[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 18972-19052]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 1390, which the clerk will 
report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1390) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2010 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Kyl amendment No. 1760, to pursue United States objectives 
     in bilateral arms control with the Russian Federation.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, we are now back on the bill, as the clerk 
has indicated, and as the Acting President pro tempore has indicated. 
It was agreed to last night in our unanimous consent request that I 
offered and was accepted that the next order of business would be to 
take up the Kyl amendment, and there would be protected either a 
second-degree or a side-by-side amendment to that amendment; and then 
we would move, after that, to an amendment by the Senator from 
Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, and a side-by-side or second-degree 
amendment could then be offered by the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Bayh.
  Madam President, I see my friend from Arizona is here. In a moment, I 
am going to suggest we reverse the order of that because of Senator 
Kerry's requirements this morning. I have no objection at some point to 
entering into a time agreement on Kyl, by the way, at all. That is not 
the purpose, to delay that to a cloture moment. But I think the 
minority would want to see the language of any side-

[[Page 18973]]

by-side before there was an agreement to a time agreement. If not, I am 
happy to enter into a time agreement on Senator Kyl's and any second 
degree or side-by-side at any time my good friend from Arizona wants to 
do that.
  But in order for the convenience of the parties, if Senator Lieberman 
and Senator Bayh could come down now--if they can do that--I would like 
to inquire about that and dispose of their amendments first and then 
take up the Kyl amendment with a time agreement--just to reverse the 
order of those two because of the Finance Committee's meetings this 
morning, which Senator Kerry needs to attend.
  I have not had a chance to talk to my friend from Arizona about this 
just because of the way the morning goes. That is what I would like to 
suggest. If that can be done, it would simplify things.
  There are also a number of other things we need to do. We have--and I 
think the Senator from Arizona is familiar with this--an amendment on 
voting rights for the troops which I think has been cleared. It is a 
bipartisan amendment which is going to need about 15 minutes of debate, 
I understand. That could be done as well, hopefully.
  But my goal, if it is agreeable to the Republican manager, would be 
to basically flip the two, with time agreements for both, going first 
to the Lieberman and Bayh amendments, if they are able to do it.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, let me just say to my friend, the 
distinguished chairman, all of our Members have very busy schedules. 
The Senator from Arizona, whose amendment it is, happens to be the 
second ranking Republican and has heavy responsibilities. I would point 
out that we waited for a couple hours yesterday for the same Senator 
yesterday afternoon to be able to come to the floor to address another 
amendment. At the same time, the clock is running because the majority 
leader has filed cloture on the bill.
  So are we going to run the proceedings here, consideration of the 
authorization bill, based on the priorities of one Senator or are we 
going to carry out what we all agreed to last night in the unanimous 
consent agreement? There was no objection last night from the Senator 
from Massachusetts. He could have objected. So now we want to turn 
everybody else's schedules on their heads because one Senator has some 
other priorities.
  Obviously, we are going to finish the bill because the majority 
leader filed cloture, and we have to close out the bill, after spending 
nearly a week on two issues, hate crimes and guns, neither of which had 
a single thing to do with the Defense authorization bill--because, 
unprecedented in the 20-some years I have been a member of the Armed 
Services Committee, the majority leader of the Senate came to the floor 
and proposed a hate crimes bill that had not been through the committee 
of jurisdiction and was, obviously, very controversial on this side.
  So after getting bollixed up for a week and a half--or at least a 
week--on those two issues, we enter into a unanimous consent agreement 
when the majority leader files cloture to close off debate on this 
side. That is the reason it is done. So now we are supposed to 
overturn, some 10 hours later, a unanimous consent agreement because 
one Senator cannot fit it into his schedule, when the sponsor of the 
amendment is the No. 2 ranking member on this side? There is something 
wrong with that process.
  I will be glad to discuss it with the distinguished chairman and we 
will try and see if we can adjust to it. In the meantime, the clock 
continues to run and we have fewer and fewer amendments that will be 
germane and be allowed to be discussed, because we find out this 
morning, after a unanimous consent agreement which could have been 
objected to last night, one Senator has a schedule that dictates we 
turn the unanimous consent agreement on its head.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, if the Senator would withhold that 
request for a moment so I may comment.
  Mr. McCAIN. I withhold my request.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I was not suggesting that we not proceed 
this morning; I was suggesting that we reverse the order to accommodate 
a Senator who is going to be offering a second-degree amendment. If 
that is not acceptable, we do not need to do that. I was simply trying 
to accommodate the Senator so that the second-degree or side-by-side 
amendment that was in the unanimous consent proposal last night could 
be offered by him. If that is not agreeable to the Republican side, 
then I obviously am not going to make the suggestion. But it would not 
delay anything; all it would do would be to change the order of events 
to accommodate us. If that is not acceptable to the minority, then I 
will obviously not make that unanimous consent proposal.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I would ask the distinguished chairman, 
then, in the spirit of compromise, can we arrange a time agreement on 
the Lieberman amendment that is reasonable so that perhaps we could 
take up the Kyl amendment later in the morning so that at least that 
might not upset his schedule, since we are making accommodation for the 
sponsor of a second-degree amendment, which seems to be our priority.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, of course, that is exactly what I was 
proposing. I appreciate the willingness of the Senator from Arizona to 
try to work that out.
  There is no problem with the time agreement on the Lieberman-Bayh 
matters because the reason we couldn't do that is that the Bayh 
language was not available in time for the minority side to consider a 
time agreement. We would be happy to have a time agreement of 1 hour on 
the Lieberman amendment, 1 hour on the Bayh amendment; 2 hours 
together, in other words. We are happy to have a time agreement on 
Senator Kyl's amendment, but we were only suggesting that we reverse 
the order to accommodate things here. It would not result in any 
additional use of time; it would not delay anything; it would simply 
reverse the order for the accommodation of the Senator who needs to be 
here to offer a second-degree amendment, if we are going to do it, or a 
side-by-side to Senator Kyl's first-degree amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, obviously, whatever is most convenient to 
the chairman and ranking member is fine, subject to what I had planned, 
because of our conversations last night, to be able to do this this 
morning. By this afternoon, I am going to have a lot of conflicts. In 
fact, I too am on the Finance Committee where Senator Kerry is right 
now and I am supposed to be there but made this arrangement.
  I don't believe the business before the Finance Committee is going to 
last very long at all. In fact, it was a very quick matter to be 
resolved. So as long as we can try to get the amendments relating to 
the START treaty resolved before afternoon, I am perfectly willing to 
agree to anything that is acceptable to everybody else here, and it 
seems to me we should be able to accomplish that.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, let me say we can have 1 hour for each 
side on the Lieberman amendment and then move directly to the Kyl 
amendment, if that is agreeable.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, what we need to do along that line is to 
see if we can get an agreement from Senator Lieberman and from Senator 
Bayh on a time agreement on those two amendments. I would suggest, as 
the Senator from Arizona did, that there be an hour equally divided on 
each, which will be a total of 2 hours, and then if the majority leader 
is agreeable to this----
  Mr. McCAIN. Maybe we need a quorum call for a moment.
  Mr. LEVIN. I suggest the absence----
  Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.

[[Page 18974]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I wanted to say that as the overnight 
proceeded, there are a number of people who want to come down and speak 
on our side, so I wish to ask that on our amendment we have at least an 
hour and a half, perhaps two. I hope not to use it, but I think this is 
going to be a significant debate.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I suggest that we seek an agreement that 
there be 2 hours on the two amendments together, one equally divided 
between the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Indiana.
  I 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. LEVIN. Madam 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. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for consideration of amendments this morning be switched and that the 
Senate now consider the Lieberman amendment No. 1627 and the Bayh 
amendment No. 1767; that the amendments be debated concurrently for a 
total of 150 minutes, with 90 minutes under the control of Senator 
Lieberman and 60 minutes under the control of Senator Bayh; that no 
amendments be in order to either amendment; that upon the use or 
yielding back of time, the vote in relation to the amendments occur at 
a time to be determined, with the first vote in relation to the Bayh 
amendment, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Lieberman 
amendment, with 2 minutes of debate prior to the second vote.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Presiding Officer and I thank my colleagues 
for working this out to try to accommodate all of us the best we can.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I 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. LIEBERMAN. Madam 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.


                           Amendment No. 1627

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I have consulted with the chairman of 
the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, and the ranking member, 
Senator McCain, and they have urged me to go forward and call up my 
amendment on the alternate engine and begin debating it to expedite 
matters while we are awaiting Senator Bayh to come over. I call it up 
at this time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman], for himself, 
     Mr. McCain, Mr. Reed, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. 
     Dodd, Mrs. Hutchison, Ms. Collins, Mr. Kyl, and Mr. Cornyn, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1627.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

     (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to make certain 
   certifications with respect to the development of an alternative 
  propulsion system for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program before 
funds may be obligated or expended for such system and to provide, with 
offsets, an additional $282,900,000 for the procurement of UH-1Y/AH-1Z 
  rotary wing aircraft and an additional $156,000,000 for management 
          reserves for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program)

       On page 39, strike lines 4 through 17, and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 211. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR AN ALTERNATIVE 
                   PROPULSION SYSTEM FOR THE F-35 JOINT STRIKE 
                   FIGHTER PROGRAM; INCREASE IN FUNDING FOR 
                   PROCUREMENT OF UH-1Y/AH-1Z ROTARY WING AIRCRAFT 
                   AND FOR MANAGEMENT RESERVES FOR THE F-35 JOINT 
                   STRIKE FIGHTER PROGRAM.

       (a) Limitation on Use of Funds for an Alternative 
     Propulsion System for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter 
     Program.--None of the funds authorized to be appropriated or 
     otherwise made available by this Act may be obligated or 
     expended for the development or procurement of an alternate 
     propulsion system for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program 
     until the Secretary of Defense submits to the congressional 
     defense committees a certification in writing that the 
     development and procurement of the alternate propulsion 
     system--
       (1) will--
       (A) reduce the total life-cycle costs of the F-35 Joint 
     Strike Fighter program; and
       (B) improve the operational readiness of the fleet of F-35 
     Joint Strike Fighter aircraft; and
       (2) will not--
       (A) disrupt the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program during 
     the research, development, and procurement phases of the 
     program; or
       (B) result in the procurement of fewer F-35 Joint Strike 
     Fighter aircraft during the life cycle of the program.
       (b) Additional Amount for UH-1Y/AH-1Z Rotary Wing 
     Aircraft.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 102(a)(1) for aircraft procurement for the Navy is 
     increased by $282,900,000, with the amount of the increase to 
     be allocated to amounts available for the procurement of UH-
     1Y/AH-1Z rotary wing aircraft.
       (c) Restoration of Management Reserves for F-35 Joint 
     Strike Fighter Program.--
       (1) Navy joint strike fighter.--The amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 201(a)(2) for research, development, 
     test, and evaluation for the Navy is hereby increased by 
     $78,000,000, with the amount of the increase to be allocated 
     to amounts available for the Joint Strike Fighter program (PE 
     # 0604800N) for management reserves.
       (2) Air force joint strike fighter.--The amount authorized 
     to be appropriated by section 201(a)(3) for research, 
     development, test, and evaluation for the Air Force is hereby 
     increased by $78,000,000, with the amount of the increase to 
     be allocated to amounts available for the Joint Strike 
     Fighter program (PE # 0604800F) for management reserves.
       (d) Offsets.--
       (1) Navy joint strike fighter f136 development.--The amount 
     authorized to be appropriated by section 201(a)(2) for 
     research, development, test, and evaluation for the Navy is 
     hereby decreased by $219,450,000, with the amount of the 
     decrease to be derived from amounts available for the Joint 
     Strike Fighter (PE # 0604800N) for F136 development.
       (2) Air force joint strike fighter f136 development.--The 
     amount authorized to be appropriated by section 201(a)(3) for 
     research, development, test, and evaluation for the Air Force 
     is hereby decreased by $219,450,000, with the amount of the 
     decrease to be derived from amounts available for the Joint 
     Strike Fighter (PE # 0604800F) for F136 development.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. This amendment I am introducing with Senator McCain as 
my lead cosponsor, and with a strong bipartisan group of cosponsors, 
including Senator Reed of Rhode Island, and Senators Snowe, Schumer, 
Inhofe, Dodd, Hutchison, Collins, Kyl, and Cornyn. I am very grateful 
for that support.
  To state it briefly, and then to go into some detail, this amendment 
would remove funding from this bill that was added by way of amendment 
in the Armed Services Committee for $439 million to build a second 
engine for the Joint Strike Fighter plane.
  I will argue, on behalf of the amendment I have introduced with 
Senator McCain and others, that it is a waste of $439 million to build 
for a plane a second engine, which we don't need. In fact, estimates 
are that continuing acquisition of this second engine will cost over $6 
billion of taxpayer money that we don't need to spend because there has 
been a competition for the engine to be used in the Joint Strike 
Fighter, which is now the heart and soul of America's hopes for the 
future when it comes to tactical aviation--particularly after the 
Senate terminated the F-22 program the other day.
  So there was a competition to build the engine for the Joint Strike 
Fighter. General Electric, in its proposal, lost that competition. 
Pratt & Whitney won that competition.
  Now, by way of legislation, the proponents of the second engine for 
this plane are trying to achieve, by legislation, what they could not 
achieve by competition. It is not only that it is an

[[Page 18975]]

unnecessary expenditure of $439 million in the coming year, and more 
than $6 billion, for a second engine that we don't need for that plane, 
but it has consequences. It is not just that we are spending taxpayer 
money, but I will go into this in some detail in a moment.
  Regarding putting that money to use on that second engine, a general 
from the Air Force overseeing this Joint Strike Fighter program told 
our committee it would delay the Joint Strike Fighter, which our 
services are desperately waiting for. They need this tactical fighter. 
So it would delay the program and, in fact, this Air Force general 
testified to our committee that putting money into the bill for the 
second engine, and continuing to fund it, would result, over the next 5 
years, in a reduced capacity to build Joint Strike Fighters by 53 
planes.
  So to spend the money to build a second engine for a plane, when we 
don't need a second engine--because the first one won the competition 
and is performing very well--we are going to reduce the buy of this 
tactical fighter that our military needs by 53 planes over the next 5 
years.
  How do my friends who support the second engine pay for it? Well, in 
the Armed Services Committee bill, which is before us, which Senator 
McCain, I, and others are trying to remove, they defund the acquisition 
of helicopters, which are desperately needed by our marines, 
particularly those fighting in Afghanistan.
  There will be an alternative proposal made this morning in the 
amendment Senator Bayh will introduce, I presume, because there has 
been so much protest to defunding this acquisition of helicopters that 
the marines need in battle in Afghanistan, in order to pay for a second 
engine, which is unnecessary, for the Joint Strike Fighter. Instead, 
the amendment will defund the acquisition of C-130s, which are 
specially fitted for our special operations forces. Again, they are 
carrying out extremely dangerous and critical missions in Afghanistan, 
Iraq, and other places, where they are courageously taking on 
particularly the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.
  That is the essence of the argument. This second engine is a program 
President Obama has described as ``an unnecessary defense program that 
does nothing to keep us safe, but rather prevents us from spending 
money on what does keep us safe.''
  That warning from President Obama about the consequences of funding 
the second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter is realized already in 
the part of the bill Senator McCain and I and others are trying to 
withdraw and in the amendment my friend from Indiana will introduce 
because it takes money from the Marines and the Air Force special 
operations community in areas they and we desperately need.
  I wish to add that, this morning, I was grateful and honored to 
receive a letter from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, in which the 
Secretary of Defense strongly and clearly expresses his opposition to 
the alternate engine, the second engine, an unnecessary engine--the $6 
billion unnecessary engine for the Joint Strike Fighter--and his 
support for the amendment that Senator McCain and I and others have 
introduced.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Secretary Gates be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                             Defense Pentagon,

                                    Washington, DC, July 22, 2009.
     Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman,
     Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
         Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Department of Defense supports 
     striking from legislation any provision that would require 
     the development or procurement of an alternative propulsion 
     system for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
       The current engine is performing well with more than 11,000 
     test hours. In addition, the risks associated with a single 
     engine provider are manageable as evidenced by the 
     performance of the F-22 and F/A-18E/F, both Air Force and 
     Navy programs supplied by a single engine provider. The Air 
     Force currently has several fleets that operate on a single 
     engine source. Thus, further expenditures on a second engine 
     are unnecessary and will likely impede the progress of the 
     overall F-35 program.
       It is my belief that the JSF program presented in the 
     President's budget request is in the best interests of 
     national security. If a final bill is presented to the 
     President containing provisions that would seriously disrupt 
     the F-35 program, the President's senior advisors will 
     recommend that the President veto the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Robert M. Gates,
                                             Secretary of Defense.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I will read from the letter. It is three paragraphs:

       The Department of Defense supports striking from 
     legislation any provision that would require the development 
     or procurement of an alternate propulsion system for the F-35 
     Joint Strike Fighter.
       The current engine is performing well with more than 11,000 
     test hours. In addition, the risks associated with a single 
     engine provider are manageable as evidenced by the 
     performance of the F-22 and F/A-18/F, both Air Force and Navy 
     programs supplied by a single engine provider. The Air Force 
     currently has several fleets that operate on a single engine 
     source.

  I draw back from the letter. What is unusual is to have a second 
engine. Logically, if we want to buy a car, it would be nice to have a 
second engine in the garage but would we pay the extra money for it if 
we had a perfectly good engine in the car? Back to the letter:

       Thus, further expenditures on a second engine are 
     unnecessary and will likely impede the progress of the 
     overall F-35 program.
       It is my belief that the JSF program presented in the 
     President's budget request is in the best interests of 
     national security. If a final bill is presented to the 
     President containing provisions that would seriously disrupt 
     the F-35 program, the President's senior advisors will 
     recommend that the President veto the bill.

  I intend to show in my argument this morning that, in fact, this 
Armed Services Committee bill--if the amendment Senator McCain and I 
are proposing is not adopted--will seriously disrupt the F-35 program, 
the Joint Strike Fighter program and, therefore, will be occasion for 
the President's advisers to recommend he veto this entire and 
critically necessary bill.
  I thank Secretary Gates for expressing support for the amendment 
Senator McCain and I and others--Senator Schumer, Senator Dodd, Senator 
Kyl--have offered to strip this unnecessary expenditure of money from 
the bill.
  Our amendment, as I have said, would restore funding that was taken 
from the U.S. Marine Corps helicopter, the Huey, when the committee 
voted to fund the alternate engine. The vote to cut 10 Marine Corps 
helicopters comes at a time the Marines are conducting a major 
offensive in the mountains of Afghanistan where the high altitudes and 
hot weather require the best capabilities Congress can provide them, 
including these Hueys.
  In fact, in recent statements from the Joint Staff and Marine Corps 
leadership, it is clear how urgently the Marines need the enhanced 
capabilities of the UH-1 Huey on the battlefield. Speaking before the 
Armed Services Committee of the Senate on Thursday, July 9, the Vice 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Cartwright, said to the members 
of the committee:

       Those helicopters are, in fact, critical.

  He continued:

       The helicopter for the Marines is one of their most lethal 
     weapons. They are the most effective in the battlefield, 
     particularly in the counterinsurgency arena.

  They are effective in built-up urban areas and in compounds because 
they can be discreet, so the value of those helicopters is significant.
  The day after General Cartwright appeared, I received a letter from 
the Commandant of the Marine Corps, GEN James Conway.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record the letter from General Conway.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    July 10, 2009.
     Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Sir: The Marine Corps greatly appreciates your 
     interest in the UH-1Y/AH-1Z program. Procurement of less than 
     the optimum ramp of 28 H-1s during Fiscal Year 2010 will lead 
     to continued reliance on aging helicopters that should have 
     been retired from

[[Page 18976]]

     the inventory years ago. This happens at a time when the 
     Secretary of Defense appears poised to issue guidance to the 
     Military Departments to increase rotary-wing assets to 
     conduct current and future Irregular Warfare conflicts.
       As we focus on operations in Afghanistan, sustaining the 
     introduction of the H-1 is vital to our future success. We 
     have prioritized UH-1Y deliveries early in the program in an 
     effort to quickly replace our aging fleet of UH-1N 
     helicopters. While the UH-1N has served us well for many 
     decades, it has now reached the point where its available 
     power and key aircrew systems are simply not adequate for 
     robust combat operations. As typically configured, UH-IN 
     loads are often reduced to just two or three combat 
     configured Marines when operating at high density altitudes. 
     Because of these severe operational limitations, we have been 
     very aggressive in transitioning to the significantly 
     improved capabilities of the UH-1Y. Our first Marine 
     Expenditionary Unit detachment of three new aircraft deployed 
     to the Central Command AOR this year when only ten UH-1Ys had 
     been delivered to the fleet. In November 2009, we plan to 
     deploy our first full squadron to Afghanistan where the UH-
     1Y's improved payload and airspeed in that challenging 
     environment will serve our Marines well.
       Once we deploy the UH-1Y to theater, we want to keep it 
     there. However, in order to sustain our anticipated combat 
     deployment schedule, production must remain on track. With 
     recent deliveries occurring well ahead of schedule and 
     substantial contractor investments in tooling and long-lead 
     materials, there is tangible evidence that the production 
     rate of 28 helicopters contained in the President's budget 
     request can be met.
       I greatly appreciate the opportunity to correspond with you 
     and expand on this important subject. The supporting 
     documentation you requested is attached. If you have any 
     additional questions, please do not hesitate to call on me. I 
     also thank you for your leadership and longstanding efforts 
     on behalf of our men and women in uniform.
           Sincerely,

                                              James T. Conway,

                                       General, U.S. Marine Corps,
                                   Commandant of the Marine Corps.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, in his letter, General Conway writes:

       Procurement of less than the optimum ramp up of 28 H-1s in 
     fiscal year 2010 will lead to continued reliance on aging 
     helicopters that should have been retired from the inventory 
     years ago. As we focus on operations in Afghanistan, 
     sustaining the introduction of the H-1 is vital for our 
     future success.

  He continues:

       Because of the severe operational limitations of the Corps' 
     legacy helicopters, the Marines are transitioning toward the 
     significantly improved capabilities of the UH-1Y.

  General Conway points out that the Corps has already sent three UH-1Y 
to Afghanistan and will deploy its full squadron of them this November. 
This is a plane the Marines desperately need in combat today.
  I also want to read from a letter I received from Major General 
Bockel, retired, Army Reserve, now acting director of the Reserve 
Officers Association. General Bockel says in his letter to me:

       The Reserve Officers Association, representing 65,000 
     Reserve Component members, supports the Lieberman-McCain 
     Alternate Engine Amendment. This amendment restores critical 
     funding to procure helicopters that the United States Marine 
     Corps urgently needs in Afghanistan.

  I suspect the Reserve Officers Association will no more support an 
effort to ask our special operations forces, as the second-degree or 
side-by-side amendment Senator Bayh will offer, to pay the bill for an 
unnecessary second engine than he was to see our Marines foot the bill.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Major General 
Bockel's letter.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 Reserve Officers Association,

                                    Washington, DC, July 21, 2009.
     Hon. Joseph Lieberman,
     Hart Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Lieberman: The Reserve Officers Association, 
     representing 65,000 Reserve Component members, supports 
     Lieberman-McCain Alternate Engine Amendment. This amendment 
     restores critical funding to procure helicopters that the 
     United States Marine Corps (USMC) urgently needs in 
     Afghanistan.
       In the Senate Armed Services Committee's mark of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act, the bill would cut funds 
     for the procurement of Marine Corps UH-1Y helicopters and the 
     AHI-Z Super Cobra in order to fund an unnecessary ``alternate 
     engine'' for F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
       The Bell UH-1Y Venom is a twin-engine medium size utility 
     helicopter, part of the USMC's H-1 upgrade program, replacing 
     the Marines aging fleet of UH-IN Twin Huey light utility 
     helicopters first introduced in the early 1970s. The Corps' 
     current fleet of utility helicopters face noticeable 
     operational limitations at high altitudes, which is not a 
     problem for the new UH-1Y. Because of the severe limitations, 
     which can have an impact on operational agility, the USMC is 
     aggressively transitioning to the new aircraft.
       The Pentagon had requested 28 AH-1Z and UH-1Y helicopters, 
     but NDAA markups have reduced these numbers to offset 
     funding. This amendment would restore $482.9 in funding that 
     was stripped from the U.S. Marine Corps UH-1Y program, which 
     is an action that ROA supports.
       Thank you for your efforts on this key issue, and other 
     support to the military that you have shown in the past. 
     Please feel free to have your staff call ROA's legislative 
     director, Marshall Hanson, with any question or issue you 
     would like to discuss.
           Sincerely,

                                              David R. Bockel,

                                    Major General, USAR (Retired),
                                        Acting Executive Director.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, let me talk now about what this 
amendment would do. It would essentially remove the funding for the 
second engine, but it does it in a way that I think is thoughtful. It 
requires that there be no obligation of any funds on the development of 
a second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter unless and until the 
Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that the development and 
procurement of such an engine will reduce the total life-cycle costs of 
the program, improve the operational readiness of the F-35 fleet, and 
avoid either disrupting the Joint Strike Fighter Program or resulting 
in procurement of fewer Joint Strike Fighter aircraft during the life 
cycle of the program.
  Why do we propose these conditions? Because they are the benefits the 
proponents of the second engine claim it will deliver. So we ask that 
the second engine be judged on its alleged merits. And I hope my 
colleagues will agree that this is a fair way to go at this.
  I have spoken already at the outset about the fact that there was a 
competition for the engine for the Joint Strike Fighter that took place 
in 1996. Ultimately, one engine won the competition while the other 
lost. Understandably, but not acceptably, the makers of the engine that 
lost have come back to achieve by legislation--or attempt to--what they 
could not achieve by competition.
  The proponents of the second engine have also claimed that it would 
lower costs on the Joint Strike Fighter Program overall. I have cited 
numbers that come from the Pentagon and elsewhere arguing on the other 
hand that this program will cost over $6 billion of taxpayer money 
without any showing, really, that it will save money. Developing a 
second engine, quite logically and following common sense, would 
require the Department of Defense to maintain two logistics operations 
to support it--tails, as it is called in the military, two tails, two 
sets of training manuals, two sets of tooling component improvement 
parts. These additional and unnecessary expenses would raise operations 
and sustainment costs for the Joint Strike Fighter throughout the life 
cycle of the program.
  I want to get to the impact funding a second engine--an unnecessary 
engine, a costly engine--would have on the Joint Strike Fighter 
Program.
  On June 9, the Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Air and Land, 
which I have the honor of chairing, heard testimony from LTG Mark 
Shackelford, Military Deputy Officer to the Secretary of the Air Force 
for Acquisition. He is in charge of acquisition. I asked General 
Shackelford whether development of a second engine would disrupt the 
Joint Strike Fighter Program. His explanation is detailed but important 
to hear. It has a very strong message:

       The fiscal year 2010 production quantity for the joint 
     strike fighter is 30 aircraft, split between three variants.

  That means with three different services.

       If forced to pay for the alternate engine, we would have to 
     reduce that to two to four, depending on which of the 
     variants. That has a negative effect on the unit cost of the 
     remaining aircraft if you are buying fewer. It

[[Page 18977]]

     also ripples into next year's quantities, and then as we take 
     that 2010 increment of dollars and extend that out through 
     the future year defense program--

  Which is the 5-year so-called fit up that the Pentagon does planning 
on--

     there are equal decrements in terms of the numbers of 
     aircraft that we can buy with the remaining dollars.

  After hearing that--decrements, decreases, reduction in the number of 
aircraft we can buy--I asked General Shackelford how many fewer Joint 
Strike Fighters would be purchased over that 5-year period if we went 
ahead with the second engine. He responded:

       Over the 5-year period, it would be 53.

  I cannot emphasize that enough--53 fewer aircraft that we otherwise 
would have purchased for the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps that are 
desperately in need of them over the next 5 years; 53 fewer planes 
because we are going to spend that money buying a second engine we do 
not need. That really would be a major disruption to the Joint Strike 
Fighter Program. But it is avoidable, and it is avoidable by adopting 
the amendment Senator McCain and I, Senator Schumer, Senator Dodd, 
Senator Kyl, Senator Hutchison, Senator Collins, and Senator Snowe--a 
very broad bipartisan group--have offered.
  I close this opening statement in support of our amendment and in 
opposition to the amendment my friend from Indiana will offer with this 
quote from President Obama when he sent the defense budget to us on May 
15. Here is the quote from the President:

       We're going to save money by eliminating unnecessary 
     defense programs that do nothing to keep us safe but rather 
     prevent us from spending money on what does keep us safe. One 
     example is a $465 million program to build an alternate 
     engine for the joint strike fighter. The Defense Department 
     is already pleased with the engine it has. The engine it has 
     works. The Pentagon does not want and does not plan to use 
     the alternate version.

  President Obama concludes:

       That is why the Pentagon stopped requesting this funding 2 
     years ago.

  That is why I respectfully ask my colleagues, in the interest of the 
taxpayers, in the interest of the Joint Strike Fighter Program, to 
protect funding for the Marines, for the Hueys, the special operations 
forces of the Air Force, for the C-130s, to protect the Navy, Air 
Force, and Marines, who are waiting for the Joint Strike Fighter. I ask 
you to vote against the amendment offered by my friend from Indiana and 
for the amendment I have the honor to offer.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Indiana.


                           Amendment No. 1767

  Mr. BAYH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up my 
amendment No. 1767.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Bayh] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1767.

  Mr. BAYH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To provide for the continued development of a competitive 
 propulsion system for the Joint Strike Fighter program and additional 
amounts, with an offset, for UH-1Y/AH-1Z rotary wing aircraft and Joint 
              Strike Fighter program management reserves)

       On page 39, strike lines 4 through 17, and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 211. CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT OF COMPETITIVE PROPULSION 
                   SYSTEM FOR THE JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Of the amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2010 
     for research, development, test, and evaluation for the F-35 
     Lightning II aircraft program, not more than 90 percent may 
     be obligated until the Secretary of Defense submits to the 
     congressional defense committees a written certification that 
     sufficient funds have been obligated for fiscal year 2010 for 
     the continued development of a competitive propulsion system 
     for the F-35 Lightning II aircraft to ensure that system 
     development and demonstration continues under the program 
     during fiscal year 2010.
       (b) Additional Amount for UH-1Y/AH-1Z Rotary Wing 
     Aircraft.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 102(a)(1) for aircraft procurement for the Navy is 
     hereby increased by $282,900,000, with the amount of the 
     increase to be allocated to amounts available for the 
     procurement of UH-1Y/AH-1Z rotary wing aircraft.
       (c) Restoration of Management Reserves for F-35 Joint 
     Strike Fighter Program.--
       (1) Navy joint strike fighter.--The amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 201(a)(2) for research, development, 
     test, and evaluation for the Navy is hereby increased by 
     $78,000,000, with the amount of the increase to be allocated 
     to amounts available for the Joint Strike Fighter program (PE 
     # 0604800N) for management reserves.
       (2) Air force joint strike fighter.--The amount authorized 
     to be appropriated by section 201(a)(3) for research, 
     development, test, and evaluation for the Air Force is hereby 
     increased by $78,000,000, with the amount of the increase to 
     be allocated to amounts available for the Joint Strike 
     Fighter program (PE # 0604800F) for management reserves.
       (d) Offset.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 103(1) for aircraft procurement for the Air Force is 
     hereby decreased by $438,900,000, with the amount of the 
     decrease to be derived from amounts available for airlift 
     aircraft for the HC/MC-130 recapitalization program.

  Mr. BAYH. Madam President, I wish to begin by thanking my colleague 
from Connecticut and my friend, Joe Lieberman. We have worked together 
on so many issues and so well that I find this to be an odd set of 
circumstances today where we have a difference of opinion on this 
issue. But even here, we have worked collegially to call up our 
respective amendments in a timely manner.
  I regret the order of offering the amendments was changed because I 
know the Senator had speakers on his approach to this issue, as I had. 
I wish their voices could be heard. I am grateful Senator Levin will be 
speaking shortly in support of my approach. I think the fact he is 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee lends some credence to our 
approach. I thank the Senator for his cooperation and courtesy. I so 
much enjoy, as with Senator McCain as well, our working together on so 
many different issues. I thank Senator McCain for his courtesy in 
trying to respect the time of the various Members who planned their 
schedules and planned to speak here. I thank Senator Lieberman for all 
that. We do, however, have a difference of opinion on this important 
issue.
  This amendment will restore funding for Marine Corps helicopters and 
the Joint Strike Fighter management service reserves. Let me repeat for 
my colleagues who are concerned about funding for the Marine Corps 
helicopters or the number of Joint Strike Fighters which will be 
purchased, my amendment deals with those concerns. So many of the very 
appropriate comments Senator Lieberman was making about the Marine 
Corps, about the helicopters, about the testimony of the services in 
favor of those helicopters, those are no longer relevant. Under my 
amendment, the helicopters are provided for, so many of his comments 
about the need for Joint Strike Fighters and the number of tails, the 
number of planes, those comments are no longer relevant. We have full 
funding for the number of Joint Strike Fighters.
  I know this debate has proceeded rapidly, it has changed rapidly, but 
all of that commentary about helicopters and the number of Joint Strike 
Fighters has been taken care of by my amendment and is no longer 
relevant to the consideration of the underlying issue, which is the 
importance of competition and how best to go about saving money and 
procuring engines for this vitally important program.
  I should also say that a number of statements were read about the 
President and his points of view. I think it is important for my 
colleagues who care about the comments from the President's staff about 
a recommendation of a veto to point out that in those comments, they 
were speaking directly to the number of planes, which has now been 
taken care of. That has now been addressed. They were not referring to 
the underlying opinion of the GAO and the whole fiscal aspect of this, 
which is

[[Page 18978]]

a legitimate debate, but those comments and concerns were not raised as 
legitimate grounds for a veto threat by the President of the United 
States. So that has been taken care of as well.
  What is on the table is preserving competition in the Joint Strike 
Fighter Engine Program. My friend and colleague's amendment No. 1627 
strikes funding for this commonsense program. I wish to set the record 
straight by preserving this competition.
  The Joint strike Fighter is a massive acquisition program. By 2030, 
this fighter will make up the vast majority of our tactical air fleet. 
Investing now to ensure competition over the life of the JSF is good 
government and sound management practice. Understanding this, my 
colleagues in the Armed Services Committee prudently included $439 
million to continue development of the competitive engine.
  As most of our colleagues know, I am very concerned with our Nation's 
growing deficit. I have consistently opposed bills that spend too much, 
including the omnibus spending bill and the recent budget. I have 
supported amendments to strike wasteful spending.
  I understand the importance of restraint, and I would not be here 
today if I did not truly believe this competitive engine strategy will 
save the taxpayers money.
  I am not alone in this view. In 1996, Congress initiated the F-136 
competitive engine program because we knew then, as we still know now, 
competition results in lower cost, improved performance, increased 
reliability, and greater contractor responsiveness. Since then, 
Congress has maintained unwavering support for this program for 13 
consecutive years.
  I want to be clear that there was never a competition for the GSF 
engine development. I heard the word ``competition'' used repeatedly by 
my friend and colleague. I hold in my hand copies of the contracts, the 
contracts for the engine that has just been alleged to have been let 
competitively. The first contract was on January 23, 1997, to Pratt & 
Whitney, in the sum of $804 million. It sets in bold print ``this 
contract was not competitively procured.''
  Let me repeat that in plain English. This contract for the engine 
program about which it was just stated repeatedly that there was a 
competition, was, in fact, not competitively let. It is in plain 
English. A Federal Government document refutes that contention.
  The second contract, dated October 26, 2001, once again to Pratt & 
Whitney, in the sum of $4,830,000--this contract was not competitively 
procured. There was no competition for the engine program. It is a 
matter of public record in plain black and white. If you care about 
competition, you will support my approach to dealing with this issue.
  This is an engine program whose total cost will top $100 billion. 
There is simply no justification for awarding a sole-source 
noncompetitive contract in this area. The General Accounting Office has 
consistently supported funding a second engine as a fiscally 
responsible approach that would yield long-term cost savings for 
taxpayers.
  On May 20 of this year, the GAO reaffirmed this view when discussing 
the cost to complete the second engine and stated:

       A competitive strategy has the potential for savings equal 
     to or exceeding the amount across the life cycle of the 
     engine. Prior experience indicates it is reasonable to assume 
     that competition on the GSF engine program could yield 
     savings of at least as much. As a result, we remain confident 
     the competitive pressures could yield enough savings to 
     offset the costs for competition over the GFS program's life.

  GAO went on to elaborate on the nonfinancial benefits of procuring a 
second amendment:

       Our prior work, along with studies by the Department of 
     Defense and others, indicate there are a number of 
     nonfinancial benefits that may result from competition, 
     including better performance, increased reliability, and 
     improved contractor responsiveness.

  The long history in the Department of Defense is that when you award 
sole-sourced, noncompetitive contracts to a single provider, costs go 
up, responsiveness goes down, the taxpayers suffer. That is what my 
amendment will avoid.
  Further, in light of the increased investment Secretary Gates and the 
administration have chosen to make in the GSF program, limiting the 
Department of Defense to a single source has implications for our 
readiness and strategic posture. If we have problems with the primary 
engine, we will have no alternative. There will be no second supplier 
with any ability to produce a comparable engine. Production delays or 
engine failures could prove catastrophic for an already thin tactical 
air fleet.
  Anybody who thinks that a large contract to a single vendor without 
competition--again I reiterate, as the contracts specifically indicate, 
they were not competitively bid--anyone who thinks that is a good way 
for the government to do business should support the Lieberman 
amendment.
  Some may very well argue that my amendment constitutes business as 
usual or is, in fact, wasteful, but many of these individuals have, in 
fact, supported this approach as good public policy in the past. They 
were right then. I am right today.
  We need to keep the primary contractors honest and the only way to do 
that is through competition. There was no competition in the award of 
these contracts. We now maintain that competition through the adoption 
of this amendment.
  There were several other Senators who were intending to speak on 
behalf of this amendment. Because of the change in schedule, they may 
not be able to be with us. We will have to wait and see about that, but 
again I thank Senator McCain for his courtesy in attempting to ensure 
that they could speak. I know there were some in opposition to my 
approach who wanted to speak as well. Senator Kennedy cosponsors my 
amendment and is fully supportive. Because of health care concerns he 
could not be here today. I do wish to share with our colleagues and for 
the record a statement he issued on June 24, as a part of the Armed 
Services Committee markup on this issue, in support of my approach.
  Senator Kennedy, a longstanding member of the Armed Services 
Committee:

       For the fourth year in a row, the Department of Defense 
     continues to ignore the will of the Congress on the 
     production of an alternate Joint Strike Fighter engine in 
     order to reduce risk to our forces, protect against any cost 
     overruns, preserve the U.S. industrial base and support our 
     international partners.

  That is what our amendment is designed to accomplish and that is why 
Senator Kennedy supports it. He goes on to say:

       I remember well the ``Great Engine Wars'' of the 1980s, and 
     the development of an acquisition strategy, considered 
     controversial at the time, that ultimately delivered stronger 
     and more cost-effective fighter aircraft to the nation. That 
     issue began a decade earlier, when the decision to sole-
     source the F-15's F100 engine resulted in rushed development 
     to meet program timelines, inadequate responses to program 
     shortfalls, and mounting frustration over our inability to 
     address these discrepancies without additional resources. 
     Ultimately, the Air Force, the Navy and Congress agreed that 
     the short-term and long-term benefits of industrial 
     competition would meet these challenges and deliver results.
       That experience is as relevant today as it was then, 
     because we face a similar challenge. The Joint Strike Fighter 
     is one of the largest military aircraft programs in history, 
     with $100 billion allocated for engines alone. In light of 
     recent defense acquisition challenges and the growing 
     ``fighter gap'' in our air forces, these decisions could not 
     be more important, or their results more far-reaching.
       Critics emphasize the short-term cost savings of the sole-
     source procurement strategy and cite reports showing 
     different timelines to re-coup program costs. But dramatic 
     long-term opportunity costs are missing from this debate, and 
     are conspicuous in their absence.

  That is what the GAO was referring to in the study I cited before.

       Competition for the Joint Strike Fighter engine has 
     compelling advantages and avoids past pitfalls. Dual-sourcing 
     will build vital operational redundancy into the fleet, 
     avoiding a single point of failure for the engine 
     malfunctions and spare parts shortages experienced in the 
     past with other fleet-wide groundings. Competition delivers 
     an inherent incentive for manufacturers to absorb and contain 
     cost growth, even as it encourages responsiveness by 
     contractors, continuous product improvement, and innovation. 
     All of these factors are less evident in sole-source 
     contracts.

[[Page 18979]]

       The alternate engine program appropriately diversifies 
     capability and capacity across the U.S. industrial base and 
     ensures that sustained production, maintenance, and 
     availability of critical components are not concentrated in a 
     single provider. In addition, the F136 alternate engine 
     program considers the sustained participation of key 
     international partners and stakeholders, especially the 
     United Kingdom, and Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the 
     Netherlands, Norway, and Turkey as well. Their commitment is 
     important to the future of the Joint Strike Fighter program 
     and our basic security relationships.
       For these reasons, I strongly support the addition of $438 
     million in the FY 2010 National Defense Authorization Act to 
     sustain the F136 alternate Joint Strike Fighter engine 
     program.

  Those are the words of Senator Kennedy.
  In conclusion and by way of summary, the Marine Corps helicopter 
issue has been taken care of. That is no longer an issue. We fully 
provide for that.
  Allegations about the number of procurements for the Joint Strike 
Fighters has been taken care of. That is no longer an issue.
  Statements by the President's staff with regard to a possible 
Presidential veto related to the potential reduction in the number of 
fighters, that issue has been taken care of.
  As I mentioned, the contracts for the engines themselves, in black 
and white, given to Pratt & Whitney on the dates in these legal 
documents, say very clearly, and I quote once again: ``This contract 
was not competitively procured.''
  That is a matter of public record. This debate is about competition, 
the benefits of competition. I support them. That is why I urge my 
colleagues to support our amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time? The Senator from 
Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise in support of the amendment which 
has been described by the proponent and opponent. Obviously, it would 
strip from the Defense authorization bill a provision that authorizes 
funding for an alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
  Underscoring Senator Lieberman's point and as was the case with the 
provision this body addressed in the F-22 program, funding for an 
alternate engine for the JSF at this time is something the Department 
of Defense has not asked for and does not want. It is not reflected in 
either the President's budget request or any of the Services' unfunded 
priorities list.
  I believe there is good reason why neither the Department nor any of 
the services at this time want an alternate engine for the JSF. That 
reason is perhaps best expressed in a letter that Senator Lieberman has 
already quoted from and had printed in the Record, from Secretary 
Gates. He concludes by saying:

       It is my belief that the Joint Strike Fighter Program 
     presented in the President's budget request is in the best 
     interests of national security. If a final bill is presented 
     to the President concerning provisions that would seriously 
     disrupt the F-35 program, the President's senior advisers 
     will recommend that the President veto the bill.

  Before I go much further, I would like to apologize to all Members 
who had planned to speak on this very important amendment and had 
arranged their schedules to do so. We have obviously changed the 
timing, despite the unanimous consent agreement to the contrary, 
apparently to accommodate one Senator's schedule.
  I hope, because this is a very important issue, that Senators both in 
support of Senator Bayh's position and in support of this amendment 
would seize the opportunity to come down and address this issue.
  Some have cited the benefits of competition as a reason to pursue a 
second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, but a competition for this 
engine was already conducted. It was already conducted as a part of the 
original flyoff competition for the Joint Strike Fighter itself. The 
current airframe manufacturer and engine team won.
  In 1996, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and McDonnell Douglas originally 
competed for the two Joint Strike Technology Concept Demonstration 
Awards. In connection with that, each of those airframe manufacturers 
solicited engine proposals from Pratt & Whitney and General Electric. 
Pratt & Whitney won the competition as to Lockheed Martin and Boeing, 
and General Electric won separately as to McDonnell Douglas. Lockheed 
Martin and Boeing were selected to proceed to concept demonstration--
where Lockheed Martin ultimately won in 2001.
  That is exactly how most military aircraft engines are selected--as a 
team, combining an airframe with a powerplant. That makes sense, I 
might say. Obviously, we do not want them being developed separately. 
So with regard to a second engine, we are not talking about 
competition, we are actually talking about another bite at the apple.
  I hope the great engine war is over. I know of no data or analysis 
that supports that taxpayers will see any net savings from subjecting 
the engine for the JSF to any further competition.
  I do not believe there is anybody who believes more in competition 
than the Senator from Connecticut and me, including the chairman. We 
need to have competition. But there comes a point where you have to 
make a decision in the development of both the aircraft and the engine 
and move forward. At some point you have to abandon the alternate 
engine or, in some cases, there have been advocates of an alternate 
aircraft itself, to perform the same mission, as in the case of the 
tanker, and to move forward in order to proceed in a fashion which is 
in the best interests of the taxpayers and the defense of the country.
  That is why the Secretary of Defense feels so strongly on this issue 
that he says the President's senior advisers will recommend that the 
President veto the bill if the Lieberman amendment is not adopted.
  The fact is also funding an alternate engine over the next 6 years 
has been estimated to cost the program about $5 billion, the equivalent 
of 50 to 80 aircraft, according to the program manager.
  Also, given that continuing development of a second engine would 
require in excess of $600 million in fiscal year 2010 alone, according 
to the Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 
Acquisitions, GEN Mark Shackelford. Paying for the engines in just that 
year would require cutting production of at least two Joint Strike 
Fighters this year alone.
  There may be some nonfinancial benefits to subjecting the engine 
program for the Joint Strike Fighter to additional competition--
improved contractor performance at the margins, for example.
  Like Senator Lieberman, I am not persuaded those benefits are worth 
an additional cost of $5 billion to the Joint Strike Fighter's bottom 
line over the next 6 years. Certainly there are more cost-effective 
ways of ensuring contractor performance.
  In my view, the possibility of a fleetwide grounding due to a single 
engine--that is another argument that is made by proponents of a second 
engine--is overstated. In fact, the only other U.S. military aircraft 
with an alternative engine is the F-16. All other aircraft have single-
engine sources and have worked well.
  There is no doubt the cost growth of the engine has been a huge 
problem. From fiscal year 2007 to 2008, the engine costs have grown 
specifically to meet the needs of the Marine Corps for a version 
capable of short takeoff and vertical landing. But I suggest the 
challenge there is to ensure that development costs leading to 
production remain stable, not to introduce a new engine to the program 
that will most assuredly add more uncertain testing requirements, 
complexity, and ultimately cost to the program.
  So I believe the provision currently in the bill would be seriously 
disruptive because one of the offsets it uses to fund developing and 
buying a second engine derives from research, development, and testing 
and evaluation efforts supporting the program itself.
  Also, it is my understanding the offset is of the C-130, which 
obviously is very much required in our operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Remember, Secretary Gates restructured the Joint

[[Page 18980]]

Strike Fighter Program this year precisely to provide for more robust 
developmental testing over the next 5 years to ensure that the program 
stays on its planned budget. Taking money out of the program's 
research, development, and testing and evaluation effort will, in my 
view, most assuredly disrupt the program.
  One of the lessons of history on this program is its stability in 
funding is absolutely vital to executing that program soundly, the 
instability in funding--the disruption that the provision introduces 
into the bill--brings the bill within the scope of a veto threat.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment 
under consideration and prohibit any additional funding for an 
alternate engine program for the Joint Strike Fighter.
  Let me also point out to my colleagues, I think this Secretary of 
Defense has decided, in an incredible act of courage, to take on 
certain institutions and the way we do business. I think this Secretary 
of Defense has decided to take on--and I know he has--the military-
industrial-congressional complex which lards on porkbarrel projects and 
unnecessary spending which, in many respects, places parochial 
interests over the national interests. Obviously, he feels so strongly 
about it that he would recommend a veto by the President of the United 
States. That would be regrettable, obviously, because we have so many 
important provisions in this bill for the men and women who are serving 
this country, from the wounded warriors, to a pay raise, for so many 
things--to the amendment of Senator Lieberman's that we adopted 
yesterday that we would provide an additional 30,000 members of the 
U.S. Army so we can better pursue the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  So, obviously, as of yesterday, the Secretary of Defense feels so 
strongly on this issue that he would recommend that the President veto 
the entire bill. Does that mean it would kill a bill? No. But it does 
mean there would be a significant period of delay in passing this 
legislation and therefore delay the ability of the Pentagon and the 
military to implement some of the very important provisions of this 
legislation.
  So I would urge my colleagues to examine this issue carefully, as I 
am sure they do all of the issues before this body. Also I would hope 
they would take into consideration the views of our distinguished 
Secretary of Defense.
  I do not agree on every issue with the Secretary of Defense, and 
neither does my colleague, Senator Lieberman. But I think he is on the 
right track. I think he can bring about change, at least on how we 
acquire weapons and how we spend money, and end these atrocious, 
outrageous cost overruns we have experienced in literally every single 
weapon system in recent years, which have cost the taxpayers incredible 
amounts of money, and end this earmarking and porkbarrel process that I 
will talk more on today.
  Every day just about we pick up a paper and hear about, or go on line 
and hear about, some organization that got an earmark and their waste, 
mismanagement, and in some cases criminal behavior as far as use of the 
taxpayers' dollars are concerned. We have to do the big things and the 
small things. This is a big thing.
  I respect, enormously, the Senator from Indiana. There has been no 
more valuable member of the Armed Services Committee than Senator Bayh. 
I respect his views. I understand where he is coming from in the name 
and sake of competition.
  Senator Lieberman's and my argument is that the time for competition 
is over, and it is time to move forward with a tested engine that will, 
one, accelerate the development and operational entrance by the F-22, 
and also save some $5 billion of the taxpayers' money.
  So I hope my colleagues will examine this issue very carefully and 
support the Lieberman amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut is 
recognized.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I wanted to speak very briefly because I note the 
presence on the floor of the Senator from Ohio. I want to speak simply 
to thank Senator McCain for his very strong and thoughtful statement. I 
am honored that he is the cosponsor of the amendment.
  Senator McCain has enormous credibility in two areas that have come 
together in this amendment. The first is his support of the men and 
women of our military. The second is his opposition to wasteful 
spending of taxpayer dollars. And the two come together here.
  Of course, as he has argued so compellingly, there are a lot of times 
when the wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars for military 
acquisitions is not only harmful in itself because it is wasteful, but 
it takes money away from things we need more.
  That is the case here. The money that will be spent, $5, $6, $8 
billion over the next 6 years by various estimates, will result in 50 
to 80 fewer Joint Strike Fighters produced in that time. The Navy, Air 
Force, and Marines are waiting with anxiety for these tactical 
fighters.
  In addition to that, the folks who want to fund this second engine 
have to find the money somewhere. They find it not only by delays in 
the Joint Strike Fighter Program, but by either, as the amendments 
today give the alternative--the first one was to take it from the 
Marine Corps for helicopters that are needed in Afghanistan.
  The one that Senator Bayh has before us will take the money from the 
Air Force special operations community for C-130s that they need for 
Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout the world. It is not worth it.
  I thank Senator McCain for his strong statement and for his 
cosponsorship.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Who is managing this side of the debate?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Senator Bayh and Senator Lieberman.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I ask unanimous consent that I take some of the time 
of Senator Bayh, who is supposed to be managing.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise today to speak in support of 
the competitive sourcing for the Joint Strike Fighter engines. Senator 
Bayh's compromise amendment continues our support for competition for 
the Joint Strike Fighter engines and restores the funding for the 
Marine Corps helicopters that I know a number of my colleagues are 
concerned about.
  From my understanding of what happened is that in the Armed Services 
Committee, Senator Bayh was concerned that the committee did not have 
money in the budget for competition for the Joint Strike Fighter. As a 
result of that, he moved to amend and took money away from the 
helicopters that Senator Lieberman is so concerned about.
  Today we are here because the Senator from Connecticut wants to 
restore that money for those helicopters, and at the same time, those 
of us who are concerned about competition would like to see the money 
included so we can continue competition for the Joint Strike Fighter.
  As most of you know, I am a former Governor and mayor who has been an 
ardent champion of fiscal responsibility and total quality management 
in government. I am not a Johnnie-come-lately to this whole business of 
efficiency in terms of our defense budget.
  Since 1990, the Department of Defense acquisition management has been 
under GAO's high risk list, and that is why, in my capacity as chair 
and now ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Government 
Management, I strongly supported reforms at the Defense Department that 
address contracting weaknesses and promote good business practices to 
support our men and women in uniform.
  I want everyone to understand, this is not the F-22. This is about 
competition, fiscal responsibility, and good government management. 
When I came to the Senate, I remember Dwight D.

[[Page 18981]]

Eisenhower talked about the military-industrial complex. I must say, 
since I have been a Senator, he had it wrong. It is the military-
industrial-congressional complex.
  If you watch how things are done on the floor of the Senate, a lot of 
it has got to do with protecting the business in our States, even 
though in some instances it is not in the best interests of our 
country. I am proud to say, in spite of the fact that in my State we 
lost about 500 jobs, I voted to eliminate the F-22.
  That is what we should see more of here. But too often, when we make 
our decisions, it has got more to do with the corporations in our 
respective States and the jobs than it has to do with what is in the 
best interests of the country or what is fiscally responsible.
  I think all of us should be concerned about it. I am going to leave 
here at the end of next year. But it seems to me if we do not start 
paying more attention to that, we are going to continue to be in 
trouble.
  In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee this past May, 
the Government Accountability Office stated that competition, 
competition for the Joint Strike Fighter engine will yield long-term 
cost savings for taxpayers.
  Does that mean it is not going to cost a little more at the front end 
because we are going to have more than one company competing for that 
engine? Of course it is going to cost a little bit more. But that 
testimony GAO gave cited an example of engine competition for the F-16. 
OK? We had competition for the F-16. Let's remember that this Joint 
Strike Fighter is going to be the fighter for all of the Federal 
agencies. It is going to be with us for the next 25 or 30 years.
  That testimony for the F-16 said: It reduced engine costs for the F-
16 by over 20 percent. In other words, by putting a little money up 
front and having competition between the companies that wanted to do 
the engines, we, over the contract, saved 20 percent.
  I commend to my colleagues the GAO testimony before the Subcommittee 
on Air and Land Forces, Committee on Armed Services, House of 
Representatives. This is quite a report. For those who are really 
interested in the subject, I ask them to read this or have their staff 
look at it. It is entitled ``Joint Strike Fighter Strong Risk 
Management Essential as Program Enters Most Challenging Phase.''
  It is interesting the way the company that was originally chosen to 
do this has had cost overruns even in the beginning--and the two 
companies that were competing with them have been on budget and on time 
for the Record. By the way, it is right here in this GAO report. All 
you have to do is read the report. It is there.
  Let me read what the report says:

       A competitive strategy has the potential for savings equal 
     to or exceeding that amount across the life cycle of the 
     engine. Prior experience indicates that it is reasonable to 
     assume that competition on the Joint Strike Fighter engine 
     program could yield savings. . . . As a result, we remain 
     confident that competitive pressures could yield enough 
     savings to offset the [upfront] costs of [development] over 
     the JSF program's life.
  Let me repeat that:

       As a result, we remain confident that competitive pressures 
     could yield enough savings to offset the [upfront] costs of 
     [development] over the [Joint Strike Fighter] program's life. 
     Most of us understand competition.

  We have laws against antitrust, trying to make sure that one company 
doesn't get an advantage over another. I think most of my colleagues 
understand competition brings out the best and the lowest price.
  The GAO testimony goes on to address the impact competition has on 
quality of product and incentives to perform:

       Our prior work, along with studies by the [Department of 
     Defense] and others, indicate there are a number of 
     nonfinancial benefits that may result from competition, 
     including better performance, increased reliability, and 
     improved contractor responsiveness.

