken down two of our monumental 
skyscrapers, and taken a chunk of our military headquarters at the same 
time, as well as downed a plane in the fields of Pennsylvania.
  I know this is true for every American. It is seared into our hearts 
as well as in our mind. I know it specifically by virtue of the 
hundreds of New Jersyans who were lost on that fateful day.
  Before long we learned the name of the organization that plotted and 
executed this plot. They are called al-Qaida. Although he had already 
been a deadly force before that fateful day, each and every American 
would soon learn the name of the evil mastermind behind this carnage, 
Osama bin Laden.
  As a country, we were unified in our grief and unified in our resolve 
to find bin Laden dead or alive, as our President said. There was no 
reason to think we would not succeed. We live in the greatest country 
on the Earth, with the greatest military in the world and the greatest 
resolve of any people. We are the country that taught man to fly, that 
has helped save the world from marauding dictators, and put a human 
being on the Moon. If we set our mind to capturing or killing the 
people responsible for this mass murder, then we were going to get the 
job done.
  Here is the thing. As we speak here today, 7 years have passed since 
those terrorist attacks, and where is Osama bin Laden? Where is the man 
who killed 3,000 of our fellow Americans? Where is our Nation's No. 1 
enemy? He was allowed to get off the hook. He was allowed to rebuild 
his terrorist organization to pre-9/11 strength, as has been noted by 
testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, of which I am 
a member. It has been noted in various official reports. He was allowed 
to establish his own safe zone along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
  I do not think any American would disagree that the words ``Osama bin 
Laden'' and ``safe'' should never be uttered in the same sentence. Why 
is he living in a safe zone? Why was he allowed to rebuild his 
terrorist organization? Why has he not suffered for the consequences of 
his mass murder?
  I would say the answer to that question is because President Bush--
who was so steadfast in his call to go after bin Laden and smoke him 
out of his hole, with the backing of a unified country in the days 
after September 11, when I was squarely with the President in that 
regard--decided not to commit the military force necessary to finish 
the job when bin Laden and al-Qaida were cornered in the mountains of 
Afghanistan. He decided to outsource the fighting to warlords in 
Afghanistan who took our money, put it in their pockets, and let bin 
Laden get away. He decided that the war against those who actually 
attacked us was not worth the absolute commitment of the most powerful, 
sophisticated, technologically advanced military in the world.
  Instead, he committed the full force of the United States military to 
invade and police another country, Iraq, which had no part in the 
murder of 3,000 Americans.
  As bad as that sounds, the reality is even worse than that. It was 
not just about the White House losing its focus. They misled the 
American people so they could start a new war. They assumed Afghanistan 
would stabilize itself and maybe bin Laden would turn up one day. So 
let's add up the running tally of these ill-fated decisions of 
President Bush: a forgotten war against the real terrorist threat in 
Afghanistan along the Afghan-Pakistan border, plus misleading the 
American people into a war of choice--not a war of necessity, where no 
one from al-Qaida or bin Laden was engaged; a stunning disaster of a 
war that had no connection to September 11--increased anger in the 
Middle East; squandered international goodwill; becoming entrenched as 
Iraq's military police force; a military stretched thin, less able to 
respond to the real challenges of this country where Afghanistan and 
Pakistan's border are.
  I was there earlier in August with the distinguished majority leader. 
I heard what our generals said. They said they needed 10,000 troops 
minimally--now; not next year, now--to face the challenges they are 
having in the resurgence of the Taliban and the new tactics they have 
acquired from al-Qaida, an al-Qaida that is rushing over that border, 
plus $600 billion in U.S. taxpayers' money, easily going well over $1 
trillion, to secure and rebuild another country that we were told--I 
sat at those hearings--we were told, when we asked how much is this 
engagement going to cost: Oh, we were told, not more than $50 billion 
max.
  Madam President, $600 billion later, $12 billion a month and rising--
by the way, not only were we told it is not $50 billion, we were told 
Iraq's oil would pay for all of it. What we have seen is $600 billion 
of the taxpayers' money, later, rising clearly in excess of $1 trillion 
and Iraq having a surplus in its