  I heard the Senator from Arizona speak eloquently about all of the 
overruns and expenses and everything else about it. If he were here, I 
would say to him: Hey, what we want to do is have some competition on 
this engine so we get the best price, the best quality, the most 
responsiveness.
  We don't need the GAO to confirm common sense. We all know that 
competition leads to lower cost, improved performance, increased 
reliability, and helps to keep our contractors honest. Without a 
competitive engine, over 90 percent of our fighter aircraft will be 
powered by one engine by 2030. Think about that. One company will have 
that contract. Giving an extraordinarily large contract to a single 
vendor without competition is reckless and irresponsible. Our 
government has an obligation to keep our contractors honest, and the 
surest way to achieve that honesty is through competition. I urge 
colleagues to support the Bayh compromise amendment that preserves 
competitive sourcing for the Joint Strike Fighter engine.
  We have an opportunity. I can understand the Senator from Connecticut 
was upset because we took money out of the helicopters to maintain the 
competition. What Senator Bayh is trying to do is come up with an 
amendment that will restore the money so we can buy the helicopters 
and, at the same time, maintain competition on the Joint Strike 
Fighter.
  I urge my colleagues to study this issue. Please, if they have a 
chance, they or their staffs ought to look at this report by the GAO. 
It substantiates the reasons why we are so ardent in terms of our 
support for competition for the Joint Strike Fighter.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I need 
from the time allotted.
  Let me respond to a few points made in this debate.
  First, as was clear, the original place that proponents of this 
second engine, which I believe is an unnecessary engine or unnecessary 
expenditure of taxpayer money, the place from which they would take the 
money originally for the Huey helicopters for the marines, I think 
there was a lot of upset about that. So the choice that Senator Bayh 
has put before us today would cut the HC-130 and MC-130 aircraft which 
would seriously impact both the Air Force's air combat command and the 
special operations command. This is a late-breaking development this 
morning, the change of source of the funding, but we asked for a 
response from the office of the Secretary of Defense and it was this, 
that this ``take'' from these two variants of the C-130s that the Air 
Force special operations command is using in Afghanistan, Iraq, and 
elsewhere, wherever they are needed in the world, the Secretary of 
Defense says this would slow down the rate at which the aircraft would 
be delivered.
  The argument Senator Bayh made is that in the supplemental we adopted 
earlier, three additional MC-130s and four HC-130s were included, seven 
planes. But the Air Force says to us this morning: Based on the JROC 
validation requirements--that is the joint operating committee that 
determines acquisition--the Air Force has validated requirements for 37 
MC-130s and 78 HC-130s.
  The Air Force, including the Air Force special operations command and 
air combat command, is grateful for the seven the supplemental gave 
them, but they need many more. They need 115 total, and so far we have 
given them 7. Removing the nine planes that were in the President's 
budget for the Air Force to fund the unnecessary second engine is not a 
costless move. It would do damage to the Air Force and its program.
  I know Senator Reed is here and wants to speak on the amendment 
before us.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise in support of the Lieberman-McCain 
amendment. I commend both of them for their efforts in this regard. 
This represents part of what I believe Secretary Gates is trying to do, 
which is to focus on immediate consequential threats and necessary 
equipment while we continue to maintain deterrents for the future.
  This second engine has not been fully validated by the Secretary of 
Defense.

[[Page 18982]]

This amendment requires such validation. In addition, one of the 
aspects of the underlying legislation is that the alternate engine for 
the Joint Strike Fighter would be paid for in part by taking away funds 
to purchase additional UH-1Y helicopters for the Marine Corps. This 
request was in the President's budget. These helicopters are absolutely 
critical to ongoing operations in Afghanistan and throughout the world. 
The wear and tear on equipment, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq, 
has been considerable. If we don't upgrade or repair these pieces of 
equipment on a regular basis, we will not have the lift to combat our 
opponents across the globe.
  By comparison, right now in Great Britain there is an argument about 
the sufficiency of helicopters their forces have. We don't want to get 
into such an argument down the road. We want to make sure our forces in 
the field have the equipment they need to carry the fight to our 
opponents.
  I think this amendment is extremely well crafted. It puts the money 
where it should be to help our tactical airlift, marines particularly, 
helicopter airlift. It requires the Secretary to justify and validate 
that a second engine would reduce the whole life cycle cost and improve 
the operational readiness of the F-35. We should go forward with 
helicopters and let the Secretary make a judgment about the efficacy of 
the second engine.
  I thank the Senator for yielding to me.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend from Rhode Island, 
Senator Reed, for taking the time to come over to the Chamber. I know 
the schedule changed. We had to adjust things. His presence and the 
strength of his statement--he is a senior member of the Armed Services 
Committee--and his support mean a lot to this cause.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 10 minutes of the time of Senator Bayh.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan is 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I oppose the Lieberman amendment that 
would eliminate funding for the Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine. 
The committee voted 12 to 10 to keep this competition going. I 
emphasize, this is not a new engine that is being introduced. This 
effort is to have a competitive engine. This effort has been supported 
by Congress for many years. Indeed, our Armed Services Committee had a 
vote on this 2 years ago where we determined to maintain the 
competition. This year's vote was 12 to 10.
  A fundamental tenet for reforming the Defense Department's 
acquisition system is ensuring competition throughout the development 
and production cycle of major acquisition systems, whenever and 
wherever that makes sense. In the case of the Joint Strike Fighter 
Program, Congress has concluded repeatedly that competition makes sense 
because of the size of this buy.
  The JSF program is planned to be one of the largest acquisition 
programs ever undertaken by the Defense Department. The Defense 
Department intends to buy more than 2,400 JSF aircraft, with our 
foreign partners slated to buy at least another 600. That means we are 
talking about a program of more than 3,000 aircraft. That means more 
than 3,000 engines. The cost of the engines alone will exceed $50 
billion over the life of the program. This is not an issue such as 
whether we add F-22s. This is a matter of whether we are going to have 
competition in a program everybody supports and where we intend to 
purchase about 3,000 planes.
  A number of studies have been done trying to estimate the economic 
costs and benefits of developing a second engine. The analysis of our 
Government Accountability Office, which Congress directed to review 
this, came out a few years ago. Michael Sullivan, GAO Director of 
Acquisition and Sourcing Management, testified as follows in March 2006 
before the House Armed Services Committee:

       The current estimated remaining life cycle cost for the JSF 
     engine under the sole-source scenario is $53.4 billion. To 
     ensure competition by continuing the JSF alternate engine 
     program, an additional investment of $3.6 billion to $4.5 
     billion may be required.

  This was back in 2007. It is a lot less than that now to complete 
this program.
  Continuing from the testimony:

       However, the associated competitive pressures from this 
     strategy could result in savings equal to or exceeding that 
     amount across the life cycle of the engine. The cost analysis 
     that we performed suggests that a savings of 10.3 to 12.3 
     percent would recoup that investment, and actual experience 
     from past engine competitions suggests that it is reasonable 
     to assume that competition on the JSF engine program could 
     yield savings of at least that much. These results are 
     dependent on how the government decides to run the 
     competition, the number of aircraft that are ultimately 
     purchased, and the exact ratio of engines awarded to each 
     contract. In addition, DOD-commissioned reports and other 
     officials have said that non financial benefits in terms of 
     better engine performance and reliability, improved 
     industrial base stability, and more responsive contractors 
     are more likely outcomes under a competitive environment than 
     under a sole-source strategy. [Department of Defense] 
     experience with other aircraft engine programs, including 
     that for the F-16 fighter, has shown competitive pressures 
     can generate financial benefits of up to 20 percent during 
     the life cycle of an engine program and/or the other benefits 
     mentioned. The potential for cost savings and performance 
     improvements, along with the impact the engine program could 
     have on the industrial base, underscores the importance and 
     long-term implications of [Department of Defense] decision 
     making with regard to the final acquisition strategy.

  A few months ago, before the Armed Services Committee, in May of 
2009, that same Mr. Sullivan of the GAO said that his study of 2007 is 
still relevant and the same conclusions can be drawn.
  This is not a new engine which is being introduced. This is an engine 
development program to provide competition which has been long 
underway. The Department of Defense and Congress have approved, 
authorized, and appropriated spending so far of $2.5 billion for this 
alternate engine. The most important point I think I can make is this 
is not $4 billion or $5 billion or $6 billion additional funds we are 
talking about. In order to complete the development of this competitive 
engine, it will require $1.8 billion. So that $2.5 billion is already 
sunk into this engine development program. That is probably two-thirds 
of its cost already sunk into it. The question is, do we complete the 
development of this alternative engine at a cost of about $1.8 billion? 
That would conclude the cost for the engine contractor and other 
government costs for that program, for testing activities and for 
oversight. So again, the issue is not whether to introduce a new 
engine. The question is, do we complete the development of a second 
engine which is already two-thirds paid for?
  We received a letter this morning--I received a letter this morning--
from the Secretary of Defense, and the letter concludes that if the 
final bill presented to the President contains provisions that would 
seriously disrupt the F-35 program, the President's senior advisers 
will recommend that the President veto the bill.
  If the final bill presented to the President contained provisions 
that would seriously disrupt the F-35 program, I would recommend to the 
President that he veto the bill. There is no serious disruption to the 
F-35 program that would occur whether or not the Bayh amendment is 
adopted. The Bayh amendment makes triply sure there will be no 
disruption at all, even a minute disruption, in the F-35 program. It is 
not going to be disrupted at all.
  The funding for this alternate engine in the bill which the committee 
approved came from a Marine helicopter program, a part of which could 
not be produced this year. So the committee determined that it could 
safely take funds that were requested for that program, which could not 
be spent this year. A question has been raised about that. There is no 
one on this committee, there is no one in this Senate, who wants to 
slow down a Marine helicopter program. None of us will permit that to 
happen. That program is a vital program. We have spent a lot of money 
on it. It is critically necessary.

[[Page 18983]]

  The decision, which was made by the Armed Services Committee, was to 
simply take funds which could not be spent for that program, because of 
development delays, and to spend that, instead, for the second engine. 
However, what the Bayh amendment does is to make triply sure, to 
reassure everybody there cannot possibly be any impact on a Marine 
helicopter program, by finding a separate, a different, a distinct 
source, an alternate source, for this second engine.
  So the Bayh amendment removes any question about Marine helicopters. 
If adopted, that will be off the table. It was off the table in any 
event. But everybody wants to assure the Marines, assure our people 
that there is not going to be any impact on a Marine helicopter program 
for any reason, much less a second engine.
  There is another question which some have raised about whether two 
engines--
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has consumed 10 
minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Acting President pro tempore.
  Madam President, how much time is left for Senator Bayh?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Twenty-seven minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I would, in that case, conclude my statement. If there is 
additional time for Senator Bayh, I will then ask at a later point for 
some of that time. But for those reasons, and more, which I have not 
yet been able to reach, I very much support the Bayh amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Georgia, 
Mr. Chambliss, such time as he requires.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, if I could ask the Senator from Georgia, 
about how much time does he believe he would be using?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. No more than 10 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that after that 
10-minute time is used Senator Kerry be recognized for a period of up 
to 10 minutes on Senator Bayh's time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut 
for yielding time on this critically important issue.
  As we have been here debating on the floor for the last 2 weeks now 
the respective issues relative to the priorities from a Defense 
authorization standpoint, we have done everything other than going from 
increasing pay for our military personnel to the termination of what I 
argued on the floor last week and this week of the latest, most 
technologically advanced warfighting machine that has ever been 
produced by mankind. But the decision was made to terminate the F-22.
  The F-22, not only from a technology standpoint, was providing 
valuable test material for the follow-on fighter, but it also is 
powered by two engines, one engine of which is going to be on the F-35. 
And here we are now talking about the issue of whether we should 
continue with a competitive second engine for an airplane that now has 
an engine that is being flown, has been flown, has been tested by the 
Air Force on the F-22. It has successfully flown on the F-22 for years 
now, and also has flown successfully in what limited testing has been 
done on the F-35.
  We have put all of our eggs in the F-35 basket now. As I said during 
the debate on the F-22, I am a big supporter of the F-35. It is a great 
airplane. I know it is going to succeed. But we are at a point, with 
respect to the cost of all weapons systems, where we have to look more 
toward where we are going to be in future years from a cost standpoint 
and with regard to what we are able to provide our men and women.
  When you look at items that need to be included in the mix from a 
competition standpoint, there is nobody who supports competition more 
than I do. That is the reason I supported the second engine--up to a 
point in time. But when it came up again last year, it was pretty 
obvious we were at a point where the engine, manufactured by Pratt & 
Whitney--two of which fly on the F-22; only one of which is needed for 
the F-35--is a good engine. It is doing the job. It has passed the 
test. So I decided last year we needed to move away from the spending 
of the money on the second engine, and let's concentrate on providing, 
obviously, the two engines for the F-22, and the one engine on the F-
35.
  We have something else thrown into the mix. I did not support Senator 
Bayh's amendment in committee, for what I still think are all of the 
right reasons from the standpoint of: Do we need competition for an 
engine that is successful? For an engine we know is working? For an 
engine for which we know what the cost is today?
  Why do we need the second engine? Well, I know detractors have said--
and they have made the argument to me--that: Look, that engine may 
fail. Something may happen to that engine. I agree for a point in time 
that could have happened. But we have been at this with respect to the 
engine that is powering the F-35 for years now, and it is a success. So 
I reached a point in time last year when I decided we did not need the 
additional competition from the standpoint of the second engine and, 
obviously, the committee reached that same result this year.
  Now we are changing horses a little bit more. Instead of using the 
discontinuance of the helicopters, the Marine helicopters, we are 
taking money from six C-130Js to fund the competitive second engine for 
the F-35, and the competition is going to be between the new engine we 
have tested and have had in production now for several years against an 
engine we know to be successful.
  Well, the issue has gotten even more sensitive to me because I know 
how critically important the C-130J is to our men and women who are in 
combat today--not those who might be going into combat and might need 
this weapon system somewhere down the road. Our men and women in 
theater today depend every single day on the C-130J, and on the C-
130Hs, even, that are old airplanes, that are in theater, that are 
flying our men and women. They are looking to get the new C-130Js to 
help them transport themselves as well as equipment from one part of 
the theater to the other, from outside the theater into the theater. 
Our special operations men and women are looking to the C-130J for the 
gunship operations they carry out.
  Here we are going to say to those men and women: Well, we think it is 
more important to have competition for a second engine against an 
engine we know is successful than it is to provide you with the latest, 
most technologically advanced airlift capability we can give you. That 
makes no sense whatsoever to me from a national security standpoint.
  All of us have been to Iraq and Afghanistan at some point or another. 
I have been to Iraq eight times. I have been to Afghanistan twice. When 
we go over there, we fly into either Kuwait or Jordan or some 
neighboring country. Then we are transported from that country into 
Iraq or into Afghanistan. What have we flown on? I would say not 99 
percent of the time but 100 percent of the time when we are transported 
into theater, we fly on C-130s. All of us have had the experience of 
seeing date plates on C-130s we are flying on into theater, where 
rockets are being fired occasionally at those weapons systems, and we 
have had some issues relative to that. But the date plates on those 
airplanes we fly on almost consistently are in the 1960s or 1970s.
  So today what we are asking our men and women to do is to fly C-130s 
that are 40 years old, 30 years old, or whatever it may be, that are 
not equipped with the latest, most technologically advanced weapons 
systems, and here we are saying to those men and women that we are 
going to take away from you the entrance of additional C-130Js into 
theater because we think it is important we have competition for a 
second engine on the F-35.
  This makes absolutely no sense from either a fiscal standpoint or a 
national

[[Page 18984]]

security standpoint. The C-130J is a great airplane. We have nine of 
them in this authorization bill. This particular amendment takes six of 
those nine out of the bill and pays for the funding--the remainder of 
the funding--on the second engine. That second engine is a great 
engine. It has performed magnificently. But it is competing with an 
engine that also is performing magnificently.
  So to say we now ought to take a weapons system, such as the C-130J 
that our men and women depend on every single day to fly them around 
within Afghanistan--because they need these airplanes to land, they 
need an airplane that can land on a short runway; and the C-130 has 
that capability to fly our men and women around Iraq, to fly our men 
and women who carry out special operations and missions and have the 
gunships--the guns that are mounted on the C-130J to be transformed 
into a gunship--we are going to take away that capability and that need 
from our men and women to fund a second engine for an airplane that 
already has an engine on it, that is performing well, that we know is 
successful, for which we know how much it costs today. It is not like 
we are going to see a reduction in price on the engine of the F-35 
because we complete the testing and the procurement of an alternative 
engine. That is not going to happen, and that is not the issue. The 
issue comes down to the point of are we going to take, in this case, a 
weapon system away from our men and women to fund a second engine to 
compete with an engine that is already successful.
  I would say that, obviously, I felt very strongly and was very 
emotional about the discontinuance of the F-22 for all of the right 
reasons, but this is one of those issues that makes even less sense 
than the discontinuance of the F-22. We need to make sure we spend tax 
money wisely. We have had the competition on the F-35. It is time we 
move down the road of building and procuring as many of those as we 
can. With the ramp-up this bill calls for, under the direction of the 
chairman, we are going to be buying a lot of F-35s in a short period of 
time. They have a great engine on them today. It works. It is 
successful. That is where we need to concentrate. That is where we need 
to spend our money. We don't need to spend the money on the second 
engine, nor do we need to take six C-130 airplanes out of this budget 
to pay for an engine we are probably never going to buy.
  So I would simply urge my colleagues to vote in support of the 
Lieberman amendment and to vote against the Bayh second-degree 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts is 
recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I rise to join my colleague, Senator 
Kennedy, in opposing the Lieberman amendment to eliminate funding for 
the Joint Strike Fighter alternative engine. I disagree with the 
arguments that were just made by the Senator from Georgia who actually 
is inaccurate by saying it is going to take away a weapon system from 
our military at the current time. It doesn't take any weapon system 
away whatsoever. It simply changes the schedule of production with 
respect to the C-130s, but all of the C-130s will be built. So no 
system is taken away. It is important to try to be accurate about what 
is at stake here.
  As does Senator Kennedy and a lot of other people, including Senator 
Bayh and others, I believe the alternative engine is critical to reduce 
risks to our forces, to protect against cost overruns, to preserve the 
U.S. industrial manufacturing base, and to support our international 
partners. It is a little strange, I might add, to have some of our 
friends on the other side of the aisle who are usually quick to come up 
here and support competition in the American marketplace arguing that 
we shouldn't have competition and that we ought to have a single-source 
production for engines, where we have already seen that there are 
problems frequently in those single-source production lines.
  I strongly support the second-degree amendment offered by Senator 
Bayh and Senator Kennedy that would provide more than $156 million for 
the management reserves of the Joint Strike Fighter Program and more 
than $280 million for the Marine Corps helicopter fleet. This will 
allow the Senate to preserve funding for the vital Marine Corps 
helicopters without eliminating competition for the Joint Strike 
Fighter's competitive alternative engine program.
  Let me say the funding for the Joint Strike Fighter alternative 
engine has been important to Senator Kennedy for a long period of time. 
As we all know, he is being treated back in Massachusetts and is not 
here today, but his statement in support of the amendment he is 
offering with Senator Bayh has already been put into the Record by 
Senator Bayh. I wish to simply reference one thing Senator Kennedy has 
said:

       Competition for the Joint Strike Fighter engine has 
     compelling advantages and avoids past pitfalls. Dual-sourcing 
     will build vital operational redundancy into the fleet, avoid 
     a single point of failure for the engine malfunctions and 
     spare part shortages experienced in the past with other 
     fleet-wide groundings. Competition delivers an inherent 
     incentive for manufacturers to absorb and contain cost 
     growth, even as it encourages responsiveness by contractors, 
     continuous product improvement, and innovation.

  All of us know that is the way we are most effective at producing all 
of our goods in this country. We do it through competition. It is that 
kind of competition that spurs innovation, and it avoids cost overruns. 
Senator Kennedy is 100 percent accurate in his analysis of this issue, 
and I hope Senators will weigh his measurement of this based on his 
years of experience on the Armed Services Committee as well as on the 
facts regarding this particular engine proposition.
  The alternate engine program spreads capability and capacity across 
the U.S. industrial base. What it does is it ensures the production, 
maintenance, and availability of critical components so they are not 
concentrated in the hands of one single producer.
  Why does that matter? Well, the current engine for the Joint Strike 
Fighter has had testing issues. It is simply not appropriate to stand 
here and suggest that everything is absolutely hunky-dory with the 
single-source program. The fact is, there have been two engine blade 
failures within the past 2 years requiring a redesign, remanufacture, 
and delays in the flight test program. In fact, the engine has yet to 
even be flight tested in the most stressing flight regime--the vertical 
landing mode. Those tests have been delayed for up to 2 years, and they 
are now scheduled to take place in September.
  It is precisely that kind of delay that begs for this kind of 
alternative engine program. In fact, the 2007 Institute of Defense 
Analysis study concluded:

       Competition has the potential to bring benefits in addition 
     to reduced prices, including force readiness, contractor 
     responsiveness, and industrial base breadth.

  So I don't believe it is in the best interests of our military to 
have the major part of the fighter fleet dependent on a single-engine 
type provided by a single manufacturer. It is simply too risky, and 
experience tells us it is too risky.
  In the 1970s, many of the F-15s and F-16 fleets were grounded as a 
result of reliability and durability issues because the aircraft were 
dependent on one engine type. Similarly, the AV-8 Harrier was grounded 
for 11 months due to engine problems. With over 2,400 F-35s currently 
planned for procurement and each of the services going to be dependent 
on one engine and one aircraft type for the vast majority of its 
capability, it simply doesn't make sense to put all of it into one 
engine manufacturer--one engine and one producer. We certainly don't 
want to take the risk of the entire F-35 fleet being grounded. 
Competition will avoid that potential.
  So I ask my colleagues to oppose the Lieberman amendment, support the 
Bayh-Kennedy amendment to provide additional funding to the Joint 
Strike Fighter Program and to the Marine Corps helicopter fleet. I 
believe that is the way we best eliminate risk and best serve the armed 
services and the needs of this particular aircraft.

[[Page 18985]]

  Madam President, I reserve the remainder of the time to Senator Bayh. 
Does the Senator from Ohio wish to speak?
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I wish to speak to thank Senator Bayh for 
his work and Chairman Levin and Senator Kerry in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I yield the Senator such time as he may 
use on behalf of Senator Bayh.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio is 
recognized.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I wish to thank Chairman Levin for his 
leadership and Senator Bayh for his work.
  This debate is about competition. It is about how our government 
spends money.
  Earlier this year, the Senate passed a comprehensive DOD procurement 
reform law. Now we are debating a Defense authorization bill of more 
than $660 billion. We need to continue to reform the procurement 
process. We need to make sure Congress is not just a rubber stamp.
  We are debating today whether we should end a near monopoly on 
engines and long-term maintenance for the Joint Strike Fighter to one 
company. The Department of Defense created the alternative engine 
program in the mid-1990s because DOD knew such a program would foster 
competition between engine manufacturers. Competition fosters cost 
savings and improved performance and flexibility. Now we are debating 
whether the Senate should create a monopoly in buying just one engine 
for more than 2,400 aircraft.
  What would happen if we end the alternative engine program? One 
engine manufacturer, frankly, would have us over a barrel. The 
government would have no option. The government would have no 
bargaining power. That is what we are talking about today. We are 
debating whether we should clear the field and have no competition, not 
even the threat of competition, for our Nation's most important aerial 
defense program.
  What would happen if performance standards changed? I tell my 
colleagues, we will become price-takers. The company will tell us how 
much they want for making the required changes. We will have to accept 
it. What would happen if the manufacturer decided they can't deliver 
the engine at the agreed price? We would be price-takers again.
  What if we needed to ramp up production to defend our Nation but we 
have only one production line? We would be in trouble. What if there 
are skyrocketing costs in production? We would have to pay them.
  If this amendment passes, we are setting the stage for inflated 
costs. We are setting the stage for inadequate capacity.
  So as we work to find ways to save money in this bill, as we work to 
reduce our budget deficit, we are contemplating cutting funding for a 
program that could lower the cost of the JSF and save our government 
billions of dollars while creating a more reliable aircraft, and we are 
debating whether to limit the military's ability to pick the best 
engine possible.
  We have been talking about an alternate engine program, but that is a 
bit of a misnomer. It is not an alternate engine; it is a competition 
between engines to ensure we pick the right one. Remember the famous 
competition between engine manufacturers for the F-16. The so-called 
great engine war saved our government billions of dollars and provided 
our military with the best engine possible.
  The F-16 has kept our Nation safe for a generation. It is in large 
part because the military was able to pick the best possible engine. 
That competition made it possible to avoid massive cost overruns, to 
avoid production problems, to avoid performance issues. That is why we 
have a competitive engine program now. We are not talking about one 
alternate engine; we are talking about two engine alternatives. It is 
an important distinction. It is about competition.
  What we are debating is an effort by some to declare the competition 
over, even though this body has provided funding for two engines over 
and over. We are going to buy more than 2,400 Joint Strike Fighters and 
costs will keep going up. According to news reports, we are talking at 
least $300 billion.
  We need to make sure we spend this money wisely. By eliminating the 
alternate engine program just to save a few dollars today, we are 
jeopardizing billions later--$300 billion, 2,400 planes, the next 
generation aircraft that will serve the entire military for decades.
  We have to get this right the first time. There are no do-overs. The 
JSF is a single-engine fighter. Any problem with its engine could 
ground the entire fleet. This would waste billions of tax dollars, and 
even more importantly, it would jeopardize our military's ability to 
defend our Nation.
  We need to get this right. We need to make sure we are not granting a 
monopoly today that we are going to be stuck with for 10 years or 20 
years or 30 years from now. Let's keep the second engine program going. 
Let's have a competition. Let's make sure our military has the best 
plane possible.
  Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut is 
recognized.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I wish to respond to a few of the 
statements that have been made by the proponents of the second engine 
which I feel very strongly is a costly waste of taxpayer money and is 
unnecessary.
  The argument has been made: why stop competition? I can't say it 
often enough that there has been competition. There was a competition 
in the 1990s between these two great engine manufacturers: Pratt & 
Whitney and General Electric. Pratt & Whitney won the competition fair 
and square. They did it, as Senator Chambliss said, with an engine that 
has now had an enormous amount of experience. The Air Force has had 
experience with it in the F-22, and it has worked extraordinarily well.
  Secretary Gates, in his letter to us today, says the current engine 
is performing well with more than 11,000 test hours. So there has been 
a competition. General Electric, which manufactures the second engine 
which lost the competition, is trying, in my opinion--I love this 
company. I respect them. They are headquartered in Connecticut, but 
they are trying to achieve through legislation what they could not 
achieve through competition, and it is costly.
  It is costly. It delays the Joint Strike Fighter Program. Earlier 
this week, we terminated the F-22 technical air fighter program. That 
means we are all in the Joint Strike Fighter Program. This is our 
single hope and the specific program to take us to the future for 
American tactical air war combat.
  This second engine--the money for it--according to testimony before 
the Senate Armed Services Committee will cost the Air Force between 50 
and 83 fewer Joint Strike Fighters for the Air Force, Army, and Navy 
over the next 5 years. That is a lot to pay for.
  There has been competition and it is over. This engine that has been 
selected is a good one, and it will continue to perform well and not 
delay the program.
  I want to say a few other things about what has been said. There has 
been some citing of a GAO report issued in May of this year that 
suggested that, in the long term, a second engine might result in 
savings. I think it is important to say that the opinion of the GAO is 
not documented in their report on that matter, and it is not shared by 
other authorities who have done independent analyses.
  The Institute for Defense Analyses says flat out that GAO 
underestimated the required government investment to develop an 
alternative engine by nearly $4 billion. One of the supporters of the 
second engine earlier said that we have already spent over $2 billion 
on it, and there is only a need to spend another $1.5 billion or $1.8 
billion. Of course, any dollar we spend on an engine that I believe we 
don't need should go to other programs in the Department of Defense. It 
is a waste of dollars.

[[Page 18986]]

  In the GAO report itself, which is cited by proponents of the second 
engine, it is quite clear that they say an additional investment of 
$3.5 billion to $4.5 billion in development and production costs may be 
required for this program.
  That means an additional $3.5 billion to $4.5 billion, in the coming 
years totaling over $6 billion--some say even more--for a second 
engine, which would be nice to have, like it would be nice to have a 
lot of things, but we cannot afford it.
  The fact that we cannot afford it is demonstrated by the amendments 
introduced by the proponents of the second engine. We will have to 
cannibalize, or take from the Marine Huey helicopters and from the Air 
Force C-130s being used by the special operations and Air Force combat 
command in battle today.
  Let me go to this GAO argument. My friend from Massachusetts cited an 
Institute of Defense Analyses statement offered in testimony before the 
House in March of this year. There is another line in that that makes a 
very powerful point on the question of savings from the second engine. 
To break even financially, according to the Institute of Defense 
Analyses--I am quoting from that:

       To offset fully the estimated $8.8 billion investment to 
     establish the alternative JSF engine would require a savings 
     rate, during the production phase, of 40 percent on a net 
     present value basis.

  That is a little complicated. Here is the key from the independent 
Institute of Defense Analyses:

       Savings of this magnitude are implausible, considering the 
     11 to 18 percent savings realized in other competition.

  So it is way beyond what we have seen before. I want to quote from 
testimony received in our committee, a very interesting exchange 
between Senator Begich, a member of our subcommittee, and the 
representative of the Navy and the Air Force. Senator Begich, in 
reference to the GAO report cited, indicated that the F-136, the second 
engine, had better efficiency and opportunity, ``but you seem to 
disagree with that,'' the Senator says to the witnesses, and I believe 
that the current Joint Strike Fighter engine is the course you are 
taking. Vice Admiral Architzel of the Navy says:

       While we generally support competition, the cost of 
     continuing to develop a second engine versus being able to 
     use that in procurement dollars for aircraft or in the cost 
     also to maintain the 2 engines, the Navy supports the 
     Department of Defense in just having this one F-35 engine.

  Lieutenant General Shackleford, from the Office of Acquisition of the 
Air Force, says a very important quote regarding the GAO report that 
has been cited by proponents of the second engine:

       In this particular case, the analysis that the Office of 
     the Secretary of Defense did to look at the costs associated 
     with a second engine yielded a different result from what the 
     GAO reported, which basically says the costs associated with 
     development of a second engine would be something that we 
     would consider unaffordable in the current timeframe, while 
     we would be doing the development. That benefit down the 
     road, in terms of comparative costs, would be more of a wash 
     than the more optimistic version of what the GAO report said.

  So when we look at balancing the risk of having one engine versus the 
costs of paying for the second--be it costs within the program, which 
would be taken out of production aircraft with a negative effect in 
terms of unit costs, or even having to source these dollars someplace 
else within the Air Force--we don't consider the purchase of a second 
engine to be an affordable solution.
  Again, competition has occurred. It is over. We have to really go 
forward with the Joint Strike Fighter Program, not delay it, or waste 
money on it or take money from other programs to fund this one.
  I will introduce this for the Record. I ask unanimous consent to have 
printed in the Record two letters, one from Military Families United, 
and another from the Vets for Freedom.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    July 23, 2009.
     Hon. Joe Lieberman,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lieberman: On behalf of Military Families 
     United and the military families throughout the country we 
     represent, I am writing today in support of restoring funding 
     to the FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act to procure 
     additional UH-1s and HC-130s.
       As we continue to increase deployments of our forces in 
     Afghanistan, the strain on our military hardware will greatly 
     increase thus making it more necessary that we continue to 
     procure and recapitalize vital equipment at a sustainable 
     rate. Without this equipment America's brave men and women in 
     uniform will be put in greater danger. They deserve the best 
     equipment available to defend themselves and successfully 
     complete the mission they have been asked to accomplish. 
     Providing the necessary funds for the procurement and 
     recapitalization of both the UH-1 and the HC-130 will afford 
     our Armed Forces the ability to successfully execute our 
     military engagements overseas.
       Our warfighters deserve the very best equipment we can 
     provide them. To that end, Military Families United 
     aggressively supports this effort to restore funding for the 
     procurement and recapitalization of these vital weapons 
     systems. We must never forget the sacrifices the brave men 
     and women of our Armed Forces make every day in the service 
     of our nation and for the cause of Freedom. I look forward to 
     working with your office to get this important legislation 
     passed.
           Sincerely,

                                                   Brian Wise,

                                               Executive Director,
     Military Families United.
                                  ____

                                                    July 23, 2009.
     Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lieberman: Vets for Freedom has always fought 
     for the success of the mission and fielding the needs of war-
     fighters serving our country in harms way. Recently, we've 
     seen attempts made in Congress to strip funding from the 
     Marine Corps H-1Y Huey helicopter program and from the 
     Special Operations Command's C-130 fleet.
       Both pieces of equipment play a key role in making both our 
     troops more effective and lethal on the battlefield: by both 
     transporting Marines into the fight and allowing our Special 
     Operations Forces to take the fight to the Taliban and Al-
     Qaeda around the country. Both of the H-1Y Huey and HC/MC-130 
     Hercules are mission critical assets for the fight we are in 
     today and tomorrow--and the Secretary of Defense and 
     Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps agree.
       Vets for Freedom calls on the Senate to fund these two 
     critical programs and ensure that our troops have the 
     equipment and support they need to successfully accomplish 
     their current mission.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Pete Hegseth,
                                       Chairman, Vets for Freedom.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. This is from Bryan Wise, executive director of 
Military Families United:

       . . . I am writing today in support of funding to the 
     FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act to procure 
     additional UH-1s and HC-130s.
       . . . Providing the necessary funds for the procurement and 
     recapitalization of both the UH-1 and the HC-130 will afford 
     our Armed Forces the ability to successfully execute our 
     military engagements overseas.
       . . . Military Families United aggressively supports this 
     effort to restore funding for the procurement and 
     recapitalization of these vital weapons systems. We must 
     never forget the sacrifices the brave men and women of our 
     Armed Forces make every day in the service of our Nation and 
     for the cause of freedom.

  The second letter, from the Vets of Freedom, is signed by Pete 
Hegseth, a distinguished and decorated veteran, who is chairman of Vets 
for Freedom. He says:

       Vets for Freedom has always fought for the success of the 
     mission and fielding the needs of war-fighters serving our 
     country in harm's way. Recently, we've seen attempts made in 
     Congress to strip funding from the Marine Corps H-1Y Huey 
     helicopter program and from the Special Operations Command's 
     C-130 fleet.
       Both pieces of equipment play a key role in making our 
     troops more effective and lethal on the battlefield: by both 
     transporting Marines into the fight and allowing our Special 
     Operations Forces to take the fight to the Taliban and al-
     Qaida around the country. Both of [these programs] are 
     mission critical assets for the fight we are in today and 
     tomorrow--and the Secretary of Defense and Commandant of the 
     U.S. Marine Corps agree.

  I appreciate these letters. They speak volumes, and I hope they will 
lead my colleagues to oppose the Bayh amendment and support the 
amendment we have introduced.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise in support of Senator Lieberman's

[[Page 18987]]

amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2010, which would eliminate funding for an alternate engine for the F-
35 Joint Strike Fighter, JSF.
  President Obama singled out the alternate engine as wasteful 
government and he specifically did not request funding for an 
alternative engine in his budget proposal to the Congress. On May 7, 
President Obama said that ``we're going to save money by eliminating 
unnecessary defense programs that do nothing to keep us safe--but 
rather prevent us from spending money on what does keep us safe. One 
example is a $465 million program to build an alternate engine for the 
Joint Strike Fighter. The Defense Department is already pleased with 
the engine it has. The engine it has works. The Pentagon does not 
want--and does not plan to use--the alternative version. That's why the 
Pentagon stopped requesting this funding two years ago.''
  In fact, the administration has already stated its intention to veto 
a defense authorization bill that is presented to the President that 
includes funding for an alternative engine. The June 24, 2009 Statement 
of Administration Policy on HR 2647, the House Defense authorization 
bill, which also includes funding for development of an alternative 
engine, noted that ``. . . the Administration objects to provisions of 
[HR 2647] that mandate an alternative engine program for the JSF. The 
current engine is performing well with more than 11,000 test hours. 
Expenditures on a second engine are unnecessary and impede the progress 
of the overall JSF program. Alleged risks of a fleet-wide grounding due 
to a single engine are exaggerated. The Air Force currently has several 
fleets that operate on a single-engine source.''
  In addition, the Secretaries and Chiefs of the Air Force and Navy 
have all said that they do not need or want a second engine for the 
JSF. When Air Force Chief of Staff General Schwartz testified before 
the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 21, 2009, he said that if he 
were asked where he would put his next available dollar for the F-22 
program, ``it would not be in a second engine.'' Chief of Naval 
Operations Admiral Gary Roughead is also opposed to the second engine, 
stating, ``. . . keeping parts for two engines on the decks of aircraft 
carriers is not advisable. Therefore you can put me solidly in the one-
engine camp.''
  It has been suggested that competition for these engines would be 
good for the military. Quite simply, there has already been a 
competition and it was won by Pratt & Whitney. In 1996, the Pratt & 
Whitney engine was the engine of choice for two of three competitors 
for the Joint Strike Fighter: Boeing and Lockheed Martin. The third 
competitor, McDonnell Douglass, selected the General Electric engine. 
When McDonnell Douglass was not selected for a key milestone in the JSF 
development, concept demonstration, while Lockheed Martin and Boeing 
were selected, the General Electric engine was eliminated as a future 
engine for the JSF. In fact, the P&W engine was well positioned for 
this competitive success in the JSF competition by previously besting 
competing engines in 1991 for use in the F-22. Moreover, the only other 
aircraft in the U.S. military inventory that has a dual source for 
engines is the F-16. All other military aircraft have a single source 
engine, and it is a strategy that works. Single source jet engines are 
the rule, not the exception.
  In terms of the industrial base, the leaders of the potential 
alternate engine teams would suggest that without an alternate engine 
they might be shut out of the military aircraft engine business. 
However, these teams already provide engines for multiple military 
aircraft platforms. In contrast, Pratt & Whitney will only make 
aircraft engines for the Joint Strike Fighter with the closing of the 
C-17 and F-22 lines. In a sense, the reverse would be more accurate.
  This is especially important to me since much of the JSF engine work 
will go through the Pratt & Whitney facility in my home State of Maine. 
The 1,375 highly skilled employees at the P&W North Berwick facility 
should not have their jobs jeopardized for an unnecessary competition. 
A competition that they already won.
  This debate should not even be occurring. The President and the U.S. 
military say they do not want or need this alternate engine. There is 
no reasonable justification for spending on a second engine when the 
first engine is performing admirably. I urge my colleagues to support 
Senator Lieberman's amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the alternate 
engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The Armed Services Committee, 
which has reviewed the program carefully, made the sensible move in 
restoring the almost $440 million necessary this year to continue 
design and development of the alternate engine, known as the F136 
engine, made by General Electric Aviation.
  The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program will likely emerge as the 
largest tactical aircraft program in the Nation's history.
  Given developments in unmanned aerial vehicles, it could also be the 
country's last major tactical aircraft program. The F-35 will provide a 
tremendous general purpose capability to replace the Air Force's aging 
F-16s, the Marine Corps' AV-8Bs, and older versions of the F/A-18. We 
have to get development of this aircraft right. The kind of delays and 
cost overruns that have plagued development of so many other defense 
programs recently would be absolutely unacceptable in this far-reaching 
program.
  An alternate engine would create competition. Competition would force 
both production teams to deliver a better product at a better price to 
the government.
  An alternate engine would prevent a single-point failure in the F-35s 
continued development. If one program reaches insurmountable obstacles, 
the Department of Defense will be able to rely on the other engine. 
Finally, an alternate engine would ensure that the country has more 
than one military engine manufacturer.
  Several nonpartisan, rigorous studies from groups such as the 
Institute for Defense Analyses and the Government Accountability Office 
have underscored the benefits of an alternate engine.
  There is some question as to whether the existence of a second engine 
and the resulting competition would save money over the life of the 
program. One need only look to the history of the F-16 engine in the 
1970s and the 1980s for an answer, which is a resounding yes. In that 
case, the availability of two engines resulted in a decline in price 
for the overall aircraft, allowing the government to buy more for less. 
Opponents of the alternative engine claim that cutting the engine will 
allow more planes to be built, when in fact what will happen is that 
the overall cost of the program will increase and incentives to build 
the best engine will be eliminated.
  Real cost savings, improved performance: these are the reasons that 
we simply must continue development of the Alternate Engine for the 
Joint Strike Fighter. And it is these reasons that I will vote to 
continue forward with this absolutely essential investment that ensures 
we are getting the best product for our troops and at the best price 
for taxpayers.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, what is the time situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from Connecticut has 
26 minutes. The Senator from Indiana has 14 minutes. Who yields time?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Might I ask my friend from Oklahoma how much time he 
needs?
  Mr. INHOFE. A couple minutes.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma up to 5 minutes 
of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I look at this issue and think about not 
just the hours and days and months but years we have talked about this. 
A lot of people have changed their mind and have gone back and forth on 
it. I think at the time Senator Warner was here, he actually took a 
couple of positions.
  I look at it simply. I have been concerned about the funding and 
about

[[Page 18988]]

some of what we need to have. We all had different ideas on the 
additional F-22s. I look at this and I see that the only current U.S. 
military aircraft with a new engine source is the F-16. All the rest 
have single engine sources. It has worked well, and there is no 
military requirement for the alternate engine.
  I have come to the conclusion it would cost over $5 billion to fund 
the alternate engine and, over the next year, it will cost the 
program--I have seen estimates from 50 to 80 aircraft, according to the 
program manager.
  Congress has directed three studies on the alternative engine, and we 
have gone over studies in our Armed Services Committee. Two out of the 
three studies of the alternate engine stated there would never be any 
cost savings associated with the competition.
  There has never been actual data--only anecdotal--that proves there 
was ever any cost savings brought about by what someone called the 
``great engine war'' on the F-16s.
  It seems to me it is a savings without the alternate engine, which 
will allow us to have more capability, more aircraft.
  I strongly support the Lieberman-McCain amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAYH. How much time remains on our side, Madam President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut has 23 minutes. 
The Senator from Indiana has 14 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I want to add some additional comments 
about the $438 million that would be taken from the HC/MC 130s 
recapitalization program to fund development of the alternate engine.
  I don't think there is any doubt that given the conflict in 
Afghanistan, as well as Iraq, but particularly now in Afghanistan, as 
we move into the southern part of the country, the HC/MC 130s are 
critical weapons systems. Their platforms are designed to specifically 
support our special operations warriors, which is the kind of fight we 
are in. It is an irregular fight, and it puts increasing demands on our 
special forces.
  As we know, these aircraft are specialized C-130s that are 
specifically designed for that fight. They have capabilities, such as 
aerial refueling and gunship weaponry, that meet the requirements of 
the special operations command.
  I would be very reluctant and strongly opposed to taking funding away 
from special operations and using it to fund the second motor for the 
Joint Strike Fighter. It is a time, obviously, when we are fighting two 
irregular wars, and it is not a time to take this funding away.
  According to the Defense Department, the current military requirement 
for the HC/MC 130s aircraft is 60. The Department recently recognized 
that the need to modernize the aging, worn-out special operations and 
combat search and rescue fleets is urgent.
  According to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, ``the cut to 
these aircraft would slow down deliveries to the warfighter of the HC-
130 and the MC-130 impacting both the Air Force's Air Combat Command 
and Special Operations Command.''
  According to the Air Force ``based on the JROC validated requirements 
for 37 MC-130s and 78 HC-130s, the Air Force, including the Air Force 
Special Operations Command and Air Combat Command, would benefit from 
an even greater acceleration of the recapitalization rate of all 9 
aircraft that remain in the President's budget.
  Taking that money out of this program would delay the delivery of new 
aircraft to the warfighter. I think that if General McChrystal were 
here, and our other leaders, they would make it very clear that in the 
very difficult situation we face in Afghanistan--large areas of 
geography that need to be traveled and controlled--these aircraft are 
very much needed. I hope my colleagues will also take that into 
consideration as we consider this vote.
  I congratulate the Senator from Indiana for a very eloquent argument 
on behalf of his position. Again, I state my appreciation for the very 
important role he plays as a member of the Armed Services Committee. 
This is one of the few times we disagree, but I think he has presented 
his side of the argument with eloquence.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. BAYH. Madam President, perhaps I should quit while I am ahead 
following those very generous remarks by my friend and colleague from 
Arizona. I am compelled, however, to save a few minutes of my time for 
Senator Levin, who is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and 
is supportive of our amendment, for him to offer a few additional 
observations. I do want to close with a few closing remarks.
  First, I thank Senator Kennedy, who could not be with us today but 
who is a strong supporter of our amendment, and Senators Kerry, 
Voinovich, Brown, and Senator Levin I have mentioned, who spoke in 
support of this amendment. I thank them.
  I do want to address a couple of points that have been raised, first 
with regard to the issue of the Marine Corps helicopters. Again, for 
those who care about the helicopters, for those who care about 
supporting the Marine Corps, we have taken care of that issue. The 
Marine helicopters will be fully funded. So that is off the table. For 
the assertions made in the reduction of the number of Joint Strike 
Fighters to be procured, we fully funded the administration's request, 
and there will be no reduction because of my amendment. We have taken 
care of that issue. That is no longer relevant.
  The President's staff recommending a veto was premised on the 
presumption that there would be a reduction in the number of planes 
purchased. Since that has been taken care of, the veto threat is no 
longer relevant. It has been taken care of.
  There have been comments made about the C-130 procurement. I, too, 
support the C-130 procurement. We have fully funded--fully funded--the 
administration's request. It was passed in the supplemental. The money 
is there, in recognition of that. That is why the House of 
Representatives fully eliminated the account we are using to fund the 
second engine.
  For those who care about the C-130, as do I--and I thought Senator 
McCain's comments were very appropriate about the need for that 
important plane--that has been fully funded. In fact, what has been 
proposed in our authorization is a duplicate funding, a double funding. 
So for those of us who care about duplication, this, in fact, would 
save the taxpayers money, which I understand is one of the premises 
underlying the Lieberman amendment. Accepting their premise, this is a 
fully appropriate funding source.
  Finally, I would like to address this issue of competition once 
again. It has been asserted and alleged over and over that there was a 
competition, that the competition was won by Pratt & Whitney, that 
there was competition, competition, competition. I hold in my hands 
copies of the contracts given to Pratt & Whitney. I hold them right 
here. Cover page, January 23, 1997, Pratt & Whitney, $804 million, et 
cetera, in bold type:

       This contract was not competitively procured.

  Let me repeat that:

       This contract was not competitively procured.

  The second contract is for the engine dated October 26, 2001, Pratt & 
Whitney, in this case $4.8 billion. Once again, in bold type--bold 
type--so people can read it and understand:

       This contract was not competitively procured.

  It could not be any plainer than that for those of us who can read 
these documents. There was not a competition with regard to this 
engine. It is a sole-source contract.
  Therein lies the issue. It is not about helicopters. It is not about 
the number of planes that are procured. It is not about the C-130. All 
of those things have been taken care of. It is about your belief that 
competition is in the best interest of the taxpayers--and quality. If 
you believe that, you support this amendment. If you believe single-
source, noncompetitively bid

[[Page 18989]]

contracts, such as these, are in the best interests of quality and 
protecting the taxpayers, then you will support Senator Lieberman's 
amendment. That is what this is all about.
  Since I don't have much time--how much time do I have, Madam 
President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 10\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BAYH. Madam President, I don't want to exhaust it all. I quoted 
at length in my previous comments from the General Accounting Office, 
and there are a variety of studies. It is asserted that GAO did not 
offer much reasoning for their comments. I point out once again that 
they state very clearly the savings from this competition; the second 
engine has the potential to be equal to or exceeding its cost. Prior 
experience, they indicate, points to this and that they are confident 
competitive pressures could yield these kinds of savings. The GAO is 
well on record. I understand there is a dispute from other entities and 
other studies, but that is the GAO's opinion.
  This all comes down to competition, whether my colleagues embrace it, 
in which case they support our amendment, or if they do not--and I 
suppose there may be legitimate arguments in favor of noncompetitive 
bidding--they will support the other amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, will the Senator from Indiana yield me 3 
minutes?
  Mr. BAYH. Absolutely.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, let me confirm what the Senator from 
Indiana said. This issue does not involve 130s. Congress has put all 
the money in for 130s that the President requested. The reason this 
money for 130s was in our committee report is because we did not know 
at the time that the supplemental appropriations bill would put money 
in for the 130s. So we do not need this money for the 130s to fully 
finance the request of the President of the United States for 130s.
  I wish to reiterate one point I made earlier. This is not an issue of 
whether we insert a new engine, whether we start down the road with a 
second engine. That issue was resolved years ago by Congress when we 
started to fund a second engine for the purpose of competition. We have 
already put $2.5 billion into this second engine. Roughly $1.8 billion 
more is needed. So our sunk costs are approximately two-thirds of the 
cost of this second engine.
  We have consistently supported it in the Armed Services Committee. 
This is not new. We feel the value of competition will more than make 
up for all of the costs and surely far more than make up for the final 
costs which we need in order to complete the development of this second 
engine.
  I do support the Bayh amendment. I think it makes sense in terms of 
the fundamental point of competition, it makes sense fiscally, and it 
makes good sense in terms of the quantity we are buying. There is a 
huge buy, 2,500 planes, engines, and perhaps 500 more in terms of the 
export market. It is a huge buy. With this size buy and given the 
precedent of other planes--at least three that have had two engines 
available for them--with that precedent and with these savings, I hope 
the Bayh amendment is accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, first, I ask unanimous consent that 
the Senator from New Hampshire, Mrs. Shaheen, be added as a cosponsor 
to the amendment Senator McCain and I and others have offered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend from New Hampshire 
for joining us on this amendment. We have a dispute about whether there 
was competition. I guess it depends on what you describe as 
competition.
  There clearly was competition for the Joint Strike Fighter plane 
engine in the 1990s. In 1996, Pratt & Whitney and General Electric each 
submitted engine proposals to the three airframe manufacturers that 
were competing for the Joint Strike Fighter contract: Lockheed, Boeing, 
McDonnell Douglas. Two of the three selected the Pratt & Whitney 
engine, and it happened that those two airframe manufacturers were 
down-selected for the final competition. Ultimately, in 2001, Lockheed 
was selected to start the design and development with the Pratt & 
Whitney engine.
  I believe there was a competition. General Electric lost. It has gone 
the other way on other occasions. And this is a legislative attempt to 
achieve by legislation what could not be achieved through competition.
  Secondly, my dear friend Senator Levin, the chairman, and I may have 
an effectual disagreement on how much more going for the second engine 
will cost. He believes it will be $1.8 billion. I cited earlier in this 
debate statistics that show it will be between $4.5 and $5.5 billion. 
That is not the main point. Madam President, $1.8 billion is a lot more 
to spend on an engine I have submitted to my colleagues we do not need. 
Not only do we not need it, the Air Force testified before our 
committee that if we spend this money on a second engine, we are going 
to get, by General Shackelford's testimony to us, 53 fewer Joint Strike 
Fighters in the next 5 years. We will not be able to afford them. That 
is a serious consequence.
  What about this engine that has been selected? The F-135 engine has 
flown over 11,000 test hours and delivered 12 flight test engines. The 
F-135 uses a core that has been delivered and is being used in the F-
22. It will have close to 1 million flight hours by the time this 
selected engine, the Pratt & Whitney F-135, enters operational service 
in 2012. That is quite a remarkable record and one that justifies what 
Secretary Gates said to us in a letter he sent to us this morning: 
``The current engine is performing well with more than 11,000 test 
hours.'' I think the record is a clear one.
  I, again, respectfully thank my friend from Indiana. Senator McCain 
said he has argued well. He is a dear friend. We would rather be on the 
same side on issues. We both feel strongly about this issue. Therefore, 
I respectfully urge my colleagues to vote against the Bayh amendment 
and for our amendment which would end funding for a second unnecessary 
engine.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAYH. Madam President, unless my friend and colleague from 
Arizona has something new and shocking to say, I am going to yield back 
the remainder of my time.
  First, I thank both of my colleagues for the tenor of the debate. We 
have some honest differences of opinion. I find myself much more 
comfortable working with my colleague, Senator Lieberman, in a variety 
of capacities. Senator McCain and I are one of a hearty band of a few 
who come to the floor in agreement to oppose wasteful measures. I look 
forward to resuming that partnership in the future even though we have 
a respectful difference of opinion today. I only wish all our debates 
could be as focused and collegial as this has been.
  Having said that, I thank my colleagues. Unless Chairman Levin has 
anything additional to say, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, has all the time been yielded back?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask my friend from Arizona if there is anything more 
he would like to say.
  Mr. McCAIN. I think we are prepared to vote.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I will say very briefly, to wind up, 
the Bayh amendment does remove the 130s from the Air Force. It is true 
they got money in the supplemental, but statements we got this morning 
from the Air Force and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the 130s 
they got in the supplemental, which are critically needed, leave open--
in other words, they are nowhere near their requirements for that plane 
which is critically important to the Air Force and particularly to our 
special operations forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, and throughout the 
world in the war on terrorism.

[[Page 18990]]

  I would just close by reading a statement from President Obama, when 
he introduced his defense budget on May 15.

       We are going to save money by eliminating unnecessary 
     Defense programs that do nothing to keep us safe but rather 
     prevent us from spending money on what does keep us safe. One 
     example is a $465 million program to build an alternate 
     engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. The Defense Department 
     is already pleased with the engine it has. The engine it has 
     works. The Pentagon does not want and does not plan to use 
     the alternate version. That is why the Pentagon stopped 
     requesting this program funding 2 years ago.

  And then from Secretary Gates, just today:

       It is my belief the Joint Strike Fighter program presented 
     in the President's budget request is in the best interest of 
     national security. If a final bill is presented to the 
     President containing provisions that would seriously disrupt 
     the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, the President's senior 
     advisers will recommend that the President veto the bill.

  That is from Secretary Gates' letter.
  So I submit to my colleagues, I believe we have shown today that the 
second engine funding will seriously disrupt the Joint Strike Fighter 
Program. Again, I respectfully ask my colleagues to oppose the 
amendment from our good friend from Indiana and support the amendment 
we have offered.
  I thank the Chair, and if there is no one else who wants to speak, I 
yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12:35 
p.m., all time remaining for debate with respect to these amendments, 
Nos. 1627 and 1767, having been yielded back, the Senate then proceed 
to vote in relation to the amendments in the order previously entered, 
with the second vote 10 minutes in duration and all other provisions of 
the previous order remaining in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I modify that unanimous consent request 
and ask that the vote begin immediately at 12:34 and a half p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1767 offered by the 
Senator from Indiana. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator 
from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 38, nays 59, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 240 Leg.]

                                YEAS--38

     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Brown
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johanns
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Sanders
     Stabenow
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb

                                NAYS--59

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Cardin
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Collins
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Martinez
     McCain
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Byrd
     Kennedy
     Mikulski
  The amendment (No. 1767) was rejected.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1627

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 1627, offered by the Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent, with the 
concurrence of the proponents and the opponents, that the 2 minutes be 
yielded back and that this be voice voted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. All time 
is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1627.
  The amendment (No. 1627) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion upon the table.
  The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam 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. KYL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1760

  Mr. KYL. Madam President, let me take a moment to indicate to 
colleagues where we are at the moment. The pending business is my 
amendment, amendment No. 1760, dealing with the START treaty. We need 
to have our nuclear weapons program modernized consistent with the 
START treaty.
  What we are thinking of doing is to start the debate with about 2 
minutes of conversation, and then if we are able to work out an 
agreement with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and other 
members who have an interest in this, we can avoid a long, protracted 
debate and potentially a lot of votes on alternatives as well as this 
amendment.
  In the meantime, other business on the bill could be conducted. I 
think the next business the chairman intends would be for Senator 
Schumer to speak. So what I would suggest is that we move forward to 
try to work out an agreement. The essence is simply this, for my 
colleagues who are interested in this START treaty: We know there is a 
treaty, or at least we hope a treaty is going to be submitted to the 
Senate late this year.
  We would be reducing the number of nuclear warheads and delivery 
systems in an agreement with the Russians. That makes it even more 
necessary to put some money into our current nuclear program, the 
infrastructure and our nuclear stockpile, to bring it up to snuff, to 
modernize it, and to ensure that it meets the test for safety, 
security, and credibility.
  We need to have a plan for doing that, that is at least no later than 
the point at which the treaty would be submitted to the Senate so we 
know what we are going to be able to support. Hopefully, what we would 
do is convey to the administration jointly, Democrats and Republicans, 
our desire to have that submittal to the Senate to have a study we 
could put into law as a part of this bill that would call for bringing 
in that modernization program and thereby avoid voting specifically on 
the amendment No. 1760 I have proposed.
  We are trying to work out the details of that. If we can do that, we 
can probably save quite a bit of time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, let me thank my friend from Arizona. 
First of all, we are trying to work out an approach which would be 
satisfactory to the issue and will save a lot of time if we can work it 
out. If we cannot, we can go to a vote on his amendment. The regular 
order would be to go back to the Kyl amendment as I understand it at 
this point. We are going to ask

[[Page 18991]]

unanimous consent that the Senator from New York be recognized to 
introduce an amendment, that it be in order for him to do so, and that 
after 15 minutes we vote.
  I ask unanimous consent that after 15 minutes of debate, with no 
amendments being in order to the amendment, we then proceed to a vote, 
understanding it would be a voice, and then the regular order would be 
restored, which is the Kyl amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, if the chairman would 
agree, the Senator from Montana wants to take some time to talk about 
his amendment which is germane, but he wants to talk about it. We have 
not had a chance to examine it. Then we could go back to the Kyl 
amendment, pending hopefully an agreement.
  Mr. LEVIN. I would modify my unanimous consent request that after the 
disposition of the Schumer amendment, then Senator Tester be recognized 
for 10 minutes to talk about his amendment, without the consent to 
offer it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Reserving the right to object, is there a time 
agreement on the Schumer amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN. Fifteen minutes is what I reserved.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Thank you. I do not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New York is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1764

(Purpose: To ensure that absent uniformed services voters and overseas 
voters are aware of their voting rights and have a genuine opportunity 
 to register to vote and have their absentee ballots cast and counted, 
                        and for other purposes)

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending 
amendment so we can call up amendment No. 1764.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1764.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text 
of Amendments.'')
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent I be yielded 5 minutes of the 
15; Senator Bennett, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, be 
given 5 minutes; and Senator Chambliss be given 5 minutes, divided that 
way.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). Without objection, 
it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I rise to talk about Amendment No. 1764, called the MOVE 
Act, The Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act of 2009. I first 
wish to thank my colleague, Senator Bennett, for his hard work. He was 
indispensable in getting this done, as were Senator Chambliss and 
Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Senator Cornyn, who had previous 
legislation that was similar. I also wish to thank the Chairman, 
Senator Levin, as well as Senator McCain, for helping us.
  The MOVE Act is a bipartisanship solution to a serious, yet all too 
familiar, problem. The bottom line is, our soldiers overseas have a 
very difficult time in voting. With the MOVE Act, with 58 cosponsors, 
we can tackle this problem head on and make voting for our military 
overseas men and women easier.
  We chaired a hearing in the Rules Committee that brought up the 
problems, and they are shocking. The bottom line is very simple. If you 
are in the military, it is very difficult to comply with State 
registration laws. You have to go through two post offices, military 
mail, and then the regular post office. There is no availability of 
notaries. Many States require notaries.
  There is also the problem, of course, that you have to do everything, 
by many State laws, by mail. And the mail takes forever when you are 
overseas.
  Couple that with the fact that for absentee voting, which by 
definition these voters have to use, there are serious deadlines. All 
too often our soldiers get their absentee ballot after the deadline has 
passed to send them in. All too often, even more frequently, the voting 
ballot does not arrive by the deadline the State has set.
  So these are serious problems. The bottom line is, with technology, 
they all could be overcome. We have faxes, we have e-mails, we have 
computers, and we do not use them for our soldiers overseas. They can 
risk their lives for us, we can at least allow them to vote. They take 
orders from the Commander in Chief. They are the first people who ought 
to be allowed to elect and vote for a Commander in Chief.
  If we can deploy tanks and high-tech equipment and food to the 
frontlines, we can figure out a way to deliver ballots to our troops so 
they can be returned and counted. That is what the MOVE Act does, 
correcting the many flaws that riddle absentee ballots for overseas 
voting.
  The numbers are very troubling. More than a quarter of all ballots 
either come in too late or are not counted. That is a serious problem. 
When our soldiers who have so much else on their minds go out of their 
way to get the absentee ballot cast, then it is not counted. That is 
frustrating. That is wrong. That is not American.
  So our bill--and the details are available in the Record--deals with 
that issue. One soldier sent to the Overseas Vote Foundation a letter 
which said: ``I hate that because of my military service from overseas, 
I was precluded from voting.''
  That soldier continues: ``Of all people, deployed servicemembers 
should have a guaranteed ability to vote.'' That sums it up. That sums 
it up.
  The MOVE Act will ensure it by allowing ballots to be sent 
electronically, dealing with the time gaps and all the other problems 
we face. It is bipartisan. Again, both Senator Bennett and I on the 
Rules Committee support it. Senator Chambliss and Senator Ben Nelson, 
who have done such a good job, are the cosponsors of this legislation. 
We can finally solve this problem, which is unacceptable, by moving 
this legislation.
  I ask my colleagues, how can a marine in Fallujah find a notary? Why 
are we making things so hard? How can somebody who goes out of his or 
her way to cast a ballot have that ballot not counted? This legislation 
solves the problem in a fair, measured way that is cognizant of the 
rights of States to set the voting laws as they wish. I hope we will 
have unanimous support.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am happy to cosponsor the bill Senator 
Schumer has just discussed, the Military and Overseas Voters 
Empowerment Act or the MOVE Act. As the ranking member of the Rules 
Committee, I have served alongside Chairman Schumer and commend him for 
his decision to make this a priority and move it through the committee. 
Our military personnel make tremendous sacrifices for this country, and 
we need to make sure they are able to exercise their right to vote. I 
thank Senator Schumer's staff as well for the cooperative way in which 
we have moved this forward and for his willingness to deal with two 
other colleagues on the committee, Senator Chambliss and Senator 
Nelson.
  When the legislation was introduced in its original form, I raised 
concerns with Senator Schumer about some of its provisions. He worked 
with me and my staff to address those concerns, and the amendment 
before us today effectively does so. That is why I am pleased to now be 
a cosponsor of the bill.
  The difficulties our service personnel face in attempting to vote 
have been well documented. The Senator from New York has described 
them. I believe this amendment deals with them in a proper fashion.
  I want to clarify several points for the record. We recognize that 
election

[[Page 18992]]

administration is carried out at the local level, and we have no 
intention of transferring those functions to the State in this 
legislation. The amendment makes clear that States may comply with the 
obligations imposed on them hereunder by delegating their 
responsibilities to other jurisdictions in the States, just as they 
have for so many years in complying with the Uniformed and Overseas 
Citizens Absentee Voting Act. Also, the amendment requires States 
seeking Federal funds to meet the requirements imposed by this 
amendment to update their State plans which have been previously 
submitted pursuant to HAVA, the Help America Vote Act. The amendment 
clarifies that only States seeking the funds authorized by and 
appropriated pursuant to this amendment are obligated to update their 
State plans.
  With that clarification, I thank Senator Schumer and my other 
colleagues who worked so hard on this legislation: the two I mentioned, 
Senators Chambliss and Nelson, as well as Senator Cornyn, who is not a 
member of the committee but who has worked on it. I appreciate their 
bringing the issue before the Senate. I am proud to support it and look 
forward to its unanimous passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for 
amendment No. 1764 offered by the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer. 
With the leadership of Senator Schumer and Senator Bennett, we have 
crafted one of the most substantive and comprehensive military and 
overseas voting reforms we have seen in years. This amendment tackles 
some very tough issues while taking States rights into account.
  In May of this year, Senator Bennett was consumed with another issue, 
and he asked me to cochair a hearing with Senator Schumer on military 
and overseas voting. We heard testimony from numerous witnesses 
regarding the difficulty of military and overseas voting. This 
amendment addresses some of those concerns and is a significant step 
toward ensuring that military and overseas voters are not 
disenfranchised.
  The amendment establishes uniform standards for the request and 
delivery of blank balloting material that takes into account all 
available technologies. It makes sure all overseas voters have time to 
vote by requiring States to send out ballots to military and overseas 
voters at least 45 days before election day. It utilizes expedited mail 
delivery services for our uniformed members serving overseas, ensuring 
a timely delivery of completed ballots. It establishes a requirement 
for service Secretaries to designate voter registration agencies at 
military installations to assist with voter registration and aid our 
voting assistance officers. It lays the groundwork to gather needed 
information to continue to improve the overseas absentee voting process 
and will help existing voting oversight organizations gather key voting 
metrics to help make key decisions ahead of future elections.
  Not since the passage of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee 
Voting Act in 1986 have we proposed such significant legislation 
designed to help the men and women of the military who time and time 
again are called upon to defend the rights and freedoms we Americans 
hold so sacred.
  Unfortunately, our military is one of the most disenfranchised voting 
blocks we have. Today we have the opportunity to correct this problem. 
I am extremely pleased with this legislation and proud to have been a 
part of the team that put this amendment together.
  There are 57 other cosponsors which is representative of the strong 
support for this amendment and significant concern around the country 
regarding this issue. I thank Senator Schumer and his staff for leading 
this effort and helping make this legislation become a reality. I thank 
Senator Ben Nelson, my good friend and colleague, on the Armed Services 
Committee, for his efforts in this matter. It would not have happened 
without his strong leadership.
  I also thank Senator Bennett and his staff for their strong efforts 
in putting this bill in the proper perspective and making sure that all 
issues were properly addressed. I also thank Senator Cornyn for his 
leadership over the years on this issue. Senator Cornyn is not a member 
of the Rules Committee, but he has been very engaged on this issue over 
the last several years. His input was valuable. There is no question 
that his support for the amendment and contributions he and his staff 
have made to the amendment have made what was a good amendment a much 
better one.
  Lastly, I thank the secretary of state of the State of Georgia, Karen 
Handel, also a very valuable asset to us as we went through the process 
of putting this bill together. She and her staff responded very timely 
and were honest in the feedback we got from them. Their contributions 
helped make sensible changes that make the amendment better. Their 
partnership on this effort will move us forward in the right direction 
toward ensuring every overseas voter wishing to vote will be able to do 
so.
  Again, to my colleague from New York, it has been a pleasure to work 
on this. It is one other asset that we can give to our men and women in 
uniform; that is, to make sure they have the ability to participate in 
what we all take for granted but a very precious right, that being the 
right to vote.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of 
amendment No. 1764, better known as the Military and Overseas Voter 
Empowerment Act. I wish to express my appreciation to Senators Schumer 
and Chambliss for their leadership and excellent work on this issue and 
acknowledge the outstanding support and contributions of Senators 
Bennett and Cornyn, whose involvement has improved this bill and whose 
ongoing support will help us enact it into law. This effort has been 
constructive and bipartisan all the way, as evidenced by our list of 58 
bipartisan cosponsors, and I am very proud of the bill we have 
produced.
  We owe it to our men and women in uniform to protect their right to 
vote. And for military and overseas voters, that right is only as good 
as their ability to cast a ballot and have it counted. For years, we 
have known of the obstacles these brave Americans face in exercising 
their right to vote, often when far from home and in harm's way. I 
firmly believe this legislation will make a huge impact in empowering 
our military and overseas voters to have their votes counted, no matter 
where they find themselves on election day.
  Simply put, the status quo for these voters is unacceptable. It is 
hard for military families to keep their voter registration information 
current, and it is often difficult to deliver ballots to overseas 
voters in enough time for them to vote and return the ballot by the 
time the polls close.
  The poor results from recent elections speak for themselves. In 2008, 
statistics from the seven States with the greatest number of deployed 
troops show that one in four military and overseas voters were unable 
to have their vote counted. In 2006, the situation was even worse: 
according to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, up to two-thirds 
of ballots requested by voters under the Uniformed and Overseas 
Citizens Voting Act were either not cast or not counted.
  We discussed these numbers and heard testimony from State and local 
officials at a hearing in the Rules Committee earlier this year. The 
challenges we face are significant, but a number of very excellent 
recommendations were made at that hearing, and Senators Schumer and 
Chambliss and I immediately got to work on a commonsense bill to 
improve and streamline the process for these voters. The bill we came 
up with was amended and reported unanimously by the Rules Committee 
last week. The product of that effort is now before the Senate as an 
amendment to the Defense bill.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment, and I will push for it to be 
enacted into law in this bill, because as State and local election 
officials know, voting reforms need to be put in place

[[Page 18993]]

well in advance. The way they see it, the next Federal election is 
right around the corner. Now is our chance to make a difference for 
2010.
  This legislation harnesses technology to speed up the voting process 
by allowing registration and ballot requests to be sent electronically. 
It ensures that military and overseas voters have time to vote by 
requiring ballots to be sent out 45 days before the election and 
allowing blank ballots to be sent electronically. It also provides some 
flexibility to States that cannot meet the 45-day deadline, as long as 
they come up with an alternative plan to ensure time to vote. In 
addition, it will harness the creativity of States and local officials 
by authorizing pilot projects to test new voting technology, with 
appropriate safeguards for privacy and security. The legislation also 
requires the Department of Defense to play a more significant role in 
facilitating voter registration and in collecting and returning voted 
ballots in cooperation with the Postal Service.
  The MOVE Act, as we call it, has the support of the Alliance for 
Military and Overseas Voting Rights, which is a coalition of over 30 
military associations, nonprofit organizations, elected officials, and 
student groups dedicated to ensuring that Americans abroad have an 
equal right and opportunity to vote. We also have the support of many 
other groups, including the National Association of County Officials, 
which is especially important because having the support of State and 
local officials means that our efforts are endorsed by the people who 
actually carry out elections in this country, which can often be a 
thankless job.
  In conclusion, I would like to thank all 57 of the amendment's 
cosponsors, especially Senators Schumer and Chambliss and the others I 
mentioned who have shown real leadership on this issue. This amendment 
is bipartisan, noncontroversial, and necessary to solve a persistent 
problem that has dogged our troops and overseas voters for years. We 
tackle those problems head-on, and I think we will see real, tangible 
results from this legislation.
  Mr. President, it is our responsibility to ensure the right to vote 
for the men and women of our Armed Forces and others serving overseas; 
they protect our rights, and we have an opportunity today to return the 
favor by passing the MOVE Act. I urge the amendment's adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I will note that this amendment passed 
unanimously out of the Committee on Rules, which has joint 
jurisdiction, last week.
  I yield back all remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1764.
  The amendment (No. 1764) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1564

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to say a few 
words about amendment No. 1564, an amendment I am seeking agreement on, 
and hopefully we will achieve agreement between the majority and 
minority. This amendment will allow but not require the Secretary of 
each service branch to allow family members of fallen servicemembers to 
attend one memorial service as a way of helping to honor those who give 
their lives to our Nation. Although the Defense Department's current 
regulations permit the services to provide transportation of family 
members to the burial service of a servicemember killed on Active Duty, 
the regulations do not allow travel to memorial services. This can be 
particularly painful when a parent or sibling cannot afford to travel 
to a memorial service held by a unit or even other family members.
  Although some charity groups have been able to help families attend 
memorial services for their fallen loved ones when servicemembers die 
in service to their country, it is the government's moral obligation to 
help their families in every possible way. This is not an abstract 
problem; it is all too real to some families.
  A little over a year ago, on May 1, 2008, a soldier with a family in 
both Montana and Arizona was seriously wounded while serving in Iraq. 
Four days after being injured he was being transferred from an Army 
hospital in Germany to Walter Reed. While en route, the soldier's 
injuries worsened and the plane was diverted to Halifax, Nova Scotia. 
It was there that he passed away on May 15.
  Like too many children today, this soldier grew up with divorced 
parents. His father is a constituent of mine. His mother is a 
constituent of the distinguished ranking Republican on the Armed 
Services Committee. When his family and friends in Phoenix organized a 
memorial service for him, his father asked the casualty affairs officer 
assigned to him if the Army could pay for him to attend the memorial 
service. He was told, no; that it is not an authorized expense. The 
Army cannot pay for such a plane ticket.
  My office was contacted, and we were able to work out with a 
nonprofit organization to obtain a plane ticket for the soldier's 
father to attend the memorial service but only after considerable 
frustration and pain.
  This amendment would make travel to a single memorial service an 
authorized expense. It is supported by the Gold Star Mothers.
  Our troops and veterans have earned every benefit and every paycheck 
they get from our country. Every single Member of the Senate has been 
steadfast in that support. But the families of folks who serve this 
country have earned our Nation's support and respect as well. Sometimes 
we do not do enough to recognize the sacrifice that comes along with 
having a loved one in the Armed Forces. This amendment provides the 
families of our servicemembers one small measure of support and 
appreciation.
  I thank Senators Levin and McCain for the work they have done on this 
bill and, hopefully, the work they did to get this amendment accepted.
  I also wanted to take some time this afternoon to speak about a dire 
situation in Columbus, MT. At this moment there are 1,300 employees of 
the Stillwater Mining Company who are going to work wondering about the 
future of their company and the future of their jobs. Yesterday a 
bankruptcy court in New York nullified a contract between Stillwater 
Mine, the only palladium and platinum producer in the United States, 
and General Motors. General Motors petitioned the bankruptcy court to 
drop its precious metals contract with the Montana mining company so it 
can instead use foreign, cheaper suppliers based outside this country, 
specifically in Russia and South Africa. I would have a big problem 
under any circumstances for an American corporate icon to choose 
foreign suppliers over a viable American option, but when we consider 
that General Motors only exists today due to the direct assistance of 
the American taxpayer, this decision is appalling and weakens our 
American manufacturing base.
  As a member of the Senate Banking Committee, I attended the marathon 
hearings late last year where the domestic automakers pleaded for 
government assistance. On November 18 of last year, I relayed to 
executives from Ford, Chrysler and, yes, GM the importance of spending 
taxpayer funds in the United States. I said I would have to ask: Where 
is the money going to be spent, who is it going to be spent on, and 
what country is it going to be spent in? Those are all critically 
important questions.
  If we are using taxpayer dollars, from my perspective, it ought to be 
spent in the United States. In response, I was assured that taxpayer 
funds would be spent domestically to rebuild the auto manufacturers. By 
negating Stillwater's contract, GM is not investing domestically. They 
are not investing in American jobs. They are not investing in this 
country. It goes against the grain when we see a viable company that 
has recently gotten into trouble, such as GM, go against what they told 
me in committee.

[[Page 18994]]

  When General Motors came pleading to the Senate late last year, they 
spoke of the fate of their employees, but they also spoke of the fate 
of small parts manufacturers, miners, dealerships, and other 
interconnected businesses dependent on GM.
  I voted against giving taxpayer dollars to the auto manufacturers, 
just as I voted against the Wall Street bailout. The auto manufacturers 
didn't convince me they would spend the money wisely and that they 
would spend it in the United States. I wish I were wrong, but they are 
not spending the taxpayer dollars wisely, in my opinion, and they are 
not spending the taxpayer dollars in the United States. And it is the 
folks at Stillwater, like many auto dealerships in Montana and across 
rural America, who are hurting.
  With its $50 billion in taxpayer funds, General Motors recently 
emerged from bankruptcy, and with its first repayment on the $50 
billion owed to the American taxpayer, the new GM has decided to dump 
its only domestic supplier of palladium. They have failed to present a 
significant need to do business with foreign suppliers when they can 
contract with a company right here in America that employs more than 
1,300 hard-working Americans.
  For the last decade, Stillwater has supplied GM with palladium and 
rhodium, which are used to make catalytic converters that filter 
pollutants from vehicle exhaust. The palladium sales to auto companies 
accounted for 42.8 percent of Stillwater's revenue last year.
  General Motors' rejection of its contract with Stillwater will result 
in company losses of about $500,000 per month and almost certainly 
means losing countless good-paying American jobs--and those American 
jobs, in this case, happen to be in Montana.
  Stillwater is one of Montana's largest employers. The economic well-
being of 1,300 Montanans at Stillwater who work at the mines in Nye and 
Big Timber is no doubt in serious trouble. GM's actions threaten the 
well-being of families, numerous small communities, and dozens of 
interconnected Montana businesses.
  Immediately after the court ruled against Stillwater and its 
employees, I joined with the senior Senator from Montana, Max Baucus, 
in urging General Motors to reconsider their decision to choose foreign 
suppliers over a proven domestic partner.
  I still hope they make the right decision and realize the new GM only 
exists today because of the American taxpayers--taxpayers such as the 
Montanans who work at the Stillwater mines. Maybe they do not care 
about placing American jobs at risk, but the fact is--as I do, and we 
do--they should.
  I cannot express adequately today the disappointment I have had and 
that I have with GM's decision to negate the contract with Stillwater 
Mining. It is part of that manufacturing base that I think is so 
critically important to this country, and they are turning their back 
on it.
  With that, I yield the floor, 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. McCAIN. 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. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to ask unanimous consent to engage 
in a colloquy for a minute with the distinguished chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I understand we are hopefully close to an 
agreement on the Kyl amendment and then we could set up, following that 
agreement, the Burr amendment, followed by an Akaka amendment, and our 
staffs will be working on further amendments so our colleagues will 
know.
  Mr. LEVIN. Our goal is precisely that. We are trying to work out an 
agreement with Senator Kyl. Staffs are trying to work out a time 
agreement. The order, though, hopefully will be Senator Burr and then 
Senator Akaka. But we have to make sure the proper committees are 
notified that are involved in those amendments, and then we could, I 
think, have a unanimous consent agreement. That is our goal.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the chairman. For the benefit of our colleagues I 
still think it is possible--and I think the chairman would agree--to 
finish up by tonight, if we could have expeditious handling of the 
amendments but which may require us to finish by tomorrow, I hope.
  Mr. LEVIN. I am very pleased to hear the optimistic assessment. I 
can't honestly say I share that optimism, but I will be delighted to be 
surprised.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business while we are waiting for the outcome of the 
negotiations that I had a colloquy with the chairman about.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Earmark Reform

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have long spoken about the broken 
appropriations process and the corruption it breeds. I remain deeply 
concerned over the damage done to our country and, indeed, this 
institution by their continued abuse. I ask my colleagues: How many 
more pay-to-play scandals will it take before we enact comprehensive 
and meaningful earmark reform?
  Look at the scandals over the last 5 years alone: Former U.S. 
Representative Randy Cunningham sits in a Federal prison today for 
selling earmarks. Among the many bribes Cunningham admitted receiving 
was the sale of his house at an inflated price; the use of a yacht, 
free; a used Rolls Royce; antique furniture; Persian rugs; jewelry; and 
a $2,000 contribution for his daughter's college graduation party. In 
return, he earmarked untold millions of dollars and pressured the 
Department of Defense to award contracts to his coconspirators.
  Of course, Senator Dorgan and I spent nearly 2 years investigating 
the Indian lobbying practices of Jack Abramoff, who reportedly dubbed 
appropriations committees ``a favor factory.'' One former Senate 
staffer pled guilty to accepting gifts in exchange for helping Mr. 
Abramoff's team on appropriations matters. An ex-official in the 
Department of Justice pled guilty to accepting bribes for helping Mr. 
Abramoff's client secure millions of dollars to build a jail. In all, 
over 20 people--including an ex-Congressman, administration officials, 
congressional staffers, and lobbyists--have been indicted, convicted or 
pled guilty.
  The Department of Justice investigation into this matter still 
continues to this day.
  We have today multiple pay-to-play scandals unfolding before our 
eyes. We read weekly, almost daily, news article after news article 
about numerous criminal investigations revolving around earmarks. Take, 
for example, the ongoing criminal investigation into the PMA Group. 
Most Americans have probably never heard of the PMA Group. The PMA 
Group was a DC lobbying firm with deep ties to Capitol Hill and a 
reputation for securing lucrative earmarks for its clients, especially 
defense earmarks. As I have said many times, it is the ``Willie Sutton 
Syndrome,'' because when he was asked why he robbed banks, he said: 
``That's where the money is.'' The reason why a lot of these corrupting 
earmarks came out of defense is because that is where the money is.
  The PMA Group boasted more than $15 million in revenue last year. The 
PMA Group clients reportedly received $300 million in defense earmarks 
for fiscal year 2008 and $317 million for fiscal year 2009. The PMA 
Group and its clients spread around a lot of campaign contributions in 
an attempt to curry favor with lawmakers.
  Last November, the Federal Bureau of Investigation raided PMA's 
offices and the home of its founder, Paul Magliocchetti. According to 
news reports, prosecutors were initially focused on whether Mr. 
Magliocchetti used a Florida wine steward and a golf

[[Page 18995]]

club executive as a front to funnel illegal donations to lawmakers. The 
Washington Post examined campaign contributions reportedly given by 
employees of the PMA Group and found listed in donor records ``several 
people who were not registered lobbyists and did not work for the 
lobbying firm,'' including a 75-year-old California man who had never 
even heard of the firm.
  Since then, the Department of Justice has raided the offices of a 
number of PMA clients and their business partners. A Federal grand jury 
reportedly subpoenaed records from one U.S. Representative's 
congressional and campaign offices and the FBI is interviewing his 
staffers.
  Last week, we read about yet another scandal involving people and 
firms in PMA's orbit. According to a July 15 Associated Press news 
article, the former head of the defense contractor, Coherent Systems 
International, pled guilty in Federal court to defrauding the U.S. 
Government and accepting kickbacks. Two former PMA clients are 
reportedly caught up in the scandal.
  According to court documents, in October of 2005, the Air Force 
Research Lab awarded Coherent an $8.1 million contract to deliver four 
Ground Mobile Gateway Systems. An $8.2 million earmark contained in a 
tsunami relief bill funded the contract. Get that: It was for a Ground 
Mobile Gateway System included in a tsunami relief bill. Not 
surprisingly, Coherent had lobbied for that earmark. At the time, 
Coherent was represented by a firm called KSA Consulting.
  Coherent submitted to the government at least $1.8 million in 
purchase orders outside the scope of the Air Force contract. What did 
the government get for its $1.8 million? Coherent paid two 
subcontractors, which were also represented by KSA Consulting, almost 
$600,000 for software that was not called for under the Air Force 
contract. What did Coherent do with the software? It literally threw 
the software in a closet where it sat collecting dust.
  Coherent paid another subcontractor $650,000 for the delivery of five 
prototypes, also not part of the prime contract. Some reports suggest 
that this is the same subcontractor that allegedly bribed Coherent's 
president and whose offices the FBI raided earlier this year.
  Coherent also paid Schaller Engineering, a former PMA client, 
$200,000 for technology that was never delivered. We now know where the 
money went. On July 21, 2009, Roll Call reported that the former Air 
Force contracting official, on the Mobile Common Data Link Gateway 
program, pled guilty to ``skimming money from an earmark that was 
provided to a Pennsylvania defense contractor.'' In his plea agreement, 
the official admits to approving invoices that were not part of the 
contract and then taking the kickback from the defense contractor.
  This is outrageous, but I also believe it is only the tip of the 
iceberg. We will undoubtedly see the continued march of news reports 
about further indictments and guilty pleas.
  Earmarks breed corruption, purely and simply. The current earmarking 
process doesn't stop it or adequately guard against it. So I ask my 
colleagues: How many more scandals must we suffer before we enact 
meaningful earmark reform? How low must Congress's approval rating sink 
before we act to repair this institution's reputation? How many more 
lawmakers, staffers, government officials, and contractors have to go 
to jail before we actually fix this process?
  Unfortunately, Congress's earmarking practices have grown worse, not 
better, just about every year I have served in the Senate. This year 
promises to be the worst. We began the year by passing a $400 billion 
Omnibus appropriations bill with almost 9,000 earmarks in it. Contrary 
to his promise to the American people to stem the tide of earmarks, the 
President refused to veto that pork-laden bill. In fact, he signed it 
in a quiet room far from the public eye, I might add, using the 
rationale it was ``last year's business,'' even though it was passed 
this year.
  Two weeks ago, the Senate approved a $44 billion Department of 
Homeland Security appropriations bill. It was over $200 million more 
than last year's bill and almost $100 million more than the President's 
budget request. It, too, was laden with numerous unrequested, 
unauthorized earmarks added at the direction of members of the 
Appropriations Committee in the Senate. Rest assured, we will see more 
earmarks in the other appropriations bills that come to the floor later 
this year. Even the pending fiscal year 2010 national defense 
authorization bill is not insulated from the practice.
  Americans all over the country are hurting. People are losing their 
jobs, their savings, and their homes. So what do we do? We continue 
this disgraceful earmarking process, elevating parochialism and 
patronage politics over the true needs and welfare of this Nation. The 
President pledged during his campaign he would work to eliminate 
earmarks. The Speaker of the House promised to drain the swamp. Given 
the abysmal state of our economy, Americans can no longer wait for them 
to make good on their promises. Earmark reform is needed and it is 
needed now.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following articles be 
printed in the Record:
  July 21, 2009: ``Ex-Air Force Employee Pleads Guilty in Case Tied to 
Murtha Earmark.''
  The Hill, July 21, 2009: ``Second Contractor Pleads Guilty in Earmark 
Probe.''
  July 21, 2009: ``Inquiries Focus on Subcommittee Ties.''
  July 15, 2009: ``Ex-Defense Contractor CEO Enters Fraud Guilty 
Plea.''
  Washington Post, February 14, 2009: ``Despite Listing, Donors Don't 
Work For Firm Being Probed.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    [From Roll Call, July 21, 2009]

   Ex-Air Force Employee Pleads Guilty in Case Tied to Murtha Earmark

                            (By Paul Singer)

       A former Air Force employee pleaded guilty Monday to 
     skimming money from an earmark that was provided to a 
     Pennsylvania defense contractor by Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.).
       In the plea agreement, Mark O'Hair admits he was the Air 
     Force official responsible for evaluating contract proposals 
     and making technical evaluations of contracts under the 
     ``battlefield airman'' program, which was designed to 
     integrate battlefield communication technology.
       According to the plea agreement, filed in a federal court 
     in Florida, in May 2005, ``Congress passed a tsunami relief 
     act which included within the provisions of the act an $8.2 
     million earmark for the development of the `Mobile Common 
     Data Link Gateway.' Coherent Systems International, Inc. 
     (CSI) had lobbied for this earmark appropriation.''
       Roll Call reported in June that Coherent was represented by 
     KSA Consulting, the lobbying firm that employed Murtha's 
     brother, Kit, and that the Congressman had provided this 
     earmark to Coherent by eliminating the same sum from a 
     project that had been designated for a previous client of his 
     brother's firm.
       O'Hair admits in the plea agreement that he approved 
     several purchase orders from Coherent for items that were not 
     part of the Gateway project, including $275,000 to 
     VidiaFusion Inc. and $300,000 to Gensym, both for software 
     that was provided but never used. Gensym and VidiaFusion were 
     both clients of KSA as well.
       O'Hair also approved a payment of $650,000 to Kuchera 
     Industries--a firm close to Murtha that was raided by the FBI 
     earlier this year for products that were not part of the 
     Gateway contract, and $200,000 to Schaller Engineering for 
     ``target tags'' that were never provided. Schaller was 
     represented by the PMA Group lobbying firm, which was raided 
     by the FBI in November.
       Richard Schaller, the founder of Schaller Engineering, then 
     distributed the $200,000 to O'Hair though another company he 
     created and to his business partner Thomas Sumrall, according 
     to the plea agreement. Sumrall has also pleaded guilty in the 
     case, but Schaller has not.
       Richard Ianieri, the former CEO of Coherent Systems, 
     pleaded guilty July 14 to charges linked to the same scheme. 
     He has also pleaded guilty in a Pennsylvania court to taking 
     kickbacks from a subcontractor referred to as ``K'' for 
     favorable treatment under government contracts. Coherent 
     worked closely with Kuchera Industries and shared a facility 
     with the company. Bill Kuchera, the owner of Kuchera 
     Industries, has not been charged in the case.
       Roll Call has previously reported that Kuchera, Sumrall, 
     Schaller, Ianieri, O'Hair and two KSA executives--Ken Stalder 
     and Richard Weiss--as well as a staffer from Rep. Murtha's 
     district office met with several other defense contractors in 
     September 2005 at the Nemacolin resort in Pennsylvania to

[[Page 18996]]

     discuss opportunities to provide communication technologies 
     to the military.
       Murtha has not been accused of any wrongdoing in the case, 
     and his office has said that anyone involved in illegal 
     activity connected to the project should be punished.
                                  ____


                     [From the Hill, July 21, 2009]

            Second Contractor Pleads Guilty in Earmark Probe

                          (By Susan Crabtree)

       A former Air Force contractor pleaded guilty Monday to a 
     false statement and conflict-of-interest charge in a widening 
     case involving several defense companies with ties to Rep. 
     John Murtha (D-Pa.).
       Mark O'Hair faces up to 10 years in prison and a $500,000 
     fine for omitting any reference to his position as a director 
     of a defense company on financial disclosure forms required 
     for his position as a civilian program officer. The company 
     received more than $200,000 in government contracts while 
     O'Hair was in charge of awarding contractors for the Air 
     Force Research Laboratory at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida.
       After retiring from the Air Force in 2001, O'Hair became 
     the senior electronic engineer with the Air Force Research 
     Lab Munitions. Two years later, he became the contracts 
     program manager for the Battlefield Airman program, which was 
     designed to improve the military's battlefield communications 
     systems.
       O'Hair is the second defense contractor in a week to plead 
     guilty and agree to cooperate with a federal probe of an 
     earmarked contract Murtha directed to several companies.
       Last week, Richard Ianieri, the former chief executive of 
     Coherent Systems International Corp., pleaded guilty to 
     accepting $200,000 in kickbacks. He received the kickbacks 
     from companies that he had parceled off some portions of the 
     contract to; however, he received little to no concrete work 
     in return.
       Murtha is not accused of any wrongdoing in either case.
       O'Hair's sentencing hearing is scheduled for October.
                                  ____


                     [From Politico, July 21, 2009]

                  Inquiries Focus on Subcommittee Ties

                          (By John Bresnahan)

       The Appropriations Defense Subcommittee--always considered 
     the high altar of congressional spending power--has suddenly 
     become a liability for lawmakers touched by criminal 
     inquiries scrutinizing the nexus of lobbyists, earmarks and 
     Pentagon contracts.
       Just in the past week: A Pennsylvania businessman with ties 
     to Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) pleaded guilty in a kickback 
     scheme, leading to new questions about Murtha's role in 
     getting earmarks for his brother's lobbying business. FBI 
     agents raided a Florida company linked to Rep. Bill Young (R-
     Fla.), leading Young to withdraw a $4 million funding request 
     for the firm the next day. And Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.) 
     asked the Federal Election Commission for permission to use 
     his campaign funds to pay legal bills of current and former 
     staffers as part of the investigation into the PMA Group, a 
     lobbying shop that specialized in defense earmarks.
       None of these lawmakers, who oversee more than $500 billion 
     in Pentagon spending, have been accused of wrongdoing, and no 
     one other than Visclosky and his former chief of staff, 
     Charles Brimmer, has even been subpoenaed at this point.
       But this web of legal actions, all focused on suspicious 
     ties between lobbying, military contractors and the billions 
     in funding they receive, has once again cast a negative light 
     on the relationship between lawmakers and earmark recipients.
       At this point, it's unclear whether the separate Justice 
     Department actions are part of one broad investigation into 
     earmarking and government contractors or are separate probes 
     on different tracks.
       But the Department of Justice has certainly focused on some 
     of the most powerful members of Congress. Murtha is chairman 
     of the Defense Subcommittee, while Young, who chaired the 
     full Appropriations Committee for six years, is currently 
     ranking member of the panel. In addition to serving on 
     Defense, Visclosky is chairman of the Appropriations Energy 
     and Water Subcommittee.
       All three lawmakers have consistently pushed tens of 
     millions of dollars in earmarks for companies back in their 
     districts. While Murtha may be the most well-known 
     practitioner of the trade, both Young and Visclosky are 
     masters of earmarking, as well.
       ``The chickens are coming home to roost,'' said Steve 
     Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a 
     government watchdog group that opposes earmarking.
       The Justice Department is ``beating the drums, that's for 
     sure. They're really stirring things up,'' said a former 
     Appropriations Committee staffer turned lobbyist. ``Everyone 
     is kind of waiting for the next shoe to drop.''
       And while the criminal investigations heat up at DOJ, House 
     Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is not protecting her 
     members, letting ethics inquiries move ahead inside the 
     House. The ethics committee has begun a preliminary review of 
     lawmakers' ties to PMA, after Democrats initially blocked 
     such a probe.
       ``We are going to let the chips fall where they may,'' said 
     a top aide to one Democratic leader. ``If they did something 
     wrong, they are going to have to pay for it. We're not going 
     to cover anything up for them.''
       The seemingly constant questions about Murtha and his 
     relationship with legally troubled contractors have caused 
     the most political headaches for Pelosi, who pledged to stop 
     the ``culture of corruption'' she believes thrived under the 
     Republican-controlled Congress.
       In November, the FBI raided the offices of the PMA Group. 
     Murtha has received more than $2.7 million in campaign 
     donations from PMA, its lobbyists and clients over the past 
     decade, but there have been no charges filed until now. The 
     PMA search was followed in January by another federal raid on 
     Kuchera Defense Systems, a Pennsylvania firm that has 
     received more than $50 million in federal contracts via 
     Murtha earmarks.
       Last Wednesday, Richard ``Rick'' Ianieri, former CEO of 
     Coherent Systems International, pleaded guilty to taking 
     $200,000 in kickbacks from a subcontractor on an $8.2 million 
     Air Force contract earmarked by Murtha. Coherent's lobbyist 
     was Robert ``Kit'' Murtha, the congressman's brother, who 
     helped them win that earmark.
       ``We had no knowledge of these disturbing transactions, and 
     if they are true, then the individuals and companies in 
     question should be held accountable under the law,'' said 
     Matt Mazonkey, Murtha's spokesman.
       On the same day that Ianieri pleaded guilty, federal agents 
     raided Conax Florida Corp. of St. Petersburg, Fla. Young has 
     earmarked more than $28 million for Conax, a maker of safety 
     devices for NASA and the Pentagon, since 2005, according to 
     the St. Petersburg Times.
       According to the Federal Election Commission record, Young 
     received $6,000 in campaign contributions from Conax 
     employees.
       Young has never attracted the same kind of scrutiny for his 
     earmarks as Murtha, although the St. Petersburg Times 
     reported last year that Young steered more than $73 million 
     in federal funds to a defense firm and nonprofit groups where 
     two of his sons work.
       ``You're going to have a hard time, with Young, finding 
     people to say he's somehow dirty or put him in the same 
     category as Murtha,'' said a former Appropriations Committee 
     aide.
       Visclosky, the least well-known of the defense 
     appropriations trio, meanwhile, is searching for ways to 
     cover his legal bills--and those of his staffers snared by 
     his investigation.
       Visclosky and Brimmer were issued subpoenas last month by a 
     federal grand jury in Washington that is investigating PMA.
       ``It is possible that additional subpoenas or requests for 
     information could be forthcoming for additional current and/
     or former staff members,'' wrote Michael Malczewski, 
     Visclosky's treasurer.
       With his reputation harmed by the PMA controversy, 
     Visclosky has temporarily stepped aside from overseeing the 
     energy and water spending bill. He has also given up $18,000 
     in PMA-related contributions.
       While this swirl of legal action around companies and 
     lobbyists looks bad for these lawmakers, it's important to 
     point out that none of them have been accused of enriching 
     themselves personally--and that's what brought down lawmakers 
     in other recent cases.
       The charges against former Reps. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), Jim 
     Traficant (D-Ohio), William Jefferson (D-La.) and Rick Renzi 
     (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) involved taking 
     official actions that directly benefited their own wallets.
       ``To my knowledge, none of these cases that are being 
     discussed in the press have come up with any evidence of that 
     at all,'' noted Scott Lilly, a former staff director for the 
     House Appropriations Committee who is now a senior fellow at 
     the Center for American Progress.
       But the scrutiny of the Department of Justice into who gets 
     earmarks and how they get them must be rattling Capitol Hill.
       ``They realize that even with the best of intentions, you 
     really need to know a lot about the people who are being 
     helped by this process,'' Lilly added. ``And you need to know 
     they're on the level.''
                                  ____


           Ex-Defense Contractor CEO Enters Fraud Guilty Plea

                         (By Christine Armario)

       Pensacola, FL. (AP).--The former chief executive of a 
     defense contractor with ties to Rep. John Murtha pleaded 
     guilty in federal court Tuesday to a kickback scheme and 
     defrauding the Air Force, and promised to cooperate in an 
     ongoing criminal investigation.
       Federal prosecutors said Richard S. Ianieri solicited 
     kickbacks from a subcontractor in Pennsylvania while he 
     headed Coherent Systems International Corp. Ianieri also was 
     charged with filing false purchase orders related to an Air 
     Force contract in Florida.
        Ianieri pleaded guilty to both charges during a hearing in 
     Pensacola and is scheduled to be sentenced in September. He 
     could face up to 15 years in prison.

[[Page 18997]]

       A nine-page plea agreement that Ianieri signed says the 
     government will urge a lighter prison sentence if he provides 
     substantial assistance ``in the investigation or prosecution 
     of other persons who have committed offenses.''
       Following Ianieri's plea, Murtha spokesman Matthew Mazonkey 
     said it is not the congressman's job to oversee companies and 
     that ``if they broke the law, then they should be held 
     accountable for their actions.''
       Murtha, D-Pa., has directed hundreds of millions of dollars 
     in government contracts over the years to Coherent and other 
     defense contractors through a process called earmarking.
       ``This case isn't about earmarks,'' said Mazonkey. ``It's 
     about individuals within the defense industry and the Defense 
     Department accused of defrauding the government.''
       Executives at Coherent and two other companies named in 
     court papers in Ianieri's Florida case have donated over 
     $95,000 to Murtha's re-election campaigns and his political 
     action committee since 2002, according to Federal Election 
     Commission records.
       One of the companies is Kuchera Industries Inc. of Windber, 
     Pa about 10 miles from Murtha's political home base of 
     Johnstown.
       A felony information filed in Pittsburgh states that 
     Ianieri was given two kickbacks totaling nearly $200,000 from 
     a company identified only as ``K'' for ``improperly obtaining 
     and rewarding favorable treatment'' regarding a defense 
     subcontract.
       In an April 2006 news release, Murtha announced that 
     Coherent and Kuchera Defense Systems were working ``virtually 
     as one company'' on 14 contracts worth $30 million to develop 
     high-tech military gear.
       Kuchera's offices were raided by federal agents in January. 
     Kuchera built high-tech military components that Coherent 
     designed.
       The Florida charges concern a Coherent contract given 
     through the Air Force Research Laboratory to deliver four 
     Ground Mobile Gateway Systems, which are designed to help 
     soldiers and pilots trace U.S. units and cut down on friendly 
     fire.
       The United States paid Coherent $5.9 million to build the 
     systems. According to federal court papers, Coherent 
     subsequently paid about $1.8 million to subcontractors for 
     the delivery of software and materials that were not part of 
     the contract.
       Ianieri was charged with presenting purchase orders to the 
     Air Force that he knew were ``false, fictitious and 
     fraudulent,'' court records state.
       Murtha also has ties to lobbyists for some of the companies 
     under scrutiny. His brother worked from 2004 to 2006 for KSA 
     Consulting, of Rockville, Md., which lobbied for Coherent. 
     Another lobbying firm, PMA Group, represented two of the 
     companies involved in the Florida investigation.
       Founded by a lobbyist who has long been close to Murtha, 
     PMA and its defense contractor clients have donated over $2 
     million to Murtha's re-election campaigns and to his 
     political action committee over the years.
       Ianieri's attorney, W. Thomas Dillard, of Knoxville, Tenn., 
     declined to comment after the hearing. He would not address 
     questions regarding whether Murtha had sponsored an $8.2 
     million earmark that included the money for Coherent. 
     Murtha's spokesman also has refused to say whether the 
     congressman was the sponsor.
       Dillard also refused to say whether his client could 
     implicate Murtha or other members of Congress in allegedly 
     illegal conduct.
                                  ____


               [From The Washington Post, Feb. 14, 2009]

        Despite Listing, Donors Don't Work for Firm Being Probed

                         (By Carol D. Leonnig)

       Marvin Hoffman is listed in campaign finance records as one 
     of the many lobbyists with the powerful PMA Group donating 
     money to lawmakers. But Hoffman is a soon-to-retire 
     information technology manager in Marina del Rey, Calif., who 
     has never heard of the Arlington lobbying firm or the Indiana 
     congressman to whom he supposedly gave $2,000.
       ``It's alarming that someone is stealing my identity 
     somewhere,'' Hoffman, 75, said in an interview. ``I've never 
     heard of this company.''
       Another contributor listed as a PMA lobbyist is, in fact, a 
     sales manager for an inflatable boat manufacturer in New 
     Jersey. John Hendricksen said he did make campaign donations 
     but never worked at PMA and does not know how he ended up 
     listed in records that way.
       These errors, along with other unusual donations linked to 
     the firm, come as the Justice Department examines allegations 
     that PMA may have violated campaign finance laws. The offices 
     of PMA, which ranked last year as the 10th-largest Washington 
     lobbying firm by earnings, were raided in November by FBI 
     agents and Defense Department investigators.
       Federal investigators are focused on allegations that PMA 
     founder Paul Magliocchetti, a former appropriations staffer 
     close to Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), may have reimbursed 
     some of his staff to cover contributions made in their names 
     to Murtha and other lawmakers, according to two sources 
     familiar with the investigation. PMA has long had a 
     reputation for securing earmarks from congressional 
     appropriators, particularly for defense contractors, and it 
     has donated generously to influential members of Congress. 
     Magliocchetti personally gave $98,000 in campaign donations 
     last year, according to campaign records.
       Federal election laws limit the amount of money individuals 
     may contribute to candidates, but lobbying firms often show 
     their clout by collecting and bundling contributions. It is 
     illegal for employers to reimburse donors for their 
     contributions.
       The Washington Post examined contributions that were 
     reported as being made by PMA employees and consultants, and 
     found several people who were not registered lobbyists and 
     did not work at the lobbying firm. It is unclear whether the 
     donors misidentified as PMA associates are part of the 
     federal probe.
       A PMA spokesman said the firm's management does not know 
     Hoffman or Hendricksen and does not know how the errors were 
     made in reports to the Federal Election Commission.
       ``It's up to the campaigns to report contributions in their 
     FEC filings,'' said PMA spokesman Patrick Dorton.
       FEC spokeswoman Mary Brandenberger said she has not often 
     seen such misidentified donations, but if a complaint were 
     received, the commission would first question the campaign 
     about its record-keeping.
       Jan Witold Baran, a campaign finance and ethics expert and 
     Wiley Rein lawyer, said the errors pose serious questions and 
     should be cleared up.
       ``It's true that candidate campaigns have the 
     responsibility for disclosure, but the information they 
     obtain usually comes from the contributor or the person who 
     solicited from the contributor,'' Baran said. ``The question 
     is: Where did that information come from?''
       Murtha aide Matthew Mazonkey said the congressman was not 
     the recipient of the erroneous donations.
       PMA, founded in 1989 by Magliocchetti, a former Murtha aide 
     to the House Appropriations Committee, has enjoyed a high 
     success rate in winning earmarks for its clients, which 
     include such major defense contractors as Lockheed and 
     General Dynamics. PMA also represents a circle of lesser-
     known but also successful contractors such as Argon ST, MTS 
     Technologies, DRS Technologies and Advanced Acoustic 
     Concepts. Many PMA clients have opened offices in Murtha's 
     western Pennsylvania district, donated generously to him, and 
     received millions in earmarks requested by the congressman.
       In the last election cycle, PMA and its clients donated 
     $775,000 to Murtha's campaigns. Last year, those clients 
     received earmarks worth $299 million and arranged by Murtha 
     and his colleagues.
       The majority of PMA's 35 lobbyists had worked on Capitol 
     Hill or at the Pentagon. Several of the top lobbyists were 
     also PMA directors and had ties to lawmakers.
       Two men listed in campaign finance reports as together 
     giving $30,000 to lawmakers and being part of the PMA Group 
     team are not Washington lobbyists at all. They live and work 
     in the Florida resort community of Amelia Island, where PMA 
     founder Magliocchetti has a beachfront condominium. Both are 
     listed as directors of PMA.
       John Pugliese had been a sommelier at the posh Ritz-Carlton 
     Hotel on the island, his family said. Jon C. Walker is in 
     charge of golf marketing at the neighboring Amelia Island 
     Golf Club, according to club personnel and its Web site. They 
     each donated identical amounts to the same lawmakers, in 12 
     installments each, almost always on the same date.
       Walker and Pugliese did not return repeated phone calls and 
     messages.
       Pugliese is listed as a PMA Group ``associate,'' and Walker 
     is a PMA Group ``consultant'' in finance records.
       Rebecca DeRosa, who is listed as a part-time accountant at 
     PMA and director, recently married Magliocchetti and has 
     given generously on PMA's behalf for several years. Last year 
     alone, she personally gave $73,000 to lawmakers and 
     congressional political action committees, records show. For 
     most of those donations, she is listed as a PMA employee. Her 
     donations included $22,000 to the Democratic Congressional 
     Campaign Committee and $4,250 to Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-
     Va.).
       DeRosa did not answer her phone or return calls to the 
     Gaithersburg office of the DRS subsidiary, where she is 
     listed as an employee.

  Mr. McCAIN. So I wish to tell my colleagues, I will be coming to the 
floor a lot and talking about this, sometimes with charts. This 
practice has to stop. We cannot afford not only the earmarking because 
of the costs, but we can't afford to have the continued corruption that 
is associated with this.
  I know some of my colleagues are offended when I use the word 
``corruption,'' but when former Members of Congress are residing in 
Federal prison and their aides and former staffers and

[[Page 18998]]

others are indicted and convicted in Federal court, I don't know how 
you can describe it as anything else.
  So we will be talking a lot more in the days and weeks ahead. The 
American people are sick and tired of it and so am I.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CASEY. 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. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about an amendment I filed. 
I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 12 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I appreciate the time to speak about this 
amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 
2010 to implement a number of essential reforms to cost comparison 
studies at the Department of Defense.
  There is an old expression, principally in the legal community, in 
our system of justice, where they say ``justice delayed is justice 
denied.'' That theme--not the same concept necessarily--is part of what 
I am talking about. When we are studying how government agencies are 
delivering services to the taxpayers, sometimes we study too long, and 
especially in the context of what I am about to speak of. I do thank 
the cosponsors of this amendment, several Senators, including Senators 
Brown, Schumer, Mikulski, Kennedy, Murray, Gillibrand, and Feingold.
  The reforms included in the amendment will achieve two very important 
goals: First, it will save taxpayer dollars, and it will enhance 
protections for workers across the Department of Defense.
  I had the great honor to serve the people of Pennsylvania for 8 
years--two terms as auditor general of the State--where I was a fiscal 
watchdog looking after money spent, and I audited and sometimes 
investigated how money was spent; then 2 years as State treasurer. So I 
have a sense of what government studies and reviews entail. Sometimes 
they take too long and defeat the purpose because of their length. 
Sometimes they should be doing their jobs every day instead of 
responding to an endless study.
  Some of the language is a little arcane, but when you talk about 
competitive sourcing, which is known, as a lot of these things are in 
government--I hate to use acronyms or short phrases--but competitive 
sourcing, in this context, is known as the A-76 process.
  Here is basically what it is. You don't need to know the numbers. We 
need to know what we are talking about. It is a government-wide 
initiative that subjects functions performed by government employees to 
public-private competition. We are all for competition and always have 
been. I believe many of my colleagues know in this context we have some 
real problems.
  This privatization process has been marked by controversy at great 
cost to taxpayers. Many workers in the Federal Government bring years 
of experience, dealing with problems and dealing with particular 
programs; and they also, because of that experience, bring a particular 
kind of expertise and skill to that work. We all know what happened 
just 2 years ago at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The list could go 
on and on, but here are a couple examples: appalling conditions for 
those who serve our country, and run down facilities and inadequate 
care for our returning veterans.
  All of this was uncovered back then, and I know improvements have 
been made. Part of the problem rested with a 6-year cost comparison 
review, which had an impact on the center's staffing. In 2006, the 
Garrison Commander, who was responsible for managing base operation 
support activities at Walter Reed, wrote that as a ``direct'' result of 
the A-76 study, ``we face the critical issues of retaining skilled 
clinical personnel for the hospital and diverse professionals for the 
Garrison, while confronted with increased difficulties in hiring.''
  Continuing with the quotation, ``Due to the uncertainty associated 
with this issue,'' meaning the review underway, ``Walter Reed continues 
to lose other highly qualified personnel.''
  That was then, at the time; he wrote that a few years ago.
  The point is, even something as grave and serious as the problems we 
experienced at Walter Reed, part of the reason for that can be traced 
to the problems with these kinds of studies.
  Despite the heroic efforts by Senator Mikulski from Maryland, the 
study continued and the problems persisted at the facility. In 2008, 
GAO conducted reviews of the cost comparison process at the Department 
of Labor and the Forest Service, finding it impossible to verify cost 
savings. They concluded at that time that the problems with the A-76 
process were systemic.
  Today, the Department of Defense is the only agency with A-76 studies 
in the process. According to the DOD, there are almost 30 A-76 studies 
still in process, involving about 3,600 employees. By next month, 
three-quarters of these studies will be at least 2 years old. A couple 
of examples bring this issue into clear life.
  Currently, the Defense Logistics Agency is reviewing 279 employees 
who perform installation management services in my home State of 
Pennsylvania and also in Virginia and Ohio. Prior to the study, this 
management of this agency said the A-76 study would be disruptive and 
recommended an internal effort instead, believing it would lead to 
greater savings. However, as is the common practice, the savings for 
this study have already been counted, and the people who ran the A-76 
program refused the request from the agency management to scrap the 
study, as they should have. If it is not saving money and helping the 
taxpayers, it should be scrapped. Therefore, 279 employees, some of 
whom work in Pennsylvania, are uncertain of their future and have been 
forced to put off major life decisions.
  A similar situation is ongoing at West Point, where two studies 
continue despite requests to terminate them. These decisions to proceed 
with studies in the face of unyielding and reasonable opposition and 
alternatives are indeed troubling.
  The amendment before the Senate addresses these issues in a number of 
ways.
  First, the amendment establishes a Department of Defense-specific, 1-
year suspension of new A-76 studies, consistent with the government-
wide suspension included by Senator Durbin in the financial services 
appropriations bill.
  Secondly, my amendment closes the loophole that currently allows 
certain DOD functions to be given to contractors by converting smaller 
functions to contractors without conducting any cost comparisons.
  Third, our amendment establishes a 24-month time limit for how long 
studies can last--from the beginning of preliminary planning to the 
final award decision. Currently, there are no established time limits 
on A-76 studies, which only increases the costs.
  Fourth, the amendment addresses issues pending with A-76 studies and 
directs DOD to suspend these studies and determine, based on several 
criteria, whether their completion is justifiable.
  Fifth, the amendment improves the process for workers by adding 
briefings to affected employees about contracting out decisions.
  Finally, the amendment makes technical corrections to ensure that 
Federal employees have bid protest rights, building on previous efforts 
by Members of the Senate.
  The A-76 process is about cost comparison. Due to the ambiguity 
around the timelines and the process, these lengthy studies often fail 
to create promised long-term savings.
  This amendment addresses these lingering issues with A-76 studies by 
lending necessary clarity to the process. In addition, these reforms 
will improve conditions for workers. Lengthy studies have been shown to 
compromise the capacity of agencies to perform their

[[Page 18999]]

missions by placing both the critical functions of the agency and 
employees who perform these functions in limbo.
  Finally, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment for this 
reason: It will promote fiscal responsibility, save money for 
taxpayers, while ensuring those who have the experience, expertise, and 
skill are able to carry out their tasks in the Department of Defense.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Burr 
be recognized next to offer an amendment. I understand there is not 
going to be opposition on this side and that he will accept a voice 
vote on it. Then I ask unanimous consent that Senator Akaka be 
recognized to offer his amendment, which he talked about last night.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. BURR. What is the pending amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Kyl amendment.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1554

  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1554, the Military 
Spouses Residency Relief Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. BURR], for himself, 
     Mr. Bayh, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Wicker, Mr. 
     Thune, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Johanns, and Ms. Murkowski, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1554.