[[Page 18316]]

budget. We are running deficits, Iraq has a surplus in its budget of 
anywhere between $50 and $70 billion, and yet we still continue to pay 
for their reconstruction. I was there this past January.
  Of course, beyond all of this, beyond all of this, the most 
important, incalculable loss--over 4,100 American service men and women 
who have been lost in Iraq.
  What does this all add up to? It adds up, in my view, to less 
security here at home, one terrorist mastermind responsible for the 
deaths of 3,000 dead Americans, plotting and planning yet again in his 
very own safe zone to pre-September 11 strength.
  That is a huge challenge. I recently returned from a trip to 
Afghanistan with the distinguished majority leader and several of our 
colleagues. Our troops and their commanders are doing a terrific job 
with what they have been given, as they always do.
  But the message from everything I saw when I was there and heard from 
the people we always say let's listen to--the commanders in the field--
well, I listened to General McKiernan, who is the commanding general 
not only of our troops but also the NATO forces there. I listened to 
General Schlosser, who is in the midst of that part of Afghanistan that 
is in the fight. They said clearly they needed extra troops.
  I heard the President's decision: They will not get those troops, 
even though they need them until sometime next year. In the interim, 
the fight intensifies, the risks grow greater, and our challenges grow 
more difficult.
  Afghanistan and Pakistan are the epicenter, the epicenter of the 
threat to our Nation. Things are not going to get better in that region 
or with our security here at home until we commit our focus to doing 
away with a resurgent Taliban and a resurgent al-Qaida once and for 
all.
  Our focus must be on what are called the Federally Administered 
Tribal Areas, or FATA, those lawless areas along the Afghanistan-
Pakistan border, our major challenges.
  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said it himself in June, so 
let me quote him because this is the ultimate authority advising the 
President. He said:

       I believe fundamentally if the United States is going to 
     get hit, it's going to come out of the planning that 
     leadership in the FATA is generating, their planning and 
     direction.

  It could not be said more powerfully by the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff and more clearly: That is where the threat is coming 
from. That is where we need to focus if we are to secure our Nation.
  Our colleague, Senator McCain, who is now the standard bearer for his 
party, has expressed his desire to keep our troops entrenched in Iraq 
even beyond what the Iraqis want and even beyond what President Bush 
has been calling for.
  This does not help us with Afghanistan, this does not help us with 
Osama bin Laden, this does not help us target the threat of the Nation 
that is most vital. So I hope that after the solemn memorials and 
heartfelt remembrances we have tomorrow, on the seventh anniversary of 
September 11, after we continue to mourn and after we pray for those we 
have lost, when our thoughts turn again to preventing a repeat of 
September 11, making sure that ``never again'' means never again, I 
hope we can rededicate ourselves, as we did in the weeks following the 
attacks, to going after those responsible for this mass murder and 
ridding ourselves of that threat once and for all.
  Let us not only follow bin Laden to the gates of hell, let us follow 
bin Laden to the cave in which he is in, in that region along the 
Afghan-Pakistan border.
  It is never too late. It is never too late to bring the masterminds 
of September 11 to justice, to diminish the real challenge to our 
security, and to ultimately achieve what I truly believe is in the 
national security interest of the United States.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, with the concurrence of the 
distinguished chairman, I wonder if our colleague from Texas could be 
recognized. He is a very valued member of our committee. He wants to 
discuss, for 8 minutes, our bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, if I might inquire, I talked to the 
distinguished chairman. I know the Rules Committee is reviewing the 
amendment. I am a little confused, and maybe he can help. I understand 
there could be an objection to my calling up the amendment. But I know 
the chairman is trying to work with me in trying to work this out.
  But if I only have 8 minutes to speak, and I do not know yet whether 
there is going to be an objection to calling it up, I guess all I can 
do is go ahead and call it up and see what happens. But I do not wish 
to dishonor the commitment I made to him to try to work with him. But I 
am in a little bit of a box.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator would yield, the Rules Committee has 
jurisdiction over the amendment, over the subject matter of the 
amendment. That is why we are asking the Rules Committee to give us 
their reaction. Before I can give unanimous consent to make it a 
pending amendment, I want to hear from the Rules Committee, which is 
part of the regular process of the Senate, since it is within their 
jurisdiction.
  So if the Senator will bear with me, I do not know what I will do if 
the Senator asks unanimous consent until the Rules Committee replies. 
If I do not hear from them by the moment the Senator asks unanimous 
consent, if the Senator decides to do so, I will have to make up my 
mind without the benefit of their advice.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I hope that after hearing the subject 
matter of this amendment, the distinguished chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee will agree with me that the subject matter is of 
overwhelming importance.
  This has to do with the fact that in 2006--2006--it is estimated that 
only 5.5 percent of qualified military voters deployed overseas, as 
well as civilians eligible to vote in the 2006 election, only 5.5 
percent actually had their votes counted.
  Of the troops that attempted to vote by asking for their ballots in 
2006, less than half, only 47.6 percent of their completed ballots 
actually arrived back at the local election office and were counted. 
That is according to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
  I know all our colleagues would agree that if there is anyone who 
deserves to have their vote counted, and certainly this is a 
fundamental civil right for all American citizens, but if anyone is 
entitled to the best efforts that this body could possibly supply to 
make sure their vote is actually counted, that it would be our men and 
women in harm's way, fighting to protect our very freedoms.
  To me, this is an outrage of such proportion that I cannot believe 
the Department of Defense, knowing these statistics, is simply 
complacent about preserving and protecting the right of our deployed 
military and civilians overseas to vote in elections.
  To me, this is an appalling feature of our absentee voting system, 
and we need to take action right now. Of course, the appropriate 
vehicle as we are talking about protecting the right of military voters 
is on the Defense authorization bill. We know time is running out, only 
54 days, I believe, until the next general election. We need to do 
everything in our power to make sure their right to vote is protected.
  That is why I decided to introduce a bill last May called the 
Military Voting Protection Act of 2008. Currently, I believe I have, to 
the stand-alone bill, 30 cosponsors.
  I believe the Department of Defense, if it is unwilling to take the 
necessary steps to protect the rights to vote for our deployed troops, 
then it is up to us to direct them to do so, to mandate that 
requirement in law and to make it a priority, not something they get 
around to perhaps after they have done everything else.
  Certainly, the Department of Defense can better use modern technology 
to