  Mr. BURR. 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 guarantee the equity of spouses of military personnel with 
                    regard to matters of residency)

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

     SEC. 573. GUARANTEE OF RESIDENCY FOR SPOUSES OF MILITARY 
                   PERSONNEL FOR VOTING PURPOSES.

       (a) In General.--Section 705 of the Servicemembers Civil 
     Relief Act (50 U.S.C. App. 595) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``For'' and inserting the following:
       ``(a) In General.--For'';
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Spouses.--For the purposes of voting for any Federal 
     office (as defined in section 301 of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431)) or a State or local 
     office, a person who is absent from a State because the 
     person is accompanying the person's spouse who is absent from 
     that same State in compliance with military or naval orders 
     shall not, solely by reason of that absence--
       ``(1) be deemed to have lost a residence or domicile in 
     that State, without regard to whether or not the person 
     intends to return to that State;
       ``(2) be deemed to have acquired a residence or domicile in 
     any other State; or
       ``(3) be deemed to have become a resident in or a resident 
     of any other State.''; and
       (3) in the section heading, by inserting ``AND SPOUSES OF 
     MILITARY PERSONNEL'' before the period at the end.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of such Act (50 U.S.C. App. 501) is amended by striking 
     the item relating to section 705 and inserting the following 
     new item:

``Sec. 705. Guarantee of residency for military personnel and spouses 
              of military personnel.''.

       (c) Application.--Subsection (b) of section 705 of such Act 
     (50 U.S.C. App. 595), as added by subsection (a) of this 
     section, shall apply with respect to absences from States 
     described in such subsection (b) on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, regardless of the date of the military 
     or naval order concerned.

     SEC. 574. DETERMINATION FOR TAX PURPOSES OF RESIDENCE OF 
                   SPOUSES OF MILITARY PERSONNEL.

       (a) In General.--Section 511 of the Servicemembers Civil 
     Relief Act (50 U.S.C. App. 571) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``A servicemember'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--A servicemember''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Spouses.--A spouse of a servicemember shall neither 
     lose nor acquire a residence or domicile for purposes of 
     taxation with respect to the person, personal property, or 
     income of the spouse by reason of being absent or present in 
     any tax jurisdiction of the United States solely to be with 
     the servicemember in compliance with the servicemember's 
     military orders if the residence or domicile, as the case may 
     be, is the same for the servicemember and the spouse.'';
       (2) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f) as 
     subsections (d), (e), (f), and (g), respectively;
       (3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Income of a Military Spouse.--Income for services 
     performed by the spouse of a servicemember shall not be 
     deemed to be income for services performed or from sources 
     within a tax jurisdiction of the United States if the spouse 
     is not a resident or domiciliary of the jurisdiction in which 
     the income is earned because the spouse is in the 
     jurisdiction solely to be with the servicemember serving in 
     compliance with military orders.''; and
       (4) in subsection (d), as redesignated by paragraph (2)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or the spouse of a 
     servicemember'' after ``The personal property of a 
     servicemember''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or the spouse's'' 
     after ``servicemember's''.
       (b) Application.--Subsections (a)(2) and (c) of section 511 
     of such Act (50 U.S.C. App. 571), as added by subsection (a) 
     of this section, and the amendments made to such section 511 
     by subsection (a)(4) of this section, shall apply with 
     respect to any return of State or local income tax filed for 
     any taxable year beginning with the taxable year that 
     includes the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 575. SUSPENSION OF LAND RIGHTS RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FOR 
                   SPOUSES OF MILITARY PERSONNEL.

       (a) In General.--Section 508 of the Servicemembers Civil 
     Relief Act (50 U.S.C. App. 568) is amended in subsection (b) 
     by inserting ``or the spouse of such servicemember'' after 
     ``a servicemember in military service''.
       (b) Application.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to servicemembers in military 
     service (as defined in section 101 of such Act (50 U.S.C. 
     App. 511)) on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. Under 
current law, our military men and women, about every 3 years, are 
repositioned in the country or out of the country. Their orders change. 
When they make that change, it is beneficial to them, and I believe to 
society, that their spouses and children go with them.
  Years ago, we made accommodations for those military personnel so 
they could pick a State of residency, even though they moved 
frequently. They could choose the State in which they grew up or the 
State they might retire in or a State they had visited during their 
assignments that they thought was the best or most advantageous place 
for them to claim residency. That provided that every State they went 
to, they didn't have to change their driver's license or voter 
registration or basically change everything in their lives.
  Now with the size of our military and the constant deployments we are 
in--this continuation of every 3 years, getting reassigned to a 
different post--what we realized from a quality-of-life standpoint was 
that we forgot about the spouses as it relates to the accommodations of 
a new surrounding. When we think about it, spouses who leave and go 
with the servicemember, they go into a community unemployed. They have 
to look for a job. They have to go to the DMV, the department of motor 
vehicles, and get a driver's license and reregister to vote. I might 
also say their husband or wife could claim residency somewhere, and 
they may not be on the title of the house they own or the property they 
own.
  The fact that the spouse cannot claim a State of residency consistent 
with the servicemember means they are at a tremendous disadvantage from 
the standpoint of what they own. It is easier to put it in the 
servicemember's name because they are protected regardless of where 
their orders send them.
  Very simply, this amendment extends the same privilege to a spouse 
that it does to a servicemember, so they can claim that State of 
residency, keep that one constant driver's license, and they can pay 
joint taxes in a State versus being forced to file separate

[[Page 19000]]

taxes where there may be tax implications so that those military 
families pay more taxes than if they could file jointly. They still 
have the challenge of walking into a community unemployed, and they 
might leave a business behind because they believe the fabric of their 
family is that important.
  That is what we ask all of our military families to deal with. This 
is a simple way to make life a little easier on the spouses of our 
servicemembers and to make sure they don't have to change everything in 
their lives just because their spouse has been reassigned but only 
certain things that they will have to deal with.
  I remind my colleagues there is a stand-alone bill, S. 475. It had a 
hearing in the Veterans' Affairs Committee. It was passed unanimously 
out of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. It is identical to my amendment 
today.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. With the Chair's 
agreement, I ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1554.
  The amendment (No. 1554) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. 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. Mr. President, I understand under the previous order, the 
Senator from Hawaii is now to be recognized to call up his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1522

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask to set aside the pending amendment 
and call up amendment No. 1522 to enhance the retirement security of 
Federal employees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Akaka], for himself, Ms. 
     Collins, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Voinovich, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. 
     Begich, Mr. Kohl, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Inouye, Mr. 
     Webb, and Mr. Warner, proposes an amendment numbered 1522.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the 
District of Columbia, I am proud to join with Senators Collins, 
Lieberman, Voinovich, Murkowski, Begich, Kohl, Mikulski, Cardin, 
Inouye, Webb, and Warner in this bipartisan effort to correct certain 
inequities in the Federal Government retirement system.
  This amendment is very similar to an amendment that was included in 
the House-passed fiscal year 2010 national Defense authorization bill. 
Each of these revisions is much needed and has been thoroughly debated 
by the appropriate committees in the House and Senate. Many of the 
changes were requested by the administrators of the retirement plans 
and are strongly supported by many organizations. The list of 
supporters is too long to read here, but it includes every major 
Federal employee union, postal unions, supervisors, and postmasters, 
the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and several 
government managers groups. I spoke in more detail last evening about 
the substance of the amendment.
  I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, the 
Federal retirement reform provisions, and the bill as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment by Senator Akaka, the 
distinguished chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I would 
imagine has some very good and helpful provisions associated with it. 
It also applies to Federal employees and perhaps some Department of 
Defense employees are included in that. But it is a very large 
amendment. It is composed of six retirement-related provisions and some 
expenditure of funds.
  As I understand the bill, there is not provision for paying for it. I 
may be wrong. Let me point out that the Chair and ranking member of the 
Homeland Security Committee have looked at these issues as well. I am 
wondering why it was not included then on Homeland Security. We just 
finished doing the Homeland Security appropriations.
  It would reduce mandatory spending by $36 billion over 10 years. It 
has significant costs that will have to be appropriated, at least $2.5 
billion over the next 10 years. Because they would be added on this 
bill, it would add to the cost of the National Defense Authorization 
Act and would exceed our budget allocation. Properly, it would be 
subject to a budget point of order which the Senate would then speak on 
whether it is an appropriate budget point of order.
  There has been no strong opposition from the administration, and 
these costs were not included in the administration's budget request.
  I understand that a lot of these provisions, because of the large 
number of employees, fall under the Department of Defense. I don't 
think it is a good idea to have a bill of this magnitude, although 
certainly the amendment is in order--but I am not sure it is 
appropriate that a bill of this magnitude should be tacked on to the 
Defense authorization bill.
  I say that fully aware that we are tacking on a hate crimes bill 
which has even a lot less to do with the Department of Defense.
  I say to my friend, I will be glad to have a vote on this amendment. 
Perhaps there is going to be a budget point of order raised on this 
amendment. But hopefully we can alert our colleagues and give them the 
opportunity in the next few minutes to raise a budget point of order or 
ask for a recorded vote. If there is no objection, then we would have a 
voice vote.
  I wish to point out to my colleagues, this is fairly large 
legislation which does fall under the proper authority of the Homeland 
Security Committee.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, may I further comment that these 
provisions, without question, are much needed in Hawaii, Alaska, and 
the territories. COLA rates, and with them the pay of Federal 
employees, are slated to go down later this year if we do not act. This 
is the reason we are trying to move it at this time. Most of these 
employees in Hawaii are defense employees, as in these other States and 
territories as well.
  The provisions on this issue are nearly identical to the bill that 
passed the Senate by unanimous consent last year. Most of the 
provisions are in the House Defense authorization bill.
  Again, Hawaii, Alaska, and the territories received untaxed cost-of-
living allowances that do not count toward retirement instead of 
locality pay that other Federal employees receive.
  This bill grew out of a Bush administration proposal in response to 
repeated litigation over the different systems. This transition will 
cost a substantial amount of money for several reasons. The budget 
implications are better than they appear. A large portion of 
appropriated costs of the COLA provisions are intergovernmental 
transfers from Federal employers to either the annuity or the Social 
Security trust fund. According to the CBO report, employer 
contributions, intragovernmental transactions, do not affect the 
deficit.
  Many employees in Hawaii and Alaska and the territories, of course, 
are looking at this as something that is necessary as they continue to 
work in the Federal Government in this area.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

[[Page 19001]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we set 
aside consideration of the Burr amendment and that I be able to call up 
amendment No. 1657.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object--and I will need to object--
we are working through unanimous consent agreements and amendments are 
lined up on both sides. We have not reached that point yet. There are 
other amendments that have to come first from the Senator's side, and 
that would be up to Senator McCain. I have to object at this time. 
Obviously, we will try to accommodate the Senator getting his amendment 
up, but Senator McCain would need to consider the Senator's proposal. I 
have to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I understand the difficulties Senator 
Levin has, but we are moving to final passage. Cloture has been filed. 
It is important that this amendment be considered. I get a little 
nervous when things are not moving along in a way that I think they 
should or at least in a way that could cause this amendment not to be 
considered. I wish to speak briefly about it so it will be clear what 
it is we are talking about.
  The amendment I sought to bring up would preempt any Federal 
Executive, that is Presidential, requirement that our troops in the 
field, in Afghanistan and Iraq, read Miranda warnings to al-Qaida 
terrorists whom they capture.
  The amendment would also clarify that nothing in Federal law requires 
that our soldiers read Miranda warnings or give any other kind of 
warning to captured terrorists, and it preempts any efforts to enforce 
such a requirement through an exclusionary rule. That is, denying 
admissibility of evidence if it does not occur.
  Miranda is the warning, as most watchers of television detective 
programs know, in which an individual who is detained by a police 
officer in the United States on suspicion of some crime is told they 
have a right to remain silent and they have a right to have a lawyer, 
or have one appointed for them.
  The question is, How did we get to the point that we are now having 
soldiers in the field being asked to give Miranda warnings?
  One person, I think, who would agree with me--although recent 
activities cause me concern--is our Commander in Chief, President 
Obama. In a recent interview on the TV show ``60 Minutes,'' he was 
asked about the terrorist detainees, and this is what President Obama 
said:

       Do these folks deserve Miranda rights? Do they deserve to 
     be treated like a shoplifter down the block? Of course not.

  ``Of course not.'' I couldn't have said that with more clarity 
myself. Of course, we should not be giving Miranda warnings to captured 
terrorists on the battlefield. Unfortunately, not all of the 
subordinates in the current administration seem to understand this 
message.
  A recent article in the magazine the Weekly Standard describes why 
the amendment is necessary. As this article explains, the current 
administration appears to be requiring our soldiers to read Miranda 
warnings to terrorists whom they capture in the field in Afghanistan. 
And the article further notes, according to former CIA Director George 
Tenet, who was appointed originally by President Clinton and served 
under President Bush, that we would not have obtained the valuable 
information we did from Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the planner of the 9/11 
attacks, if he had been given his Miranda rights--or been given Miranda 
rights, not his, because we have never given Miranda rights to captured 
soldiers in any kind of conflict in the history of the Republic.
  The following is from the Weekly Standard:

       When 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was captured on 
     March 1, 2003, he was not cooperative. ``I'll talk to you 
     guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer,'' he said, 
     according to CIA Director George Tenet. Of course, Khalid 
     Shaikh Mohammed did not get a lawyer until months later, 
     after his interrogation was completed, and Tenet says that 
     the information the CIA obtained from him disrupted plots and 
     saved lives. ``I believe none of these successes would have 
     happened if we had had to treat KSM like a white-collar 
     criminal--read him his Miranda rights and get him a lawyer, 
     who surely would have insisted that his client simply shut 
     up.

  That was Mr. Tenet's view as stated in his memoirs just a couple of 
years ago.
  If Mr. Tenet is right, it is a good thing KSM was captured before 
President Obama became President, for the Justice Department has 
quietly ordered the FBI to read Miranda rights to high-value detainees 
captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan.
  According to a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee:

       The administration has decided to change the focus to law 
     enforcement. Here's the problem. You have foreign fighters 
     who are targeting U.S. troops today--foreign fighters who go 
     to another country to kill Americans. We capture them, and 
     they're reading them their rights--Mirandizing these foreign 
     fighters.

  That was a quote from Representative Mike Rogers, who recently met 
with the military and intelligence and law enforcement officials on a 
factfinding trip to Afghanistan.
  Rogers, a former FBI special agent and a U.S. Army officer, says the 
Obama administration has not briefed Congress on the new policy. He is 
quoted as saying:

       I was a little surprised to find it taking place when I 
     showed up because we hadn't been briefed on it. I didn't know 
     about it. We're still trying to get to the bottom of it, but 
     it is clearly a part of this new global justice initiative.

  Representative Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House 
Intelligence Committee, said this:

       When they Mirandize a suspect, the first thing they do is 
     warn them that they have the right to remain silent. It would 
     seem the last thing we want is Khalid Shaikh Mohammed or any 
     other al-Qaida terrorist to remain silent. Our focus should 
     be on preventing the next attack, not giving radical 
     jihadists a new tactic to resist interrogation--lawyering up.

  According to Mike Rogers, that is precisely what some human rights 
organizations are now advising detainees to do. He says:

       The International Red Cross, when they go into these 
     detention facilities, has now started telling people--``Take 
     the option. You want a lawyer.''

  And Rogers adds:

       The problem is you take that guy at 3 in the morning off of 
     a compound right outside of Kabul, where he's building bomb 
     materials to kill U.S. soldiers, and read him his rights by 
     4, and the Red Cross is saying take the lawyer, you have now 
     created quite a confusion amongst the FBI, the CIA and the 
     United States military. And confusion is the last thing you 
     want in a combat zone.

  This is from Congressman Rogers, a former FBI agent and a former Army 
officer.
  So one thing is clear: A detainee who is not talking cannot provide 
information about future attacks. Had Khalid Shaikh Mohammed had a 
lawyer, Tenet wrote in his book, `` . . . I am confident that we would 
have obtained none of the information he had in his head about the 
imminent threat against the American people.''
  Mr. President, one thing we have to get straight in our minds is that 
we are in a state of war against al-Qaida types and others around the 
world, and that calls for an entirely different approach to dealing 
with the people you capture. In fact, before you capture them, you have 
the authority to shoot them and kill them. We have the ability to drop 
bombs on them, which results in death. You don't do that in law 
enforcement situations against drug dealers or against white-collar 
criminals. These are not criminals, they are unlawful enemy combatants. 
They are not lawful because they do not operate according to the rules 
of war.
  The Geneva Conventions require that a lawful combatant, an enemy 
soldier, or any kind of soldier from any country wear their uniform so 
that you can identify them by their uniform and do not target civilian 
personnel gratuitously. Among other requirements, these are some of the 
rules of war. But they have never been given the rights of a common 
criminal.
  So I feel strongly about this issue. And I would note parenthetically 
that

[[Page 19002]]

the Supreme Court has not held that Miranda is even a constitutional 
requirement. They passed it as a prophylactic policy to help police 
officers do a better job, the Court thought, in doing their work. It is 
not a requirement. So it is a big mistake. I believe it is a road we 
should not go down, requiring these warnings, and if we do, it is an 
absolutely clear signal that we are confused about the nature of the 
deadly enterprise in which we are engaged, which is defending this 
country and our allies from attack by a violent, determined enemy.
  I thought after 9/11 there was a consensus in this body that 
terrorists and enemy combatants were different from criminals. I 
thought the 9/11 Commission went into that, and I thought there was a 
bipartisan consensus on that. So I am concerned about it. It suggests 
to me that we are confused about the nature of this life-and-death 
struggle we are in. We are confused about the risk our soldiers are 
being subjected to every day on the battlefield. And they ought not to 
be placed in a situation where an additional burden is put on them that 
is not justified by law or common sense.
  So I hope we get a vote on this, and I hope we are able to send the 
message that this is not the right policy and we need to make sure we 
stop it and nip it in the bud.
  I thank the Chair, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant 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, if I could just have Senator McCain's 
attention for a minute, I think we have a unanimous consent agreement.
  Mr. President, has the Akaka amendment been disposed of?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has not.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that the Akaka amendment be 
temporarily set aside, that we then move to an amendment on European 
missile defense, which is a Lieberman amendment with many cosponsors, 
which we have worked very hard on and which is ready to be propounded.
  There is at least one additional speaker on it. Senator Sessions 
wants to speak on it as well. But I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Lieberman be recognized now to introduce that amendment; that after he 
speaks, Senator Sessions be recognized; that I will then be recognized, 
and then Senator McCain, if he wishes to be recognized.
  I believe the intention here is that we may be able to adopt this by 
a voice vote; is that correct? That is the hope, anyway. Well, I will 
leave that part alone.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Connecticut.


                           Amendment No. 1744

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up 
amendment No. 1744.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman], for himself, 
     Mr. Sessions, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, 
     Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Begich, and 
     Mr. McCain, proposes an amendment numbered 1744.

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

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on and reserve funds for 
  the development and deployment of missile defense systems to Europe)

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

     SEC. 245. SENSE OF SENATE ON AND RESERVATION OF FUNDS FOR 
                   DEVELOPMENT AND DEPLOYMENT OF MISSILE DEFENSE 
                   SYSTEMS IN EUROPE.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) In the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 
     Bucharest Summit Declaration of April 3, 2008, the Heads of 
     State and Government participating in the meeting of the 
     North Atlantic Council declared that ``[b]allistic missile 
     proliferation poses an increasing threat to Allies' forces, 
     territory and populations. Missile defence forms part of a 
     broader response to counter this threat. We therefore 
     recognize the substantial contribution to the protection of 
     Allies from long-range ballistic missiles to be provided by 
     the planned deployment of European-based United States 
     missile defence assets''.
       (2) The Bucharest Summit Declaration also stated that 
     ``[b]earing in mind the principle of the indivisibility of 
     Allied security as well as NATO solidarity, we task the 
     Council in Permanent Session to develop options for a 
     comprehensive missile defence architecture to extend coverage 
     to all Allied territory and populations not otherwise covered 
     by the United States system for review at our 2009 Summit, to 
     inform any future political decision''.
       (3) In the Bucharest Summit Declaration, the North Atlantic 
     Council also reaffirmed to Russia that ``current, as well as 
     any future, NATO Missile Defence efforts are intended to 
     better address the security challenges we all face, and 
     reiterate that, far from posing a threat to our relationship, 
     they offer opportunities to deepen levels of cooperation and 
     stability''.
       (4) In the Strasbourg/Kehl Summit Declaration of April 4, 
     2009, the heads of state and government participating in the 
     meeting of the North Atlantic Council reaffirmed ``the 
     conclusions of the Bucharest Summit about missile defense,'' 
     and declared that ``we judge that missile threats should be 
     addressed in a prioritized manner that includes consideration 
     of the level of imminence of the threat and the level of 
     acceptable risk''.
       (5) Iran is rapidly developing its ballistic missile 
     capabilities, including its inventory of short-range and 
     medium-range ballistic missiles that can strike portions of 
     Eastern and Southern North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
     European territory, as well as the pursuit of long-range 
     ballistic missiles that could reach Europe or the United 
     States.
       (6) On July 8, 2008, the Government of the United States 
     and the Government of the Czech Republic signed an agreement 
     to base a radar facility in the Czech Republic that is part 
     of a proposed missile defense system to protect Europe and 
     the United States against a potential future Iranian long-
     range ballistic missile threat.
       (7) On August 20, 2008, the United States and the Republic 
     of Poland signed an agreement concerning the deployment of 
     ground-based ballistic missile defense interceptors in the 
     territory of the Republic of Poland.
       (8) Section 233 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417; 
     122 Stat. 4393; 10 U.S.C. 2431 note) establishes conditions 
     for the availability of funds for procurement, construction, 
     and deployment of the planned missile defense system in 
     Europe, including that the host nations must ratify any 
     missile defense agreements with the United States and that 
     the Secretary of Defense must certify that the system has 
     demonstrated the ability to accomplish the mission.
       (9) On April 5, 2009, President Barack Obama, speaking in 
     Prague, Czech Republic, stated, ``As long as the threat from 
     Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense 
     system that is cost-effective and proven. If the Iranian 
     threat is eliminated, we will have a stronger basis for 
     security, and the driving force for missile defense 
     construction in Europe will be removed.''.
       (10) On June 16, 2009, Deputy Secretary of Defense William 
     Lynn testified before the Committee on Armed Services of the 
     Senate that the United States Government is reviewing its 
     options for developing and deploying operationally effective, 
     cost-effective missile defense capabilities to Europe against 
     potential future Iranian missile threats, in addition to the 
     proposed deployment of a missile defense system in Poland and 
     the Czech Republic.
       (11) On July 9, 2009, General James Cartwright, the Vice 
     Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the 
     Committee on Armed Services of the Senate that the Department 
     of Defense was considering some 40 different missile defense 
     architecture options for Europe that could provide a 
     ``regional defense capability to protect the nations'' of 
     Europe, and a ``redundant capability that would assist in 
     protecting the United States,'' and that the Department was 
     considering ``what kind of an architecture best suits the 
     defense of the region, the defense of the homeland, and the 
     regional stability''.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the United States Government should continue developing 
     and planning for the proposed deployment of elements of a 
     Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, including a 
     midcourse radar in the Czech Republic and Ground-Based 
     Interceptors in Poland, consistent with section 233 of the 
     Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 2009;
       (2) in conjunction with the continued development of the 
     planned Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, the United 
     States

[[Page 19003]]

     should work with its North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
     allies to explore a range of options and architectures to 
     provide missile defenses for Europe and the United States 
     against current and future Iranian ballistic missile 
     capabilities;
       (3) any alternative system that the United States 
     Government considers deploying in Europe to provide for the 
     defense of Europe and a redundant defense of the United 
     States against future long-range Iranian missile threats 
     should be at least as capable and cost-effective as the 
     proposed European deployment of the Ground-based Midcourse 
     Defense system; and
       (4) any missile defense capabilities deployed in Europe 
     should, to the extent practical, be interoperable with United 
     States and North Atlantic Treaty Organization missile defense 
     systems.
       (c) Reservation of Funds for Missile Defense Systems.--
       (1) In general.--Of the funds authorized to be appropriated 
     or otherwise made available for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 
     for the Missile Defense Agency for the purpose of developing 
     missile defenses in Europe, $353,100,000 shall be available 
     only for the purposes described in paragraph (2).
       (2) Use of funds.--The purposes described in this paragraph 
     are the following:
       (A) Research, development, test, and evaluation of--
       (i) the proposed midcourse radar element of the Ground-
     based Midcourse Defense system in the Czech Republic; and
       (ii) the proposed long-range missile defense interceptor 
     site element of such defense system in Poland.
       (B) Research, development, test, and evaluation, 
     procurement, construction, or deployment of other missile 
     defense systems designed to protect Europe, and the United 
     States in the case of long-range missile threats, from the 
     threats posed by current and future Iranian ballistic 
     missiles of all ranges, if the Secretary of Defense submits 
     to the congressional defense committees a report certifying 
     that such systems are expected to be--
       (i) consistent with the direction from the North Atlantic 
     Council to address ballistic missile threats to Europe and 
     the United States in a prioritized manner that includes 
     consideration of the imminence of the threat and the level of 
     acceptable risk;
       (ii) operationally effective and cost-effective in 
     providing protection for Europe, and the United States in the 
     case of long-range missile threats, against current and 
     future Iranian ballistic missile threats; and
       (iii) interoperable, to the extent practical, with other 
     components of missile defense and complementary to the 
     missile defense strategy of the North Atlantic Treaty 
     Organization.
       (d) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed as limiting or preventing the Department of Defense 
     from pursuing the development or deployment of operationally 
     effective and cost-effective ballistic missile defense 
     systems in Europe.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, may I ask Senator Lieberman to yield for a 
moment?
  First of all, I ask unanimous consent that no second-degree 
amendments be in order to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair, and I thank the chairman of the 
committee.
  Mr. President, I rise to offer this amendment, along with the Senator 
from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, and a broad bipartisan group of cosponsors. 
This amendment concerns the deployment of missile defenses in Europe.
  I am very pleased to say, as Chairman Levin suggested, that there has 
been a lot of work done on this issue by a lot of people, including 
Chairman Levin, Ranking Member McCain, their staff, and our staff. I 
think we have reached a very important agreement here which holds up 
some standards of what is most important to our national security 
regarding the deployment of missile defenses to Europe.
  If I may, the administration, as we know, is now evaluating 
alternatives to the planned European deployment of a Ground-based 
Midcourse Defense, or GMD, system to Poland and the Czech Republic. In 
the context of that policy review, this amendment states that any 
alternative to the GMD deployment to Poland and the Czech Republic must 
be as effective and affordable as the current plan. We think this is a 
reasonable standard by which to judge any alternative and I am hopeful 
and grateful my colleagues seem to agree.
  Let me now go forward to explain why Senator Sessions and I and 
others think it is so important to set a standard for the alternatives 
that are now under consideration, and why the growing Iranian threat 
requires us to deploy an effective missile defense in Europe.
  Last year the United States reached a pair of groundbreaking 
agreements with two of our closest European allies on the deployment of 
elements of a Ground-based Midcourse Defense, GMD, system to protect 
Europe and the United States from Iran's growing ballistic missile 
threat.
  When I say ``and the United States,'' they don't have the ability 
now, or the ballistic missile, to reach the United States, but they are 
clearly investing in a ballistic missile program whose range they hope 
will grow and grow to a point where they will be able to reach the 
United States.
  Specifically, on July 8, 2008, the United States and the Czech 
Republic agreed on establishing an American ballistic missile defense 
radar site on Czech territory. Two months later, on August 20, the 
United States and the Government of Poland reached a similar agreement 
under which we would deploy 10 ground-based interceptors to Poland. 
Just less than a year after these agreements, at a June 16 hearing at 
our Senate Armed Services Committee, Deputy Secretary of Defense Bill 
Lynn told the members of the committee:

       We think there are a number of ways to address [the 
     Iranian] threat and one of the options is to deploy the 
     missiles in Poland and the radar in the Czech Republic, and 
     we are certainly evaluating that option as well as other 
     possible options.

  We heard other testimony before our committee, including from the 
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Cartwright, along the same 
lines, that though the agreements were entered into with Poland and the 
Czech Republic, the administration is evaluating other options.
  To help place the other options that are under consideration into 
perspective, and to explain why Senator Sessions and I and the others 
who have joined us as cosponsors introduce this amendment today, I want 
to go to a Congressional Budget Office study that was released earlier 
this year, in February. It is titled ``Options for Deploying Missile 
Defenses in Europe.'' This study was requested by then-Congresswoman 
Ellen Tauscher, in her capacity as Chair of the House Armed Services 
Strategic Forces Subcommittee. It examined the potential cost and 
defense capability of the European ground-based defense system in 
Poland and the Czech Republic, as well as alternatives to it.
  What are the alternatives? These include deployment of sea-based 
interceptors on Navy ships around Europe, or using mobile land-based 
interceptors in Europe. The study also considered the possible benefits 
of closer cooperation on missile defense with the Russian Federation.
  The findings of this report clearly demonstrate that the Ground-based 
Midcourse Deployment in Poland and the Czech Republic is the most 
effective and affordable option that is before us today. I am 
particularly struck by the report's conclusion that the alternatives to 
the GMD system in Poland and the Czech Republic would significantly 
reduce America's ability to provide a layered defense for our American 
homeland against the eventual threat of intercontinental ballistic 
missiles launched by Iran or anyone else in that region against the 
United States of America.
  I want to be clear about this and what it means. Whereas the GMD 
deployment to Poland and the Czech Republic would provide, according to 
the report, a so-called shoot-look-shoot capability for the defense of 
the entire continental United States, the alternatives that the 
Congressional Budget Office considered would leave most of our country 
without such a layered defense.
  Let me explain. Shoot-look-shoot is an operational concept that is 
actually the cornerstone of our increasingly successful missile defense 
program. It is the idea that we should be able to shoot at an incoming 
missile, assess whether that shot was successful, and then shoot again. 
This shoot-look-shoot capability dramatically increases the 
effectiveness of our missile defense system.

[[Page 19004]]

  You might say it is redundant. Most of our military systems are 
redundant because of what is on the line. I cannot think of a place 
where I would rather have redundancy than the situation we are dealing 
with, with an incoming ballistic missile, presumably containing a 
nuclear weapon, perhaps chemical or biological. I know people watching 
this debate may think this is far off and unrealistic, but these are 
the realities we do have to deal with in our world because we know a 
country such as Iran, whose leaders regularly lead tens of thousands of 
their citizens in shouting ``death to America'' is in fact investing in 
a growing intercontinental ballistic missile system.
  What does shoot-look-shoot mean with regard to this amendment? If you 
have a GMD system in Europe and a missile that is fired from Iran, we 
have a first opportunity to take a shot at that missile. We then 
obviously have a chance to look and see whether we hit it. If we did 
not, we have a second opportunity utilizing the ground-based missile 
defense system that we have now installed in California and Alaska. 
That is an important redundancy in the God-awful circumstance that a 
rogue nation, an anti-American nation, is actually firing missiles at 
the United States.
  I want to draw the attention of my colleagues to a pair of maps that 
I think indicate the differences as CBO found them between the planned 
GMD system in Poland and the Czech Republic and the proposed land-based 
SM-3 block IIA system that I think is a favored alternative--a possible 
alternative--I don't mean it is selected, but one looked at with great 
interest by the Defense Department.
  Incidentally, these maps were prepared by the Congressional Budget 
Office and included in the study I just mentioned, which I would 
commend to my colleagues to read in full.
  On the first map here we can see the planned GMD system in Poland and 
the Czech Republic would provide a layered defense for the entire 
continental United States. In other words, this is the area that would 
be defended. Most of Europe, if a missile were fired from Iran, and all 
of the United States would be covered. That means the concept of shoot-
look-and-shoot would be in effect a defense for our entire population.
  The second map shows the capabilities of a prospective land-based SM-
3 IIA block system, which is quite different. You can see that this 
one, as the CBO estimated, only covers a portion of the United States. 
I note it does cover Connecticut, but there is a lot of the rest of the 
United States--even though there are those of us who love this small 
State--a lot of the rest of the United States we do not want to leave 
unprotected by this redundancy.
  In fact, on a population basis, because there is a concentration of 
population, of course, on the east coast, almost 80 percent of the 
population would be left uncovered by this redundant defense. All 
States west of the Mississippi, for example, would not be defended by 
this system.
  In terms of operational capability, it is also important to note that 
the components of the proposed GMD system for Europe are much farther 
along in their development and purchase closer to being proven to work 
than the proposed SM-3 Block IIA interceptor, which may not be 
available until close to 2020. So the consequences of pulling away from 
the Poland and Czech Republic system are serious in the near term.
  As for the question of cost, the Congressional Budget Office in this 
study estimates that the two alternate systems would cost nearly the 
same to develop, deploy, and operate. In other words, if we opt for an 
alternative to ground missile defense, CBO will be telling us we will 
be paying the same amount of money but for a less capable defense and a 
dramatically less comprehensive coverage of the population and 
territory of the United States.
  Another question under consideration, I know by the administration, 
is the possibility--and was with the last administration, too--the 
possibility of partnership between the United States and Russia through 
the joint use of two Russian radar stations, as well as the sharing of 
information and data. I support very much the exploration of this 
opportunity of cooperating with Russians on missile defense, but I 
believe we have to have a clear understanding of its potential benefits 
and limitations.
  Let me begin with some of the benefits. Obviously, closer cooperation 
with Russia on missile defense could increase our early warning 
detection capability for missile launches from the Middle East, based 
on their radar. With this capability we could send a clear message to 
Iran that not just the United States but the world, including Russia, 
is opposed to its weapons of mass destruction and intercontinental or 
continental ballistic missile systems. So I support the objective of 
negotiating and discussing this with the Russians.
  But I want to say there are also limitations that are in this 
proposal. The Russian radar stations that are most discussed as part of 
a joint United States-Russian ballistic missile system as a technical 
matter cannot be a substitute for a European-based GMD system. Although 
these radars would give us additional early warning capabilities, as I 
indicated, they would not provide any additional targeting capability 
which, of course, is a critical component to reducing threats. Radar 
helps to target, sends the message to the interceptors in Poland and to 
the other system, and that facilitates an accurate shoot-down.
  As the CBO pointed out in its February report, the radars face south 
and any missiles facing south and any missiles targeted toward Europe 
and the United States would, according to the report, ``tend to fly 
through and out of the Russian radar's field of regard very early in 
their trajectories.'' Though this system would provide us with early 
warning, it is also very important, really critical, to have targeting 
capability.
  The amendment Senator Sessions and I and the others have proposed 
would not in any way prohibit the possibility of cooperation, or even 
deter the possibility of cooperation with the Russian Federation--
certainly not with regard to sharing radar data, and I hope we can all 
agree we should not seek an agreement with Moscow that leaves the 
United States more vulnerable to the threat from Iran.
  Very briefly, what about that threat? Some may ask, Why do we still 
need to be investing so much in missile defense? The answer, simply 
put, is because our most unpredictable and irresponsible adversaries, 
in particular rogue states such as Iran and North Korea, are investing 
very aggressively in ballistic missiles. That is why we need ballistic 
missile defense. The investments we make in missile defense will quite 
literally provide greater personal security to the coming generations 
of Americans, our children and their grandchildren and beyond. As LTG 
Mike Maples, then Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, 
testified before our Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this year:

       The threat posed by ballistic missile delivery systems is 
     likely to increase over the next decade. Ballistic missile 
     defenses with advanced liquid or solid propellant propulsion 
     systems are becoming more mobile, survivable, reliable, 
     accurate, and possess greater range.

  That is the end of the quote from the former head of the Defense 
Intelligence Agency.
  In the last few months we have seen graphic reminders of the progress 
our enemies are making toward fielding intercontinental ballistic 
missiles. In February, Iran launched its first satellite into orbit 
using the same technologies that Tehran can draw upon to develop the 
capacity to build an intercontinental ballistic missile that could 
strike the continental United States.
  In May, Iran carried out its first successful test flight of a two-
stage solid fuel ballistic missile, a development that the White House 
Coordinator for Arms Control and WMD Terrorism, Gary Seymour, warned 
was ``a significant step forward in terms of Iran's capability to 
develop weapons.''
  Iran's growing ballistic capabilities are made, of course, even more 
threatening when coupled with its nuclear weapons development program. 
Of course, we all hope the United States

[[Page 19005]]

and the rest of the international community can persuade Iran, through 
diplomacy and economic sanctions, to abandon both its nuclear and 
ballistic ambitions and programs.
  Missile defense is an important component of that effort on the 
premise that we may be able to convince Iran it is not worth spending 
those countless millions of dollars on perfecting these weapons if its 
leaders come to realize that we in the West are determined to stay one 
step ahead of them in neutralizing their strategic impact with a 
missile defense system.
  As the Department of Defense now undertakes its review of the planned 
GMD deployment to Europe and possible alternatives, this amendment 
would express the Senate's opinion of what we expect our missile 
defenses in Europe to deliver, generally.
  It would state that the United States expects those missile defenses 
to be the most capable and affordable and give a defense in the short 
term, not just to our allies in Europe but to our fellow citizens 
throughout the United States of America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to join my colleague, Senator 
Lieberman, in introducing amendment No. 1744, concerning the deployment 
of missile defenses in Europe, and also thank him for his leadership on 
this issue over many years. He is clearly one of the most effective 
spokesmen for clear and strategic thinking and has helped us for many 
years to establish good defense policy for our Nation.
  As Senator Lieberman has explained, this amendment would state it is 
the sense of the Congress that the administration should continue to 
develop the planned missile defense deployment through Poland and the 
Czech Republic, even as it considers other alternatives.
  Further, it would state that any alternative to the current plan must 
be as effective and affordable, and, most important, must be able to 
defend the United States as well as Europe against long-range ballistic 
missiles.
  This amendment is important at this time because the administration 
is now considering alternatives to the plan long pursued by the Bush 
administration to station ground-based interceptors in Poland, a 
missile-tracking radar system in the Czech Republic. Both Poland and 
the Czech Republic have signed agreements to host these missile defense 
assets after being told by the United States that we believed the plan 
is important to protect Europe and the United States from rogue states, 
more specifically, Iran's developing missile capability.
  After much effort and political capital has been expended, both in 
the United States and by our Polish and Czech Republic allies and 
friends, now the project has been put in somewhat of a limbo, I am 
afraid.
  Russia and the domestic left opposed this plan from the beginning. 
They lobbied the people and members of Congress in Poland and the Czech 
Republic to not do it. But they have gone forward with it today. If the 
objections of the United States to this system arise from Czech 
reasons, then I would refer my colleagues to a February 2009 CBO study 
Senator Lieberman cited, ``Options for Deploying Missile Defense in 
Europe,'' which came to the conclusion that a ground-based interceptor 
deployment in Poland and the Czech Republic is the most effective and 
affordable option available for the foreseeable future.
  The CBO concluded: ``This is the most effective and affordable option 
for the foreseeable future.''
  Other options apparently now under consideration include the 
deployment of a land- or sea-based version of the Standard Missile 3, 
SM-3 which is now deployed on Aegis ships of the United States.
  The CBO found that this option, the SM-3, will not available until 
late in the next decade, is no less expensive than the GBI option and 
does not provide protection for the United States against long-range 
Iranian missiles. In other words, while the deployment of a land- or 
sea-based version of SM-3 may be suitable to protect Europe against 
medium- and intermediate-range missile threats, it would not contribute 
to the defense of the United States which could occur from the launch 
of an ICBM, an intercontinental ballistic missile, which would travel 
at a much higher altitude.
  Likewise, Admiral Stavridis, the new commander of the U.S. European 
Command, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee during a 
hearing last month:

       Sea-based and transportable land-based assets are integral 
     components of a comprehensive ballistic missile defense 
     system but cannot defeat the entire range of threats by 
     themselves. Sophisticated sensors are required for early 
     acquisition and target determination, and ground-based 
     interceptors are needed to defeat longer-range missiles.

  The missile Iran seeks to develop, and is moving forward to develop, 
would be capable of hitting the United States. Now they are seeking to 
develop ICBMs, and they are actively pursuing nuclear weapons, as we 
all know.
  Why, I would ask my colleagues, would we want to consider 
alternatives to the proposed GBI deployment in Europe that would not 
save any money and would not provide additional protection for the 
United States?
  I would recall the comments former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger 
made a few years ago about missile defense and whether we should 
deploy. His comment was: I have never heard of a nation whose policy it 
is to keep itself vulnerable to attack.
  Well, we do not need to be kept vulnerable to attack. We have the 
capability to defend ourselves and protect against incoming missiles. 
Some have suggested that such additional protection is not needed, that 
current ground-based interceptors deployed at our missile defense site 
in Fort Greely, AK, can provide complete protection for the United 
States against Iranian threats.
  But that argument does not tell the complete story. The truth is, 
deploying GBIs in Europe would provide an early opportunity to 
intercept Iranian missiles headed to the east coast, which could then 
be followed by an intercept attempt by Alaska, providing the United 
States an extra layer of protection. Just 10 missiles could provide a 
great additional protection for the United States. That is what is 
needed, an integrated, layered, ballistic missile defense shield that 
effectively protects America and her allies from rogue attack.
  Most Americans think we are adequately protected. I do remember a 
townhall meeting I held, and I asked the people there: What would 
happen if a missile was launched at the United States? They said: We 
would shoot it down. Well, that was before our system was up and 
running in Alaska, and it was not accurate. People think we do have a 
fully operational system, but we only have a few of those missiles up 
in Alaska, and we need this additional shield in Europe.
  Without the site in Poland, the United States would have only one 
opportunity to engage Iranian missiles headed for certain portions of 
our country. Why should we take that risk?
  Although the search for alternatives may please the Russians, it 
would perversely send the wrong message to our NATO allies and, in 
particular, to our friends in Poland and the Czech Republic who, 
despite pressure and threats from Russia, have agreed and stood firm 
and expressed their willingness to host these missile defense assets on 
their territory.
  I would remind my colleague that NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization, the most successful defense treaty in the history of the 
world, endorsed the current plan at the April 2008 Bucharest Summit and 
noted in their declaration:

       We therefore recognize the substantial contribution to the 
     protection of Allies from long-range ballistic missiles to be 
     provided by the planned deployment of European-based United 
     States missile defense assets.

  I also understand the Polish and Czech Parliaments have yet to ratify 
the agreements, and the ambivalence presented by the Obama 
Administration now regarding what was a firm policy of the United 
States, means, frankly, it is unlikely they will do so

[[Page 19006]]

until our administration completes its consideration of alternatives. 
This has placed our situation in limbo. I am not happy with that. I 
think it was a mistake.
  After all, why should those parliaments take up an agreement that the 
United States may pull off the table? This unfortunate event was 
obvious from the beginning when we backed away from our plan and 
started showing uncertainty. It is obvious the political support in 
Central Europe may erode.
  I am left to conclude that the reason the administration is pursuing 
alternatives in this current plan is its hopes it will address Russian 
objections about the proposed deployment as part of a grand strategy to 
reset relations with Russia and conclude a follow-on to the START 
nuclear reduction agreement. I am not confident in this effort. In 
fact, it seems to, instead of moving our relations forward, have moved 
them backward.
  Let me make note of some recent events. Just days after the United 
States and Russia reached a broader agreement on arms reductions and 
missile defense cooperation at the July 6 Moscow summit, Reuters News 
Agency reported, on July 10, 4 days later, that Russian President 
Medvedev threatened the United States that if it did not reach 
agreement with Russia on our joint NATO/Polish/Czech plans for missile 
defense systems, Moscow would deploy rockets in an enclave near Poland.
  Typical Russian bluster, threat. Likewise, Russian Foreign Minister 
Sergey Lavrov has threatened to end arms control talks with the United 
States if we pursue cooperation with our allies on missile defense, a 
system that in no way threatens Russia's massive nuclear capability, 
and they know it.
  Ten interceptors of the United States in Europe are going to somehow 
have a capability to stop the thousands of Russian missiles and nuclear 
weapons that they have? Russia knows that our defenses would be no 
match.
  As reported by the Associated Press, just 1 day after the summit, 
Lavrov stated:

       If our partners make a decision to create an American 
     missile defense system with global reach, then that will 
     doubtless place a big question mark over the prospects for 
     further reduction in strategic offensive weapons.

  Again, this is, unfortunately, a regressive approach by Russia on 
issues that I do not think is justified. It seems we are falling back 
into a darker approach to world affairs with threats instead of working 
together to build a more peaceful and prosperous, harmonious world.
  If, in fact, there were technical arguments in favor of alternative 
deployments, which there are not, Russian belligerence would now indeed 
be an argument for proceeding, nevertheless.
  The former Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, Mirek Topolanek, put 
the issue in its proper perspective when he stated:

       The moral challenge is clear and simple: If we are not 
     willing to accept in the interests of the defense of the 
     Euro-Atlantic area such a trifle as the elements of a missile 
     defense system, then how shall we be able to face more 
     difficult challenges that may come?
  That is an important statement. Are we losing confidence in 
ourselves? He is not alone in that view. Just last week, 22 prominent 
Eastern European political figures of important historic importance, 
including Poland's Lech Walesa and the Czech Republic's Vaclav Havel, 
published an open letter to President Obama expressing their uneasiness 
over U.S. maneuvers with Russia. This letter was sent to address their 
concerns in light of what appears to them to be Russia's attempt to 
reassert its influence over Russia's former Eastern European 
satellites. These are independent nations. They have been freed from 
Soviet domination. It is not their desire to kowtow to Russia and to 
have to seek Russia's permission over whether to put a radar site in 
their country. They are sovereign nations.
  These leaders noted in their letter that America's planned missile 
defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic have become ``a 
symbol of America's credibility and commitment in the region.'' They 
further warned that:

       The Alliance should not allow the issue to be determined by 
     unfounded Russian opposition. Abandoning the program entirely 
     or involving Russia too deeply in it without consulting 
     Poland or the Czech Republic can undermine the credibility of 
     the United States across the whole region.

  I don't think that is no small matter. These are historic figures in 
Eastern Europe who suffered under the Communist boot. They do not want 
to go back. They are sending us a message. They are great American 
allies. They believe in freedom and democracy. This is not an academic 
matter to them, it is very real.
  I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record at 
the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SESSIONS. On March 5, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 
``applaud[ed] the decision by the people of the Czech Republic and 
their government--as well as the people and Government of Poland--for 
proceeding with missile defense on their soil.'' That was just in March 
of this year. The United States should honor this commitment by 
proceeding with the missile defense deployment as planned and not be 
affected by Russia's unfounded objections. I remain baffled by their 
objections, other than, perhaps, this is a way they think they can 
extract concessions from the United States as a bargaining chip.
  As the CBO study referenced above makes clear:

       Only the Polish and Czech deployments can protect the 
     United States and Europe. Any other option costs more and 
     defends the U.S. less, if at all.

  I ask my colleagues to support this message. It will be good for our 
country to be clear on this question and for Congress to speak up.
  I express a concern about what has happened in this budget to 
national missile defense. It represents a major reduction in spending 
for missile defense. We intend to deploy 44 missiles in Alaska. The 
budget proposes, I believe, now just 30. It was proposed and part of 
the agenda for the last number of years to place a multikill vehicle on 
top of these interceptors so it could take out dummies and decoys and 
multiple missiles. That was zeroed out, ended in this budget. For a 
number of years, we have been funding research and development of the 
kinetic energy interceptor. That is a high-speed system that can take 
out missiles in the launch phase, which is the best phase to do so. 
That was zeroed out. There was the airborne laser which has the 
capability of shooting down missiles in their launch phase when they 
have so much heat coming out of them. It is funded for 1 more year, and 
it will be ended, apparently. Of course, now the 10 interceptors in 
Europe are in question.
  We need to be sure we understand how seriously we are impacting the 
long-term strategy of the United States. We have spent $20 billion to 
develop a system that will actually work at incredible rates of speed, 
with hit-to-kill technology to knock down an incoming missile. After 
all of these investments and all these years, for $1 billion we could 
complete the program. We are saving about $150, $200 million this year 
that would have kept us on track. Maybe we can keep the system going 
forward. I hope so with this resolution and some other things.
  But the American people need to know that we are not talking about a 
minor retrenchment of national missile defense in the budget that has 
come forward out of our committee. It represents the biggest reduction 
of missile defense funding during my time in the Senate, over 12 years.
  I hope that as the months go along we will be able to reevaluate what 
we are doing and make sure we don't abandon the progress we have made 
and take full advantage of decades of research and development that has 
produced a system that will work to protect us.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page 19007]]



                            [July 15, 2009]

                               Exhibit 1

  An Open Letter to the Obama Administration from Central and Eastern 
                                 Europe

 (By Valdas Adamkus, Martin Butora, Emil Constantinescu, Pavol Demes, 
Lubos Dobrovsky, Matyas Eorsi, Istvan Gyarmati, Vaclav Havel, Rastislav 
    Kacer, Sandra Kalniete, Karel Schwarzenberg, Michal Kovac, Ivan 
Krastev, Alexander Kwasniewski, Mart Laar, Kadri Liik, Janos Martonyi, 
   Janusz Onyszkiewicz, Adam Rotfeld, Vaira Vike-Freiberga, Alexandr 
                          Vondra, Lech Walesa)

       We have written this letter because, as Central and Eastern 
     European (CEE) intellectuals and former policymakers, we care 
     deeply about the future of the transatlantic relationship as 
     well as the future quality of relations between the United 
     States and the countries of our region. We write in our 
     personal capacity as individuals who are friends and allies 
     of the United States as well as committed Europeans.
       Our nations are deeply indebted to the United States. Many 
     of us know firsthand how important your support for our 
     freedom and independence was during the dark Cold War years. 
     U.S. engagement and support was essential for the success of 
     our democratic transitions after the Iron Curtain fell twenty 
     years ago. Without Washington's vision and leadership, it is 
     doubtful that we would be in NATO and even the EU today.
       We have worked to reciprocate and make this relationship a 
     two-way street. We are Atlanticist voices within NATO and the 
     EU. Our nations have been engaged alongside the United States 
     in the Balkans, Iraq, and today in Afghanistan. While our 
     contribution may at times seem modest compared to your own, 
     it is significant when measured as a percentage of our 
     population and GDP. Having benefited from your support for 
     liberal democracy and liberal values in the past, we have 
     been among your strongest supporters when it comes to 
     promoting democracy and human rights around the world.
       Twenty years after the end of the Cold War, however, we see 
     that Central and Eastern European countries are no longer at 
     the heart of American foreign policy. As the new Obama 
     Administration sets its foreign-policy priorities, our region 
     is one part of the world that Americans have largely stopped 
     worrying about. Indeed, at times we have the impression that 
     U.S. policy was so successful that many American officials 
     have now concluded that our region is fixed once and for all 
     and that they could ``check the box'' and move on to other 
     more pressing strategic issues. Relations have been so close 
     that many on both sides assume that the region's 
     transatlantic orientation, as well as its stability and 
     prosperity, would last forever.
       That view is premature. All is not well either in our 
     region or in the transatlantic relationship. Central and 
     Eastern Europe are at a political crossroads and today there 
     is a growing sense of nervousness in the region. The global 
     economic crisis is impacting on our region and, as elsewhere, 
     runs the risk that our societies will look inward and be less 
     engaged with the outside world. At the same time, storm 
     clouds are starting to gather on the foreign policy horizon. 
     Like you, we await the results of the EU Commission's 
     investigation on the origins of the Russo-Georgian war. But 
     the political impact of that war on the region has already 
     been felt. Many countries were deeply disturbed to see the 
     Atlantic alliance stand by as Russia violated the core 
     principles of the Helsinki Final Act, the Charter of Paris, 
     and the territorial integrity of a country that was a member 
     of NATO's Partnership for Peace and the Euroatlantic 
     Partnership Council--all in the name of defending a sphere of 
     influence on its borders.
       Despite the efforts and significant contribution of the new 
     members, NATO today seems weaker than when we joined. In many 
     of our countries it is perceived as less and less relevant--
     and we feel it. Although we are full members, people question 
     whether NATO would be willing and able to come to our defense 
     in some future crises. Europe's dependence on Russian energy 
     also creates concern about the cohesion of the Alliance. 
     President Obama's remark at the recent NATO summit on the 
     need to provide credible defense plans for all Alliance 
     members was welcome, but not sufficient to allay fears about 
     the Alliance's defense readiness. Our ability to continue to 
     sustain public support at home for our contributions to 
     Alliance missions abroad also depends on us being able to 
     show that our own security concerns are being addressed in 
     NATO and close cooperation with the United States.
       We must also recognize that America's popularity and 
     influence have fallen in many of our countries as well.
       Public opinions polls, including the German Marshall Fund's 
     own Transatlantic Trends survey, show that our region has not 
     been immune to the wave of criticism and anti-Americanism 
     that has swept Europe in recent years and which led to a 
     collapse in sympathy and support for the United States during 
     the Bush years. Some leaders in the region have paid a 
     political price for their support of the unpopular war in 
     Iraq. In the future they may be more careful in taking 
     political risks to support the United States. We believe that 
     the onset of a new Administration has created a new opening 
     to reverse this trend but it will take time and work on both 
     sides to make up for what we have lost.
       In many ways the EU has become the major factor and 
     institution in our lives. To many people it seems more 
     relevant and important today than the link to the United 
     States. To some degree it is a logical outcome of the 
     integration of Central and Eastern Europe into the EU. Our 
     leaders and officials spend much more time in EU meetings 
     than in consultations with Washington, where they often 
     struggle to attract attention or make our voices heard. The 
     region's deeper integration in the EU is of course welcome 
     and should not necessarily lead to a weakening of the 
     transatlantic relationship. The hope was that integration of 
     Central and Eastern Europe into the EU would actually 
     strengthen the strategic cooperation between Europe and 
     America.
       However, there is a danger that instead of being a pro-
     Atlantic voice in the EU, support for a more global 
     partnership with Washington in the region might wane over 
     time. The region does not have the tradition of assuming a 
     more global role. Some items on the transatlantic agenda, 
     such as climate change, do not resonate in the Central and 
     Eastern European publics to the same extent as they do in 
     Western Europe.
       Leadership change is also coming in Central and Eastern 
     Europe. Next to those, there are fewer and fewer leaders who 
     emerged from the revolutions of 1989 who experienced 
     Washington's key role in securing our democratic transition 
     and anchoring our countries in NATO and EU. A new generation 
     of leaders is emerging who do not have these memories and 
     follow a more ``realistic'' policy. At the same time, the 
     former Communist elites, whose insistence on political and 
     economic power significantly contributed to the crises in 
     many CEE countries, gradually disappear from the political 
     scene. The current political and economic turmoil and the 
     fallout from the global economic crisis provide additional 
     opportunities for the forces of nationalism, extremism, 
     populism, and anti-Semitism across the continent but also in 
     some of our countries.
       This means that the United States is likely to lose many of 
     its traditional interlocutors in the region. The new elites 
     replacing them may not share the idealism--or have the same 
     relationship to the United States--as the generation who led 
     the democratic transition. They may be more calculating in 
     their support of the United States as well as more parochial 
     in their world view. And in Washington a similar transition 
     is taking place as many of the leaders and personalities we 
     have worked with and relied on are also leaving politics.
       And then there is the issue of how to deal with Russia. Our 
     hopes that relations with Russia would improve and that 
     Moscow would finally fully accept our complete sovereignty 
     and independence after joining NATO and the EU have not been 
     fulfilled. Instead, Russia is back as a revisionist power 
     pursuing a 19th-century agenda with 21st-century tactics and 
     methods. At a global level, Russia has become, on most 
     issues, a status-quo power. But at a regional level and vis-
     a-vis our nations, it increasingly acts as a revisionist one. 
     It challenges our claims to our own historical experiences. 
     It asserts a privileged position in determining our security 
     choices. It uses overt and covert means of economic warfare, 
     ranging from energy blockades and politically motivated 
     investments to bribery and media manipulation in order to 
     advance its interests and to challenge the transatlantic 
     orientation of Central and Eastern Europe.
       We welcome the ``reset'' of the American-Russian relations. 
     As the countries living closest to Russia, obviously nobody 
     has a greater interest in the development of the democracy in 
     Russia and better relations between Moscow and the West than 
     we do. But there is also nervousness in our capitals. We want 
     to ensure that too narrow an understanding of Western 
     interests does not lead to the wrong concessions to Russia. 
     Today the concern is, for example, that the United States and 
     the major European powers might embrace the Medvedev plan for 
     a ``Concert of Powers'' to replace the continent's existing, 
     value-based security structure. The danger is that Russia's 
     creeping intimidation and influence-peddling in the region 
     could over time lead to a de facto neutralization of the 
     region. There are differing views within the region when it 
     comes to Moscow's new policies. But there is a shared view 
     that the full engagement of the United States is needed.
       Many in the region are looking with hope to the Obama 
     Administration to restore the Atlantic relationship as a 
     moral compass for their domestic as well as foreign policies. 
     A strong commitment to common liberal democratic values is 
     essential to our countries. We know from our own historical 
     experience the difference between when the United States 
     stood up for its liberal democratic values and when it did 
     not. Our region suffered when the United States succumbed to 
     ``realism'' at Yalta. And it benefited when the United States 
     used its power to fight for principle. That was critical 
     during the Cold War and in opening the doors of NATO. Had a 
     ``realist'' view prevailed in the early 1990s, we would not 
     be in NATO today and the idea

[[Page 19008]]

     of a Europe whole, free, and at peace would be a distant 
     dream.
       We understand the heavy demands on your Administration and 
     on U.S. foreign policy. It is not our intent to add to the 
     list of problems you face. Rather, we want to help by being 
     strong Atlanticist allies in a U.S.-European partnership that 
     is a powerful force for good around the world. But we are not 
     certain where our region will be in five or ten years time 
     given the domestic and foreign policy uncertainties we face. 
     We need to take the right steps now to ensure the strong 
     relationship between the United States and Central and 
     Eastern Europe over the past twenty years will endure.
       We believe this is a time both the United States and Europe 
     need to reinvest in the transatlantic relationship. We also 
     believe this is a time when the United States and Central and 
     Eastern Europe must reconnect around a new and forward-
     looking agenda. While recognizing what has been achieved in 
     the twenty years since the fall of the Iron Curtain, it is 
     time to set a new agenda for close cooperation for the next 
     twenty years across the Atlantic.
       Therefore, we propose the following steps:
       First, we are convinced that America needs Europe and that 
     Europe needs the United States as much today as in the past. 
     The United States should reaffirm its vocation as a European 
     power and make clear that it plans to stay fully engaged on 
     the continent even while it faces the pressing challenges in 
     Afghanistan and Pakistan, the wider Middle East, and Asia. 
     For our part we must work at home in our own countries and in 
     Europe more generally to convince our leaders and societies 
     to adopt a more global perspective and be prepared to 
     shoulder more responsibility in partnership with the United 
     States.
       Second, we need a renaissance of NATO as the most important 
     security link between the United States and Europe. It is the 
     only credible hard power security guarantee we have. NATO 
     must reconfirm its core function of collective defense even 
     while we adapt to the new threats of the 21st century. A key 
     factor in our ability to participate in NATO's expeditionary 
     missions overseas is the belief that we are secure at home. 
     We must therefore correct some self-inflicted wounds from the 
     past. It was a mistake not to commence with proper Article 5 
     defense planning for new members after NATO was enlarged. 
     NATO needs to make the Alliance's commitments credible and 
     provide strategic reassurance to all members. This should 
     include contingency planning, prepositioning of forces, 
     equipment, and supplies for reinforcement in our region in 
     case of crisis as originally envisioned in the NATO-Russia 
     Founding Act.
       We should also re-think the working of the NATO-Russia 
     Council and return to the practice where NATO member 
     countries enter into dialogue with Moscow with a coordinated 
     position. When it comes to Russia, our experience has been 
     that a more determined and principled policy toward Moscow 
     will not only strengthen the West's security but will 
     ultimately lead Moscow to follow a more cooperative policy as 
     well. Furthermore, the more secure we feel inside NATO, the 
     easier it will also be for our countries to reach out to 
     engage Moscow on issues of common interest. That is the dual 
     track approach we need and which should be reflected in the 
     new NATO strategic concept.
       Third, the thorniest issue may well be America's planned 
     missile-defense installations. Here too, there are different 
     views in the region, including among our publics which are 
     divided. Regardless of the military merits of this scheme and 
     what Washington eventually decides to do, the issue has 
     nevertheless also become--at least in some countries--a 
     symbol of America's credibility and commitment to the region. 
     How it is handled could have a significant impact on their 
     future transatlantic orientation. The small number of 
     missiles involved cannot be a threat to Russia's strategic 
     capabilities, and the Kremlin knows this. We should decide 
     the future of the program as allies and based on the 
     strategic plusses and minuses of the different technical and 
     political configurations. The Alliance should not allow the 
     issue to be determined by unfounded Russian opposition. 
     Abandoning the program entirely or involving Russia too 
     deeply in it without consulting Poland or the Czech Republic 
     can undermine the credibility of the United States across the 
     whole region.
       Fourth, we know that NATO alone is not enough. We also want 
     and need more Europe and a better and more strategic U.S.-EU 
     relationship as well. Increasingly our foreign policies are 
     carried out through the European Union--and we support that. 
     We also want a common European foreign and defense policy 
     that is open to close cooperation with the United States. We 
     are the advocates of such a line in the EU. But we need the 
     United States to rethink its attitude toward the EU and 
     engage it much more seriously as a strategic partner. We need 
     to bring NATO and the EU closer together and make them work 
     in tandem. We need common NATO and EU strategies not only 
     toward Russia but on a range of other new strategic 
     challenges.
       Fifth is energy security. The threat to energy supplies can 
     exert an immediate influence on our nations' political 
     sovereignty also as allies contributing to common decisions 
     in NATO. That is why it must also become a transatlantic 
     priority. Although most of the responsibility for energy 
     security lies within the realm of the EU, the United States 
     also has a role to play. Absent American support, the Baku-
     Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline would never have been built. Energy 
     security must become an integral part of U.S.-European 
     strategic cooperation. Central and Eastern European countries 
     should lobby harder (and with more unity) inside Europe for 
     diversification of the energy mix, suppliers, and transit 
     routes, as well as for tough legal scrutiny of Russia's abuse 
     of its monopoly and cartel-like power inside the EU. But 
     American political support on this will play a crucial role. 
     Similarly, the United States can play an important role in 
     solidifying further its support for the Nabucco pipeline, 
     particularly in using its security relationship with the main 
     transit country, Turkey, as well as the North-South 
     interconnector of Central Europe and LNG terminals in our 
     region.
       Sixth, we must not neglect the human factor. Our next 
     generations need to get to know each other, too. We have to 
     cherish and protect the multitude of educational, 
     professional, and other networks and friendships that 
     underpin our friendship and alliance. The U.S. visa regime 
     remains an obstacle in this regard. It is absurd that Poland 
     and Romania--arguably the two biggest and most pro-American 
     states in the CEE region, which are making substantial 
     contributions in Iraq and Afghanistan--have not yet been 
     brought into the visa waiver program. It is incomprehensible 
     that a critic like the French anti-globalization activist 
     Jose Bove does not require a visa for the United States but 
     former Solidarity activist and Nobel Peace prizewinner Lech 
     Walesa does. This issue will be resolved only if it is made a 
     political priority by the President of the United States.
       The steps we made together since 1989 are not minor in 
     history. The common successes are the proper foundation for 
     the transatlantic renaissance we need today. This is why we 
     believe that we should also consider the creation of a Legacy 
     Fellowship for young leaders. Twenty years have passed since 
     the revolutions of 1989. That is a whole generation. We need 
     a new generation to renew the transatlantic partnership. A 
     new program should be launched to identify those young 
     leaders on both sides of the Atlantic who can carry forward 
     the transatlantic project we have spent the last two decades 
     building in Central and Eastern Europe.
       In conclusion, the onset of a new Administration in the 
     United States has raised great hopes in our countries for a 
     transatlantic renewal. It is an opportunity we dare not miss. 
     We, the authors of this letter, know firsthand how important 
     the relationship with the United States has been. In the 
     1990s, a large part of getting Europe right was about getting 
     Central and Eastern Europe right. The engagement of the 
     United States was critical to locking in peace and stability 
     from the Baltics to the Black Sea. Today the goal must be to 
     keep Central and Eastern Europe right as a stable, activist, 
     and Atlanticist part of our broader community.
       That is the key to our success in bringing about the 
     renaissance in the Alliance the Obama Administration has 
     committed itself to work for and which we support. That will 
     require both sides recommitting to and investing in this 
     relationship. But if we do it right, the pay off down the 
     road can be very real. By taking the right steps now, we can 
     put it on new and solid footing for the future.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I very much support the pending amendment. 
It is the product of a lot of work by a lot of people. Senator 
Lieberman, in particular, was considering offering an amendment during 
our markup in the committee. He agreed that he would hold off until we 
got to the floor to try to get broad bipartisan agreement on a very 
important subject. He did that. We are grateful to him for doing so.
  This amendment is consistent with the administration's policies for 
missile defense in Europe, including its consideration of a variety of 
options and architectures for defending Europe, including the so-called 
third site in Poland and the Czech Republic. The main purpose of these 
efforts in Europe is to act against an Iranian missile threat should it 
materialize. It is very important that we do so.
  Earlier this month, General Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs, testified before the Armed Services Committee that the 
Department of Defense is considering a number of missile defense 
options in Europe.
  This amendment is also consistent with the administration's efforts 
to pursue missile defense cooperation with Russia as part of our 
efforts to address the Iranian missile threat. Those missiles, of 
course, potentially could be armed with nuclear warheads. This 
potential Iranian missile threat is a

[[Page 19009]]

threat that confronts not just Europe as NATO but also Russia as well, 
obviously, and a number of other countries. It is a real threat. 
Everything we can do to deter that, everything we can do to defend, 
should it ever materialize, is something we must do. It is a major 
threat.
  In one of its findings, NATO recognizes this Iranian threat. This is 
the way NATO recognized this Iranian threat and the importance of 
trying to work together to deter, to try to prevent it from happening, 
and then, should it happen, to defend against it, to make it useless. 
Here is what NATO said in April:

       We support increased missile defense cooperation between 
     Russia and NATO, including maximum transparency and 
     reciprocal confidence-building measures to allay any 
     concerns. We reaffirm our readiness to explore the potential 
     for linking United States, NATO and Russian missile defense 
     systems at an appropriate time and we encourage the Russian 
     Federation to take advantage of [U.S.] missile defense 
     cooperation proposals.

  Back in April, I led a delegation, with Senators Collins and Bill 
Nelson, to visit Russia, Poland, and the Czech Republic to discuss 
missile defense and the potential for a cooperative approach. What we 
found is that there appears to be real potential for a cooperative 
approach and for having missile defense be a uniting issue against a 
common threat instead of a dividing issue. If we can find a way to 
cooperate with Russia on missile defense, it would send an 
extraordinarily powerful message to Iran that we are united against 
their continued development of nuclear technology and long-range 
ballistic missiles.
  That is the point of missile defense in Europe, to address the 
Iranian missile and nuclear program in order to enhance their security 
and our security. This amendment will authorize prior year's funds for 
a variety of cost-effective and operationally effective missile defense 
options that could protect Europe and the United States from Iranian 
missiles of all ranges, current and future. The amendment is designed 
to command and hopefully attract strong bipartisan support. I hope it 
does just that.
  I believe a voice vote may be possible after Senator McCain speaks. I 
hope that is the case, given the schedule.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Lieberman 
amendment expressing the sense of the Senate that the U.S. Government 
should continue developing and planning for the proposed deployments of 
elements of a ground-based midcourse defense system. I thank the 
Senator from Connecticut for this amendment and his willingness to work 
with all parties, which will then allow us to voice vote this very 
important amendment.
  Obviously, there are a lot of strong feelings on the issue of missile 
defense in Europe. I believe this amendment addresses and expresses our 
concerns and our goals, including a midcourse radar in the Czech 
Republic and ground-based interceptors in Poland, as well as the 
reservation of funds for the development and deployment of missile 
defense systems in Europe.
  As rogue nations, including North Korea and Iran, push the nuclear 
envelope and work tirelessly to develop delivery vehicles capable of 
reaching America and its allies, we must aggressively develop the 
systems necessary to counter such belligerent efforts. Enhancing 
missile defense capabilities in Europe is an essential component to 
addressing rogue state and in-theater threats we face and expect to 
face in the future.
  As Iran works to develop ballistic missile capabilities of all 
ranges, the United States must reaffirm its commitments to its allies 
and develop and deploy effective missile defense systems. The Iranian 
ballistic missile threat is real and growing. During the NATO summit in 
Bucharest in April of 2008, the allies cited the threat of ballistic 
missile proliferation as one of great concern to their forces, 
territory, and populations. Missile defense in Europe, according to 
NATO ``forms part of a broader response to counter this threat . . . 
[a] substantial contribution to the protection of Allies from long-
range ballistic missiles to be provided by the planned deployment of 
European-based United States missile defense assets.''
  Uncertainty about the future of missile defense in Europe, some 
stemming from perceptions, whether wanted or not, that Russia will have 
a say or veto power over the disposition of our missile defense 
architecture, has caused concerns both here in the Senate and among 
some of our closest European allies. I urge the administration to 
provide some clarity on how it plans to honor the commitments the 
United States has made to Poland and the Czech Republic.
  The last administration recognized the importance and need for a 
European component to our missile defense system, reached out to the 
Governments of Poland and the Czech Republic, and asked that they make 
what many at the time perceived as an unpopular agreement. Despite 
unwanted threats from Russia, both governments recognized the 
importance such a capability would provide to their citizens and to 
Europe as a whole and agreed to allow the United States to place 
ground-based interceptors in Poland and a midcourse radar site in the 
Czech Republic.
  Given the perception, one that has been strengthened by the testimony 
of administration officials before the Armed Services Committee, that 
the United States is preparing to back away from its commitments to our 
Polish and Czech allies, this amendment comes at an important moment. 
It was only a year ago, after all, that the United States and the Czech 
Republic affirmed that:

       Within the context of, and consistent with, both the North 
     Atlantic Treaty and the Czech Republic . . . the United 
     States is committed to the security of the Czech Republic. 
     [And that] the Czech Republic and the United States will work 
     together to counter emerging military or non-military threats 
     posed by third parties or to minimize the effects of such 
     threats.

  Similarly, on August 20, 2008, the United States signed an agreement 
with Poland stating that the:

       United States is committed to the security of Poland and of 
     any U.S. facilities located on the territory of the Republic 
     of Poland. . . . The United States and Poland intend to 
     expand air and missile defense cooperation. In this regard, 
     we have agreed on an important new area of such cooperation 
     involving the deployment of a U.S. Army Patriot air and 
     missile defense battery in Poland.

  Our Polish friends are clearly uneasy and have been quite vocal. 
During a forum earlier this year in Brussels, Polish Foreign Minister 
Radoslaw Sikorski said:

       We hope we don't regret our trust in the United States.

  I urge the administration and my colleagues in the Senate to join me 
in reiterating our commitment to the security and freedom of these 
nations as well as deterring and defending them against any threats to 
their security.
  With respect to Russia and the ongoing START negotiations, I urge the 
President to continue to reject any Russian attempt to link reductions 
in offensive strategic nuclear weapons with defensive capabilities such 
as missile defense. Russia, too, must recognize that the current 
Iranian path is unsettling to the global interests of all peace-seeking 
nations. Missile defense in Europe is not and should not be viewed in 
Moscow as some new form of post-Cold War aggression. It is, rather, a 
reasonable and prudent response to the very real threats the Iranian 
regime continues to pose to the United States, Europe, and the world.
  Again, I thank my good friend from Connecticut for offering this 
amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support its adoption.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, very briefly, I want to thank Senator 
Levin and Senator McCain for their very thoughtful statements in 
support of this amendment. I thank their staffs for the work that has 
been done with all of my staff, Senator Sessions, and others to reach 
this agreement. It is an important statement of policy about our 
national security in the years ahead. I appreciate all that has been 
done by everyone here in the spirit of unity.

[[Page 19010]]

  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the 
amendment, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1744) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. 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. 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, I now ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Dorgan be recognized for up to 15 minutes and then we return to regular 
order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me thank the chairman of the 
committee, Senator Levin, and Senator McCain, for their work on this 
bill.
  We talk about a lot of things in this bill: jet fighters, bombers, 
tankers, submarines, unmanned aerial vehicles--lots and lots of 
subjects. The subjects are about the defense of our country, what 
provides national security for our country, so these are all very 
important. I wish to speak, however, about one piece of this 
legislation that probably is not mentioned much but I think is very 
important; that is, the reduction of the threat of nuclear weapons.
  There is something over $400 million in this bill that deals with the 
efforts to try to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons.
  I have had at my desk in the Senate for a long while some pieces of 
equipment. I ask unanimous consent to show them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is a piece of a wing of a Soviet 
Backfire bomber. We did not shoot this plane down. This was sawed off 
of a wing of a Backfire bomber that would have carried nuclear weapons, 
presumably, to threaten our country. But under something called the 
Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program that we engaged in with 
the countries of the former Soviet Union, bombers were destroyed--oh, 
not by bullets, but they were sawed in half and the wings were taken 
off and so on.
  This is a tube of copper, I show you, from the electrical wiring of a 
Russian submarine that carried nuclear weapons targeting this country. 
This was ground up by the Cooperative Threat Reduction program. The 
submarine was not destroyed by American bullets. This is part of the 
Cooperative Threat Reduction effort.
  This, I show you, is a hinge from a nuclear weapon on top of a 
missile that was in the Ukraine, presumably aimed at an American 
target. Where this missile once sat now grows sunflowers in the 
Ukraine.
  The Cooperative Threat Reduction Program--now, why is that important?
  Mr. President, we have a lot of threats to this country, but none is 
as great as the threat of a nuclear warhead being exploded in a major 
American city or any metropolitan area of this world, for example.
  Here, as shown on this chart, is how many nuclear warheads we have. 
This is from the Carnegie Endowment in 2009. They estimate the number 
of nuclear warheads that exist on the planet--Russia, about 14,000 
nuclear weapons; the United States, 10,500 nuclear weapons; China, 
about 125; France, about 300; Britain, about 160 nuclear weapons; 
Israel, 80; India, 50; Pakistan, 60, and so on.
  Let me tell you a story, if I might. It is a story that has been 
written about extensively. In fact, it was the lead for a book called 
``Nuclear Terrorism,'' written by Graham Allison.
  It was 1 month after 9/11/2001. It was October 11, 2001, when, at the 
Presidential daily briefing to President George W. Bush, George Tenet, 
the then-head of the CIA, informed the President that a CIA agent code 
named Dragonfire had reported that al-Qaida terrorists possessed a 10-
kiloton nuclear weapon, evidently stolen from the Russian arsenal. 
According to Dragonfire, the CIA agent, it had been smuggled into an 
American city, probably New York City. Again, at the President's daily 
briefing, 1 month to the day after 9/11, it was said that al-Qaida had 
smuggled a 10-kiloton stolen nuclear weapon into perhaps New York City.
  The CIA had no independent confirmation of it, but in the hours that 
followed, the Secretary of State, the National Security Adviser, and 
others struggled with the question of whom do you call to talk about 
the threat and how do you do it without the news media putting out a 
bulletin that there is a rumor that a stolen 10-kiloton Russian nuclear 
weapon is in an American city without causing panic and mass exodus?
  So they tried to determine what to do about this and analyzed: Was it 
plausible, possible that al-Qaida terrorists had stolen a 10-kiloton 
nuclear weapon? The answer is yes. Did the Russians possess 10-kiloton 
nuclear weapons? Yes. Did they have good command and control over them, 
absolute command and control? No. Was it possible, having stolen it, 
that the terrorists could have smuggled it into New York City or, 
perhaps, Washington, DC? Yes. And could the terrorists detonate it? The 
answer is yes. If it were trucked, for example, to Times Square and 
exploded, would half a million people be killed instantly? Yes.
  But they did not tell anybody. They did not tell the mayor of New 
York. They sent nuclear weapons search teams to New York. The President 
sent teams to New York but did not inform anybody, for obvious reasons.
  About a month later, while there were a lot of people having an 
apoplectic seizure about this prospect, it was determined that perhaps 
the report by the CIA agent, Dragonfire, was not credible.
  Now, think of that. Think of the unbelievable angst about the 
potential of one rather small nuclear weapon, a 10-kiloton nuclear 
weapon, having been stolen on a planet where there are 25,000 of them--
most of them much larger than that. Think of the angst about the 
potential of having one stolen by a terrorist group and exploded in the 
middle of an American city. That is just one weapon, and there are 
25,000.
  There are a lot of people who are good thinkers and very experienced 
in these areas who will tell you, including former Defense Secretary 
Perry and others, that there is a very high probability that within the 
coming 10 years there will be a nuclear weapon exploded in a major 
city.
  So with all of the talk about planes and ships and all of the issues 
in this bill, this issue of the threat reduction, with $400 million-
plus in this bill--the threat reduction that allowed us to dismantle 
nuclear weapons, cut off the wings of an adversary's bombers, grind up 
the wiring, and destroy the submarines--that is critically important. 
The question for us is, What are we going to do to reduce the number of 
nuclear weapons and to stop the spread of nuclear weapons around the 
world? Because almost certainly there will be an explosion of a nuclear 
weapon in a metropolitan area at some point in the future unless we 
provide the leadership in arms talks and arms reductions. It is our 
responsibility to lead. It falls on our shoulders to bear this burden 
to lead.
  I know there are some who would say: Do you know what, that is a sign 
of weakness to be talking about reducing nuclear weapons. I am not 
suggesting reducing America's strength or allowing America to be 
undefended. I am suggesting the world will be a much safer place if we 
do not have 25,000 nuclear weapons, and this world will be a much safer 
place if we find a way to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. Every day 
now, we see the spectacle of Iran. Iran possessing a nuclear weapon? 
That is scary. North Korea. We do not

[[Page 19011]]

know how many weapons North Korea has, but the Carnegie Endowment says 
perhaps less than 10.
  But what do we do now? What do we do to decide we are going to be 
involved in a very aggressive way leading the world in the 
nonproliferation of nuclear weapons and beginning to reduce the number 
of nuclear weapons?
  We are operating now under what is called the Strategic Offensive 
Reductions Treaty, also known as the Moscow Treaty, that our last 
President negotiated. It required the United States and Russia to have 
no more than 2,200 operationally deployed nuclear weapons. It does not 
mean that is the limit. That is just the operationally deployed limit. 
They can have far more nuclear weapons than that. By 2012, they had to 
be down to 2,200 operationally deployed. It does not restrict delivery 
vehicles of any kind--missiles, ships, planes. It does not have any 
verification measures, and it expires in 2012.
  There is another treaty called the START Treaty, which was superseded 
by the treaty I just described. But some parts of the START Treaty are 
still in force because it does have verification and onsite monitoring 
and confidence-building measures and it does limit delivery vehicles. 
But that limitation is going to expire, and that START Treaty expires 
at the end of this year.
  So the point I want to make today simply is this: We are talking 
about a lot of very important things, and I think the bill put together 
by the chairman and ranking member, this Defense authorization bill, is 
very important. I understand that. We need an Army, a Navy, the 
Marines, the Air Force. We need them well equipped. This is a troubling 
world in some corners. We face an enormous threat of terrorism. We face 
a lot of different threats. We must keep our eye on the ball. We, above 
all, here in the United States have a responsibility to provide the 
leadership that is necessary to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and 
to try to push and push and push for agreements that would reduce the 
number of nuclear weapons.
  As I said before, when, again, a CIA agent code named Dragonfire 
shows up and says to the CIA, I have picked up information which 
indicates there is one nuclear weapon that has been stolen and it is in 
the hands of terrorists, and it is now in New York City, ready to be 
detonated, when that happens next, we had better worry a great deal if 
we haven't prevented it, if we haven't taken all of the steps necessary 
to say, that can't happen. That report in October of 2001 turned out to 
be false, but all of the post mortems by experts understood that it 
could well have been true, and all of the elements could have been 
accurate. A weapon could have been stolen, smuggled into the city, 
detonated and a half a million people within three-quarters of a mile 
of Times Square would have died immediately. If that would have 
happened the world would never be the same. Everything will have 
changed.
  So it seems to me we have a responsibility to aggressively pursue 
arms control agreements. We have an opportunity now, and a 
responsibility to pursue aggressively, even in legislation such as 
this, the reduction of nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles to try to 
see if we can step back from the abyss and actively engage with other 
nuclear powers to do things that will tighten controls, and in a very 
significant way, prevents the opportunity from other nations, and 
especially rogue nations, and especially, most especially, terrorist 
groups, from acquiring nuclear weapons.
  We know, we have the history, that Osama bin Laden has been 
fascinated with and has wanted to acquire the mechanics for nuclear 
weapons and the materials for nuclear weapons for a long time. We know 
that. Al-Qaida is still there. As far as we know, Osama bin Laden is 
still leading al-Qaida. It is pretty unbelievable to think about that. 
On 9/11 we were told there isn't one acre on this Earth that would be 
safe for the person who designed the attack against our country, but it 
is now 8 years later and we are told in the public briefings by our CIA 
that the greatest threat to our homeland is al-Qaida, a reconstituted 
al-Qaida. The terrorist threat which is the greatest threat to our 
homeland is a reconstituted al-Qaida with training camps where they are 
designing attacks against our country.
  Let us hope that we are able to make the kinds of efforts and provide 
the kind of leadership that singularly says to the world: It is this 
country that leads the way to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and 
it is our country that wants to reduce the number of nuclear weapons on 
this planet. No, that won't make us weaker; I don't suggest any 
approach that would ever weaken this country relative to its 
adversaries. But it will certainly strengthen the future of this planet 
if we reduce the number of nuclear weapons below the 25,000 nuclear 
weapons that now exist as well as take very significant steps to stop 
other countries and certainly to prevent forever rogue nations and 
terrorist organizations from acquiring nuclear weapons. That needs to 
be job one. We don't talk nearly enough about it. We don't talk about 
the subject as much as we should. But I wanted to bring this issue to 
the floor during this discussion because it is in this bill, 
Cooperative Threat Reduction, which we know works and which we have 
funded in the past and will continue to fund in this bill again, and is 
something that addresses the issue of not just building more weapons 
but actually finding ways to engage with our adversaries to reduce the 
weapons that can, frankly, threaten the existence of this planet.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, what is the pending amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Akaka amendment 
No. 1522.


                           Amendment No. 1519

  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 1519.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I will not 
object--of course--this would be the next amendment which would be in a 
line of amendments that Senator McCain and I are trying to work out 
alternating between the two sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Burr], for himself and 
     Mrs. Hagan, proposes an amendment numbered 1519.

  Mr. BURR. 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 prohibit the establishment of an outlying landing field at 
               Sandbanks or Hale's Lake, North Carolina)

       On page 565, after line 20, add the following:

                       Subtitle D--Other Matters

     SEC. 2481. PROHIBITION ON OUTLYING LANDING FIELD AT SANDBANKS 
                   OR HALE'S LAKE, NORTH CAROLINA, FOR OCEANA 
                   NAVAL AIR STATION.

       The Secretary of the Navy may not establish, consider the 
     establishment of, or purchase land, construct facilities, 
     implement bird management plans, or conduct any other 
     activities that would facilitate the establishment of an 
     outlying landing field at either of the proposed sites in 
     North Carolina, Sandbanks or Hale's Lake, to support field 
     carrier landing practice for naval aircraft operating out of 
     Oceana, Naval Air Station, Virginia.

  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, most Members don't know much about this 
amendment. If you are not from Virginia or if you are not from North 
Carolina or you are not on the Armed Services Committee, this amendment 
will probably not make a lot of sense. This is about the proposed 
acquisition of land in North Carolina for an outlying landing field for 
carrier-based aircraft to practice their touch and goes for the 
purposes of night takeoffs and night landings.
  This is not new to North Carolina. Let me say to my colleagues, I 
don't think there is a State more friendly to the military than North 
Carolina. We

[[Page 19012]]

are home to Fort Bragg, the Pentagon of the Army; we are home to Camp 
LeJeune, the east coast hub of the Marine Corps; Seymour Johnson Air 
Force Base. Our communities don't just welcome the military, they 
support the military. I think it is the most military-friendly State 
you can find. There is no military family that is stationed within 
North Carolina that has not been extended in-State tuition regardless 
of how long they are there or whether their kids are still in education 
once their parents might have been deployed elsewhere.
  This is not an issue of ``not in my backyard.'' There are two 
proposed sites. One thing my amendment very clearly does is it 
prohibits the establishment of an outlying landing field at the 
proposed Hale's Lake, Camden County/Currituck County landing sites and 
the Sandbanks, Gates County sites in North Carolina. It says to the 
Navy: You have to take them off your list; you can't include them.
  The Navy is proposing to construct an outlying landing field for 
their carrier-based fixed-wing aircraft squadrons stationed in Virginia 
Beach at the Naval Air Station Oceana. They propose to acquire 30,000 
acres. So they get 30,000 acres to allow for the accommodation of fee-
simple purchases, the purchase of restrictive use or through 
conservation easements.
  Approximately 2,000 acres would be used for the core area, which 
would include an 8,000-foot runway. Think about 30,000 acres relative 
to the airport that is in your local community and you get an idea of 
how much bigger this footprint is.
  I said earlier this is not about ``not in my backyard.'' As a matter 
of fact, North Carolina has proffered to the Navy currently a Marine 
air station in Cherry Point as a potential OLF site where we already 
have squadrons of Marine aircraft. We have the capacity and, more 
importantly, we have a community that wants to have this site. The Navy 
doesn't support the Cherry Point proposal, supposedly because it is 
considered to be in a location too far from Oceana. Well, let me 
describe for my colleagues, when you draw the line that says anything 
outside of this is too far, Cherry Point falls 20 miles outside of the 
line they have drawn. Twenty miles is the glidepath to land and the 
glidepath to take off. We are not talking about a big distance. It 
doesn't seem to make sense why the Navy is looking to condemn 30,000 
acres for the purposes of constructing a new facility instead of using 
an existing facility, an existing military base that would be much more 
efficient and cost effective for the Navy and, more importantly, cost 
effective for taxpayers.
  Why am I here? Why is Senator Hagan offering this amendment? Because 
the people in Gates County, in Currituck County, in Camden County, 
don't want it. The Navy went into this process saying: If people don't 
want us, we won't go there. The truth is it doesn't stop there.
  I wish to enter into the Record, if I may--on May 27, 2009, the North 
Carolina General Assembly unanimously passed a bill, House bill 613, 
which states that the consent of the State is not granted to the 
Federal Government for acquisition of land for an outlying landing 
field in a county or counties which have no existing military base 
where squadrons are stationed. I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record this document, as well as a letter from the president of 
the North Carolina Senate.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA, SESSION 2009

                  Session Law 2009-20, House Bill 613

     An Act providing that consent of the State is not granted to 
         the United States for acquisition of land for an outlying 
         landing field in a county or counties which have no 
         existing military base at which aircraft squadrons are 
         stationed
       The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
       Section 1. G.S. 104-7 reads as rewritten:
       ``Sec. 104-7. Acquisition of lands by the United States for 
     customhouses, courthouses, post offices, forts, arsenals, or 
     armories; cession of jurisdiction; exemption from taxation.
       (a) The consent of the State is hereby given, in accordance 
     with the seventeenth clause, eighth section, of the first 
     article of the Constitution of the United States, to the 
     acquisition by the United States, by purchase, condemnation, 
     or otherwise, of any land in the State that either is:
       (1) Required for customhouses, courthouses, post offices, 
     forts, arsenals, or armories; provided that the total land to 
     be acquired for a particular facility does not exceed 25 
     acres; or
       (2) To be added to Fort Bragg, Pope Air Force Base, Camp 
     Lejeune, New River Marine Corps Air Station, Seymour Johnson 
     Air Force Base, Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station, 
     Military Ocean Terminal at Sunny Point, or the United States 
     Coast Guard Air Station at Elizabeth City. Any of the land to 
     be added to a military base named in this subdivision shall 
     be contiguous to and within a 25-mile radius of the military 
     base for which the property is acquired.
       (a1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) 
     above, the consent of the State is not given to the 
     acquisition by the United States, by purchase, condemnation 
     or otherwise, of any land in a county or counties which have 
     no existing military base at which aircraft squadrons are 
     stationed, for the purpose of establishing an outlying 
     landing field to support training and operations of aircraft 
     squadrons stationed at or transient to military bases or 
     military stations located outside of the State. Exclusive 
     jurisdiction in and over any land acquired by the United 
     States without the consent of the State under this subsection 
     is not ceded to the United States for any purpose.
       (b) Exclusive jurisdiction in and over any land acquired by 
     the United States with the consent of the State under 
     subsection (a) of this section is hereby ceded to the United 
     States for all purposes for which the United States requests 
     cession of jurisdiction except that jurisdiction in and over 
     these lands with respect to: (i) the service of all civil and 
     criminal process of the courts of this State, (ii) the 
     concurrent power to enforce the criminal law, (iii) the power 
     to enforce State laws for the protection of public health and 
     the environment and for the conservation of natural 
     resources, and (iv) the entire legislative jurisdiction of 
     the State with respect to marriage, divorce, annulment, 
     adoption, commitment of the mentally incompetent, and descent 
     and distribution of property is reserved to the State. 
     Cession of jurisdiction shall continue only so long as the 
     United States owns the land.
       (c) The jurisdiction ceded shall not vest until the United 
     States has acquired title to the land by purchase, 
     condemnation, or otherwise; accepted the cession of 
     jurisdiction in writing; and filed a certified copy of the 
     acceptance in the office of the register of deeds in the 
     county or counties in which the land is located. The 
     acceptance of jurisdiction shall be made by an authorized 
     official of the United States and shall include a precise 
     description of the land involved and a statement of the 
     extent to which cession of jurisdiction is accepted. The 
     register of deeds shall record the acceptance of jurisdiction 
     and index it in both the grantor and the grantee index under 
     the name of the United States and, if title to the land over 
     which jurisdiction is ceded is vested in any entity other 
     than the United States, then the register of deeds shall also 
     index the acceptance of jurisdiction in both the grantor and 
     the grantee index under the name of that entity.
       (d) So long as land acquired with the consent of the State 
     under subsection (a) of this section remains the property of 
     the United States, and no longer, the land shall be exempt 
     and exonerated from all State, county, and municipal 
     taxation, assessment, or other charges that may be levied or 
     imposed under the authority of this State.
       (e) Persons residing on lands in the State for which any 
     jurisdiction has been ceded under this section shall not be 
     deprived of any civil or political rights, including the 
     right of suffrage, by reason of the cession of jurisdiction 
     to the United States.''
       Section 2. This act is effective when it becomes law.
       In the General Assembly read three times and ratified this 
     the 23rd day of April, 2009.
     Walter H. Dalton,
       President of the Senate.
     William L. Wainwright,
       Speaker pro tempore of the House of Representatives.
     Beverly E. Perdue,
       Governor.
       Approved 3:21 p.m. this 30th day of April, 2009.


                              North Carolina General Assembly,

                                        Raleigh, NC, May 27, 2009.
       Dear North Carolina Congressional Delegation: We are 
     writing to inform you of the North Carolina General 
     Assembly's unanimous opposition to the Navy's plans to build 
     an outlying landing field in northeastern North Carolina. 
     Last month, both the North Carolina House of Representatives 
     and North Carolina Senate unanimously passed House Bill 613, 
     which says that the consent of the state is not granted to 
     the federal government for acquisition of land for an 
     outlying landing field in a county or counties which have no 
     existing military base where aircraft squadrons are 
     stationed. This new law, which the Governor signed

[[Page 19013]]

     April 30th, will make it more difficult for the Navy to force 
     an OLF into Camden, Currituck, or Gates Counties and sends a 
     strong, unified message of opposition from our state. We are 
     including a copy of the legislation for your information.
       All along, we have known that an OLF in northeastern North 
     Carolina would benefit the people of Virginia and would be 
     built to alleviate noise and congestion at Naval Station 
     Oceana in Virginia Beach. For years, the Navy has refused to 
     admit this very basic rationale for their proposed OLF.
       Therefore, we respectfully ask you, as our federal 
     representatives, to urge the Navy to move some of the 
     squadrons based at Oceana to the Marine Corps Air Station at 
     Cherry Point. This would alleviate the need for an OLF in 
     northeastern North Carolina and our state would benefit from 
     the employment surrounding these additional squadrons. If an 
     OLF is needed, North Carolina's new law would allow one near 
     Cherry Point, in an area of our state that wants it and 
     receives the economic benefits as well.
       North Carolina is the most military-friendly state in the 
     nation and we intend to remain so. It is our hope that we can 
     work toward a solution that allows the Navy to meet its 
     training needs and continues the proud tradition of 
     cooperation between the military and our state.
           Sincerely,
     Marc Basnight,
       President pro tempore.
     Bill Owens,
       Representative.

  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, an OLF at any of the proposed sites in North 
Carolina and Virginia would create 52 jobs. Fifty-two jobs, for a 
30,000-acre footprint. The location at the Hale's Lake site is a 
38,000-acre farm that currently employs 90 employees and has a local 
economic impact of approximately $6.5 million. Let me say that again. 
We are being asked to consider a 30,000-acre footprint at Hale's Lake 
where we are going to take 90 jobs and we are going to replace them 
with 52 jobs, where they have $6.5 million worth of economic impact and 
we are going to go to a situation where the Federal Government doesn't 
pay property taxes.
  The core of the Sandsbank outlying landing field site contains 1,269 
acres of wetland. Let me say this again. The core of the Sandsbank 
30,000 acres contains 1,269 acres of wetlands. In October of 2007, the 
North Carolina Division of Water Quality recommended that the Sandsbank 
site not be pursued. Why? Because of the significance of wetlands.
  I say to my colleagues--and I think we will probably lose this 
amendment and we will have a voice vote on it--I think it is important 
to understand, North Carolina has taken option after option after 
option to the Navy. As a matter of fact, this is our second round after 
they shortcut an environmental impact study and the courts got involved 
for a site they had picked and had already purchased the land. They are 
now in the unusual position of having a lot of land and they can't 
build the site there based upon where the environmental impact study 
sent them because they were trying to put it next to one of the largest 
migratory bird areas on the east coast. Not a smart thing when you want 
to have pilots taking jets in. It has to go through the environmental 
impact study whether they pick the Sandsbank site or whether they pick 
the Hale Lake's site. So I am not sure if the EIS will allow them to go 
to Sandsbank where there are 1,269 acres of wetlands that will be 
incorporated into this. Those are all out there.
  We have communities today that are being affected. They are being 
affected by the fact that property can't sell, that people don't want 
to move there because they don't know whether there is going to be a 
naval jet base. They don't know whether there is going to be a 30,000-
acre protected area where all night long you are going to have aircraft 
going in, and it only produces 52 jobs for the local community. Not a 
very good trade-off on the part of North Carolina. Not a very good 
action on the part of the military.
  I ask my colleagues--I think we probably know the outcome of the 
vote, but we have to be vigilant. North Carolina is an incredible State 
when it relates to our military. That doesn't mean that the military 
can walk in and make a decision that is inconsistent with what is good 
for our State, and potentially forces an adverse relationship between 
the State and the military. They pushed it in and that is why the 
General Assembly did what they did. It is my hope that as this bill 
moves through conference, since the House has this provision in it, at 
least this provision will prevail.
  I thank my colleagues, I thank the Chair, and I thank the ranking 
member for their understanding and allowing me to bring this amendment 
up. It is important that every Member understand what is involved and 
at the core of this. It is the lives of the people in North Carolina. 
It is the ability to have predictability in the future and not 
necessarily a decision that may linger for 6 or 7 or 10 years with 
individuals not knowing what the disposition of the Navy decision is 
going to be and, therefore, a market for their property or the plans 
for the next generation of farmer as it might relate to Hale's Lake, 
not knowing exactly how to plan their lives.
  I would suggest that we call the question on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in reluctant opposition to the 
amendment offered by my friend from North Carolina. He and the other 
Senator, the junior Senator from North Carolina, argued passionately 
and, to some degree, persuasively in the markup of this legislation.
  I think it is very appropriate that they are reacting to local 
concerns and perhaps even the fact that I think, in straight talk, 
perhaps the Department of the Navy has not approached some of these 
communities in a way that would gain the cooperation of the 
communities.
  I agree also with Senator Burr that the people of North Carolina are 
among the most patriotic that we have in our Nation. But facts are 
facts, and the Navy needs a field to train carrier pilots stationed on 
the east coast within the range of both Naval Air Station Oceana and 
Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point in North Carolina. The Navy needs 
to field trained pilots in order for us to have the best qualified 
pilots in the world. Part of that training, of course, is to learn 
landing on aircraft carriers, among other types of training.
  Again, a lot of local communities in North Carolina and Virginia have 
expressed concern about noise, about hours, and about the impact it 
will have on their communities. During the markup we adopted an 
amendment by the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Webb, that basically 
requires the Navy to do extensive consultation with local communities, 
to consider assistance to local communities in case there is 
substantial economic impact, and to do everything they can to reach an 
agreement with the local communities as they go through this siting 
procedure.
  Madam President, I cannot change geography. I think this committee 
can do a lot of things, but we cannot change the map. The map is that 
two of our major air stations, Oceana and Cherry Point, are where our 
pilots and air wings are stationed. They have to have the ability to 
train, and they have to train someplace within a reasonable range.
  So I believe after a spirited discussion in committee, the Senator 
from Virginia came up with a very excellent amendment that basically 
requires a lot more participation in the local communities, a lot more 
consideration and consultation, and even--I have never seen this 
before--some economic assistance to the local communities, if 
necessary. Nobody likes to be awakened at 1 or 2 a.m. by the sound of 
jet engines. I understand that. But I also understand--and I hope our 
colleagues do--that on the entire east coast, because of population and 
the location of these two major bases--Cherry Point and Oceana--we 
don't have much choice but to look in Virginia and North Carolina. We 
cannot let, over time, that requirement be overridden forever. We can 
try to accommodate and understand, and we can try to do whatever is 
necessary to ease the burden. But the fact is, our pilots have to 
train.
  I appreciate the fact that both Senators from North Carolina were 
eloquent in stating the concerns their local communities have, which 
may be

[[Page 19014]]

under consideration for the location of an airfield--just as the 
Senator from Virginia was concerned; but the Senator from Virginia, I 
think, in his amendment, laid out some parameters that I think will 
lead to a fair process, which will take into consideration the very 
understandable concerns of the local communities.
  With reluctance but concern for the ability of our Navy and Marine 
Corps pilots to train and be adequately prepared to fight, I oppose 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The Senator from Michigan is 
recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I also reluctantly oppose this amendment. 
Senator Burr and Senator Hagan have both been very eloquent in their 
positions, and it is understandable how they and their States feel in 
this matter. The Navy has not done a particularly good job.
  Senator Webb, in committee, suggested some important language that 
will, hopefully, be helpful. Senator Webb was equally eloquent in his 
position. We adopted that report language. I think we should stand with 
it. It is simply not good public policy for Congress to prematurely 
limit training locations--particularly when those sites have not been 
fully considered by the military.
  So it is, hopefully, going to prod the Navy to do a lot better in 
terms of its consultation and communications with our communities in 
North Carolina, Virginia, and around the country. I also must oppose 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1519) was rejected.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider that vote, and I 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I see the Senator from Oklahoma here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we set 
aside the current pending amendment for the consideration of Inhofe 
amendment No. 1559.
  Mr. LEVIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.


                           Amendment No. 1710

(Purpose: To provide for classified information procedures for military 
  commissions, and to provide for interlocutory appeals by the United 
        States of certain orders and rulings of military judges)

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be laid aside temporarily and that it be in order for me to 
offer an amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Graham, and Senator 
McCain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] for himself, Mr. 
     Graham, and Mr. McCain, proposes an amendment numbered 1710.

  Mr. LEVIN. 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 printed in the Record of Wednesday, July 23, 2009, 
under ``Text of Amendments.'')
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the amendment I now offer, along with 
Senators Graham and McCain, would modify the procedures for the 
handling of classified evidence by military commissions. This is 
language that was requested by the administration witnesses at our 
hearing on military commissions procedures a few weeks ago.
  We have worked closely together, and we have worked closely with the 
administration on the language. It is our understanding that this 
amendment will fully address the administration's concerns. It has the 
support of the Justice Department and the Department of Defense.
  Section 1031 of the bill, which addresses military commissions, is 
based on the standard established by the Supreme Court in the Hamdan 
case that military commissions should be conducted in a manner 
consistent with the procedures applicable in trials by courts-martial, 
and that any deviation from those procedures be justified by ``evident 
practical need.'' For this reason, the procedures now in the bill for 
the handling of classified information are based on the procedures 
established in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
  However, the witnesses at our July 7 hearing on military commissions 
made a persuasive case that the procedures for the handling of 
classified information in Federal court--the Classified Information 
Procedures Act, or CIPA--would provide a better model for handling 
classified information. The reason is, the Federal courts have far more 
experience handling classified information and far more precedent 
applicable to the difficult issues raised by classified information in 
detainee cases. DOD general counsel Jeh Johnson explained the issue as 
follows:

       [W]e note that the legislation incorporates certain of the 
     classified evidence procedures currently applicable in 
     courts-martial, where there is relatively little precedent 
     and practice regarding classified information.

  Mr. Johnson continues:

       We in the administration believe that further work could be 
     done to codify the protections of classified evidence, in a 
     manner consistent with the protections that now exist in 
     Federal civilian courts. We believe that those protections--

  Referring to the Federal civilian court protections--

     would work better to protect classified information, while 
     continuing to ensure fairness and providing a stable body of 
     precedent and practice for doing so.

  VADM Bruce McDonald, the Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 
testified in a very similar way. He said:

       Section 949d provides for the use of rules of evidence in 
     trials by general courts-martial in the handling of 
     classified evidence. This is consistent with our overall 
     desire to use those procedures found within the UCMJ . . . 
     whenever possible. However, experience has shown that 
     practitioners struggle with a very complex and unclear rule 
     within the Military Rules of Evidence. The military rules do 
     not have a robust source of informative or persuasive case 
     law. Frankly, prosecutions using Military Rule of Evidence 
     505 are rare. In developing the rules for the handling of 
     classified material during a military commission, it would be 
     more prudent to rely upon the Classified Information 
     Procedures Act (CIPA) used in Article III courts as a 
     starting point.

  Since the time of the hearing, we have been working on a bipartisan 
basis with the administration to produce new language on the handling 
of classified information, consistent with the recommendations of our 
witnesses. In accordance with those recommendations, and our own 
thinking and discussion, the language in the amendment we are 
considering today tracks very closely with CIPA. In a few areas, we 
have chosen to codify standards that are applicable case law under CIPA 
to provide additional clarity.
  The amendment is consistent with the intention of the bill to apply 
established procedures to military commissions and to deviate from 
those established procedures, where justified, by evident practical 
need. There is an evident practical need here. We have a good 
experience under CIPA, and we decided that is the better model to 
follow.
  We also believe the procedures in this amendment will facilitate the 
handling of classified information in trials by military commissions in 
a way that is fair to both sides.
  I have a letter from the Department of Justice on this matter which I 
ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


[[Page 19015]]


                                       U.S. Department of Justice,


                                Office of Legislative Affairs,

                                    Washington, DC, July 23, 2009.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     Chairman.
     Hon. John McCain,
     Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain: This letter 
     expresses the strong support of the Department of Justice for 
     the Levin-Graham-McCain amendment to S. 1390, the ``National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010,'' regarding 
     classified information procedures for military commissions.
       The amendment would establish a system for addressing 
     classified information issues in military commissions that is 
     similar to the system provided by the Classified Information 
     Procedures Act (``CIPA'') for criminal cases prosecuted in 
     Federal court. Although CIPA might need to be updated in some 
     respects to address terrorism cases more effectively, we 
     believe it has generally worked well both in protecting 
     national security and ensuring fair proceedings. The Levin-
     Graham-McCain amendment adapts CIPA to the military 
     commissions context, with some modifications to reflect 
     lessons learned from past terrorism prosecutions. The 
     amendment expressly provides that the judicial construction 
     of CIPA shall, in most instances, be authoritative in 
     interpreting the analogous provisions in the amendment. It 
     sets substantive standards for providing the defense access 
     to classified information in the discovery phase, and for the 
     use of classified information at trial. It also establishes a 
     range of tools and procedures, such as protective orders, ex 
     parte hearings, alternatives to disclosure of classified 
     information, expanded interlocutory appeal rights, and 
     sanctions for failure to comply, that will provide 
     appropriate guidance to military judges in handling these 
     complex issues as they arise in the course of military 
     commission proceedings.
       The Department of Justice consulted at length with 
     committee staff as they developed this amendment, and we are 
     grateful for their work on this important issue. We believe 
     the amendment will advance the President's objective of 
     reforming the commissions and ensuring that they are a fair, 
     legitimate, and effective forum for the prosecution of law of 
     war offenses.
       The Office of Management and Budget has advised us that, 
     from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is 
     no objection to the submission of this letter.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Ronald Weich,
                                       Assistant Attorney General.

  Mr. LEVIN. Again, I thank Senator Graham and Senator McCain. Senator 
Graham is an expert we all look to in matters such as this. He has not 
only personal experience but he has a vast amount of personal knowledge 
from study, as well as his own experience in this area, and it is 
invaluable to us. It does help make possible the conclusion we offer 
the body.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I would like to, once again, thank 
Chairman Levin for the work he has done in this bill on the structure 
of military commissions. I appreciate his working closely with me and 
with Senator Graham, and I believe that the changes in this bill put 
our military commissions framework on a solid footing so that our 
nation will be ready to proceed with the trials of terrorist detainees 
by military commission.
  In the same vein, I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Levin's amendment 
No. 1710, which deals with the protection of classified information 
used in military commissions. This amendment is based on extensive 
meetings between our staffs and the professional prosecutors who wish 
to ensure that classified information receives the fullest possible 
protection in the course of these trials.
  The amendment is based in large part on the Classified Information 
Procedures Act, CIPA, which includes protections for the use of 
classified information in trials. Based on 20 years of experience with 
CIPA, and with 3 years of experience with the Military Commissions Act, 
the protections contained in this amendment are what the professional 
prosecutors believe they need to ensure that classified information is 
not improperly disclosed and to allow trials to proceed more 
efficiently by providing military judges with an extensive body of law 
based on CIPA upon which to base their decisions. Avoiding the 
unauthorized disclosure of classified information is a key to ensuring 
the protection of our national interests, and so I am pleased to 
advocate the adoption of this amendment. I note that the Departments of 
Defense and Justice concur with the language contained in this 
amendment. I urge my colleagues to support its adoption.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the Classified Information Procedures 
Act, CIPA, provides a framework for using classified information in 
criminal cases. It is a valuable and flexible tool that allows courts 
to review classified information and provide for the protection of such 
material while ensuring a defendant's right to a fair trial. And it 
works. For close to 30 years, Federal courts have used CIPA to 
successfully handle complex criminal cases, including hundreds of 
terrorism-related cases since 9/11, and still protect sensitive 
information from public disclosure.
  I reintroduced the State Secrets Protection Act this Congress, 
legislation that would allow the Government to claim the State secrets 
privilege while ensuring that a judge would review the evidence the 
Government is relying upon to determine whether the privilege applies. 
This concept mirrors CIPA and our bill draws heavily from CIPA 
procedures. But our bill does not water them down.
  I was encouraged to see that Senator Levin, along with Senators 
Graham and McCain, proposed an amendment to the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 that would provide procedures in 
line with CIPA for handling classified information in military 
commissions. One of the complaints that we have heard about commissions 
involves procedural confusion, including how to approach the handling 
of classified information. As Senator Levin pointed out, ``the unique 
procedures and requirements hampered the ability of defense teams to 
obtain information.''
  In recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Vice 
Admiral MacDonald, the Judge Advocate General for the U.S. Navy, 
discussed the difficulty that prosecutors have had using military rules 
for classified evidence and acknowledged:

       [T]he military rules on the use of classified information 
     fall short of our overall goals. On the other hand, for over 
     20 years, Article III courts have relied upon the Classified 
     Information Procedures Act, or CIPA.