[[Page 18317]]

protect the ability of our troops to participate in elections. We know 
it is also important to recognize the right of privacy and the 
integrity of the voting system by calling upon the Department of 
Defense to focus its efforts on secure, efficient systems that would 
achieve these important goals.
  I have more extended remarks, but I do not feel they are necessary at 
this time. I have seen a letter from the Department of Defense about 
some of their responses to the bill I have introduced. I would say in 
each case it is classified more as bureaucratic gobbledygook and not a 
serious effort to try to solve this problem.
  I am actually very disappointed that the Department of Defense would 
take the position that preserving the votes of our deployed military is 
so unimportant that they would not welcome the participation of the 
Senate in finding ways to make sure every fighting man and woman's vote 
is counted.
  I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment 5329 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, I am constrained and will 
object at this time because of the reasons I gave before. So I do 
object. I hope this objection can be dealt with overnight. I hope I can 
hear from the Rules Committee and understand what their position is. 
But at least at this time I will object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I am sorry to hear the chairman has 
objected. Of course, there is no requirement that the committee pass on 
these matters. I understand his interest in getting their input, but I 
cannot imagine what sort of input the Rules Committee might give now or 
later that we could not work on this either as this bill proceeds to 
completion, I hope to completion this week or next or during the 
conference committee process.
  But to object to my ability to actually get it pending before the 
Senate is regrettable. At this point, I have no other recourse.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I think the distinguished chairman and I are aware the 
Senate would now turn to the highway bill. I believe the distinguished 
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee will be 
arriving, and the distinguished ranking member is present on the floor 
at this time. Perhaps they could advise us with regard to the amount of 
time that would be required to have to act on this.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, first of all, let me thank the 
distinguished ranking member for the fine work he is doing on the 
Defense authorization bill. We have to get this done at a later time 
because there will not be time.
  Right now I would like to address some of the comments that were made 
in the last few minutes about what some people misinterpret as not a 
successful operation in Iraq. I think it is amazing that you can be 
successful, all of our troops over there bathe in the success we have 
had in Iraq and still refer to it as an invasion instead of a 
liberation. Later on I will address those remarks.
  Right now it is my understanding--I would ask if it is accurate--that 
the chairman and myself, the ranking member of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, will be involved in about either 1 hour or 90 
minutes equally divided, I would ask the Chair. This is on the highway 
trust fund fix.

                          ____________________