  David Kris, the Assistant Attorney General for the Department of 
Justice's National Security Division, agreed that CIPA ``has generally 
worked well in both protecting classified information and ensuring 
fairness of proceedings'' and that drawing on CIPA would ``allow 
military judges to draw on a substantial body of CIPA case law and 
practice that has been developed over the years.''
  I agree that, especially with this novel use of military commissions, 
it is crucial that we draw on evidentiary standards supported by 
precedent and a proven track record. However, I am concerned that some 
of the modifications proposed by this amendment would depart from the 
traditional protections provided by CIPA. For example, CIPA requires 
the Attorney General to certify that the disclosure of certain 
information would cause identifiable damage to the national security of 
the United States. Here, an unidentified ``knowledgeable United States 
official'' would make that declaration, instead. This amendment also 
imports a new standard that would require a judge to consider whether 
disclosure of information would be ``detrimental to national 
security.'' It would further prohibit the accused from appealing a 
court order allowing the Government to withhold access to information 
based on an ex parte proffer by the Government. This marks a serious 
departure from CIPA's framework for allowing defendants to reconsider 
such rulings in order to ensure that they are allowed meaningful access 
to evidence and can present a thorough defense.
  I support the administration and Senator Levin's goal of using more 
article III standards in military commissions, and the use of CIPA 
procedures is certainly a marked improvement. However, it is important 
that we not minimize the protections and standards that make tools like 
CIPA effective in protecting both classified information and the rights 
of the accused. Until we have a more thorough review and understanding 
of why these changes are necessary, I believe we should proceed 
cautiously before we depart from the standards that have

[[Page 19016]]

served us well for so long in our Federal jurisprudence.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his kind 
comments. I have been a military lawyer for a while, but I am smart 
enough to know what I don't know.
  The bottom line is judge advocates, to a person, have indicated the 
procedures as outlined by Senator Levin would be the best way to go. 
Under the civilian Classified Information Procedures Act, there is a 
robust body of cases. Military rule of evidence 505(b) is not used very 
often in courts-martial. What we have tried to do is interject into the 
commissions some reforms that will make the trials go forward in a 
manner that the courts are likely to approve the work product.
  I think everybody involved--military judges, defense counsel, 
prosecutors--welcome this change. Senator Levin and his staff and our 
staffs have worked with the White House. I think we found a way to 
reform the military commissions that would provide balance when it 
comes to admission of classified evidence to protect the Nation at 
large and also allowing the people accused of a crime as much access as 
possible.
  Every military lawyer who is going to be involved in the commissions 
supports this change. I think it is one way to make the commissions 
better. This whole effort to make the commissions better is bearing 
fruit. I appreciate what Senator Levin has done.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. 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, there is now pending an amendment that I 
have offered on behalf of myself, Senator Graham, and Senator McCain 
relative to the protection of classified information; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 1710, offered by Senator Levin, 
is pending, yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I think we are now ready to vote on this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1710) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. The pending matter now would be to return to the Akaka 
amendment; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I am sorry I couldn't be down here this 
afternoon, and I apologize to my colleagues that we will have a delay 
on this bill, probably with cloture, until tomorrow morning. My 
statement is in no way meant to reflect any ill will on Senator Akaka 
or Senator Collins or Senator Voinovich or Senator Lieberman, but we 
have before us in this amendment something that is intolerable to the 
unemployed people in this country today, or should be intolerable to 
everybody.
  In fact, what we are going to do is take $3.1 billion and give it to 
Federal employees in their retirement systems and adjustments to 
retirement systems when we have 9.5 percent unemployment and we have 
six States with over 15 percent. What we should be doing is taking that 
$3 billion and making sure we are creating jobs so people have jobs in 
this country rather than paying Federal workers.
  I want to enter into the Record what the average pay and benefits are 
for Federal employees because most Americans are unaware.
  The average Federal pay and benefit for an employee of the Postal 
Service is $80,353 a year. If you work at the Pentagon, but you are not 
a soldier, your average pay and benefit is $89,000 a year. If you are a 
soldier, it is about $25,000 less than that. The guy taking the bullets 
is making $25,000 less than the civilians working in the Pentagon. Then 
you have all the rest of the Federal employees, and their average is 
$113,000. That is twice what the average wage in this country is, and 
we have attached this amendment to this bill--an amendment which has 
nothing to do with the Defense Department, it has to do with adjusting 
pension benefits for Federal employees outside of the Defense 
Department.
  I think our Federal employees are valuable, and I do not mind paying 
them. But I do mind spending more money at that level now when we have 
a large number of people who are unemployed. If we count people who are 
not looking for work anymore because they are so discouraged, we have 
over 15 percent unemployment. The very idea that we would take $3.2 
billion from our grandkids to add to a program, when we have millions 
and millions of Americans not collecting a paycheck at all, to me, is 
inappropriate. We can't afford it because we are going to charge it to 
the next two generations. We don't have the money.
  That reminds me. If we go back and talk about where we are in this 
country, we have the first $4 trillion budget ever, this year. That is 
what is going to be spent--$4 trillion in 1 year. We are spending $1 
trillion more this year in the last 7 months than we did last year in 
this country. We have passed bill after bill after bill after bill that 
we can't afford to buy things that we don't need with money we don't 
have.
  Let me, for my colleagues, read the unemployment rates throughout the 
country: Alabama, 10.1 percent; Alaska, 8.4; Arizona, 8.7; Arkansas, 
7.2; California, 11.6; Colorado, 7.6; Connecticut, 8 percent; Delaware, 
8.4 percent; Washington, DC, 10.9 percent; Florida, 10.6 percent; 
Georgia, 10.1; Hawaii, 7.4 percent; Idaho, 8.4 percent; Illinois, 10.3 
percent; Indiana, 10.7 percent; Iowa, 6.2; Kansas, 7 percent; Kentucky, 
10.9 percent unemployment; Louisiana, 6.8; Maine, 8.5 percent; 
Maryland, 7.3 percent; Massachusetts, 8.6 percent; Michigan, 15.2 
percent.
  What would the people of Michigan do with $3 billion to invest in 
jobs in Michigan right now?
  Minnesota, 8.4 percent; Mississippi, 9 percent; Missouri, 9.3 
percent; Montana, 6.4 percent; Nebraska, 5 percent; Nevada, 12 percent; 
New Hampshire, 6.8 percent; New Jersey, 9.2 percent; New Mexico, 6.8 
percent; New York, 8.7 percent; New York, 11 percent; North Dakota, 4.2 
percent; Ohio, 11.1 percent; Oklahoma, 6.3 percent; Oregon, 12.2 
percent; Pennsylvania, 8.3 percent; Puerto Rico, 14.5 percent; Rhode 
Island, 12.4 percent; South Carolina, 12.1 percent; Tennessee, 10.8. If 
I missed South Dakota, it is 5.1; Tennessee, 10.8 percent; Texas, 7.5 
percent; Utah, 5.7 percent; Vermont, 7.1 percent; Virginia, 7.2 
percent; Washington State, 9.3 percent; West Virginia, 9.2 percent; 
Wisconsin, 9 percent; and Wyoming 5.9 percent.
  Those are just percentages. But you know what they represent? They 
represent real hard-core pain for American families today. The fact 
that we would have the gumption to come and take another $3 billion 
from them to increase the benefit structure of Federal employees at a 
time when what we should be doing is seeing how we can become more 
efficient in the Federal Government and spend less money in the Federal 
Government flies in the face of the difficulties that these individuals 
find themselves faced with.
  If you look at what is actually happening to our country and take the 
75-year projections, this year we are going to spend under $200 billion 
in interest. Eight years from now we are going to spend $806 billion in 
interest just on the interest rates we have today.
  How many people believe we will have a Fed discount rate of a quarter 
of 1 percent 8 years from now and that we will be able to borrow money 
on a 10-year T-bill at 3.6 percent? It isn't going

[[Page 19017]]

to happen. We are going down the road to destruction, and we are 
clueless about how to solve it.
  So if we add up the 75-year projected unfunded liabilities for 
Medicare and if we add up the 75-year unfunded liabilities for Medicaid 
and if we add up the 75-year unfunded liabilities for Social Security 
and if we add up the 75-year unfunded liabilities for Federal employee 
retirement and if we add up the 75-year unfunded liabilities for 
military retirement and if we add up the 75-year unfunded liabilities 
for every other trust fund this Congress and Congresses before have 
robbed the money from to spend now--which should have been endowed--
what we come to is $100 trillion.
  If we look at what our population is expected to be then, and the 
percentage that would not be working in the workforce--in other words, 
the very young children and the very large 40 percent of that 
population that is going to be retired--what we end up having is an 
unfunded obligation for every one of those people who are going to be 
the taxpayers of $500,000 apiece. That doesn't include the debt we have 
now, which is $11.4 trillion--which is going to double to $22 trillion 
over the next 10 years--and the internal debt of that will triple. So 
now we have $122 trillion worth of liabilities. Yet we are saying, now 
is the time to increase the benefits for Federal employees.
  I don't deny that the Federal employees do great work. But when you 
look at what the average pay plus benefit is for Federal employees 
versus everybody else in the country, now is not the time to do it. Not 
only because, No. 1, we can't afford it; but, No. 2, it is patently 
unfair to everybody else in this country based on the average salaries.
  So the fact that we would add an amendment onto the Defense bill--
because it is a bill that is going to move; there is no question it 
would not survive cloture--that doesn't bother me. I have done that a 
lot. What bothers me is that we lack the perspective of what is 
happening. We passed a $787 billion stimulus bill, of which only $80 
billion has gone out the door. The unemployment rate is still rising--
and I am not critical. This body passed it. But it is not going to be 
highly stimulative because most of it was not meant to be stimulative. 
It was meant to be transfer payments. But we have spent that, and that 
is all borrowed money. We passed an omnibus. We passed a supplemental. 
None of that was paid for. Not a penny of it was paid for. That is all 
borrowed.
  So what we have done is we are going to add $2.2 trillion to our debt 
this year, and now we have something that, well, it just adds a measly 
little $3.2 billion. But think about what $3.2 billion would do to help 
people who don't have a job in this country today. Instead, we are 
going to enhance the benefits of Federal employees. To me, it is an 
insult to every other worker who is out there who is either struggling 
to keep their job--and, by the way, we are going to add 100,000 Federal 
employees this year. So these numbers are underestimating what the real 
cost is.
  Here is the amendment. It is 49 pages long. It has six major titles 
in it--adjusting. We allow people who left the government to come back 
and put their money back in, and we will say: Oh, you didn't leave, so 
you didn't lose any of your retirement. You still get it compounded.
  We have institutionalized sick pay and we have made it an 
entitlement. We have said everybody who has ever worked for the DC 
government, they can work for the Federal Government and all of their 
retirement years will transfer to the Federal Government. But we don't 
do that for anybody else who works for any other State government. We 
certainly don't do that for people who have retirement plans from any 
other company. We don't add that retirement to the Federal 
Government's. So why are we doing things that are patently unfair to 
the rest of the American workforce in this country?
  I plan on speaking on this bill until cloture ripens, which means we 
are going to be here all night. Until this amendment is withdrawn, I 
will stay here, or I will have a colleague stay here, and we will talk 
about how this country is out of control in its spending. We will talk 
about how we have failed the American people by not being good 
stewards; how we have not done oversight on the $350 billion worth of 
waste every year. Not one amendment has passed that has gotten rid of 
any of the waste that this government wastes every year. Not one has 
gotten through this Congress. Not one.
  We are getting ready to work on a health care bill. We have been 
working on it. We have spent a ton of time on it. We have $120 billion 
worth of fraud in Medicare and Medicaid, but we haven't addressed that 
at all. It is not being addressed. We are twiddling our thumbs as 
Medicare goes bankrupt, while Medicare doesn't offer the services that 
are promised, and we are going to create another $1.6 trillion worth of 
cost for the American people. The only thing I can figure is that 
Washington thinks we can spend more money to save money in a 
significant way. We have been trying to do that since 1965 and it 
hasn't worked once, and it isn't going to work this time.
  Let me mention, for a minute, just some of the things that we have 
been doing that do not fit with the priorities of American citizens. It 
does not come anywhere close to matching what every family in this 
country is doing today. Here is what they are doing.
  First of all, they are scared and they are fearful and they are 
worried. Do you know what they are doing? We see it in the economic 
statistics. When consumer spending drives normally 70 percent of our 
economy, we have the highest savings rate we have had in 40 years 
because they are afraid to spend. One of the reasons they are afraid to 
spend is because they don't trust what we are doing up here. They think 
things might get worse. I think things are going to get better, but 
they are certainly not going to get better by spending another $3.2 
billion in this way.
  What they do is they sit down as a family and they say here is what 
is coming in and here is the auto payment and here is the house payment 
and here is what we have to have for groceries and here is the utility 
bills. What is left? In other words, they make a list of priorities. 
They decide what has to be done, what must be done, but what they want 
to do comes last because we are in tough times. That applies to almost 
every family in this country. It implies heartaches because it means a 
father is not doing something he would like to do for his son or a 
mother is not buying a new dress for a daughter to help her own self-
esteem in comparison with other children. It has real-world factors on 
families.
  They make those hard decisions every day, absolutely every day. The 
reason they make those hard decisions is they do not lack the courage 
to face reality, such as we do. They also do not have the other option 
we have, and that is charging our lack of courage to the next two 
generations.
  Most Americans are not cowards. They look at the real world, they 
look at what is responsible of them, what decision is going to have to 
be made. They dig in their heels, they work and work to solve the 
problem, and they will go through tough times doing the very best they 
can to make good of a bad situation.
  That is opposite the behavior this place has been displaying. We have 
ignored the fact that we have $11.4 trillion worth of debt. We passed a 
stimulus spending bill, of which less than $150 billion was true 
stimulus. We have created dependencies of, now, the States. Anytime 
they are in tough times, they have now been infected with our illness: 
Don't worry about it, we will just charge it to the next generation. 
Because every State we helped through the stimulus we did charge it to 
the next generation. We have now instituted lack of discipline by every 
State legislature in the country because now they no longer have to 
worry about it. The Senate will just borrow from their grandkids and 
send it to them and now they don't have to worry about it, they don't 
have to have any courage to make the tough decisions.
  What all have we done that would secure the honor of the American 
people,

[[Page 19018]]

that we are working for them? What symbol have we given them, in terms 
of limiting our excesses in Washington, that might give them hope?
  The Akaka amendment is the opposite of that. It is saying: You don't 
get it, your priorities are not right. You think you can forget what 
has happened to us. You think you can charge it to our grandchildren 
and our children. You think you can steal their opportunity and nobody 
is ever going to know it.
  I have barked up this tree a lot in the last 5 years in this body, 
and I am not ever going to stop barking up this tree because it is 
morally wrong to steal the future from your grandchildren. It is 
morally wrong. It is not just ethically wrong, it is not just 
conveniently wrong, it is morally wrong to take the great attributes of 
this country away from your children and grandchildren. It is time for 
some grownups to start making hard decisions that may cost us 
reelection but are in the best long-term interests of this country.
  So this issue is not going to go away. I may ultimately get defeated 
on it, but those families out there who do not have a job, those 
families out there making those hard choices every day--every night 
worrying where is the money to buy the food that is going on the table 
the next day, who still have a job--they are going to know somebody is 
going to fight for some common sense in the Senate.
  There is no question, I lost this amendment in committee. I was 
mortified at the lack of sensitivity to the rest of this country, 
placing Federal employees' very good benefits--enhancing those above 
the negatives that are occurring to every family in this country based 
on our economic situation. Even if we were not having a tough economic 
time, it would still be wrong to do this. It would still be incorrect 
to do this.
  If you think for a minute about what it costs to fund the interest 
costs on $500,000--if it is 6 percent, it is $30,000 a year. If I were 
a schoolteacher here and we had a blackboard, I would be making 
everybody write home that I am sorry I am stealing $30,000 a year from 
each of your children. That is what I would be doing--I am sorry I am 
stealing $30,000 a year just to pay the interest, never mind paying the 
principal off, on what we have accumulated.
  Take a young child 6 years of age today and extrapolate that out to 
right before their retirement. What you have done is you have stolen 
their opportunity to have the American dream because it is not just 
going to be the $30,000, because all the years they can't work it is 
going to build that they will have to pay and all the years in their 
retirement are going to be less because they will not have the 
benefits.
  By the way, if you are a Federal employee and unhappy with me trying 
to defeat this amendment, you should pay attention to something. There 
is no guarantee to your Federal pension based on the economics we face 
today in this country. If you think it is guaranteed, you have another 
thought coming because the world economic system is going to determine 
whether we can honor that pension. That is what is coming. We are very 
close.
  It was not long ago that Alan Greenspan was asked a question: What is 
the maximum limit which we can borrow? There is a lot of question about 
whether people want to loan us money anymore. What he said is, I don't 
know what it is, but I can tell you we are getting very close.
  What happens to us when we tap out? You know, he is not an 
unrespected thinker in materials of economics and banking.
  Here is what happens to us. Interest rates that are 3.6 percent for a 
10-year government note go to 7 percent, 8 percent, 9 percent, 10 
percent. All of a sudden, the cost of funding our debt becomes $2 or $3 
trillion a year, 20 years from now. What is the option? The option is 
there not be any government pensions, there will not be any Medicare. 
We will barely have money to defend our country. All these wonderful 
Federal programs that we have, most of which have a duplicate somewhere 
in the Federal Government that they defend, that we cannot get rid of 
because they have a constituency that somebody might be afraid, if we 
eliminate some of the $350 billion in waste, fraud, and duplication, 
they are not going to be there.
  So what it comes down to and what we are facing is, can our Republic 
survive our excesses? Can we survive this tremendous direction that we 
have stepped away from reality, saying economic forces do not apply to 
us? The answer to that is no. There will not be a Federal pension when 
interest is at 10 or 12 percent and we have $35 or $40 trillion worth 
of debt.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. COBURN. Certainly.
  Mr. McCAIN. Does the Senator have an estimate how much this will cost 
the taxpayers?
  Mr. COBURN. Over the first 10 years, $3.3 billion.
  Mr. McCAIN. I understand from the amendment there is a provision that 
all the money is paid back.
  Mr. COBURN. It is another trick and game. There is an assumption it 
will be paid back, but it will never be paid back. What it will do is 
increase the obligations of the Federal taxpayer--that is myself and 
you and all your families and everybody we represent--the liabilities 
of the people who are going to get the benefit from this amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Could the Senator tell me the connection between this 
amendment and the Defense authorization bill?
  Mr. COBURN. There is no connection between this amendment and the 
Defense authorization bill.
  Mr. McCAIN. May I say to the Senator from Oklahoma, I am in 
agreement. We do strange things around here, particularly late in 
consideration of the bill. I thank him for at least bringing it to the 
attention of the American taxpayer.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I wish to finish my line of thought 
because what I sense is the American people get it and we do not. The 
American people are worried we do not get it. They are worried we think 
we can continue spending money, not reform things, not make things more 
efficient, not eliminate duplication. What they know is this is not 
monopoly money. They know this is not ``not real money.'' They know 
this issue about us having common sense, about us being fiscally 
responsible--they know the future of their children and their 
grandchildren depends on whether we start acting the same way every 
other family in this country has to act. That is in the real world. It 
is not in the world of Washington that: Don't worry, we will put it off 
because the next election is much more important than I addressing this 
and taking the next tough vote. We are going to put it off.
  I say to my colleagues, I have plenty of topics. I am going to spend 
the next couple hours going through waste so the American people can 
actually see how well we have done with their money--waste and earmarks 
and things that benefit the well-heeled and the well-connected but hurt 
your children and hurt your grandchildren.
  Before I do that, I wish to spend a moment talking about what the 
heritage of our country is. How did American exceptionalism come into 
being? How is it that this became the greatest country in the world, 
that had more technological advances than anybody else in the world? 
That created the highest standard of living of any society ever known 
in the world? What was the glue, what was the key, what was the 
characteristic that allowed that to happen?
  I will tell you what it was. It was called sacrifice. If you think 
back four or five generations in your family and you try to find out 
what was going on, no matter what your racial background is or what 
your lineage is, what you saw was people willing, absolutely willing to 
sacrifice the short term to make sure the long term was better for 
their children, their family, and their grandchildren. That is what I 
call a heritage of sacrifice. It is what made us great. It is what 
created this vast, great country.
  I am sorry to say that, since I entered the area of public service--
and one of the reasons I entered it was because I didn't see this 
trait--is that, since 1994 I have not seen any change. Actually, it is 
worse.

[[Page 19019]]

  When you take the oath to be a Senator, what it says is you will do 
what the Constitution says. You will uphold it, you will make sure it 
is protected, that you will follow it.
  I have a bill, it is called the Enumerated Powers Act. It has a lot 
of cosponsors, but none of the big spenders here want to cosponsor it. 
Do you know why? Because it creates a challenge for wasteful spending. 
What it says is what our Founders thought was pretty important. They 
very clearly, in article I, section 8 of our Constitution, listed out 
what the responsibilities of the Federal Government are. They listed 
them out. What Madison and Jefferson wrote about when they wrote in 
article I, section 8, they said people are going to try to say it is 
something different than this. They are trying to say the general 
welfare clause is we can do anything we want. The commerce clause is--
don't believe them. That is not what we intended. Yet that happens 
every day in this body. We abandon the intent.
  We just had a hearing on a Supreme Court nominee and one of the 
questions she was asked by a lot of us was: Are you going to uphold the 
Constitution?
  Well, my thoughts and prayers would be that she will do a better job 
than we do, because we get an F. And the American people know it. They 
know we cannot tolerate this spending. They know we cannot tolerate 
this debt. They know we cannot tolerate raising taxes on the American 
people if we are going to hope to get out of this. Their wisdom needs 
to be brought here. And the way you bring your wisdom here is to let us 
know. Hold us accountable. Call, e-mail, go to the offices, write to 
our homes, make sure that people who are representing you uphold that 
oath of fulfilling the Constitution, honoring the tenth amendment.
  You know, our Founders in the Bill of Rights put in the tenth 
amendment, and it is a very important amendment, because it says: 
Whatever is not spelled out specifically under article I, section 8--
here is the limited things the Federal Government is supposed to do--is 
explicitly reserved for the States and for the people.
  So how is it that we are going to have a $2 trillion deficit this 
year? I can tell you how it is. It is because we have ignored the 
Constitution. We have done things that are totally outside the realm 
our Founders thought we would ever do. We have taken over things that 
are truly the responsibilities of the States and the communities and 
individuals. We have created dependency by the States, created 
dependency in all sorts of others.
  I got a letter last week asking me to sponsor money for fire engines 
for Oklahoma. When did buying firetrucks for Oklahoma become a part of 
the U.S. Constitution? Am I supposed to steal money from people in 
Pennsylvania and New Jersey and New York so Oklahoma can have fire 
engines, which is an Oklahoma responsibility? It is not even an 
Oklahoma responsibility; it is a community responsibility.
  As we create this dependency, we create something that is worse after 
it. If you cannot get it, you all of a sudden are a victim. That is why 
earmarks are so bad, because what they do is keep us from making the 
great and hard decisions we should make because we benefit from it 
politically.
  That is why several of us have fought since we have been here to 
change the earmarking process so that the American people can see what 
it is about. And what you will see, you watch on this bill, on the 
appropriations bills that follow, is if somebody has an earmark in this 
bill, they will never vote against it. Because what they will be told 
by the chairman or ranking member of the committee the next time they 
go to request something is: Oh, you requested something. I put it in 
the bill, but you did not vote for the bill, so I am not going to give 
it to you.
  What happens is, instead of looking at the content of a bill and the 
best long-term interests of the country, we look at the content of the 
earmark and how we look back home to the well-heeled and the well-
connected few, the source of campaign, the source of political 
empowerment, instead of looking at our oath that says: You will follow 
the Constitution.
  There is no question we have the right to say where money goes. And 
there is no question we should be able to have earmarks if they are 
authorized, which means that a committee of your peers, through the 
Appropriations Committee, says: This is something we as a country ought 
to do. But you will not see that. What you see are not authorized 
earmarks. They do not go through a committee of your peers. So it 
becomes the very foul stink that ends up corrupting the whole system of 
following that Constitution and being loyal to that oath.
  In 2016, every American is going to pay $13,000 on the national 
debt--think about that--for interest. I said that wrong. Every American 
family is going to be responsible for $13,000 worth of interest on the 
national debt. That is if it does not grow a penny from now. And we 
know we are going to have trillion-dollar deficits from now for as long 
as we can see under the budget that has passed this body.
  The average American family, do you have $13,000? Do you have $13,000 
for us to continue the excess of uncontrolled spending in Washington, 
the excess of failing to do our job to eliminate waste and fraud and 
duplication? Do you have it? Maybe you ought to call us and borrow it 
from the Senators. Maybe you ought to ask us for it since we are the 
ones labeling you with it.
  So as you hear what we are saying today when we talk about what is 
going on, these are not just words; they are real facts that affect 
real lives, that limit opportunity, that steal this wonderful country 
from us and our kids. Because what is happening is we are slowly 
putting handcuffs on ourselves. We are slowly diminishing our ability 
to be creative. We are slowly taking away the opportunity and the 
freedom with which we have excelled.
  If, in fact, the government said more about how you live your life 
than you say how you live your life, you have lost freedom. You have 
lost it. As we encounter this mountain, this truly high mountain of 
debt, what is going to happen is those handcuffs are going to get 
tighter and tighter--they are not going to get tighter, they are going 
to get closer and closer together before we have little ability to get 
out of them, little opportunity to change.
  We are close to being on an irreversible course. What we do and how 
we do it over the next 2 years in this country is going to determine 
whether your children live in freedom. And I do not mean controlled by 
a dictator, I am talking about having the freedom to have the 
opportunity to work hard, to develop your skills, to take risks, and to 
hopefully reward yourself and your family so that, in fact, you can be 
benevolent to someone else who may not be able to do that. That is what 
America is all about.
  We are losing. It is going away. And it goes away every week in this 
body. Every week that we create another new government program that 
limits your freedom and puts a bureaucrat between you and your choice, 
it goes away. Quite frankly, we have gotten pretty good at stealing 
your freedom.
  For me and the people I represent, we have had enough. We have had 
enough of the government deciding everything for us. We have had enough 
of judges not following the Constitution. We have had enough of Federal 
bureaucrats limiting our property rights, and what we can do on our own 
property. We have had enough of people telling us what our freedoms are 
and what they are not. We have had enough of the Federal bureaucracy in 
education ruining our schools rather than giving us the freedom to 
educate the children the way we want; taking our taxes, absorbing 20 
percent and sending 80 percent back and saying: You can have this money 
if you do this, this, this, and this. It is interesting, in the 
Constitution, there is no role for Federal education, no role for the 
Federal Government to be involved in education. None. Zero. Where did 
we get the idea that 80 percent of the people who work in the 
Department of Education, who do not know how to teach a child, should 
be telling the teachers in this country what to teach, and what to do, 
and what they can get paid for and what they cannot.
  That is a loss of freedom, folks. You have a bureaucracy in 
Washington that

[[Page 19020]]

determines the outcome of what your children's education is going to 
be, rather than you determining what that outcome will be.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. COBURN. I will yield for a question.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I know my colleague has given more time and effort to 
studying the sickness that is affecting our Congress with regard to how 
we spend money than anyone in this body, and he has taken a lot of heat 
for standing up and raising these issues. I salute him for it.
  But the amendment that is before us, it seems to me, is absolutely 
typical of how out of step Congress is. This may be a swell amendment 
for whoever benefits from it, but the people who are paying for it are 
not aware that the money they have earned from the sweat of their brow 
is now going to somebody who got a better health care plan, a better 
retirement plan and higher pay than they get, and more job security 
than they get.
  In my home county, the unemployment rate is over 20 percent. Then we 
have people with so much better jobs wanting more money. This is what, 
a $2 billion amendment? I would ask you, is this not sort of a pretty 
egregious example of the tendency we have to try to reward one group 
and ignore the cost that everybody else is going to have to pay?
  Mr. COBURN. I would answer the Senator, yes, but it is even worse in 
another way, and it is this: You know, we are not going to get killed 
by one big punch. It is going to be the little pinpricks. This is 
another pinprick. The fact is, I would love for our Federal employees 
to get this benefit. But we cannot afford it, one.
  No. 2, it is highly unfair to everybody else out there trying to 
struggle right now to pay the taxes that pay those salaries. No. 3 is, 
we do not even have the money to fund the pensions for the Federal 
employees that we have promised right now. So it is about us getting it 
wrong. Our priorities are wrong. That is my whole point. There is no 
common sense to what we are doing.
  Sure, it is nice, you can be lauded by all of the Federal employees: 
You did this. You did this. You can get their vote. But what about the 
future of our Republic? What is going to happen to us?
  I have a granddaughter who is going to be born in the next 2 weeks, 
and I am wondering if she will even recognize what I knew to be what we 
were like in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, because the freedom, the 
diminution of our freedom in this country has been massive. It is in 
direct correlation with the size of the growth of the Federal 
Government, directly correlated.
  The bigger the Federal Government is, the less freedom we have. As it 
gets smaller, we can possibly get back some of our freedom. But we are 
talking about growing the Federal Government, we are talking about 
making it bigger. We are talking about having it more involved in every 
aspect of our life and taking away the ability of you and your family 
to make critical decisions about your family.
  Are we totally dependent on the Federal Government? If that is where 
we are, our freedom is lost. If we have decided we do not need the 
States any more, get rid of all of the State legislatures; the Federal 
Government is doing it all anyway. And we do it so efficiently and so 
well, you can interact with your bureaucrat so well. They always make 
sense, they are always 100 percent responsible. That is garbage.
  The fact is, the farther away your government is from you, the less 
control you have over it. There is no need, if we continue the 
direction we are in, to have a city council. We are directing what you 
have got to do on street lights now. We are going to tell you what car 
you can drive.
  I thank the Senator from Alabama for his question. I appreciate his 
help on a lot of these issues.
  This is not anything other than a departure point for our country. So 
let me spend a little time--first, let me tell you how good of a job we 
do. We passed a $787 billion stimulus bill of which $70 billion is out 
the door. So not even 10 percent, maybe 10 percent by this week; I have 
not checked the Web site this week to see.
  Let's talk about what has gone out the door. What has gone out the 
door in my home State in Perkins, OK, that to get the money for a new 
water sewage system that the Federal Government said they had to have--
State government did not say it, the Federal Government did--they had 
to spend an extra $2 million to build a water disposal and sewage plant 
that originally was going to cost $4 million. Now it costs $6.2 
million. Guess what they got from the Federal Government--$1.5 million.
  Think about that for a minute. Here is the stimulus. There is no 
question some jobs are being created from that. There is no question 
the citizens of that town will have to pay higher water rates and 
sewage rates to get a new plant. But what we did in the meantime of 
having the Federal Government involved in it is we raised the net cost 
of it by $500,000 so that the people who are going to benefit from it 
are going to end up paying water rates, sewage rates, at elevated 
levels for a longer period of time because the Federal Government got 
involved in it.
  It doesn't mean we didn't need the sewage plant. We did. It didn't 
mean the city fathers didn't do the best thing they could for the city. 
They had to get a bond. So when somebody comes up and says, I am the 
Federal Government, here is $1.5 million, take it; and you say, maybe I 
can help my city out and get this thing done--except the net result of 
that is, it will actually end up costing $2 million more--ask yourself 
a question: If you were to build a garage onto the back of your house 
and the Federal Government says: We will give you a grant to help you 
do that, but when you finish up, the net cost to you is going to be 
about 8 to 20 percent more than what it would have cost if you did it 
yourself, are you going to take that deal? No, you are not.
  This is money that is already out the door on the stimulus. It is an 
example of what happens when we lose common sense and when we lose 
economic parameters with which to make decisions.
  No. 2, in the stimulus was, heretofore, before we got to the health 
care bill that we just passed out, was the largest earmark in history, 
$2 billion. Here we have FutureGen. Let me tell you what we know about 
FutureGen. The idea behind it is pretty good. Let's figure out if we 
can take coal and make it absolutely clean and take the carbon dioxide 
out of it and sequester the carbon dioxide and use this resource we 
have and have a totally nonpolluting coal plant for generating 
electricity. Good idea, right? It got canceled in late 2007 because the 
Department of Energy, relying on a study from the Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology, said: We don't have the technology to do it. 
You shouldn't spend the money. The technology isn't there.
  Isn't it funny, in 4\1/2\ months that report gets ignored and we put 
a $2 billion earmark in to build a coal plant that we don't have the 
technology for? Let me explain what will happen. We will spend that $2 
billion, but when the $2 billion is gone, they are going to come back 
and say: We almost got it. How about $2 billion more? We will get 
another $2 billion earmark and another $2 billion earmark, and 5 to 10 
years from now, we will have $24 billion in it. Then they will either 
do one or two things. They will say: We finally figured it out, which 
means had we waited to build on it a small prototype plant and 
perfected the technology, we could have done it for 5 percent of that, 
or they will say: It just didn't work. We can't do it. But we did it on 
the basis of parochialism and the enhanced interest of some power 
companies that were well-heeled and well connected to this body. So now 
we have $2 billion of your money going to a project that MIT says the 
technology isn't finished yet, and we should not be spending any money 
to build a final plant. Yet we did it. Yet the claim was that there 
weren't any earmarks in the stimulus bill.
  Here is another fact that a lot of people don't know. Every fact I 
will give you I can absolutely document, either

[[Page 19021]]

from the Department of Transportation or somewhere else. We have over 
230,000 major bridges in disrepair. Remember Minneapolis. We have tons 
of those bridges. I am not saying they will collapse, but structurally 
they have been deemed to need repair.
  The stimulus bill spent $24 billion on roads, highways, and bridges. 
We should have spent $100 billion because we really would have created 
four times as many jobs. We would have bought things we know we will 
have to buy anyhow, and we would have fixed problems we know we have 
today. If we are going to borrow money against our kids' future, it 
ought to be on high-priority items that will truly benefit us and our 
kids rather than that which is not going to benefit us.
  Here we have Wisconsin, which has 1,256 structurally deficient 
bridges--more than Florida, Colorado, Arizona, and Alaska combined. 
Instead of fixing those, they put $58 million into bridge repair to 
repair 37 rural bridges that people hardly ever use. Why? How? How did 
it happen? We have interstate highway bridges that need to be repaired 
that have tens of thousands of cars going over them every day, and 
instead we repair a bridge to a bar. I guess that Rusty's Backwater 
Saloon is more important than the safety of kids on the highway.
  Then we have a Florida project. When we build highways today, 
especially interstates, we put these eco-passages underneath them so 
that wild animals--sometimes cattle, if they are connected lands--can 
have transportation underneath the highway without going around. Good 
idea. In Florida, we have a highway sitting there, and less than a 
couple miles down the road we have an eco-passage, and a couple miles 
up the road we have one. We are going to spend $3.4 million to put 
another one in because too many turtles are crossing the road and 
getting hit. Maybe that is OK. But when we have a $11.4 trillion debt, 
we are going to run a $2 trillion deficit this year, when everything we 
are spending this year--50 cents out of every dollar we spend, we are 
borrowing on the backs of our children--should we be spending this kind 
of money on turtles? There are plenty of turtles in Florida. It is 
probably not going to have an ecological impact. But is that a 
priority? Is that something we should be doing? I think not.
  We have a nonprofit that got fired for doing weatherization contracts 
in one of our States, for poor performance and noncompliance. We get 
the stimulus, and guess who gets the contract--somebody who has already 
cheated the taxpayers. Nevada. Somebody has already been fired for 
noncompliance and not doing appropriate work, and the first thing we do 
is we hire them back. Do you think there might not have been a 
political connection with the person who got that contract? Think it is 
strange?
  Here is my favorite. This is Oklahoma. In the wonderful wisdom of the 
Corps of Engineers, back in the late 1940s and 1950s in western 
Oklahoma--fairly arid land, good for raising cattle, and where you can 
get irrigation, it is great for growing wheat--we built a dam and a 
spillway and generation and everything. Only one problem: There never 
was any water that came to the lake.
  So we have this little road that runs along the edge of it, and they 
replaced the guardrails 2 years ago. Less than 10 cars a day in the 
regular summer season go across this, 3 average in the winter. The 
Corps of Engineers decides, since we have all this money, we need to 
replace the guardrails. The reason they wanted to replace the 
guardrails is they are an inch and a half too short for the 10 cars 
that go by there. But if you run off the road, you run into something 
down there that is dry as a bone. You don't run into a lake. But 
because the Corps has the code that you have to have guardrails on 
anything around a lake, even if you don't have a lake there, we are 
going to spend millions of dollars putting guardrails around a 
nonexistent lake because the bureaucratic code is: Never do what is 
best when you can do what is good for you. Here goes millions of 
dollars to build guardrails. I pretty well have gotten this one stopped 
by having my staff out there with the Corps, but had I not done it, we 
would have spent the money.
  What are we doing? Do you like the fact that the Federal Government 
is involved in all this? Do you think they are exhibiting wisdom and 
prudence?
  We can take Elizabethtown, PA. They have had an old train station 
that hasn't been used in 30 years. Granted, they could maybe use a 
train station, but they have been getting along pretty well without one 
for 30 years in this particular location. We are going to spend 
millions of dollars to renovate an old train station, not because we 
have a need but because we have money to spend and it will create a 
job.
  There is nothing wrong with having deficit spending, in terms of 
Keynesian economics, to try to stimulate the economy, but there ought 
to be a priority that what we spend the money on actually, in fact, is 
a long-term benefit that we would have spent the money on anyway. When 
we throw the money out there and we roll the dice, what happens is, 
yes, we get a benefit. We get the millions of dollars spent on our 
behalf. It gets spent on our behalf. But was it the best way to spend 
the money? Was there another priority that would have been better, that 
would have created more jobs, that was something we truly have to have, 
that would have created a permanent job, that would have helped truly 
stimulate the economy? Those questions are not getting asked.
  Here is another one of my favorites. Part of the stimulus was that we 
give seniors a check. I don't understand that, but we did. But the IRS 
sent checks to 10,000 dead people. It can happen. I could see how that 
could happen, but 10,000? So if we are sending checks to 10,000 dead 
people on a stimulus, what else are we not doing right at the IRS and 
every other agency? I think it totaled $25 million.
  Here is another one of my favorites: Union, NY. The town of Union was 
surprised when it was notified that it would be receiving a $578,661 
stimulus grant to prevent homelessness for several reasons. Here is 
another interesting point: They never applied for the grant. Second, 
they don't have a homeless problem. ``Union did not request the money 
and does not currently have any homeless programs in place in the town 
to administer such funds,'' said the town supervisor, John Bernardo. 
``We were surprised. We were never a recipient before.'' He is not 
aware of any homeless issue in the largely suburban town. Where did 
that one come from? Where is the connection? The people at the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development just sent them a check. It 
is not their money. Get the money out the door. Send it to somebody who 
doesn't need it. When asked about it, HUD just sent the money to every 
town based on its population, whether it had a homeless problem or not.
  When did it become, under the Constitution, a Federal responsibility 
rather than a community responsibility to take care of homeless people? 
As we shift that responsibility to the Federal Government, what happens 
to the freedom of your hometown to care for homeless people? When you 
get the money from the Federal Government come the rules and 
regulations on what you will do and how you will do it. Rather than a 
community-based or a church-based homeless shelter, now you will follow 
these regs and do these things if you want our help.
  What is our help? Our help is taking money from you, filtering it 
through Washington, wasting 20 percent of it, and then sending it back 
to you to tell you what you already know how to do, except now they 
will tell you how to do it and give you 35 pieces of paper and forms to 
fill out as you tell them how you spent your money that they took 20 
percent of to care of your homeless that you should have never sent the 
money to Washington for in the first place.
  Let me spend time--I will pick and choose through a few of these. The 
Federal Government gives weatherization grants to help people 
weatherproof their homes. We have been doing this for over 25 years, 
and we continue to spend more and more money on it

[[Page 19022]]

every year. Either we are not doing a good job or we have weatherized 
every home in the country and we are starting to do it a second time.
  But here is one from Illinois, where they took the weatherization 
grant and bought eight pickup trucks for the county--under a 
weatherization grant.
  In Wisconsin, a nursing home got $2.8 million in stimulus money it 
did not need or request. Prior to the stimulus funding, the Knapp Haven 
Nursing Home was on track for a loan from the USDA. In other words, 
they had the finances set up to get a loan to where they could repay 
it. When the stimulus money came available, the funding source was 
shifted to a new source of Federal assistance. Carmen Newman, the city 
clerk-treasurer said:

       It's kind of a joke as far as I'm concerned. I don't 
     understand how they can say this is stimulus.

  They were going to do it anyway. The mayor of that city said:

       I don't see how the project benefited.

  Well, somebody benefited. But somebody also lost, and that was our 
kids and our grandkids.
  Here is a good one: Iowa State legislators are using money freed up 
by the Federal stimulus cash to buy $11 million in new cars the State 
does not need. About four dozen brand new cars owned by the State are 
already sitting unused in a parking lot near the capitol. According to 
State Representative Christopher Rants:

       Some of them [still] have the [sales] stickers on them. 
     None of them have license plates. Some of them still have 
     their seats wrapped in plastic.

  But we are going to buy the cars because we got the money. So see 
what is happening here? There is no priority. Because the money comes 
in, spend it. Even though you have excess cars sitting in the parking 
lot, you buy it. Spend it or lose it.
  Michigan is going to spend $500,000 to renovate an old freight house 
for a yoga class. There is no question if you renovate an old warehouse 
and you employ people to do that, you will stimulate the economy. The 
criticism here is, are there not other things more important in 
Michigan that we could spend $500,000 on that would create more 
permanent jobs, long-lasting jobs, and be of stronger benefit to the 
community?
  The only reason I question this is because it came through the 
Federal Government down there. If that money came through the 
statehouse or the city, I would have no business questioning it at all. 
But in light of where we find ourselves as a country, it is difficult 
for me to see the priorities that are expressed.
  In Macomb, IL, $643,945 was spent on a Prairieview public housing 
parking lot that nobody wants. Many of the residents whom the parking 
lot was supposed to benefit have protested it. Explaining his concern, 
a local resident said: The kids love the grass. We have enough pavement 
already for all the cars here. We need a playground.
  But we are going to pour concrete over it because we have the money 
to do it--another wasted priority.
  In Chicago, rather than help welfare recipients obtain jobs and 
escape poverty, $1 million will be used to study whether 300 people in 
Chicago are healthier when living in a ``green'' public housing 
facility. The study will evaluate whether green housing is healthier 
for people and will focus on 300 residents at a Chicago public housing 
facility. Researchers expect to find that residents living in these 
more energy-efficient facilities will have much lower health care 
costs. The study will create jobs because it will get two or three 
people to interview the residents.
  Oh, here is another priority that came out of the stimulus. The 
National Institutes of Health has given an Indiana University professor 
a grant of $356,000. Maybe this is OK but not now. It is not OK where 
we find ourselves. But here is what they are going to do with it. They 
are going to ``test how children perceive foreign-accented speech 
compared to native-accented speech.'' It will also determine how such 
accents might influence speech development in children.
  I do not doubt that might, in fact, be something we want to study. 
But we still have a lot of women in this country with a lot of disease 
and we have a lot of men in this country with a lot of disease. I am 
not sure accents are as important as studying ways to lower health care 
costs or funding a professor to do research on one of the cancers that 
are plaguing our country. How about buying H1N1 flu vaccine? Might that 
not be a better expenditure of that money? In other words, priorities 
get lost.
  Detroit Public Schools will reap massive benefits from the stimulus 
despite a $150 million deficit. According to the Intelligencer--that 
is, evidently, a newspaper in the area--financial management problems 
became ``so tangled the state recently appointed a manager to take the 
financial reins.'' The Detroit Public School System stands to get $530 
million, which $355 million would have ``no strings attached.''
  So we have a school system that has been totally irresponsible with 
their financing and the management of their money, and what do we do 
with the stimulus? We reward the incompetence and then give them twice 
that amount to pull them out of a hole rather than fix the real 
problem.
  Consequences to our behavior are a great learning episode for all of 
us, no matter how old we are. If we are very young and we touch the hot 
stove, we learn it is hot. When we are adolescents and we do some of 
the stupid things we do as adolescents, we learn from them. Do you know 
what. Governments do not learn, and that is because governments do not 
have compassion. Only people have compassion. And when you bail out a 
school system that has been irresponsible, without them suffering the 
consequences--and I know the answer is: Well, the kids suffer the 
consequences. That is right. We all suffer the consequence. You do not 
think kids are suffering the consequences right now in our economy?
  So this one is just cute. You will love it. Yale University and the 
University of Connecticut are going to get $850,000--they have already 
gotten it, by the way--in stimulus money for research ``to study how 
paying attention improves performance of difficult tasks.''
  Did you ever hit your thumb with a hammer? Studying that paying 
attention helps you with difficult tasks? I do not know who thinks 
these things up. But, more importantly, it does not matter who thinks 
them up. Who would give a grant for that? I am not opposed to giving 
grants for sound scientific study. But do you know what. We already 
know the answer this thing is going to give us--a statistically 
significant answer: You do better if you pay attention; and you do not 
do as well if you do not. It is pretty straightforward.
  Hanscom Field, MA, where we are going to put excess money for 
additional runways, has received criticism from local representatives, 
including a State representative from Lexington. The State legislative 
leaders did not want us to do it. But do you know what. We did it 
anyway. The people who represent the area, the political leaders, did 
not want it to happen because they thought it promoted irresponsible 
corporate behavior. Do you know what we did? We did it anyway. It goes 
back to that point we were talking about: freedom. When you give it to 
us, you lose it. We are supposed to be the bastion that protects your 
freedom, and what we have become, through this myriad number of Federal 
programs and spending, is we have been the ones who are taking away 
your freedom.
  In Oklahoma, I trap armadillos in my yard. They come in and they will 
ruin a good yard because they like grub worms. So all you have to do is 
to lay a few marshmallows out and then put a marshmallow or two in the 
trap cage and you will catch those suckers.
  Well, that is what Washington is doing to the American liberty. We 
bite the first little bite off the marshmallow and say: Oh, that tastes 
good. I got a little benefit here. There is no connection between what 
I have done and me receiving this benefit. And then we take another 
little bite off the marshmallow or the next one in. And all of a 
sudden, before you know it, this armadillo--that runs at night mainly

[[Page 19023]]

that my dogs chase into the woods every time they see one of them--
pretty soon that armadillo fellow is in my cage. I got him. The reason 
I got him is he kept thinking he could get something for nothing. He 
kept thinking: Man, that is a sweet marshmallow.
  So what happens is, here he comes down the road, like us--us 
promising more, promising more--but, remember, whatever we are 
promising to give you, we have already taken from you. And when we take 
it from you, we lessen your liberty, to a great extent. We steal your 
liberty. We steal your choice. We steal your freedom. We steal your 
ability to be whom you want to be. We steal your ability to be the 
parent you want to be because we are interjecting us in the education 
system between you and your child. We are interjecting and planting the 
seeds of a lack of responsibility and accountability, as we bite the 
marshmallow, as we walk into the trap, and the cage closes.
  There are two things I do with those armadillos--one of two things. I 
either put them in the back of my pickup and take them 10 or 15 miles 
away from my property or I shoot them. That is exactly what is going to 
happen to us. We are either going to be carried far away from what we 
know, we trust, and believe in to be right or we are going to be 
extinct as a nation. We are going to lose the wonderful flavor of the 
greatest Nation that has ever been on this Earth. We are going to 
lose--and we are doing that--we are losing it, a little bit at a time 
because we are similar to the frog that climbed into this wonderful pot 
of water that slowly and slowly heated up, and he never thought to jump 
out because, before he knew it, he could not.
  So I have just listed about 30 of the first 1,000 projects that went 
out on the stimulus so you can get a flavor as to what kind of judgment 
is being made with the money we stole from our grandchildren. I would 
say we are not doing great. I voted for a stimulus bill that would have 
spent almost $500 billion--I didn't vote for this one, but it was real 
stimulus. It was real roads, it was real bridges, it was real sewage 
plants. It included things we were going to have to do. It was really 
resetting the military because we are going to buy a whole bunch more 
military. We are going to be forced to do it. To buy it now will create 
job after job after job, and it will save us money because we are going 
to buy it now at a cheaper price than what we will pay 5 years from 
now.
  So I am not critical of having stimulus. I am critical of how we 
manage it, what we are doing about it, and the severe lack of oversight 
that Members of this body daily fail to do. They do not do the job 
demanded of them. It is not enough for us to say where the money is 
spent. What is required of us is to say where the money is spent and 
then make sure it is spent wisely, prudently, and in the best interests 
of everybody in this country, not in the best interests of our next 
election cycle.
  I quoted earlier $350 billion worth of pure waste, fraud, and abuse 
every year in this country. It is not fair for me to quote that without 
going through it for you so you can actually see where it is. I did 
this last year, so I am sure it is worse this year since we have not 
had the courage to do anything about fixing the problems that cause 
this. But let me go through it. These are either department agency 
numbers, CBO numbers, inspector general numbers, or General Accounting 
Office numbers. They are not Tom Coburn's numbers. Every one of them 
can be backed up.
  Medicare fraud: At a minimum, $80 billion a year. We are 
contemplating a health care bill. We have Medicare that is upside down, 
both Part A and Part B, running in the red, and is projected to run 
into the trillions of dollars. Name something that has been done on 
that in the last 2 years, 3 years, by us. Medicare improper payments, 
net loss--in other words, we paid out more than we should or we paid 
out less than we should--the net difference is $10 billion, so now we 
are at $10 billion a year.
  Medicaid fraud at a minimum--and the reason we say it is at a minimum 
is because Medicaid can't even tell us what their fraud is. They can't 
even report it--$30 billion. Improper payments, net loss, $15 billion.
  So now we are at $135 billion and we have just gone through two 
programs.
  Social Security disability fraud: I hear every day in my office from 
people in my State about people who are getting disability who are 
absolutely not disabled, but they get the check. They are living off 
us, but they can actually go to work and do something. At a minimum, it 
is estimated to be--I think this is a very low number, and it doesn't 
mean I don't want to help people with disability if they are truly 
disabled. But everybody out in the country will know somebody who is 
collecting a check who can still ride their horse, still run their 
rotor tiller, still lay brick, or still do anything else they want, but 
they can't work: $2.5 billion.
  Government-wide improper payments in all of the other agencies, but 
seven of them we still don't have any reporting on, even though the law 
says they have to report. It is a Federal law you have to report your 
improper payments every year, but they don't do it. Of the ones that do 
report, another $15 billion net loss of paying out more than they 
should. That is just on the agencies that report.
  Maintenance of buildings by the Defense Department that they will not 
use in the future nor do they use now, but we can't sell them because 
we have all of these laws in Congress that create an impossibility for 
us to get them to the market. We have created a bureaucratic nightmare 
that takes about 10 years to put a building up for sale. We are 
spending in the Defense Department $3 billion that could go for soldier 
pay, health care for our veterans, health care for our soldiers; $3 
billion to maintain buildings that are sitting empty and to maintain 
security for them.
  We have contracting problems. The bill before us, the Defense 
authorization--everybody recognizes we have a significant problem with 
contracting in this country. This data comes not from last year but 
from the year before last. The Department of Defense paid out $8 
billion for performance awards to contractors who did not earn the 
awards. In other words, they had a contract. Here are the requirements 
to meet the contract. They didn't meet the requirements of the 
contract. The Department of Defense paid them anyway. It hasn't 
stopped, folks. Where is the connection?
  It is estimated by GAO that at a minimum, if we eliminated no-bid 
contracts everywhere in the Federal Government--most earmarks, by the 
way, are no-bid contracts; it is a sweetheart deal--we would save, at a 
minimum, $5 billion a year--at a minimum--probably closer to $7 billion 
or $8 billion. Just to eliminate no-bid contracts pays for the entire 
budget of the State of Oklahoma for 1 year. Every expense we have, just 
1 year of eliminating no-bid contracts would have that kind of savings.
  Then we have the wonderful trick: we send bills through here that are 
supposedly emergency supplementals, and we add all of these things of 
extra spending onto them that aren't emergencies. It is kind of like an 
earmark process, except the difference is they don't have to be within 
the budget numbers, so they just go straight to the bottom line against 
our kids. So it doesn't pull back any spending anywhere else, but we 
spend this money anyhow, and that is another $15 billion a year that 
the Members of Congress do outside of the budget.
  So let's see here. We are at $184 billion. We have a crop insurance 
program that benefits the crop insurance industry but not the farmers, 
but we refuse to modernize it. We can save $4 billion if we modernize 
it, but we don't modernize it because the effect and power of the well-
heeled and well-connected keeps us from doing what is right.
  Then we send $5.9 billion to the U.N. every year. We know--and this 
is a report we finally got forced to get out of there; it got leaked 
out and we finally got ahold of it--that our entire contribution to 
peacekeeping, which amounts to about 40 percent of our contributions--
$2 billion a year--is totally wasted in fraud. In other words, it 
doesn't help us do peacekeeping anywhere in the world because there is

[[Page 19024]]

only one agency and one government that is more inefficient than us, 
and it is the United Nations. Yet we can't have transparency.
  Every year I put on the foreign appropriations bill a requirement 
that for the U.N. dues to be paid, they have to give us transparency 
about where they are spending our money. It passes 99 to 0, and as soon 
as it goes to the conference, guess what happens. It gets pulled out 
because we don't have the courage to confront the U.N. and say: We are 
giving you $5.9 billion. Tell us how it is being spent. So there is 
another one.
  One of the greatest areas of worry the inspectors general have across 
all the agencies of government is investment in IT. Last year, we 
contracted $64 billion of IT contracts through the Federal Government--
$64 billion. What we know is at least 20 percent of that ends up 
totally getting mismanaged and wasted. It gets wasted because they 
don't know what they want when they sign the contract. They continue to 
change what they want as the contract goes through, and when we get to 
what was going to be a $200 million contract, it ends up being an $800 
million contract because we have changed what the contract did.
  By the way, the contract isn't no-bid; the contract is cost plus, so 
whoever is doing the contract has every inclination to give them new 
ideas to make it better and change it. So what happens is we fall way 
behind, we don't get it, we pay four times as much. What is estimated 
is that we lose almost $11 billion a year on that kind of poor 
management. What is being done about it? Nothing in this body. Nothing 
in this body.
  The National Flood Insurance Program is another $17.5 billion of 
waste and duplication. If we reformed the Tax Code--by the way, we are 
now right at $218 billion. If we reformed the Tax Code--if we just made 
it either straight line or simple, straight, fill it in on a postcard, 
or went to the fair tax, what we know is the Federal Government, just 
everything else being equal this year, would have $100 billion more 
collected because there would be $100 billion less in fraud. Just $100 
billion. Just $100 billion. But we have a Tax Code that is this thick 
that no IRS department will give you the same answer to the same 
question anywhere else in the country, and neither will any of the big 
auditing firms because the code is so complex that nobody knows what 
the truth is. So we spend over $200 billion a year in this country 
paying our taxes.
  I am not talking about the taxes we pay, paying our taxes. Either 
paying somebody else to figure it out or paying the interest because we 
couldn't figure it out or paying the penalty because we couldn't get it 
done on time, but most of it comes from paying people to pay our taxes 
for us.
  Then there is a miscellaneous, another $18 billion. I said $350 
billion. The total I have given is $385 billion. The reason I said $385 
billion, I don't want to exaggerate, so I cut 10 percent off of it. So 
nobody can say we have exaggerated the waste, fraud, and abuse in the 
Federal Government that occurs every year.
  What would it be like right now if we weren't wasting that? What 
would happen to Medicare if we didn't have this high number, billions 
and billions of dollars of fraud in Medicare every year? What would 
happen? What would happen is Medicare would last a lot longer. No. 2, 
we would actually get more resources directed to the people who 
actually need it.
  The one story Dr. John Barrasso, the other physician in the Senate 
tells, is that Medicare is so well designed to be defrauded that people 
who deal in drugs stop that and start doing Medicare fraud because it 
is easier to hit a home run, No. 1; No. 2, if you get caught, the 
penalties are less. No. 3 is you can make a whole lot more money with a 
whole lot lower jail sentence. So we have this system that is designed 
to get defrauded that has $80 billion in it.
  So let me make that point and say, if in fact you take--even if you 
only take half of what I say--$175 billion--but even if you only take 
half of what I say, here are the things we know: This country is 
absolutely on an unsustainable course. We cannot sustain what we are 
doing. We cannot have another year such as this year. We cannot have 
another year that comes anywhere close to this year.
  We can't have another year that moves forward in the direction we are 
moving in terms of the government taking more of your freedom away and 
building itself up and building the bureaucracies in this town.
  I understand my colleague from Hawaii is here.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.


                      Amendment No. 1522 withdrawn

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank my friend Senator Coburn for 
allowing me to speak at this time. I have been working with him in our 
Committee on Homeland Security. We have taken up these amendments in 
committee. I think I am correct when I say that Senator Coburn at the 
time did support these amendments.
  Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. AKAKA. Yes.
  Mr. COBURN. I think the record will show that I did not support the 
amendment.
  Mr. AKAKA. I thank the Senator for the clarification.
  First, I understand the current economic climate. I want the Federal 
Government to save as much money as it can and to reduce all the 
inefficiencies there are. My amendment would do that.
  My amendment also has been supported by a bipartisan group of 
Senators. I am proud that the cosponsors include Senators Collins, 
Lieberman, Voinovich, Murkowski, Begich, Kohl, Mikulski, Cardin, 
Inouye, Webb, and Warner. It is a bipartisan effort to correct certain 
inequities in the Federal retirement system. That has been our effort 
in these amendments.
  Also, this effort was supported by a huge number of groups. Some of 
the organizations are: The American Federation of Government Employees, 
National Treasury Employees Union; International Federation of 
Professional and Technical Engineers; Federal Law Enforcement Officers 
Association; the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal 
Employees; American Postal Workers Union; National Association of 
Letter Carriers; National Rural Letter Carriers Association; National 
Federation of Federal Employees; National Active and Retired Federal 
Employees Association; Senior Executives Association; Federal Managers 
Association; Government Managers Coalition; National Association of 
Postal Supervisors; National Association of Postmasters of the U.S.; 
and the National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys.
  That is the kind of support we have. This amendment will ensure that 
all Federal employees are treated the same when it comes to retirement. 
This will save money, due to the reduced lost days of work and avoid 
unnecessary employee transfers, which reduces the need for additional 
training; reduces litigation costs borne by the government due to 
different treatment of different classes of employees; improve employee 
morale, which increases efficiency; and ensure that we are able to 
transfer institutional knowledge to the next generation of Federal 
workers.
  OPM estimates that $68 million is wasted per year because of the 
different leave policies in effect. In fact, the amendment would 
certainly help in that respect. My amendment will reduce the Federal 
deficit by $36 million over 10 years.
  This amendment has the bipartisan support of the committee of 
jurisdiction and by both managers and employees. I have read a list of 
the others who support it.
  This is a good government bill that protects the taxpayers' dollars.
  I look forward to continuing this effort. I want to at this time say 
that this is a good amendment. I will fight for these provisions in 
conference. But I don't want to hold up the Defense authorization bill.
  Under the circumstances, I will withdraw this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.

[[Page 19025]]


  Mr. COBURN. I thank the Senator. I think he will find another vehicle 
at some other time. I know this bill is important to him. We just 
happen to disagree about the priorities. That is what I have been 
speaking on for 1 hour 20 minutes. I appreciate him doing that as a 
courtesy to the rest of the Members of this body. I love him dearly as 
a friend and as a brother. I appreciate it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me add my thanks to the Senator from 
Hawaii. He is doing this for the good of the order to permit us to get 
on with the bill. He knows how important this is. I appreciate his 
willingness to withdraw the amendment at this time. It is very much 
appreciated by all of us. I hope something good could come out of 
conference.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative 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, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Hagan 
be recognized to speak on a previous amendment for up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Levin and Ranking Member 
McCain for reporting out a bill that enacts reforming the Defense 
Department's budget and reorients weapons systems geared toward the 
wars we are fighting today. Our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen 
need capabilities that are conducive to implementing the Department's 
shift to counterinsurgency tactics, techniques, and procedures. There 
is nothing more important than enhancing the force protection of our 
troops. That is why I am pleased that this bill provides proven, 
effective ground capabilities, such as the MRAP vehicles to protect 
against IEDs.
  I want to highlight a couple of provisions in the bill. First, I 
support funding the administration's request for $7.5 billion for the 
Afghanistan security forces fund to train and equip the Afghan national 
army and police. The commander of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade, 
Brigadier General Nicholson, recently indicated that the success of the 
Marine offensive in the Helmand Province is dependent upon placing an 
Afghan face on the operation, in order to instill confidence among 
local Afghans in the Afghan Government's abilities to provide safe 
communities and to govern efficiently.
  Equally important is providing coalition support funds for Pakistan. 
The stability of Afghanistan is dependent on the stability of Pakistan, 
and vice versa. We need to enable the Pakistan Army and Frontier Corps 
with the capability to conduct sustained direct action missions against 
the dangerous elements of the Pakistani Taliban along the federally 
ministered tribal areas, as well as against the Afghan Taliban High 
Command in Pakistan's Balochistan province.
  Key to successful operations in theater are effective aviation 
assets. I am a big proponent of the Joint Strike Fighter as it can 
serve multiple roles, including close air support, tactical bombing, 
and air defense missions. I am disappointed that we were unable to 
secure enough votes for Senator Bayh's amendment. I want to reiterate 
that I think it is important we safeguard language to authorize funding 
to develop and procure an alternate Joint Strike Fighter engine.
  I know the issue of the location of the Navy's OLF has already been 
debated and voted on, so I will not spend a lot of time on it. I 
cosponsored an amendment with Senator Burr to prevent the Navy from 
building an OLF in the Sandbanks and the Hale's Lake locations within 
Camden, Currituck, and Gates Counties in North Carolina. I am against 
an OLF at these proposed sites because it would destroy small family 
farms that have been around for generations, as well as thousands of 
acres of farmland, essential to the livelihood and economic base of 
those communities. An OLF in these locations would only bring 52 jobs, 
and it would destroy valuable farmland that currently employs over 
2,000 workers. Moreover, the OLF would only be a few miles away from 
ongoing projects that will attract new businesses and tourists.
  Last week, I met with local government leaders of the respective 
counties to discuss their concerns regarding construction of the OLF. 
The State of North Carolina recently passed a law banning the 
construction of an OLF at these sites. I do not think it would be in 
the Navy's interests to continue to pursue construction of an OLF at 
these sites, knowing that it will more likely than not be tied up in 
litigation for years.
  I want to make sure North Carolina is treated fairly. The residents 
of these counties simply do not want the OLF there. The State of North 
Carolina is the friendliest military State in the Nation, and we would 
welcome the opportunity to work with the Navy in identifying sites that 
could potentially meet the Navy's OLF requirement, and also have the 
support of the North Carolinians in those counties. One of those sites 
can be at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point or a site close to it 
within Craven County. All of the elected local officials in that 
community are in support of having an OLF located there.
  The Navy excluded Cherry Point as a potential OLF site because Navy 
standards specify that an OLF should be no more than 120 nautical miles 
from home base. Cherry Point sits approximately 135 nautical miles from 
Oceana, VA. That is just 15 nautical miles beyond the Navy's current 
requirement. I want to work with the Navy to examine the impact of 
having an OLF that is located just outside its current requirements, 
and especially on the readiness of the Navy's personnel and aircraft 
fleet.
  Senator Webb and I worked together to insert additional language 
within the committee report to do two things: one, to mandate the 
Secretary of the Navy issue a report detailing the Navy's consultations 
with local governments, communities, and stakeholders in North Carolina 
and Virginia regarding OLF site options; two, to mandate the Navy 
identify all suitable options for the location of an OLF beyond the 
five sites identified in both States.
  However, I don't think that is good enough. The State of North 
Carolina has had previous negative experiences with the manner in which 
the Navy has implemented its OLF site selection process. I strongly 
feel that the Navy should delete the two current sites in North 
Carolina.
  I also thank the chairman and ranking member for accepting my 
amendment in committee that provides the Department of Defense with the 
option to increase the acquisition of additional C-27s in the outyears 
as mission requirements dictate. That amendment requires the Department 
to provide its strategic plan to deploy and station C-27 joint cargo 
aircraft in theater and in the continental United States, as well as 
plans to procure additional aircraft beyond the 38.
  Forty-eight adjutants of the National Guard signed a letter to the 
committee last month supporting the funding of 78 joint cargo aircraft. 
Their letter emphasized the C-27 provides an essential airlift 
capability in war, as well as to State emergency management teams in 48 
States.
  I also thank the chairman and Ranking Member McCain for accepting my 
amendment to direct the Secretary of the Army to submit a report to 
assess the feasibility and advisability of creating a trainees, 
transients, holdees, and students account within the Army National 
Guard to ensure all soldiers in units have completed their initial 
entry training prior to being deployed.
  Approximately 27,000 of the National Guard's end strength are not 
deployable because they are awaiting training. This account would allow 
new Guardsmen to be fully trained prior to reporting to their 
assignment. A TTHS account with the National Guard would

[[Page 19026]]

improve the unit readiness, increase individual dwell time between 
deployments, and provide more predictability to soldiers, families, and 
employers.
  Finally, I thank the chairman and ranking member for accepting my 
amendment involving depot maintenance work. This amendment directs the 
Secretary of the Navy to submit a cost-benefit analysis report 
identifying each alternative the Secretary is considering for the 
performance of the AV-8B Harrier aircraft planned maintenance and 
aircraft modifications.
  We are working with the Navy and the Marine Corps to ensure that 
depots allow partnerships with the commercial sector, while recognizing 
the legitimate national security need for the Department of Defense 
civilian and military personnel to retain the key skills to be 
responsive to our soldiers fighting in these two wars.
  This is an important bill, and despite my and Senator Burr's ongoing 
concerns about this outlying landing field, I think that Senators Levin 
and McCain deserve our gratitude for their work on this bill, and this 
bill deserves the support of all of my colleagues.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. 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, I ask unanimous consent that the Kyl 
amendment be temporarily set aside and that the following four 
amendments then be in order: the Sessions amendment, No. 1657, which is 
going to be modified and which I understand will not require a rollcall 
vote; the Isakson amendment, No. 1525, which would then be called up 
and I understand would require some debate; the Lieberman amendment, 
No. 1650, which I also understand may be modified; and then the next 
amendment after that, which I thought I could enumerate, but I cannot 
now, would be a Democratic amendment and would then be in place; that 
no amendments would be in order to any of the above amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. 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, let me modify my previous unanimous consent 
agreement: that prior to those three amendments being called up, we 
take up the Lincoln amendment, No. 1487, which I understand has been 
cleared. Again, as to the other three amendments we identified for 
debate, no amendments will be in order to any of those amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is now my understanding that under that 
UC, we would take up Lincoln amendment No. 1487.
  I am wondering whether the Senator from Arkansas would like to have 
one quick minute to explain her amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                           Amendment No. 1487

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment 
No. 1487 be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln], for herself, Mr. 
     Cornyn, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Risch, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr. 
     Wyden, proposes an amendment numbered 1487.

  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To amend title 32, United States Code, to modify the 
Department of Defense share of expenses under the National Guard Youth 
                           Challenge Program)

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

     SEC. 573. MODIFICATION OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SHARE OF 
                   EXPENSES UNDER NATIONAL GUARD YOUTH CHALLENGE 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Modification.--Section 509(d)(1) of title 32, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``may not exceed'' and 
     all that follows and inserting ``may not exceed the amount as 
     follows:
       ``(A) In the case of a State program of the Program in 
     either of its first two years of operation, an amount equal 
     to 100 percent of the costs of operating the State program in 
     that fiscal year.
       ``(B) In the case of any other State program of the 
     Program, an amount equal to 75 percent of the costs of 
     operating the State program in that fiscal year.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2009, and shall apply with 
     respect to fiscal years beginning on or after that date.

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman, Senator Levin, and 
Senator McCain, Senator Graham, and the others for allowing me to bring 
up this amendment.
  This is a critical amendment at a critical time. Many of us visit our 
home States, and we see the disadvantaged youth all across our States 
who are having difficult times. We know unstable economic times bring 
about instability in our schools, in our families, and in a host of 
different places.
  One of the ways we have of combating this is with the National Guard 
Youth ChalleNGe Program. It is an excellent program put on by our 
National Guard in many of our States where these at-risk youth come in 
and they are surrounded by both structure and support and guidance to 
be able to meet their needs of getting a GED and their high school 
education and then going on to make something of their lives, really 
turning themselves around and making sure they are becoming great parts 
of our communities, whether it is finding a job or entering the 
military on their own but certainly turning their lives around and 
being productive.
  What we do in this amendment is we open up our National Guard Youth 
ChalleNGe Program to new States. Right now, we have it in several of 
our States. Many of us have been able to see the rewards of this 
program, but this will open it up to other States to be able to 
participate.
  One of the biggest problems we have had with this program is not the 
success, because the success has been tremendous, but it is the ability 
of our States to be able to financially support these programs. Right 
now, they have to come up with 40 percent of the resources that are 
necessary. Quite frankly, our States are not entering into these 
programs because they do not have the resources. These are excellent 
programs. They have tremendous results. And one of the things we want 
to make certain of is that we don't lose the opportunity to catch these 
young people early on and turn their lives around. So our amendment 
provides a 75-25 percent cost sharing with the States instead of the 
60-40. We don't change the amount of money spent, we just change the 
way it is allocated. We also allow the opportunity for some new States 
that want to start these programs to come in, and for the first 2 years 
the Federal Government will support 100 percent of those programs as 
they get their feet on the ground and they get these programs started, 
and then they must again resume that 25-percent State responsibility in 
these programs.
  We have a great bill we have introduced. We have tremendous 
bipartisan support. We have 32 cosponsors of our bill. I am joined in 
this amendment by Senators Byrd, Casey, Cornyn, Hagan, Landrieu, 
Murkowski, Risch, Rockefeller, Snowe, and Udall of Colorado, along with 
Senator Wyden. So we have great support for this amendment. It is 
something that is important for our kids, and it is certainly a great 
opportunity for us to see how our military can empower our youth by 
giving them the kind of support that is necessary to turn their lives 
around through both education and opportunity, helping them to develop 
skills, working in the community, and really making something of 
themselves.
  I thank the chairman for the ability to be able to offer this 
amendment on

[[Page 19027]]

behalf of our States and on behalf of our National Guard, which is 
doing a tremendous job in these programs, but most importantly on 
behalf of our children and the great things it does for our children 
all across this Nation.
  Mr. President, a special thanks to the chairman and the ranking 
member for their indulgence in letting me offer this amendment. I am 
looking forward to hopefully seeing how we can move it forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first let me thank Senator Lincoln for this 
amendment. The linkage of the National Guard and States and our kids is 
a very powerful link indeed. I have seen this up close and personal 
because I am sort of the godfather of the STARBASE Program, which 
started in Michigan at Selfridge Air National Guard Base, and it has 
spread. While this program which Senator Lincoln is so deeply involved 
with, and her cosponsors, is not an outgrowth of that program, it is 
very similar in terms of its purpose to link our National Guard and the 
inspiration they can provide and the technical skills they can provide 
our children with. So I thank her for her amendment and hope it will be 
promptly adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1487) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I believe the next amendment is the 
Sessions amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.


                    Amendment No. 1657, as Modified

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1657, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Graham], for Mr. 
     Sessions, proposes an amendment numbered 1657, as modified.

  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

 (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress that military commissions 
      are the preferred forum for the trial of alien unprivileged 
   belligerents for violations of the law of war and other offenses 
                    triable by military commission)

       On page 394, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

     SEC. 1032. TRIAL BY MILITARY COMMISSION OF ALIEN UNPRIVILEGED 
                   BELLIGERENTS FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW OF WAR.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 47A of title 10, 
     United States Code, as amended by section 1031(a), is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 948e. Trial by military commission of alien 
       unprivileged belligerents for violations of the law of war

       ``(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the preferred forum for the trial of alien unprivileged enemy 
     belligerents subject to this chapter for violations of the 
     law of war and other offenses made punishable by this chapter 
     is trial by military commission under this chapter.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections of the 
     beginning of such subchapter, as amended by section 1031(a), 
     is further amended by adding after the item relating to 
     section 948d the following new item:

``948e. Trial by military commission of alien unprivileged belligerents 
              for violations of the law of war.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, we have been working with Senator 
Sessions--myself, Senator Levin and his staff, and Senator Sessions' 
staff. This amendment basically clarifies the fact that when a detainee 
is in military custody or an intelligence agent's custody, being 
detained as a result of wartime activity, to be interrogated for 
intelligence gathering, there is no requirement that person have 
article 31, or Miranda, rights read to them. We don't want to 
criminalize the war. Military intelligence gathering is not a law 
enforcement function.
  There has been some confusion at Bagram Air Force Base about the 
Department of Justice FBI agents reading Miranda rights. Clearly, there 
could be a time when that would be appropriate, but this amendment 
states unequivocally that Miranda warnings, or article 31 rights, are 
not to be read or required to be read by DOD personnel or intelligence 
agencies as a result of battlefield activities or military intelligence 
gathering.
  I think it is a good amendment that will clarify a potentially 
confusing situation. I appreciate Senator Levin's staff helping us with 
it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, after a very brief comment, I am going to 
suggest a quorum be called. This amendment has been significantly 
modified from its original form. It has been modified in a way which I 
believe is now satisfactory. It addresses interrogations by the 
military, by defense agencies. It does not involve interrogations by 
the Department of Justice, as I understand it.
  Mr. GRAHAM. That is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. The Department of Justice is not involved in the warnings 
that are involved here. It especially provides it must be applied in a 
manner consistent with the constitutional requirements. With these 
changes, I am satisfied, but 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. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the 
pending Sessions amendment, as modified, be temporarily laid aside and 
we now proceed to the next item under the unanimous consent agreement, 
which would be the amendment of Senator Isakson.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Georgia is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1525

  Mr. ISAKSON. I call up amendment No. 1525.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Isakson], for himself and Mr. 
     Chambliss, proposes an amendment numbered 1525.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To repeal the sunset of authority to procure fire resistant 
    rayon fiber for the production of uniforms from foreign sources)

       On page 245, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

     SEC. 803. REPEAL OF SUNSET OF AUTHORITY TO PROCURE FIRE 
                   RESISTANT RAYON FIBER FOR THE PRODUCTION OF 
                   UNIFORMS FROM FOREIGN SOURCES.

       Subsection (f) of section 829 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181; 
     122 Stat. 229; 10 U.S.C. 2533a note) is repealed.

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, a few years ago this body granted a Berry 
waiver on the purchase of rayon fiber made in Austria for the purpose 
of making fire-resistant uniforms of the U.S. Marines, Army, and 
aviators. The Berry requirement is the buy American requirement, 
meaning that you first have to buy American before you go offshore to 
buy a product.
  At the beginning of the Iraq war, the U.S. Army and Marines noticed 
immediately we had a tremendous increase, because of the nature of that 
war, in burn injuries. They conducted a survey and looked at the 24 
best alternatives they could find anywhere to make fire-resistant 
uniforms. They finally settled on a para-aramid fire-resistant fiber 
blend of rayon with nylon.
  Environmental Protection Agency requirements to make rayon make it 
prohibitive in the United States, and there is no rayon produced in the 
United States. It is produced in Austria.
  So the Berry waiver we received a few years ago was to allow them to 
import, through now and 2013, rayon, fire-resistant rayon, which in the 
United States is blended for fabric, cut, sewn, produced, and shipped 
to the U.S. military--10,000 American jobs. The rayon cannot be 
produced in the United

[[Page 19028]]

States because of the EPA requirements.
  The reason to request an exception and postpone the sunset in 2013 is 
because the military procurement in the outyears is now reaching beyond 
that. With the absence of a Berry waiver for those years, they would 
have to zero out the purchase for those uniforms which, in turn, would 
mean the people who make those uniforms would not have the certainty of 
the Berry waiver because it would be subject to a Berry waiver again. 
Therefore, the investment they would make would be limited to the years 
they knew they could make the guaranteed deliveries.
  I have offered this amendment as an extension for that very reason. 
The U.S. Army, the Marine Corps, and the aviators who use the material 
love it because it breathes, it gives them some circulation, it has 
tremendous protection against burns and it has performed very 
satisfactorily and they want to continue to use it and there is no 
American competitor that can meet or exceed it.
  Obviously, if there were, that waiver would go away and we could 
compete, but at this time they do not. I ask the Members for their 
consideration on behalf of our military men and women in harm's way in 
Afghanistan and Iraq and wherever they might be for the uniform that 
was chosen for the very battle we are now in because it was the best 
the military could find anywhere in the country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, regrettably, I must rise in opposition to 
this amendment. I believe this amendment is not timely. It is premature 
to eliminate a congressionally imposed sunset clause for an existing 
temporary exception to the Berry amendment, an exception that was 
supposed to be temporary.
  In May of this year, Senator Graham and I jointly requested the 
Secretary of Defense to review the Department of Defense continuing 
reliance on this exception. The Under Secretary of Defense, Mr. Carter, 
has confirmed that this review is now underway and the results are 
expected soon. I do not believe we should modify the current statutory 
requirement, which would prejudice the outcome of the Department of 
Defense review, until we have heard the Department's assessment. 
Removing the sunset clause would result in an indefinite extension of 
an exception that favors foreign suppliers of rayon over our own 
American companies.
  A vote against this amendment will not have an adverse effect on 
current arrangements to obtain rayon from foreign sources. Today's Army 
uniform procurement contract will continue until 2013, so long as the 
Army stipulates that a requirement for rayon fiber in fire-resistant 
uniforms and the Department of Defense maintains the exception to the 
Berry amendment is needed.
  The 2013 sunset clause was designed to ensure that American industry 
will be fairly treated during future competitions for contracts if 
industry can demonstrate an ability to manufacture materials that 
satisfy Army requirements for fire resistance and other features. Under 
the current arrangement, companies are losing jobs because they cannot 
compete to provide alternate materials. Our domestic manufacturers are 
now able to provide alternate materials that could satisfy Army 
procurement requirements. It is not in the best interests of the U.S. 
defense industrial base, our economy or the U.S. military to remove a 
congressionally imposed sunset provision at this time.
  We have had discussions with General Fuller, the Army's Program 
Executive Officer Soldier, who is responsible for acquiring the best 
equipment for the Army and fielding it as quickly as possible. He has 
confirmed to my staff that he will consult industry to determine what 
the domestic market has to offer to satisfy performance-based 
requirements for military uniforms. This will allow American industry 
to come in with a whole spectrum of ideas and alternate materials. The 
Army would then be able to explore new technologies that may have 
evolved since we last visited this issue.
  Removing the sunset clause also poses a risk to the Army's future 
research and development requirements. The Army relies on American 
private industries to an extensive degree to conduct R&D for next-
generation materials and fabrics for uniforms, body armor, and other 
mission-essential materials. Some companies, such as Dupont, for 
example, have already lost hundreds of jobs owing to that inability to 
compete for Army contracts. A continued reliance on this Berry 
amendment exception would jeopardize their ability to remain 
competitive in this segment of the defense industrial base. I do not 
believe the Army can afford to lose this critical R&D capacity. For 
those reasons, I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to also 
oppose it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to echo the sentiments of 
Senator Webb. We have been working together on this. I very much 
appreciate Senator Isakson. I understand this is a bit complicated--
there are parochial interests involved--until we understand the dilemma 
we are in here.
  In the fiscal year 2008 Defense authorization bill, we included 
language that grants a 5-year waiver to the Berry amendment for the 
procurement of flame-resistant rayon, the material used to make 
military uniforms. There are 3 years left on the waiver. The Isakson 
amendment permanently extends this waiver and will end all efforts to 
produce a domestic material to make military uniforms.
  I respectfully oppose the amendment. We are currently procuring the 
material from Europe. There is no source of domestic rayon.
  Neither Congress nor DOD has ever issued a determination or finding 
that the domestic market lacks sufficient products that could perform 
the functions desired by DOD. This amendment unfairly excludes, in my 
opinion, U.S. manufacturers from competing for DOD procurements and 
improperly limits competition since the domestic market contains 
products such as flame-resistant cotton, Nomex, and nylon which can 
fulfill DOD's needs.
  DOD's decision to procure flame-resistant fabric from foreign 
suppliers without even examining whether domestic manufacturers could 
meet the agency's need with other products violates DOD's statutory 
mandate to use performance rather than material specifications and to 
seek free and fair open competition whenever practical.
  Instead of affirmatively extending a waiver that has 3 years 
remaining, we should continue to let the technologies and fabrics 
develop and reassess where we are in 1 or 2 years. I think that is the 
wise thing to do, and I respectfully urge my colleagues to oppose the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Through the Chair, will the Senator from South Carolina 
yield for a moment for a question?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I will.
  Mr. ISAKSON. With respect, isn't it true that there is nothing in 
this waiver that in any way inhibits or prohibits American 
manufacturers from doing the research and development necessary to 
attempt to come up with a material that meets or exceeds the rayon made 
in Austria? The problem is they cannot produce rayon in the United 
States of America because of EPA prohibitions and the costs to meet 
that.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator for that question. It is my 
understanding that the efforts made in Virginia and South Carolina to 
produce this product domestically, and the concerns the Senator has 
addressed, the private sector is dealing with; and that the ability to 
produce this material domestically is a viable option. I don't want to 
take a precedent, in terms of the Berry amendment, that I think would 
change the spirit of the amendment at a time when we have a potential 
to make this domestically. I think, as much as we can do domestically 
to protect our military and to provide resources to our military, the 
better.

[[Page 19029]]

  A year or two from now, we will know better. To lift the waiver, to 
make it a permanent waiver, I think would be an unwise erosion of the 
Berry amendment at this time. That would be my answer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, let me comment, if I can. The Berry ``Buy 
American'' program is absolutely 100 percent on target. The reason for 
waivers is when we find that there is no domestic product equal to or 
better than a product that has a component overseas, in the interest of 
our men and women in the military, we give the waiver so it doesn't 
keep us--so we do not prohibit ourselves from having the best material 
possible. If an American domestic manufacturer produces an alternative 
fiber or fabric which meets or exceeds the fire-resistant para-aramid 
rayon that is now being used, the Berry waiver will no longer apply 
because there will be a domestically produced U.S. product that is 
superior or equal to that particular product of rayon.
  So I would respectfully submit to the Senators from Virginia and 
South Carolina that the argument that there is a prohibition--that this 
would keep people from making an investment in R&D to produce something 
better is the reverse. It actually will accelerate the need for them to 
make the R&D investment to try and produce something better in the 
United States, if they can.
  One last point. The U.S. military did 24 different evaluations after 
the initial move into Iraq when we had so many burn injuries. It 
determined this fabric has to be the best for our men and women 
aviators, men and women in the Marine Corps, men and women in the Army 
in combat, and it has performed well in Afghanistan and Iraq ever 
since.
  So I would submit the R&D argument is actually accelerated with the 
extension of the waiver, and the proof of the product is in the pudding 
which we have seen with the safety of our troops and our men and women 
in harm's way.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I rise very quickly in support of the Isakson 
amendment. There is currently a waiver to the Berry amendment in place 
which allows companies to import the fire-resistant rayon from foreign 
countries.
  Let me be very clear. The jobs that go with the manufacture of these 
uniforms for the Army and Marines are U.S. jobs. All of these uniforms 
are made in the United States. But this fabric is used by TenCate, 
Incorporated, to make its Defender M fabric to produce fire-resistant 
uniforms for both the Army and the Marines.
  The material is not made in the United States due to EPA standards. 
This is a classic example of where EPA standards can be too stringent 
to allow U.S. manufacturers to operate. And, the reason is, it is cost 
prohibitive to do so.
  The current waiver, which includes a 5-year sunset clause, was 
included in the 2008 Defense authorization bill after a tremendous 
effort by my colleague, Senator Isakson, and obviously is set to 
expire.
  The Army's PEO Soldier expressed very strongly that FR rayon is the 
superior fabric based upon key selection criteria. The criteria were 
cost, comfort, durability, and length of time before receiving third-
degree burns. We have had some very serious situations, obviously, that 
have occurred with burns in both Iraq and Afghanistan. That is why the 
Army and the Marines like this uniform.
  We buy 115,000 new FR uniforms every month. This uniform is superior 
because of the fact that we have been able to import this fabric with 
the Berry amendment waiver. It is, in my opinion, imperative that we 
continue for the competition. The uniforms are still competitively bid. 
So it is not like we are taking anybody out of the marketplace.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Isakson amendment.
  I yield the floor.


                Amendment No. 1657, as Further Modified

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send a further 
modification of the Sessions amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is further 
modified.
  The amendment as further modified is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. NO MIRANDA WARNINGS FOR AL QAEDA TERRORISTS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the term ``foreign national'' means an individual who 
     is not a citizen or national of the United States; and
       (2) the term ``enemy combatant'' includes a privileged 
     belligerent and an unprivileged enemy belligerent, as those 
     terms are defined in section 948a of title 10, United States 
     Code, as amended by section 1031 of this Act.
       (b) No Miranda Warnings.--Absent an unappealable court 
     order requiring the reading of such statements, no military 
     or intelligence agency or department of the United States 
     shall read to a foreign national who is captured or detained 
     as an enemy combatant by the United States the statement 
     required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), or 
     otherwise inform such a prisoner of any rights that the 
     prisoner may or may not have to counsel or to remain silent 
     consistent with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). No 
     Federal statute, regulation, or treaty shall be construed to 
     require that a foreign national who is captured or detained 
     as an enemy combatant by the United States be informed of any 
     rights to counsel or to remain silent consistent with Miranda 
     v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) that the prisoner may or may 
     not have, except as required by the United States 
     Constitution. No statement that is made by a foreign national 
     who is captured or detained as an enemy combatant by the 
     United States may be excluded from any proceeding on the 
     basis that the prisoner was not informed of a right to 
     counsel or to remain silent that the prisoner may or may not 
     have, unless required by the United States Constitution.


                           Amendment No. 1525

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from 
Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), and 
the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Utah (Mr. Bennett).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 40, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 241 Leg.]

                                YEAS--40

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bond
     Brownback
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Franken
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Whitehouse

                                NAYS--54

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     DeMint
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Martinez
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Shaheen
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Webb
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bennett
     Byrd
     Kennedy
     Landrieu
     Mikulski
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 1525) was rejected.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page 19030]]


  Mr. DORGAN. 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. 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.


                           Amendment No. 1760

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
resume debate on the Kyl amendment No. 1760; that it be in order for 
Senator Kyl to offer a second-degree amendment to his amendment; that 
once the second degree is reported, it be agreed to, amendment No. 
1760, as amended, be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid 
upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona is recognized.


                Amendment No. 1807 to Amendment No. 1760

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I call up the second-degree amendment to my 
amendment No. 1760 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1807 to amendment No. 1760.

  Mr. KYL. 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 require a report on the plan for the United States nuclear 
weapons stockpile, nuclear weapons complex, and delivery platforms, and 
  to express the sense of the Senate on follow-on negotiations to the 
                             START Treaty)

         Beginning on page 1, line 2, strike ``LIMITATION'' and 
     all that follows through page 5, line 3, and insert the 
     following: ``REPORT ON THE PLAN FOR THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR 
     WEAPONS STOCKPILE, NUCLEAR WEAPONS COMPLEX, AND DELIVERY 
     PLATFORMS AND SENSE OF THE SENATE ON FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS 
     TO START TREATY.
         (a) Report on the Plan for the United States Nuclear 
     Weapons Stockpile, Nuclear Weapons Complex, and Delivery 
     Platforms.--
         (1) Report required.--Not later than 30 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act or at the time a follow-on 
     treaty to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START Treaty) 
     is submitted by the President to the Senate for its advice 
     and consent, whichever is earlier, the President shall submit 
     to the congressional defense and foreign relations committees 
     a report on the plan to enhance the safety, security, and 
     reliability of the United States nuclear weapons stockpile, 
     modernize the nuclear weapons complex, and maintain the 
     delivery platforms for nuclear weapons.
         (2) Coordination.--The President shall prepare the report 
     required under paragraph (1) in coordination with the 
     Secretary of Defense, the directors of Sandia National 
     Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Lawrence 
     Livermore National Laboratory, the Administrator for the 
     National Nuclear Security Administration, and the Commander 
     of the United States Strategic Command.
         (3) Elements.--The report required under paragraph (1) 
     shall include the following:
         (A) A description of the plan to enhance the safety, 
     security, and reliability of the United States nuclear 
     weapons stockpile.
         (B) A description of the plan to modernize the nuclear 
     weapons complex, including improving the safety of 
     facilities, modernizing the infrastructure, and maintaining 
     the key capabilities and competencies of the nuclear weapons 
     workforce, including designers and technicians.
         (C) A description of the plan to maintain delivery 
     platforms for nuclear weapons.
         (D) An estimate of budget requirements, including the 
     costs associated with the plans outlined under subparagraphs 
     (A) through (C), over a 10-year period.
         (b) Sense of the Senate on Follow-on Negotiations to the 
     START Treaty.--The Senate urges the President to maintain the 
     stated position of the United States that the follow-on 
     treaty to the START Treaty not include any limitations on the 
     ballistic missile defense systems, space capabilities, or 
     advanced conventional weapons systems of the United States.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to thank the ranking member on the 
committee, my colleague John McCain, and the chairman of the committee, 
as well as Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar, for working through this 
amendment. We have a good resolution. We will be writing a letter to 
the President. We will be adding a short provision to the bill that 
calls for appropriate studies and reports to accompany the START Treaty 
when that treaty is sent to the Senate. I think it is a good resolution 
of this issue.
  I call for the immediate disposition of the amendment. We do not need 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me thank Senator Kyl and all of those 
who have been involved in working the Kyl amendment to a point where we 
are comfortable with it. I think all of us had concerns, and those 
concerns have been fairly met. I thank the Senator from Arizona for his 
effort, as well as, of course, my ranking member on the committee and 
all of the others who have been helpful.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendment No. 1807 
is agreed to.
  Under the previous order, amendment No. 1760, as amended, is agreed 
to.
  The motion to reconsider is made and laid upon the table.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER Mr. Bennet). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAHAM. 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. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I believe it is appropriate now to call up 
the Lieberman amendment, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I think we have a package of cleared 
amendments we would like to do first, if that is agreeable.
  Mr. LEVIN. We are not ready yet.
  Mr. McCAIN. 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. 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.


                    Amendment No. 1650, as Modified

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Lieberman and Graham call up amendment No. 1650, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I appreciate the assistance of Chairman 
Levin and all those involved. This is to me a very important statement 
by the Senate at a crucial time in our Nation's history. Simply put, 
our amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate statement that there is a 
preference for military commission trials regarding detained 
terrorists.
  The reason we are making this statement and trying to urge our 
colleagues to agree with us is that the interim detainee report that 
has been issued in the last day or two by the White House has a 
statement within that report that there should be a presumption that 
detained terrorists would be tried in article III Federal civilian 
courts.
  I could not disagree more. We will keep working with the 
administration on this issue. There may be an odd case where a Federal 
court may be an appropriate venue. But I think I speak for Senator 
Lieberman and I hope most Americans that the people we are talking 
about are not common criminals. They are not detained because of some 
violation of domestic criminal law. They are detained because they have 
been found to be part of al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations 
that the Congress has previously determined to be enemy combatant 
belligerents, people who have taken up arms against the United States 
of America, who are intent on our destruction. They are not accused of 
robbing a liquor store. They fall within a narrow statutory definition 
that was created after 9/11. This is

[[Page 19031]]

an opportunity for the Senate to express itself and say there is a 
preference for military courts.
  I conclude with this thought. I believe we are at war. It is an 
unusual war but nonetheless a deadly war. The people we are talking 
about, again, need to be viewed as military threats, and under military 
law it is appropriate to try someone who has operated outside the law 
of armed conflict in a military commission.
  Our Nation has been doing this for 200 years. The Nazi saboteurs who 
were caught landing on the coast of Florida were tried by military 
commission. I can give a long history of how military commissions were 
used by our Nation at times of war. That is the preferred vehicle when 
a nation is at war.
  I conclude with this thought. Those who can be tried should be tried 
by military commissions. There will be some enemy combatants determined 
to be part of al-Qaida who will not be subject to criminal process 
either in Federal courts or military commission trials. It is my belief 
that this country cannot afford to release them if they are still a 
military threat.
  Under military law, there is no requirement to release an enemy 
prisoner as long as they present a threat to your country. There is no 
such concept in domestic criminal law. We cannot criminalize this war. 
It will come back to haunt us.
  Due process is available under military law. The men and women 
running these trials are officers, judge advocates. I have been one for 
25 years. They are wonderful people. They will adhere to the law. They 
understand the law. They will provide transparent justice. But this is 
the setting that we need to be in regarding these detainees. This 
statement by the Senate is appropriate.
  Mr. President, to my good friend, Senator Lieberman, he has, above 
all others, tried to remind himself that the Nation's defense is more 
important than politics. I cannot tell Senator Lieberman how much I 
admire him. We have worked together to get a sense of the Senate, not 
binding, but a strong statement that it is a preference that these 
terrorists detained as part of an al-Qaida network be tried in military 
commissions, as we have done in our history.
  I yield to Senator Lieberman and hope my colleagues will accept this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I call up our amendment No. 1650, as 
modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman], for himself 
     and Mr. Graham, proposes an amendment numbered 1650, as 
     modified.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. 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 express the sense of Congress that military commissions 
      are the preferred forum for the trial of alien unprivileged 
   belligerents for violations of the law of war and other offenses 
                    triable by military commission)

       On page 394, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

     SEC. 1032. TRIAL BY MILITARY COMMISSION OF ALIEN UNPRIVILEGED 
                   BELLIGERENTS FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW OF WAR.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 47A of title 10, 
     United States Code, as amended by section 1031(a), is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 948e. Trial by military commission of alien 
       unprivileged belligerents for violations of the law of war

       ``(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the preferred forum for the trial of alien unprivileged enemy 
     belligerents subject to this chapter for violations of the 
     law of war and other offenses made punishable by this chapter 
     is trial by military commission under this chapter.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections of the 
     beginning of such subchapter, as amended by section 1031(a), 
     is further amended by adding after the item relating to 
     section 948d the following new item:

``948e. Trial by military commission of alien unprivileged belligerents 
              for violations of the law of war.''.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Graham for his overly 
generous words in my direction. It is always a pleasure to work with 
him on matters of this kind. Really more than anyone else in the 
Senate, he knows military law because he practices it in his capacity 
as a member of the JAG. I thank him for cosponsoring this amendment 
with me.
  Also, I thank Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, and Senator Graham for 
the extraordinary work they have done in improving the military 
commission system that has been set up. It is the basis for the 
amendment that Senator Graham and I put in this evening.
  The fact is that military commissions, by one name or another, have 
played a time-honored role in our country in bringing war criminals to 
justice. The use of military tribunals dates all the way back to the 
beginning of our country. Our first President, GEN George Washington, 
relied on them during the Revolutionary War for the trial of violations 
of the laws of war.
  The United States has continued to utilize military commissions or 
tribunals for the trial of people accused of violations of the laws of 
war and related crimes throughout our history.
  The fact is we are once more at war today against those who planned, 
authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 
2001. There is an existing authorization for the use of military force. 
Military commissions, in my opinion, and Senator Graham's, are, 
therefore, the appropriate forum for the trial of war criminals 
captured during this conflict, as they have been throughout our 
history. And all the more comfortable should we be in saying that after 
the amendments to the Military Commissions Act have been adopted as 
part of this National Defense Authorization Act.
  I remind our colleagues, because it was done without a lot of debate, 
that the package of amendments to the Military Commissions Act that has 
been adopted as part of this legislation, offered by Senators McCain, 
Levin, and Graham, would ensure lawful, fair, and effective trials by 
providing a series of protections to the accused for the military 
commissions, including a prohibition on the use of statements obtained 
through cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, access to exculpatory 
evidence, and meaningful appellate review of legal and factual 
findings.
  As distinguished witnesses and authorities have testified at a 
hearing Chairman Levin led before the Armed Services Committee on this 
issue 2 weeks ago, according to these witnesses, including people who 
work as general counsel in the Defense Department, for instance, the 
military commission provisions in the bill before us not only meet but 
surpass by far the fundamental standards of fairness and due process 
required by our Supreme Court, the Geneva Conventions, and the rules of 
the International Criminal Court.
  Given those robust procedural and substantive rights provided by the 
system of military commissions established in this bill, I must say 
that I have been surprised, troubled, and I would even go so far as to 
say astounded that officials of our administration have now made clear 
that they prefer prosecuting war criminals in Federal district courts 
here in the United States as opposed to before the military commissions 
we have established. That was testimony given before the Armed Services 
Committee in response to questions of the General Counsel of the 
Defense Department.
  Just this week, an interim report was issued by a Department of 
Defense and Department of Justice task force on the legal questions 
associated with the detainees. In that report there is this sentence:

       There is a presumption that, where feasible, referred cases 
     will be prosecuted in an Article III court, in keeping with 
     traditional principles of federal prosecution.

  Article III courts, of course, are federal courts.
  So it is the testimony of the General Counsel of the Defense 
Department, and now this interim report from the

[[Page 19032]]

Department of Defense and the Department of Justice, that has led 
Senator Graham and me to offer this amendment, because we simply 
disagree, as we think most Americans and most Members of the Senate do, 
with the idea that there is a presumption in favor of trying prisoners 
of war before our Federal courts instead of before military 
commissions, as has been done throughout our history.
  This realizes the worst fears of people that we would begin to 
criminalize the war on terrorism instead of treating it and its 
perpetrators as war and criminals of war. This change in direction 
departs from our history and, in some sense, diminishes the 
extraordinary work that has been done by Chairman Levin, Senator 
McCain, Senator Graham, and others to create and improve these military 
commissions. It may, in fact, cast unfounded doubt on the legitimacy of 
the convictions obtained by military commissions on the strength of the 
evidence used to secure convictions in those proceedings and the 
procedural protections accorded to defendants by the military 
commissions process.
  Our amendment is very simple. It is a long sentence, and I read it, 
as follows:

       It is the sense of Congress that the preferred forum for 
     the trial of alien unprivileged enemy belligerents subject to 
     this chapter for violations of the law of war and other 
     offenses made punishable by this chapter is trial by military 
     commission under this chapter.

  So we adopt wording in the military commissions section of this 
legislation regarding violations of the law of war and other offenses 
made punishable by this chapter, and we say that it is our preference 
that people accused of such crimes of war be tried before the military 
commissions.
  We have created a system of military commissions that I believe 
offers remarkable protections--perhaps the best ever offered to people 
in the status of alleged war criminals against our country or any 
country, against our citizens or the citizens of any country. And, I 
repeat, obviously we are at war, and therefore we should use these 
military commissions we have created and preference should be in their 
direction.
  The fact is, where to bring charges against people accused of 
violating laws of war or, as we have said in the legislation, other 
offenses made punishable by this chapter is a decision made by the 
executive branch. It is not one we can control. But we can express an 
opinion. We can express an opinion to the executive branch, 
respectfully, that we think they have made a mistake in stating a 
presumption to try prisoners of war in Federal district courts. Such an 
approach would cast doubt, as I have said, on the use of military 
commissions but I think would also set an unfortunate, even dangerous, 
precedent for the trial of war criminals today or in future conflicts 
in Federal courts rather than our Nation's time-honored use of military 
commissions for the violation of the law of war.
  I hope we can unite across party lines to adopt this expression of 
opinion on a most important question.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment, in response 
to my good friends, Senator Graham and Senator Lieberman, and say a 
word on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice and its prosecutors, 
who have been actively engaged in the war on terror for many years now 
and who have shown considerable success.
  The information they have is that the number of individuals who have 
been successfully prosecuted, convicted, and incarcerated as a result 
of military commissions numbers in the handful--perhaps even fewer than 
five. By contrast, just since January 1 of this year, more than 30 
individuals have been charged with terrorism, successfully prosecuted, 
and sentenced to Federal prison--more than 30 convicted or sentenced 
just this year. There are 355 inmates in Federal prison now who have 
been successfully charged, prosecuted, convicted, and are now serving 
lengthy sentences as a result of their history or connection with 
international or domestic terrorism.
  I don't want to get into a discussion right now on whether military 
commissions are a good or bad idea, but what has proven tried-and-true 
in terms of actually putting terrorists behind bars, where they belong, 
has been the expertise and the experience and the capability of the 
U.S. Department of Justice. They have been successful. There are 
hundreds of terrorists behind bars. There are far more than have ever 
come through the military commissions during the course of this 
struggle. And I think we should bear that in mind as we speak about 
this issue and as we vote about this issue. There is a lot of high-
quality prosecutorial work and a lot of patriotism in the Department of 
Justice, and there is a reason we should allow the professionals to 
sort out case by case which is the better venue for the trial, whether 
a military commission, however new and untested in this modern era, or 
the tried-and-true model of the U.S. Federal prosecutor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I hope we can quickly get to a voice vote. 
I would briefly say that the executive branch created a presumption 
that the cases would be tried before criminal courts--article III 
courts. I thought it was a mistake. We should not have a presumption 
one way or the other. The amendment before us redresses the balance to 
the extent we can do it tonight.
  Also, we were able to get the agreement on the part of the sponsors 
to strike a part of the original amendment which would have created 
some very difficult bureaucratic problems in terms of reporting case by 
case as to why decisions were made one way or another.
  So I do hope we can promptly agree to the amendment. I thank Senators 
Lieberman and Graham.
  Again, my own preference is there not be either a presumption or a 
preference one way or the other, but I think this does even the 
balance. Again, it is a sense of the Senate, so it will be left to the 
Department of Justice.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Levin for his 
statement. It is always a very thoughtful and mutually respectful 
process when you work with Senator Levin, even on matters of 
disagreement, and I appreciate the resolution.
  I would just like to say in response to the comments of my friend 
from Rhode Island--and there is nothing here intended to in any way 
disparage the work of the Federal prosecutors, and I appreciate the 
record he cited of the prosecutions, but the point Senator Graham and I 
are trying to make, and I hope the whole Senate will, is that 
violations of the laws of war are inherently different. Regardless of 
the outcome--how many people are convicted or put in jail or not--those 
allegations of such crimes belong before military commissions, or 
tribunals as they have been called throughout our history, not in 
Federal criminal courts where other violations of our domestic criminal 
law are handled. Part of that is just an appropriate allocation of 
responsibility. Part of it is that I think it is important we not fall 
into a misunderstanding that we are not involved in war. It is a very 
different kind of war, but it is a war, and we know that from the 
casualties we suffered on 9/11 and people around the world have 
suffered before and since in a lot of other cities and countries. So we 
are making a point of an appropriate forum for the trial of cases, not 
based on outcome but based on where these allegations are best tried.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1650), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.

[[Page 19033]]

  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


Amendments Nos. 1481, 1621, as Modified, 1675, 1700, 1680, 1697, 1494, 
1718, 1601, 1738, 1703, 1656, 1523, 1647, 1662, 1741, 1746, 1543, 1740, 
  1687, 1702, 1717, 1521, 1768, 1752, 1739, as Modified, 1775, 1735, 
1564, 1773, 1774, 1795, 1788, 1780, 1782, 1779, 1785, 1806, 1803, 1727, 
        1706, 1749, as Modified, 1799, 1620, 1688, 1765, En Bloc

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send a series of 46 amendments to the 
desk, which have been cleared by myself and Senator McCain, the ranking 
member, and I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider these 
amendments en bloc, the amendments be agreed to, and that the motions 
to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 1481

(Purpose: To require the Director of National Intelligence to submit a 
 report to Congress on retirement benefits for former employees of Air 
                                America)

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

     SEC. 1073. REPORT ON AIR AMERICA.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Air america.--The term ``Air America'' means Air 
     America, Incorporated.
       (2) Associated company.--The term ``associated company'' 
     means any entity associated with, predecessor to, or 
     subsidiary to Air America, including Air Asia Company 
     Limited, CAT Incorporated, Civil Air Transport Company 
     Limited, and the Pacific Division of Southern Air Transport 
     during the period when such an entity was owned and 
     controlled by the United States Government.
       (b) Report on Retirement Benefits for Former Employees of 
     Air America.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Director of National 
     Intelligence shall submit to Congress a report on the 
     advisability of providing Federal retirement benefits to 
     United States citizens for the service of such citizens prior 
     to 1977 as employees of Air America or an associated company 
     during a period when Air America or the associated company 
     was owned or controlled by the United States Government and 
     operated or managed by the Central Intelligence Agency.
       (2) Report elements.--The report required by paragraph (1) 
     shall include the following:
       (A) The history of Air America and the associated companies 
     prior to 1977, including a description of--
       (i) the relationship between Air American and the 
     associated companies and the Central Intelligence Agency or 
     any other element of the United States Government;
       (ii) the workforce of Air America and the associated 
     companies;
       (iii) the missions performed by Air America, the associated 
     companies, and their employees for the United States; and
       (iv) the casualties suffered by employees of Air America 
     and the associated companies in the course of their 
     employment.
       (B) A description of--
       (i) the retirement benefits contracted for or promised to 
     the employees of Air America and the associated companies 
     prior to 1977;
       (ii) the contributions made by such employees for such 
     benefits;
       (iii) the retirement benefits actually paid such employees;
       (iv) the entitlement of such employees to the payment of 
     future retirement benefits; and
       (v) the likelihood that such employees will receive any 
     future retirement benefits.
       (C) An assessment of the difference between--
       (i) the retirement benefits that former employees of Air 
     America and the associated companies have received or will 
     receive by virtue of their employment with Air America and 
     the associated companies; and
       (ii) the retirement benefits that such employees would have 
     received or be eligible to receive if such employment was 
     deemed to be employment by the United States Government and 
     their service during such employment was credited as Federal 
     service for the purpose of Federal retirement benefits.
       (D)(i) Any recommendations regarding the advisability of 
     legislative action to treat such employment as Federal 
     service for the purpose of Federal retirement benefits in 
     light of the relationship between Air America and the 
     associated companies and the United States Government and the 
     services and sacrifices of such employees to and for the 
     United States.
       (ii) If legislative action is considered advisable under 
     clause (i), a proposal for such action and an assessment of 
     its costs.
       (E) The opinions of the Director of the Central 
     Intelligence Agency, if any, on any matters covered by the 
     report that the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency 
     considers appropriate.
       (3) Assistance of comptroller general.--The Comptroller 
     General of the United States shall, upon the request of the 
     Director of National Intelligence and in a manner consistent 
     with the protection of classified information, assist the 
     Director in the preparation of the report required by 
     paragraph (1).
       (4) Form.--The report required by paragraph (1) shall be 
     submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified 
     annex.


                    amendment no. 1621, As Modified

       On page 161, after line 23, add the following:

     SEC. 557. EXPANSION OF SUICIDE PREVENTION AND COMMUNITY 
                   HEALING AND RESPONSE TRAINING UNDER THE YELLOW 
                   RIBBON REINTEGRATION PROGRAM.

       Section 582 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181; 10 U.S.C. 10101 note) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (h)--
       (A) by striking paragraph (3); and
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (4) through (15) as 
     paragraphs (3) through (14), respectively; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(i) Suicide Prevention and Community Healing and Response 
     Program.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--As part of the Yellow Ribbon 
     Reintegration Program, the Office for Reintegration Programs 
     shall establish a program to provide National Guard and 
     Reserve members and their families, and in coordination with 
     community programs, assist the communities, with training in 
     suicide prevention and community healing and response to 
     suicide.
       ``(2) Design.--In establishing the program under paragraph 
     (1), the Office for Reintegration Programs shall consult 
     with--
       ``(A) persons that have experience and expertise with 
     combining military and civilian intervention strategies that 
     reduce risk and promote healing after a suicide attempt or 
     suicide death for National Guard and Reserve members; and
       ``(B) the adjutant general of each State, the Commonwealth 
     of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the 
     Virgin Islands.
       ``(3) Operation.--
       ``(A) Suicide prevention training.--The Office for 
     Reintegration Programs shall provide National Guard and 
     Reserve members with training in suicide prevention. Such 
     training shall include--
       ``(i) describing the warning signs for suicide and teaching 
     effective strategies for prevention and intervention;
       ``(ii) examining the influence of military culture on risk 
     and protective factors for suicide; and
       ``(iii) engaging in interactive case scenarios and role 
     plays to practice effective intervention strategies.
       ``(B) Community healing and response training.--The Office 
     for Reintegration Programs shall provide the families and 
     communities of National Guard and Reserve members with 
     training in responses to suicide that promote individual and 
     community healing. Such training shall include--
       ``(i) enhancing collaboration among community members and 
     local service providers to create an integrated, coordinated 
     community response to suicide;
       ``(ii) communicating best practices for preventing suicide, 
     including safe messaging, appropriate memorial services, and 
     media guidelines;
       ``(iii) addressing the impact of suicide on the military 
     and the larger community, and the increased risk that can 
     result; and
       ``(iv) managing resources to assist key community and 
     military service providers in helping the families, friends, 
     and fellow soldiers of a suicide victim through the processes 
     of grieving and healing.
       ``(C) Collaboration with centers of excellence.--The Office 
     for Reintegration Programs, in consultation with the Defense 
     Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic 
     Brain Injury, shall collect and analyze `lessons learned' and 
     suggestions from State National Guard and Reserve 
     organizations with existing or developing suicide prevention 
     and community response programs.''.
       ``(4) Termination.--The program established under this 
     subsection shall terminate on October 1, 2012.''.


                           amendment no. 1675

(Purpose: To ensure that members of the reserve components of the Armed 
Forces who are injured while on active duty are advised of programs to 
           assist in their transition back to civilian life)

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

     SEC. 652. CONTINUATION ON ACTIVE DUTY OF RESERVE COMPONENT 
                   MEMBERS DURING PHYSICAL DISABILITY EVALUATION 
                   FOLLOWING MOBILIZATION AND DEPLOYMENT.

       Section 1218 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d)(1) The Secretary of a military department shall 
     ensure that each member of a reserve component under the 
     jurisdiction of the Secretary who is determined, after a 
     mobilization and deployment to an area in which imminent 
     danger pay is authorized under section 310 of title 37, to 
     require evaluation for a physical or mental disability

[[Page 19034]]

     which could result in separation or retirement for disability 
     under this chapter or placement on the temporary disability 
     retired list or inactive status list under this chapter is 
     retained on active duty during the disability evaluation 
     process until such time as such member is--
       ``(A) cleared by appropriate authorities for continuation 
     on active duty; or
       ``(B) separated, retired, or placed on the temporary 
     disability retired list or inactive status list.
       ``(2)(A) A member described in paragraph (1) may request 
     termination of active duty under such paragraph at any time 
     during the demobilization or disability evaluation process of 
     such member.
       ``(B) Upon a request under subparagraph (A), a member 
     described in paragraph (1) shall only be released from active 
     duty after the member receives counseling about the 
     consequences of termination of active duty.
       ``(C) Each release from active duty under subparagraph (B) 
     shall be thoroughly documented.
       ``(3) The requirements in paragraph (1) shall expire on the 
     date that is five years after the date of the enactment of 
     the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2010.''.

     SEC. 653. USE OF LOCAL RESIDENCES FOR COMMUNITY-BASED CARE 
                   FOR CERTAIN RESERVE COMPONENT MEMBERS.

       Section 1222 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Use of Local Residences for Certain Reserve Component 
     Members.--(1)(A) A member of a reserve component described by 
     subparagraph (B) may be assigned to the community-based 
     warrior transition unit located nearest to the member's 
     permanent place of residence if residing at that location 
     is--
       ``(i) medically feasible, as determined by a licensed 
     military health care provider; and
       ``(ii) consistent with--
       ``(I) the needs of the armed forces; and
       ``(II) the optimal course of medical treatment of the 
     member.
       ``(B) A member of a reserve component described by this 
     subparagraph is any member remaining on active duty under 
     section 1218(d) of this title during the period the member is 
     on active duty under such subsection.
       ``(2) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as 
     terminating, altering, or otherwise affecting the authority 
     of the commander of a member described in paragraph (1)(B) to 
     order the member to perform duties consistent with the 
     member's fitness for duty.
       ``(3) The Secretary concerned shall pay any reasonable 
     expenses of transportation, lodging, and meals incurred by a 
     member residing at the member's permanent place of residence 
     under this subsection in connection with travel from the 
     member's permanent place of residence to a medical facility 
     during the period in which the member is covered by this 
     subsection.''.

     SEC. 654. ASSISTANCE WITH TRANSITIONAL BENEFITS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 61 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 1218 the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 1218a. Discharge or release from active duty: 
       transition assistance

       ``The Secretary of a military department shall provide to a 
     member of a reserve component under the jurisdiction of the 
     Secretary who is injured while on active duty in the armed 
     forces the following before such member is demobilized or 
     separated from the armed forces:
       ``(1) Information on the availability of care and 
     administrative processing through community based warrior 
     transition units.
       ``(2) The location of the community based warrior 
     transition unit located nearest to the member's permanent 
     place of residence.
       ``(3) An opportunity to consult with a member of the 
     applicable judge advocate general's corps, or other qualified 
     legal assistance attorney, regarding the member's eligibility 
     for compensation, disability, or other transitional 
     benefits.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 61 of such title is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 1218 the following new 
     item:

``1218a. Discharge or release from active duty: transition 
              assistance.''.


                           amendment no. 1700

 (Purpose: To ensure the security of Iraq through defense cooperation 
                  between the United States and Iraq)

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

     SEC. 1211. ENSURING IRAQI SECURITY THROUGH DEFENSE 
                   COOPERATION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND IRAQ.

       The President may treat an undertaking by the Government of 
     Iraq that is made between the date of the enactment of this 
     Act and December 31, 2011, as a dependable undertaking 
     described in section 22(a) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 
     U.S.C. 2762(a)) for purposes of entering into contracts for 
     the procurement of defense articles and defense services as 
     provided for in that section.


                           amendment no. 1680

   (Purpose: To authorize the availability of appropriated funds for 
certain activities conducted under the State Partnership Program of the 
                            National Guard)

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

     SEC. 1211. AVAILABILITY OF APPROPRIATED FUNDS FOR THE STATE 
                   PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.

       (a) Availability of Appropriated Funds.--The Secretary of 
     Defense may, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, 
     use funds appropriated to the Department of Defense for 
     fiscal year 2010 to pay the costs incurred by the National 
     Guard (including the costs of pay and allowances of members 
     of the National Guard) in conducting activities under the 
     State Partnership Program--
       (1) to support the objectives of the commander of the 
     combatant command for the theater of operations in which such 
     activities are conducted; or
       (2) to build international civil-military partnerships and 
     capacity on matters relating to defense and security.
       (b) Limitations.--
       (1) Approval by commander of combatant command and chief of 
     mission.--Funds shall not be available under subsection (a) 
     for activities conducted under the State Partnership Program 
     in a foreign country unless such activities are jointly 
     approved by the commander of the combatant command concerned 
     and the chief of mission concerned.
       (2) Participation by members.--Funds shall not be available 
     under subsection (a) for the participation of a member of the 
     National Guard in activities conducted under the State 
     Partnership Program in a foreign country unless the member is 
     on active duty in the Armed Forces at the time of such 
     participation.
       (c) Reimbursement.--In the event of the participation of 
     personnel of a department or agency of the United States 
     Government (other than the Department of Defense) in 
     activities for which payment is made under subsection (a), 
     the head of such department or agency shall reimburse the 
     Secretary of Defense for the costs associated with the 
     participation of such personnel in such activities. Amounts 
     reimbursed the Department of Defense under this subsection 
     shall be deposited in the appropriation or account from which 
     amounts for the payment concerned were derived. Any amounts 
     so deposited shall be merged with amounts in such 
     appropriation or account, and shall be available for the same 
     purposes, and subject to the same conditions and limitations, 
     as amounts in such appropriation or account.


                           amendment no. 1697

 (Purpose: To require a biennial report on the military power of Iran)

       On page 479, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:

     SEC. 1222. REPORT ON MILITARY POWER OF IRAN.

       (a) Biennial Report.--Not later than March 31, 2010, and in 
     each even-numbered year thereafter until 2020, the Secretary 
     of Defense shall submit to Congress a report, in both 
     classified and unclassified form, on the current and future 
     military strategy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The report 
     shall address the current and probable future course of 
     military developments on the Army, Air Force, Navy, and 
     Revolutionary Guard Corps of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
       (b) Matters To Be Included.--The report required under 
     subsection (a) shall include the following elements:
       (1) As assessment of the grand strategy, security strategy, 
     and military strategy of the Government of the Islamic 
     Republic of Iran, including the following:
       (A) The goals of the grand strategy, security strategy, and 
     military strategy.
       (B) Aspects of the strategies that would be designed to 
     establish Iran as the leading power in the Middle East and to 
     enhance the influence of Iran in other regions of the world.
       (C) The security situation in the Persian Gulf and the 
     Levant.
       (D) Iranian strategy regarding other countries in the 
     Middle East region.
       (2) An assessment of the capabilities of the conventional 
     forces of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 
     including the following:
       (A) The size, location, and capabilities of the 
     conventional forces.
       (B) A detailed analysis of the conventional forces of the 
     Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran facing United 
     States forces in the region and other countries in the Middle 
     East region.
       (C) An estimate of the funding provided for each branch of 
     the conventional forces of the Government of the Islamic 
     Republic of Iran.
       (3) An assessment of the unconventional forces of the 
     Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the 
     following:
       (A) The size and capability of special operations units, 
     including the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force.
       (B) The types and amount of support provided to groups 
     designated by the United States as terrorist organizations in 
     particular those forces that have been assessed as willing to 
     carry out terrorist operations on behalf of the Islamic 
     Republic of Iran.

[[Page 19035]]

       (C) A detailed analysis of the unconventional forces of the 
     Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and their 
     implications for the United States and other countries in the 
     Middle East region.
       (D) An estimate of the amount of funds spent by the 
     Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to develop and 
     support special operations forces and terrorist groups.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Conventional forces of the government of iran.--The 
     term ``conventional forces of the Government of the Islamic 
     Republic of Iran''--
       (A) means military forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran 
     designed to conduct operations on sea, air, or land, other 
     than Iran's unconventional forces and Iran's strategic 
     missile forces; and
       (B) includes Iran's Army, Iran's Air Force, Iran's Navy, 
     and elements of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, other 
     than the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force.
       (2) Middle east region.--The term ``Middle East region'' 
     means--
       (A) the countries within the area of responsibility of 
     United States Central Command; and
       (B) the countries within the area covered by the Bureau of 
     Near Eastern Affairs of the Department of State.
       (3) Unconventional forces of the government of iran.--The 
     term ``unconventional forces of the Government of the Islamic 
     Republic of Iran''--
       (A) means forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran that carry 
     out missions typically associated with special operations 
     forces; and
       (B) includes--
       (i) the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force; and
       (ii) any organization that--

       (I) has been designated a terrorist organization by the 
     United States;
       (II) receives assistance from the Government of Iran; and
       (III)(aa) is assessed as being willing in some or all cases 
     of carrying out attacks on behalf of the Government of the 
     Islamic Republic of Iran; or
       (bb) is assessed as likely to carry out attacks in response 
     to a military attack by another country on the Islamic 
     Republic of Iran.


                           amendment no. 1494

    (Purpose: To require a report on criteria for the selection of 
        strategic embarkation ports and ship layberth locations)

       On page 429, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

     SEC. 1073. REPORT ON CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF STRATEGIC 
                   EMBARKATION PORTS AND SHIP LAYBERTHING 
                   LOCATIONS.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Commander of the 
     United States Transportation Command shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a report with criteria for 
     the selection of strategic embarkation ports and ship 
     layberth locations.
       (b) Development of Criteria.--The criteria included in the 
     report required under subsection (a) shall--
       (1) prioritize the facilitation of strategic deployment and 
     reduction of combatant commander force closure timelines;
       (2) take into account--
       (A) time required to crew, activate, and sail sealift 
     vessels to embarkation ports;
       (B) distance and travel times for the forces from assigned 
     installation to embarkation ports;
       (C) availability of adequate infrastructure to transport 
     forces from assigned installation to embarkation ports; and
       (D) time required to move forces from embarkation ports to 
     likely areas of force deployment around the world; and
       (3) inform the selection of strategic embarkation ports and 
     the procurement of ship layberthing services.


                           amendment no. 1718

(Purpose: To provide authority to transfer covered defense articles no 
 longer needed in Iraq and to provide defense services to the security 
                    forces of Iraq and Afghanistan)

       On page 475, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 1211. AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER DEFENSE ARTICLES AND PROVIDE 
                   DEFENSE SERVICES TO THE MILITARY AND SECURITY 
                   FORCES OF IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.

       (a) Authority.--The President is authorized to transfer 
     defense articles from the stocks of the Department of 
     Defense, and to provide defense services in connection with 
     the transfer of such defense articles, to--
       (1) the military and security forces of Iraq to support the 
     efforts of those forces to restore and maintain peace and 
     security in that country; and
       (2) the military and security forces of Afghanistan to 
     support the efforts of those forces to restore and maintain 
     peace and security in that country.
       (b) Limitations.--
       (1) Value.--The aggregate replacement value of all defense 
     articles transferred and defense services provided under 
     subsection (a) may not exceed $500,000,000.
       (2) Source of transferred defense articles.--The authority 
     under subsection (a) may only be used for defense articles 
     that--
       (A) immediately before the transfer were in use to support 
     operations in Iraq;
       (B) were present in Iraq as of the date of enactment of 
     this Act; and
       (C) are no longer required by United States forces in Iraq.
       (c) Applicable Law.--Any defense articles transferred or 
     defense services provided to Iraq or Afghanistan under the 
     authority of subsection (a) shall be subject to the 
     authorities and limitations applicable to excess defense 
     articles under section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j), other than the authorities and 
     limitations contained in subsections (b)(1)(B), (e), (f), and 
     (g) of such section.
       (d) Report.--
       (1) In general.--The President may not exercise the 
     authority under subsection (a) until 30 days after the 
     Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary 
     of State, provides the appropriate congressional committees a 
     report on the plan for the disposition of equipment and other 
     property of the Department of Defense in Iraq.
       (2) Elements of report.--The report required under 
     paragraph (1) shall include the following elements:
       (A) An assessment of--
       (i) the types and quantities of defense articles required 
     by the military and security forces of Iraq to support the 
     efforts of those military and security forces to restore and 
     maintain peace and security in Iraq; and
       (ii) the types and quantities of defense articles required 
     by the military and security forces of Afghanistan to support 
     the efforts of those military and security forces to restore 
     and maintain peace and security in Afghanistan.
       (B) A description of the authorities available for 
     addressing the requirements identified in subparagraph (A).
       (C) A description of the process for inventorying equipment 
     and property, including defense articles, in Iraq owned by 
     the Department of Defense, including equipment and property 
     owned by the Department of Defense and under the control of 
     contractors in Iraq.
       (D) A description of the types of defense articles that the 
     Department of Defense intends to transfer to the military and 
     security forces of Iraq and an estimate of the quantity of 
     such defense articles to be transferred.
       (E) A description of the process by which potential 
     requirements for defense articles to be transferred under the 
     authority provided in subsection (a), other than the 
     requirements of the security forces of Iraq or Afghanistan, 
     are identified and the mechanism for resolving any potential 
     conflicting requirements for such defense articles.
       (F) A description of the plan, if any, for reimbursing 
     military departments from which non-excess defense articles 
     are transferred under the authority provided in subsection 
     (a).
       (G) An assessment of the efforts by the Government of Iraq 
     to identify the requirements of the military and security 
     forces of Iraq for defense articles to support the efforts of 
     those forces to restore and maintain peace and security in 
     that country.
       (H) An assessment of the ability of the Governments of Iraq 
     and Afghanistan to absorb the costs associated with 
     possessing and using the defense articles to be transferred.
       (I) A description of the steps taken by the Government of 
     Iraq to procure or acquire defense articles to meet the 
     requirements of the military and security forces of Iraq, 
     including through military sales from the United States.
       (e) Notification.--
       (1) In general.--The President may not transfer defense 
     articles or provide defense services under subsection (a) 
     until 15 days after the date on which the President has 
     provided notice of the proposed transfer of defense articles 
     or provision of defense services to the appropriate 
     congressional committees.
       (2) Contents.--Such notification shall include--
       (A) a description of the amount and type of each defense 
     article to be transferred or defense services to be provided;
       (B) a statement describing the current value of such 
     article and the estimated replacement value of such article;
       (C) an identification of the military department from which 
     the defense articles being transferred are drawn;
       (D) an identification of the element of the military or 
     security force that is the proposed recipient of each defense 
     article to be transferred or defense service to be provided;
       (E) an assessment of the impact of the transfer on the 
     national technology and industrial base and, particularly, 
     the impact on opportunities of entities in the national 
     technology and industrial base to sell new or used equipment 
     to the countries to which such articles are to be 
     transferred; and
       (F) a certification by the President that--
       (i) the Secretary of Defense has determined that--

       (I) the defense articles to be transferred are no longer 
     required by United States forces in Iraq;
       (II) the proposed transfer of such defense articles will 
     not adversely impact the military preparedness of the United 
     States;

[[Page 19036]]

       (III) immediately before the transfer, the defense articles 
     to be transferred were being used to support operations in 
     Iraq;
       (IV) the defense articles to be transferred were present in 
     Iraq as of the date of enactment of this Act; and
       (V) the defense articles to be transferred are required by 
     the military and security forces of Iraq or the military and 
     security forces of Afghanistan, as applicable, to build their 
     capacity to restore and maintain peace and security in their 
     country;

       (ii) the government of the recipient country has agreed to 
     accept and take possession of the defense articles to be 
     transferred and to receive the defense services in connection 
     with that transfer; and
       (iii) the proposed transfer of such defense articles and 
     the provision of defense services in connection with such 
     transfer is in the national interest of the United States.
       (f) Quarterly Report.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     date of the report provided under subsection (d), and every 
     90 days thereafter during fiscal year 2010, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall report to the appropriate congressional 
     committees on the implementation of the authority under 
     subsection (a). The report shall include the replacement 
     value of defense articles transferred pursuant to subsection 
     (a), both in the aggregate and by military department, and 
     services provided to Iraq and Afghanistan during the previous 
     90 days.
       (g) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means--
       (A) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed 
     Services, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House 
     of Representatives; and
       (B) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed 
     Services, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate.
       (2) Defense articles.--The term ``defense articles'' has 
     the meaning given the term in section 644(d) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2403(d)).
       (3) Defense services.--The term ``defense services'' has 
     the meaning given the term in section 644(f) of such Act (22 
     U.S.C. 2403(f)).
       (4) Military and security forces.--The term ``military and 
     security forces'' means national armies, national air forces, 
     national navies, national guard forces, police forces and 
     border security forces, but does not include non-governmental 
     or irregular forces (such as private militias).
       (h) Expiration.--The authority provided under subsection 
     (a) may not be exercised after September 30, 2010.
       (i) Excess Defense Articles.--
       (1) Additional authority.--The authority provided by 
     subsection (a) is in addition to the authority provided by 
     Section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
       (2) Aggregate value.--The value of excess defense articles 
     transferred to Iraq during fiscal year 2010 pursuant to 
     Section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 shall not 
     be counted against the limitation on the aggregate value of 
     excess defense articles transferred contained in subsection 
     (g) of such Act.


                           amendment no. 1601

      (Purpose: To require a report on simplifying defense travel)

       On page 429, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

     SEC. 1073. REPORT ON DEFENSE TRAVEL SIMPLIFICATION.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense 
     shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives a report setting 
     forth a comprehensive plan to simplify defense travel.
       (b) Elements.--The report required under subsection (a) 
     shall include the following:
       (1) A comprehensive discussion of aspects of the Department 
     of Defense travel system that are most confusing, 
     inefficient, and in need of revision.
       (2) Critical review of opportunities to streamline and 
     simplify defense travel policies and to reduce travel-related 
     costs to the Department of Defense.
       (3) Options to leverage industry capabilities that could 
     enhance management responsiveness to changing markets.
       (4) A discussion of pilot programs that could be undertaken 
     to prove the merit of improvements identified in 
     accomplishing actions specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), 
     including recommendations for legislative authority.
       (5) Such recommendations and an implementation plan for 
     legislative or administrative action as the Secretary of 
     Defense considers appropriate to improve defense travel.


                           amendment no. 1738

 (Purpose: To provide for an annual comprehensive report on the status 
of United States efforts and the level of progress achieved to counter 
and defeat Al Qaeda and its related affiliates and undermine long-term 
    support for the violent extremism that helps sustain Al Qaeda's 
                          recruitment efforts)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. ANNUAL COUNTERTERRORISM STATUS REPORTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Success in Countering Al Qaeda Reporting Requirements Act 
     of 2009''.
       (b) Annual Counterterrorism Status Reports.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than July 31, 2010, and every 
     July 31 thereafter, the President shall submit a report, to 
     the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, the 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, 
     the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate, the Committee 
     on Armed Services of the House of Representatives, the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives, the Select 
     Committee on Intelligence of the Senate, and the Permanent 
     Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of 
     Representatives, which contains, for the most recent 12-month 
     period, a review of the counterterrorism strategy of the 
     United States Government, including--
       (A) a detailed assessment of the scope, status, and 
     progress of United States counterterrorism efforts in 
     fighting Al Qaeda and its related affiliates and undermining 
     long-term support for violent extremism;
       (B) a judgment on the geographical region in which Al Qaeda 
     and its related affiliates pose the greatest threat to the 
     national security of the United States;
       (C) a judgment on the adequacy of interagency integration 
     of the counterterrorism programs and activities of the 
     Department of Defense, the United States Special Operations 
     Command, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of 
     State, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of 
     Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and other 
     Federal departments and agencies;
       (D) an evaluation of the extent to which the 
     counterterrorism efforts of the United States correspond to 
     the plans developed by the National Counterterrorism Center 
     and the goals established in overarching public statements of 
     strategy issued by the executive branch;
       (E) a determination of whether the National 
     Counterterrorism Center exercises the authority and has the 
     resources and expertise required to fulfill the interagency 
     strategic and operational planning role described in section 
     119(j) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 404o), 
     as added by section 1012 of the National Security 
     Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 (title I of Public Law 108-
     458);
       (F) a description of the efforts of the United States 
     Government to combat Al Qaeda and its related affiliates and 
     undermine violent extremist ideology, which shall include--
       (i) a specific list of the President's highest global 
     counterterrorism priorities;
       (ii) the degree of success achieved by the United States, 
     and remaining areas for progress, in meeting the priorities 
     described in clause (i); and
       (iii) efforts in those countries in which the President 
     determines that--

       (I) Al Qaeda and its related affiliates have a presence; or
       (II) acts of international terrorism have been perpetrated 
     by Al Qaeda and its related affiliates;

       (G) a specific list of United States counterterrorism 
     efforts, and the specific status and achievements of such 
     efforts, through military, financial, political, 
     intelligence, paramilitary, and law enforcement elements, 
     relating to--
       (i) bilateral security and training programs;
       (ii) law enforcement and border security;
       (iii) the disruption of terrorist networks; and
       (iv) the denial of terrorist safe havens and sanctuaries;
       (H) a description of United States Government activities to 
     counter terrorist recruitment and radicalization, including--
       (i) strategic communications;
       (ii) public diplomacy;
       (iii) support for economic development and political 
     reform; and
       (iv) other efforts aimed at influencing public opinion;
       (I) United States Government initiatives to eliminate 
     direct and indirect international financial support for the 
     activities of terrorist groups;
       (J) a cross-cutting analysis of the budgets of all Federal 
     Government agencies as they relate to counterterrorism 
     funding to battle Al Qaeda and its related affiliates abroad, 
     including--
       (i) the source of such funds; and
       (ii) the allocation and use of such funds;
       (K) an analysis of the extent to which specific Federal 
     appropriations--
       (i) have produced tangible, calculable results in efforts 
     to combat and defeat Al Qaeda, its related affiliates, and 
     its violent ideology; or
       (ii) contribute to investments that have expected payoffs 
     in the medium- to long-term;
       (L) statistical assessments, including those developed by 
     the National Counterterrorism Center, on the number of 
     individuals belonging to Al Qaeda and its related affiliates 
     that have been killed, injured, or taken into custody as a 
     result of United States counterterrorism efforts; and

[[Page 19037]]

       (M) a concise summary of the methods used by National 
     Counterterrorism Center and other elements of the United 
     States Government to assess and evaluate progress in its 
     overall counterterrorism efforts, including the use of 
     specific measures, metrics, and indices.
       (2) Interagency cooperation.--In preparing a report under 
     this subsection, the President shall include relevant 
     information maintained by--
       (A) the National Counterterrorism Center and the National 
     Counterproliferation Center;
       (B) Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation;
       (C) the Department of State;
       (D) the Department of Defense;
       (E) the Department of Homeland Security;
       (F) the Department of the Treasury;
       (G) the Office of the Director of National Intelligence;
       (H) the Central Intelligence Agency;
       (I) the Office of Management and Budget;
       (J) the United States Agency for International Development; 
     and
       (K) any other Federal department that maintains relevant 
     information.
       (3) Report classification.--Each report required under this 
     subsection shall be--
       (A) submitted in an unclassified form, to the maximum 
     extent practicable; and
       (B) accompanied by a classified appendix, as appropriate.


                           amendment no. 1703

(Purpose: To reauthorize the SBIR program and the STTR program, and for 
                            other purposes)

  (The amendment is printed in the Record of Wednesday, July 22, 2009, 
under ``Text of Amendments.'')


                           amendment no. 1656

   (Purpose: To require a report on the recruitment and retention of 
           members of the Air Force in nuclear career fields)

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

     SEC. 652. REPORT ON RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION OF MEMBERS OF 
                   THE AIR FORCE IN NUCLEAR CAREER FIELDS.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Air 
     Force shall submit to the congressional defense committees a 
     report on the efforts of the Air Force to attract and retain 
     qualified individuals for service as members of the Air Force 
     involved in the operation, maintenance, handling, and 
     security of nuclear weapons.
       (b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (1) A description of current reenlistment rates, set forth 
     by Air Force Specialty Code, of members of the Air Force 
     serving in positions involving the operation, maintenance, 
     handling, and security of nuclear weapons.
       (2) A description of the current personnel fill rate for 
     Air Force units involved in the operation, maintenance, 
     handling, and security of nuclear weapons.
       (3) A description of the steps the Air Force has taken, 
     including the use of retention bonuses or assignment 
     incentive pay, to improve recruiting and retention of 
     officers and enlisted personnel by the Air Force for the 
     positions described in paragraph (1).
       (4) An assessment of the feasibility, advisability, 
     utility, and cost effectiveness of establishing additional 
     bonuses or incentive pay as a way to enhance the recruitment 
     and retention by the Air Force of skilled personnel in the 
     positions described in paragraph (1).
       (5) An assessment of whether assignment incentive pay 
     should be provided for members of the Air Force covered by 
     the Personnel Reliability Program.
       (6) An assessment of the long-term community management 
     plan for recruitment and retention by the Air Force of 
     skilled personnel in the positions described in paragraph 
     (1).
       (7) Such other matters as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.


                           amendment no. 1523

  (Purpose: To amend provisions relating to Federal civilian employee 
                  retirement, and for other purposes)

  (The amendment is printed in the Record of Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 
under ``Text of Amendments.'')


                           amendment no. 1647

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on costs for health care 
          for members of the Armed Forces and their families)

       On page 213, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

     SEC. 706. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON HEALTH CARE BENEFITS AND 
                   COSTS FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND THEIR 
                   FAMILIES.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) Career members of the Armed Forces and their families 
     endure unique and extraordinary demands, and make 
     extraordinary sacrifices, over the course of 20-year to 30-
     year careers in protecting freedom for all Americans.
       (2) The nature and extent of these demands and sacrifices 
     are never so evident as in wartime, not only during the 
     current combat operations, but also during the wars of the 
     last 60 years when current retired members of the Armed 
     Forces were on continuous call to go in harm's way when and 
     as needed.
       (3) A primary benefit of enduring the extraordinary 
     sacrifices inherent in a military career is a range of 
     retirement benefits, including lifetime health benefits, that 
     a grateful Nation provides for those who choose to 
     subordinate their personal life to the national interest for 
     so many years.
       (4) Currently serving and retired members of the uniformed 
     services and their families and survivors deserve benefits 
     equal to their commitment and service to our Nation.
       (5) Many employers are curtailing health benefits and 
     shifting costs to their employees, which may result in 
     retired members of the Armed Forces returning to the 
     Department of Defense, and its TRICARE program, for health 
     care benefits during retirement, and contribute to health 
     care cost growth.
       (6) Defense health costs also expand as a result of 
     service-unique military readiness requirements, wartime 
     requirements, and other necessary requirements that represent 
     the ``cost of business'' for the Department of Defense.
       (7) While the Department of Defense has made some efforts 
     to contain increases in the cost of the TRICARE program, too 
     many of those efforts have been devoted to shifting a larger 
     share of the costs of benefits under that program to retired 
     members of the Armed Forces who have earned health care 
     benefits in return for a career of military service.
       (8) In some cases health care providers refuse to accept 
     TRICARE patients because that program pays less than other 
     public and private payors and imposes unique administrative 
     requirements.
       (9) The Department of Defense records deposits to the 
     Department of Defense Military Retiree Health Care Fund as 
     discretionary costs to the Department in spite of legislation 
     enacted in 2006 that requires such deposits to be made 
     directly from the Treasury of the United States.
       (10) As a result, annual payments for the future costs of 
     servicemember health care continue to compete with other 
     readiness needs of the Armed Forces.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the Department of Defense and the Nation have an 
     obligation to provide health care benefits to retired members 
     of the Armed Forces that equals the quality of their selfless 
     service to our country;
       (2) past proposals by the Department of Defense to impose 
     substantial fee increases on military beneficiaries have 
     failed to acknowledge properly the findings addressed in 
     subsection (a); and
       (3) the Department of Defense has many additional options 
     to constrain the growth of health care spending in ways that 
     do not disadvantage retired members of the Armed Forces who 
     participate or seek to participate in the TRICARE program, 
     and should pursue any and all such options rather than 
     seeking large increases for enrollment fees, deductibles, and 
     copayments for such retirees, and their families or 
     survivors, who do participate in that program.


                           amendment no. 1662

(Purpose: To expand the provision authorizing special compensation for 
 members of the uniformed services with certain injuries or illnesses 
                     incurred in the line of duty)

       Strike section 617 and insert the following:

     SEC. 617. SPECIAL COMPENSATION FOR MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED 
                   SERVICES WITH SERIOUS INJURIES OR ILLNESSES 
                   REQUIRING ASSISTANCE IN EVERYDAY LIVING.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 7 of title 37, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 439. Special compensation: members of the uniformed 
       services with serious injuries or illnesses requiring 
       assistance in everyday living

       ``(a) Monthly Compensation.--The Secretary concerned may 
     pay to any member of the uniformed services described in 
     subsection (b) monthly special compensation in an amount 
     determined under subsection (c).
       ``(b) Covered Members.--A member eligible for monthly 
     special compensation authorized by subsection (a) is a member 
     who--
       ``(1) has been certified by a licensed physician to be in 
     need of assistance from another person to perform the 
     personal functions required in everyday living;
       ``(2) has a serious injury, disorder, or disease of either 
     a temporary or permanent nature that--
       ``(A) is incurred or aggravated in the line of duty; and
       ``(B) compromises the member's ability to carry out one or 
     more activities of daily living or requires the member to be 
     constantly supervised to avoid physical harm to the member or 
     to others; and
       ``(3) meets such other criteria, if any, as the Secretary 
     of Defense (or the Secretary of Homeland Security, with 
     respect to the Coast Guard) prescribes for purposes of this 
     section.
       ``(c) Amount.--(1) The amount of monthly special 
     compensation payable to a member under subsection (a) shall 
     be determined under criteria prescribed by the Secretary of 
     Defense (or the Secretary of Homeland Security, with respect 
     to the Coast Guard), but

[[Page 19038]]

     may not exceed the amount of aid and attendance allowance 
     authorized by section 1114(r)(2) of title 38 for veterans in 
     need of aid and attendance.
       ``(2) In determining the amount of monthly special 
     compensation, the Secretary concerned shall consider the 
     following:
       ``(A) The extent to which home health care and related 
     services are being provided by the Government.
       ``(B) The extent to which aid and attendance services are 
     being provided by family and friends who may be compensated 
     with funds provided through the monthly special compensation.
       ``(d) Payment Until Medical Retirement.--Monthly special 
     compensation is payable under this section to a member 
     described in subsection (b) for any month that begins before 
     the date on which the member is medically retired.
       ``(e) Construction With Other Pay and Allowances.--Monthly 
     special compensation payable to a member under this section 
     is in addition to any other pay and allowances payable to the 
     member by law.
       ``(f) Benefit Information.--The Secretary of Defense, in 
     collaboration with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, shall 
     ensure that members of the uniformed services who may be 
     eligible for compensation under this section are made aware 
     of the availability of such compensation by including 
     information about such compensation in written and online 
     materials for such members and their families.
       ``(g) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense (or the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security, with respect to the Coast 
     Guard) shall prescribe regulations to carry out this 
     section.''.
       (b) Report to Congress.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense (and the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security, with respect to the Coast 
     Guard) shall submit to Congress a report on the provision of 
     compensation under section 439 of title 37, United States 
     Code, as added by subsection (a) of this section.
       (2) Elements.--The report required by paragraph (1) shall 
     include the following:
       (A) An estimate of the number of members of the uniformed 
     services eligible for compensation under such section 439.
       (B) The number of members of the uniformed services 
     receiving compensation under such section.
       (C) The average amount of compensation provided to members 
     of the uniformed services receiving such compensation.
       (D) The average amount of time required for a member of the 
     uniformed services to receive such compensation after the 
     member becomes eligible for the compensation.
       (E) A summary of the types of injuries, disorders, and 
     diseases of members of the uniformed services receiving such 
     compensation that made such members eligible for such 
     compensation.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 7 of such title is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new item:

``439. Special compensation: members of the uniformed services with 
              serious injuries or illnesses requiring assistance in 
              everyday living.''.


                           amendment no. 1741

 (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to report on the status 
          of the Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve)

       At the end of subtitle E of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 342. REPORT ON STATUS OF AIR NATIONAL GUARD AND AIR 
                   FORCE RESERVE.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of the Air Force, the Chief of the National Guard 
     Bureau, the Director of the Air National Guard, the Chief of 
     the Air Force Reserve, and such other officials as the 
     Secretary of Defense considers appropriate, shall submit to 
     Congress a report on--
       (1) the status of the Air National Guard and the Air Force 
     Reserve; and
       (2) the plans of the Department of Defense to ensure that 
     the Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve remain ready 
     to meet the requirements of the Air Force and the combatant 
     commands and for homeland defense.


                           amendment no. 1746

(Purpose: To require reports on the service life and replacement of AC-
                     130 gunships of the Air Force)

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

     SEC. 125. AC-130 GUNSHIPS.

       (a) Report on Reduction in Service Life in Connection With 
     Accelerated Deployment.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Air 
     Force, in consultation with the United States Special 
     Operations Command, shall submit to the congressional defense 
     committees an assessment of the reduction in the service life 
     of AC-130 gunships of the Air Force as a result of the 
     accelerated deployments of such gunships that are anticipated 
     during the seven- to ten-year period beginning with the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, assuming that operating tempo 
     continues at a rate per year of the average of their 
     operating rate for the last five years.
       (b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (1) An estimate by series of the maintenance costs for the 
     AC-130 gunships during the period described in subsection 
     (a), including any major airframe and engine overhauls of 
     such aircraft anticipated during that period.
       (2) A description by series of the age, serviceability, and 
     capabilities of the armament systems of the AC-130 gunships.
       (3) An estimate by series of the costs of modernizing the 
     armament systems of the AC-130 gunships to achieve any 
     necessary capability improvements.
       (4) A description by series of the age and capabilities of 
     the electronic warfare systems of the AC-130 gunships, and an 
     estimate of the cost of upgrading such systems during that 
     period to achieve any necessary capability improvements.
       (5) A description by series of the age of the avionics 
     systems of the AC-130 gunships, and an estimate of the cost 
     of upgrading such systems during that period to achieve any 
     necessary capability improvements.
       (c) Form.--The report required by subsection (a) shall be 
     submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified 
     annex.
       (d) Analysis of Alternatives.--The Secretary of the Air 
     Force, in consultation with the United States Special 
     Operations Command, shall conduct an analysis of alternatives 
     for any gunship modernization requirements identified by the 
     2009 quadrennial defense review under section 118 of title 
     10, United States Code. The results of the analysis of 
     alternatives shall be provided to the congressional defense 
     committees not later than 18 months after the completion of 
     the 2009 quadrennial defense review.


                           amendment no. 1543

  (Purpose: To authorize the service Secretaries to increase the end 
            strength of the Selected Reserve by two percent)

       On page 100, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 417. AUTHORITY FOR SERVICE SECRETARY VARIANCES FOR 
                   SELECTED RESERVE END STRENGTHS.

       Section 115(g) of title 10, United States Code, is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(g) Authority for Service Secretary Variances for Active-
     Duty and Selected Reserve End Strengths.--(1) Upon 
     determination by the Secretary of a military department that 
     such action would enhance manning and readiness in essential 
     units or in critical specialties or ratings, the Secretary 
     may--
       ``(A) increase the end strength authorized pursuant to 
     subsection (a)(1)(A) for a fiscal year for the armed force 
     under the jurisdiction of that Secretary or, in the case of 
     the Secretary of the Navy, for any of the armed forces under 
     the jurisdiction of that Secretary, by a number equal to not 
     more than 2 percent of such authorized end strength; and
       ``(B) increase the end strength authorized pursuant to 
     subsection (a)(2) for a fiscal year for the Selected Reserve 
     of the reserve component of the armed force under the 
     jurisdiction of that Secretary or, in the case of the 
     Secretary of the Navy, for the Selected Reserve of the 
     reserve component of any of the armed forces under the 
     jurisdiction of that Secretary, by a number equal to not more 
     than 2 percent of such authorized end strength.
       ``(2) Any increase under paragraph (1) of the end strength 
     for an armed force or the Selected Reserve of a reserve 
     component of an armed force shall be counted as part of the 
     increase for that armed force or Selected Reserve for that 
     fiscal year authorized under subsection (f)(1) or subsection 
     (f)(3), respectively.''.


                           amendment no. 1740

(Purpose: To require a plan for sustaining the land-based solid rocket 
                         motor industrial base)

       On page 435, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

     SEC. 1083. PLAN FOR SUSTAINMENT OF LAND-BASED SOLID ROCKET 
                   MOTOR INDUSTRIAL BASE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense shall review and 
     establish a plan to sustain the solid rocket motor industrial 
     base, including the ability to maintain and sustain currently 
     deployed strategic and missile defense systems and to 
     maintain an intellectual and engineering capacity to support 
     next generation rocket motors, as needed.
       (b) Submission of Plan.--Not later than March 1, 2010, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional 
     defense committees the plan required under subsection (a), 
     together with an explanation of how fiscal year 2010 funds 
     will be used to sustain and support the plan and a 
     description of the funding in the future years defense 
     program plan to support the plan.


                           amendment no. 1687

  (Purpose: To require a national security interest certification for 
  Coalition Support Fund reimbursements provided to the Government of 
                               Pakistan)

       On page 475, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

[[Page 19039]]



     SEC. 1211. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT FOR COALITION SUPPORT 
                   FUND REIMBURSEMENTS.

       Section 1232(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 392), as 
     amended by section 1217 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417; 
     122 Stat. 4634), is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``the Secretary of 
     Defense shall submit'' and inserting ``the Secretary of 
     Defense, after consultation with the Secretary of State, 
     shall submit''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as 
     clauses (i), (ii), and (iii), respectively, and indenting 
     each clause, as so redesignated, 6 ems from the left margin;
       (B) by striking ``shall include an itemized description'' 
     and inserting the following: ``shall include the following:
       ``(A) An itemized description''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) A certification that the reimbursement--
       ``(i) is consistent with the national security interests of 
     the United States; and
       ``(ii) will not adversely impact the balance of power in 
     the region.''.


                           amendment no. 1702

  (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs to submit to Congress a report on the use of 
    alternative therapies in the treatment of post-traumatic stress 
          disorder, including the therapeutic use of animals)

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

     SEC. 733. REPORT ON USE OF ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES IN TREATMENT 
                   OF POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER.

       (a) In General.--Not later than December 31, 2010, the 
     Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     shall jointly submit to the appropriate committees of 
     Congress a report on research related to post-traumatic 
     stress disorder.
       (b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (1) The status of all studies and clinical trials that 
     involve treatments of post-traumatic stress disorder 
     conducted by the Department of Defense and the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs.
       (2) The effectiveness of alternative therapies in the 
     treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder, including the 
     therapeutic use of animals.
       (3) Identification of areas in which the Department of 
     Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs may be 
     duplicating studies, programs, or research with respect to 
     post-traumatic stress disorder.
       (c) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' 
     means--
       (1) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on 
     Appropriations, and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the 
     Senate; and
       (2) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on 
     Appropriations, and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the 
     House of Representatives.


                           amendment no. 1717

 (Purpose: To carry out a pilot program to assess the feasibility and 
advisability of using service dogs for the treatment or rehabilitation 
     of veterans with physical or mental injuries or disabilities)

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

     SEC. 1083. PILOT PROGRAM ON USE OF SERVICE DOGS FOR THE 
                   TREATMENT OR REHABILITATION OF VETERANS WITH 
                   PHYSICAL OR MENTAL INJURIES OR DISABILITIES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The United States owes a profound debt to those who 
     have served the United States honorably in the Armed Forces.
       (2) Disabled veterans suffer from a range of physical and 
     mental injuries and disabilities.
       (3) In 2008, the Army reported the highest level of 
     suicides among its soldiers since it began tracking the rate 
     28 years before 2009.
       (4) A scientific study documented in the 2008 Rand Report 
     entitled ``Invisible Wounds of War'' estimated that 300,000 
     veterans of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi 
     Freedom currently suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder.
       (5) Veterans have benefitted in multiple ways from the 
     provision of service dogs.
       (6) The Department of Veterans Affairs has been 
     successfully placing guide dogs with the blind since 1961.
       (7) Thousands of dogs around the country await adoption.
       (b) Program Required.--Not later than 120 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs shall commence a three-year pilot program to assess 
     the benefits, feasibility, and advisability of using service 
     dogs for the treatment or rehabilitation of veterans with 
     physical or mental injuries or disabilities, including post-
     traumatic stress disorder.
       (c) Partnerships.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out the pilot 
     program by partnering with nonprofit organizations that--
       (A) have experience providing service dogs to individuals 
     with injuries or disabilities;
       (B) do not charge fees for the dogs, services, or lodging 
     that they provide; and
       (C) are accredited by a generally accepted industry-
     standard accrediting institution.
       (2) Reimbursement of costs.--The Secretary shall reimburse 
     partners for costs relating to the pilot program as follows:
       (A) For the first 50 dogs provided under the pilot program, 
     all costs relating to the provision of such dogs.
       (B) For dogs provided under the pilot program after the 
     first 50 dogs provided, all costs relating to the provision 
     of every other dog.
       (d) Participation.--
       (1) In general.--As part of the pilot program, the 
     Secretary shall provide a service dog to a number of veterans 
     with physical or mental injuries or disabilities that is 
     greater than or equal to the greater of--
       (A) 200; and
       (B) the minimum number of such veterans required to produce 
     scientifically valid results with respect to assessing the 
     benefits and costs of the use of such dogs for the treatment 
     or rehabilitation of such veterans.
       (2) Composition.--The Secretary shall ensure that--
       (A) half of the participants in the pilot program are 
     veterans who suffer primarily from a mental health injury or 
     disability; and
       (B) half of the participants in the pilot program are 
     veterans who suffer primarily from a physical injury or 
     disability.
       (e) Study.--In carrying out the pilot program, the 
     Secretary shall conduct a scientifically valid research study 
     of the costs and benefits associated with the use of service 
     dogs for the treatment or rehabilitation of veterans with 
     physical or mental injuries or disabilities. The matters 
     studied shall include the following:
       (1) The therapeutic benefits to such veterans, including 
     the quality of life benefits reported by the veterans 
     partaking in the pilot program.
       (2) The economic benefits of using service dogs for the 
     treatment or rehabilitation of such veterans, including--
       (A) savings on health care costs, including savings 
     relating to reductions in hospitalization and reductions in 
     the use of prescription drugs; and
       (B) productivity and employment gains for the veterans.
       (3) The effectiveness of using service dogs to prevent 
     suicide.
       (f) Reports.--
       (1) Annual report of the secretary.--After each year of the 
     pilot program, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a 
     report on the findings of the Secretary with respect to the 
     pilot program.
       (2) Final report by the national academy of sciences.--Not 
     later than 180 days after the date of the completion of the 
     pilot program, the National Academy of Sciences shall submit 
     to Congress a report on the results of the pilot program.


                           amendment no. 1521

(Purpose: To enable State homes to furnish nursing home care to parents 
     any of whose children died while serving in the Armed Forces)

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

     SEC. 1083. EXPANSION OF STATE HOME CARE FOR PARENTS OF 
                   VETERANS WHO DIED WHILE SERVING IN ARMED 
                   FORCES.

       In administering section 51.210(d) of title 38, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     permit a State home to provide services to, in addition to 
     non-veterans described in such subsection, a non-veteran any 
     of whose children died while serving in the Armed Forces.


                           amendment no. 1768

 (Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Defense to carry out a pilot 
 program for providing cognitive rehabilitative therapy services under 
                          the TRICARE program)

       Strike section 731 and insert the following:

     SEC. 731. PILOT PROGRAM FOR THE PROVISION OF COGNITIVE 
                   REHABILITATIVE THERAPY SERVICES UNDER THE 
                   TRICARE PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense may, in 
     consultation with the entities and officials referred to in 
     subsection (d), carry out a pilot program under the TRICARE 
     program to determine the feasibility and advisability of 
     expanding the availability of cognitive rehabilitative 
     therapy services for members or former members of the Armed 
     Forces described in subsection (b).
       (b) Covered Members and Former Members.--A member or former 
     member of the Armed Forces is described in this subsection 
     if--
       (1) the member or former member--
       (A) is otherwise eligible for medical care under the 
     TRICARE program;
       (B) has been diagnosed with a moderate to severe traumatic 
     brain injury incurred in the

[[Page 19040]]

     line of duty in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring 
     Freedom;
       (C) is retired or separated from the Armed Forces for 
     disability under chapter 61 of title 10, United States Code; 
     and
       (D) is referred by a qualified physician for cognitive 
     rehabilitative therapy; and
       (2) cognitive rehabilitative therapy is not reasonably 
     available to the member or former member through the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs.
       (c) Elements of Pilot Program.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall, in consultation with the entities and officials 
     referred to in subsection (d), develop for inclusion in the 
     pilot program the following:
       (1) Procedures for access to cognitive rehabilitative 
     therapy services.
       (2) Qualifications and supervisory requirements for 
     licensed and certified health care professionals providing 
     such services.
       (3) A methodology for reimbursing providers for such 
     services.
       (d) Entities and Officials to Be Consulted.--The entities 
     and officials referred to in this subsection are the 
     following:
       (1) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
       (2) The Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological 
     Health and Traumatic Brain Injury.
       (3) Relevant national organizations with experience in 
     treating traumatic brain injury.
       (e) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit 
     to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 
     House of Representatives a report--
       (1) evaluating the effectiveness of the pilot program in 
     providing increased access to safe, effective, and quality 
     cognitive rehabilitative therapy services for members and 
     former members of the Armed Forces described in subsection 
     (b); and
       (2) making recommendations with respect to the 
     effectiveness of cognitive rehabilitative therapy services 
     and the appropriateness of including such services as a 
     benefit under the TRICARE program.
       (f) TRICARE Program Defined.--The term ``TRICARE program'' 
     has the meaning given that term in section 1072(7) of title 
     10, United States Code.
       (g) Funding.--Of the amount authorized to be appropriated 
     by section 1403 for the Defense Health Program, not more than 
     $5,000,000 may be available to carry out the pilot program 
     under this section.


                           amendment no. 1752

   (Purpose: To reduce the minimum distance of travel necessary for 
  reimbursement of covered beneficiaries of the military health care 
 system for travel for specialty health care and to provide an offset)

       At the end of subtitle B of title VII, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 713. REDUCTION OF MINIMUM DISTANCE OF TRAVEL FOR 
                   REIMBURSEMENT OF COVERED BENEFICIARIES OF THE 
                   MILITARY HEALTH CARE SYSTEM FOR TRAVEL FOR 
                   SPECIALTY HEALTH CARE.

       (a) Reduction.--Section 1074i(a) of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``100 miles'' and inserting ``50 
     miles''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date that is 90 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to 
     referrals for specialty health care made on or after such 
     effective date.
       (c) Offset.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by 
     section 301(a)(5) for operation and maintenance for Defense-
     wide activities is hereby decreased by $14,000,000, with the 
     amount of the decrease to be derived from unobligated 
     balances.


                    amendment no. 1739, as modified

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

     SEC. 1083. FEDERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM AGE AND 
                   RETIREMENT TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RETIREES OF 
                   THE ARMED FORCES.

       (a) Increase in Maximum Age Limit for Positions Subject to 
     FERS.--
       (1) Law enforcement officers and firefighters.--Section 
     3307(e) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``(e) The'' and inserting ``(e)(1) Except 
     as provided in paragraph (2), the''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) The maximum age limit for an original appointment to 
     a position as a firefighter or law enforcement officer (as 
     defined by section 8401(14) or (17), respectively) shall be 
     47 years of age, in the case of an individual who on the 
     effective date of such appointment is eligible to receive 
     retired pay or retainer pay for military service, or pension 
     or compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs 
     instead of such retired or retainer pay.''.
       (2) Other positions.--The maximum age limit for an original 
     appointment to a position as a member of the Capitol Police 
     or Supreme Court Police, nuclear materials courier (as 
     defined under section 8401(33) of title 5, United States 
     Code), or customs and border protection officer (as defined 
     in section 8401(36) of title 5, United States Code) shall be 
     47 years of age, in the case of an individual who on the 
     effective date of such appointment is eligible to receive 
     retired pay or retainer pay for military service, or pension 
     or compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs 
     instead of such retired or retainer pay.
       (b) Eligibility for Annuity.--Section 8412(d) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (2), by adding ``or'' at the end; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) after becoming 57 years of age and completing 10 
     years of service as a law enforcement officer, member of the 
     Capitol Police or Supreme Court Police, firefighter, nuclear 
     materials courier, customs or border protection officer, or 
     any combination of such service totaling 10 years, if such 
     employee--
       ``(A) is originally appointed to a position as a law 
     enforcement officer, member of the Capitol Police or Supreme 
     Court Police, firefighter, nuclear materials courier, or 
     customs and border protection officer on or after the 
     effective date of this paragraph under section 1083(e) of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010;
       ``(B) on the date that original appointment met the 
     requirements of section 3307(e)(2) of this title or section 
     1083(a)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2010.
       (c) Mandatory Separation.--Section 8425 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1), in the first sentence, by 
     inserting ``, except that a law enforcement officer, 
     firefighter, nuclear materials courier, or customs and border 
     protection officer eligible for retirement under 8412(d)(3) 
     shall be separated from service on the last day of the month 
     in which that employee becomes 57 years of age'' before the 
     period;
       (2) in subsection (c), in the first sentence, by inserting 
     ``, except that a member of the Capitol Police eligible for 
     retirement under 8412(d)(3) shall be separated from service 
     on the last day of the month in which that employee becomes 
     57 years of age'' before the period; and
       (3) in subsection (d), in the first sentence, by inserting 
     ``, except that a member of the Supreme Court Police eligible 
     for retirement under 8412(d)(3) shall be separated from 
     service on the last day of the month in which that employee 
     becomes 57 years of age'' before the period.
       (d) Computation of Basic Annuity.--Section 8415(d) of title 
     5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``total service as'' and 
     inserting ``civilian service as a law enforcement officer, 
     member of the Capitol Police or Supreme Court Police, 
     firefighter, nuclear materials courier, customs and border 
     protection officer, or air traffic controller that, in the 
     aggregate,''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``so much of such 
     individual's total service as exceeds 20 years'' and 
     inserting ``the remainder of such individual's total 
     service''.
       (e) Effective Date.--This section (including the amendments 
     made by this section) shall take effect 60 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to 
     appointments made on or after that effective date.


                           amendment no. 1775

 (Purpose: To support freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom 
of expression, and freedom of assembly in Iran, to support the Iranian 
people as they seek, receive, and impart information and promote ideas 
 in writing, in print, or through any media without interference, and 
                          for other purposes)

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1735

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress regarding the development of 
              manned airborne irregular warfare platforms)

       On page 435, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

     SEC. 1083. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON MANNED AIRBORNE IRREGULAR 
                   WARFARE PLATFORMS.

       It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense 
     should, with regard to the development of manned airborne 
     irregular warfare platforms, coordinate requirements for such 
     weapons systems with the military services, including the 
     reserve components.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1564

 (Purpose: To enhance travel and transportation benefits for survivors 
of deceased members of the uniformed services for purposes of attending 
                          memorial ceremonies)

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

     SEC. 635. TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION FOR SURVIVORS OF DECEASED 
                   MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES TO ATTEND 
                   MEMORIAL CEREMONIES.

       (a) Allowances Authorized.--Subsection (a) of section 411f 
     of title 37, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph (2):
       ``(2) The Secretary concerned may provide round trip travel 
     and transportation allowances to eligible relatives of a 
     member of the

[[Page 19041]]

     uniformed services who dies while on active duty in order 
     that the eligible relatives may attend a memorial service for 
     the deceased member that occurs at a location other than the 
     location of the burial ceremony for which travel and 
     transportation allowances are provided under paragraph (1). 
     Travel and transportation allowances may be provided under 
     this paragraph for travel of eligible relatives to only one 
     memorial service for the deceased member concerned.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Subsection (c) of such section 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``subsection (a)(1)'' the first place it 
     appears and inserting ``paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection 
     (a)''; and
       (2) by striking ``subsection (a)(1)'' the second place it 
     appears and inserting ``paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection 
     (a)''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1773

(Purpose: To require the Comptroller General to conduct a study on the 
                     stockpile stewardship program)

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

     SEC. 3136. COMPTROLLER GENERAL STUDY OF STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall conduct a study of the stockpile stewardship 
     program established under section 4201 of the Atomic Energy 
     Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2521) to determine if the program was 
     functioning, as of December 2008, as envisioned when the 
     program was established.
       (b) Elements.--The study required by subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (1) An assessment of whether the capabilities determined to 
     be necessary to maintain the nuclear weapons stockpile 
     without nuclear testing have been implemented and the extent 
     to which such capabilities are functioning.
       (2) A review and description of the agreements governing 
     use, management, and support of the capabilities developed 
     for the stockpile stewardship program and an assessment of 
     enforcement of, and compliance with, those agreements.
       (3) An assessment of plans for surveillance and testing of 
     nuclear weapons in the stockpile and the extent of the 
     compliance with such plans.
       (4) An assessment of--
       (A) the condition of the infrastructure at the plants and 
     laboratories of the nuclear weapons complex;
       (B) the value of nuclear weapons facilities built after 
     1992;
       (C) any plans that are in place to maintain, improve, or 
     replace such infrastructure;
       (D) whether there is a validated requirement for all 
     planned infrastructure replacement projects; and
       (E) the projected costs for each such project and the 
     timeline for completion of each such project.
       (5) An assessment of the efforts to ensure and maintain the 
     intellectual and technical capability of the nuclear weapons 
     complex to support the nuclear weapons stockpile.
       (6) Recommendations for the stockpile stewardship program 
     going forward.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 270 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit 
     to the congressional defense committees a report containing 
     the results of the study required by subsection (a).


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1774

(Purpose: To extend the sunset for the Congressional Commission on the 
  Strategic Posture of the United States and to require an additional 
                                report)

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

     SEC. 1083. EXTENSION OF SUNSET FOR CONGRESSIONAL COMMISSION 
                   ON THE STRATEGIC POSTURE OF THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Congress is grateful for the service and leadership of 
     the members of the bipartisan Congressional Commission on the 
     Strategic Posture of the United States, who, pursuant to 
     section 1062 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 319), spent 
     more than one year examining the strategic posture of the 
     United States in all of its aspects: deterrence strategy, 
     missile defense, arms control initiatives, and 
     nonproliferation strategies.
       (2) The Commission, comprised of some of the most 
     preeminent scholars and technical experts in the United 
     States in the subject matter, found a bipartisan consensus on 
     these issues in its Final Report made public on May 6, 2009.
       (3) Congress appreciates the service of former Secretary of 
     Defense William Perry, former Secretary of Defense and Energy 
     James Schlesinger, former Senator John Glenn, former 
     Congressman Lee Hamilton, Ambassador James Woolsey, Doctors 
     John Foster, Fred Ikle, Keith Payne, Morton Halperin, Ellen 
     Williams, Bruce Tarter, and Harry Cartland, and the United 
     States Institute of Peace.
       (4) Congress values the work of the Commission and pledges 
     to work with President Barack Obama to address the findings 
     and review and consider the recommendations of the 
     Commission.
       (b) Extension of Sunset.--Section 1062 of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 
     110-181; 122 Stat. 319) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections 
     (g) and (h), respectively;
       (2) in subsection (h), as redesignated by paragraph (1), by 
     striking ``September 30, 2009'' and inserting ``September 30, 
     2010''; and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (e) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(f) Follow-On Report.--Following submittal of the report 
     required in subsection (e), the Commission may conduct public 
     outreach and discussion of the matters contained in the 
     report.''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1795

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress on continued support by the 
      United States for a stable and democratic Republic of Iraq)

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

     SEC. 1232. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON CONTINUED SUPPORT BY THE 
                   UNITED STATES FOR A STABLE AND DEMOCRATIC 
                   REPUBLIC OF IRAQ.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The men and women of the United States Armed Forces who 
     have served or are serving in the Republic of Iraq have done 
     so with the utmost bravery and courage and deserve the 
     respect and gratitude of the people of the United States and 
     the people of Iraq.
       (2) The leadership of Generals David Petraeus and Raymond 
     Odierno, as the Commanders of the Multi-National Force Iraq, 
     as well as Ambassador Ryan Crocker, was instrumental in 
     bringing stability and success to Iraq.
       (3) The strategy known as the surge was a critical factor 
     contributing to significant security gains and facilitated 
     the economic, political, and social gains that have occurred 
     in Iraq since 2007.
       (4) The people of Iraq have begun to develop a stable 
     government and stable society because of the security gains 
     following the surge and the willingness of the people of Iraq 
     to accept the ideals of a free and fair democratic society 
     over the tyranny espoused by Al Qaeda and other terrorist 
     organizations.
       (5) The security gains in Iraq must be carefully maintained 
     so that those fragile gains can be solidified and expanded 
     upon, primarily by citizens of Iraq in service to their 
     country, with the support of the United States as 
     appropriate.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) a stable and democratic Republic of Iraq is in the 
     long-term national security interest of the United States;
       (2) the people and the Government of the United States 
     should help the people of Iraq promote the stability of their 
     country and peace in the region; and
       (3) the United States should be a long-term strategic 
     partner with the Government and the people of Iraq in support 
     of their efforts to build democracy, good governance, and 
     peace and stability in the region.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1788

   (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress that flexible spending 
    arrangements should be established for members of the uniformed 
                               services)

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

     SEC. 652. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON ESTABLISHMENT OF FLEXIBLE 
                   SPENDING ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE UNIFORMED 
                   SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--It is the sense of Congress that, the 
     Secretary of Defense, with respect to members of the Army, 
     Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, with respect to members of the Coast Guard, the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services, with respect to 
     commissioned officers of the Public Health Service, and the 
     Secretary of Commerce, with respect to commissioned officers 
     of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
     should establish procedures to implement flexible spending 
     arrangements with respect to basic pay and compensation, for 
     health care and dependent care on a pre-tax basis in 
     accordance with regulations prescribed under sections 106(c) 
     and 125 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       (b) Considerations.--It is the sense of Congress that, in 
     establishing the procedures described by subsection (a), the 
     Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of 
     Commerce should consider life events of members of the 
     uniformed services that are unique to them as members of the 
     uniformed services, including changes relating to permanent 
     changes of duty station and deployments to overseas 
     contingency operations.


                           amendment no. 1780

   (Purpose: To require a report on the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration 
             Program and plans for further implementation)

       On page 161, after line 23, insert the following:

[[Page 19042]]



     SEC. 557. REPORT ON YELLOW RIBBON REINTEGRATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense 
     shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report 
     on the various reintegration programs being administered in 
     support of National Guard and Reserve members and their 
     families.
       (b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (1) An evaluation of the initial implementation of the 
     Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program in fiscal year 2009, 
     including an assessment of the best practices from pilot 
     programs offered by various States to provide supplemental 
     services to Yellow Ribbon and the feasibility of 
     incorporating those practices into Yellow Ribbon.
       (2) An assessment of the extent to which Yellow Ribbon 
     funding, although requested in multiple component accounts, 
     supports robust joint programs that provide reintegration and 
     support services to National Guard and Reserve members and 
     their families regardless of military affiliation.
       (3) An assessment of the extent to which Yellow Ribbon 
     programs are coordinating closely with the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs and its various veterans' programs.
       (4) Plans for further implementation of the Yellow Ribbon 
     Reintegration Program in fiscal year 2010.


                           amendment no. 1782

  (Purpose: To require a report on the feasibility of requiring post-
deployment health assessments of Guard and Reserve members deployed in 
   connection with contingency operations at their home stations or 
                         counties of residence)

       On page 220, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:

     SEC. 713. REPORT ON POST-DEPLOYMENT HEALTH ASSESSMENTS OF 
                   GUARD AND RESERVE MEMBERS.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than March 1, 2010, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional 
     defense committees a report on post-deployment health 
     assessments of Guard and Reserve members.
       (b) Elements.--The report required under subsection (a) 
     shall include the following:
       (1) An assessment of the feasibility of administering a 
     Post-Deployment Health Assessment (PDHA) to each member of a 
     reserve component of the Armed Forces returning to the 
     member's home station from deployment in connection with a 
     contingency operation at such home station or in the county 
     of residence of the member within the following timeframes:
       (A) In the case of a member of the Individual Ready 
     Reserve, an assessment administered by not later than the 
     member's release from active duty following such deployment 
     or 10 days after the member's return to such station or 
     county, whichever occurs earlier.
       (B) In the case of any other member of a reserve component 
     of the Armed Forces returning from deployment, by not later 
     than the member's release from active duty following such 
     deployment.
       (2) An assessment of the feasibility of requiring that 
     Post-Deployment Health Assessments described under paragraph 
     (1) be performed by a practitioner trained and certified as 
     qualified to participate in the performance of Post-
     Deployment Health Assessments or Post-Deployment Health 
     Reassessments.
       (3) A description of--
       (A) the availability of personnel described under paragraph 
     (2) to perform assessments described under this subsection at 
     the home stations or counties of residence of members of the 
     reserve components of the Armed Forces; and
       (B) if such personnel are not available at such locations, 
     the additional resources necessary to ensure such 
     availability within one year after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.


                           amendment no. 1779

   (Purpose: To provide for the notification of certain individuals 
        regarding options for enrollment under Medicare part B)

       On page 213, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

     SEC. 706. NOTIFICATION OF CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS REGARDING 
                   OPTIONS FOR ENROLLMENT UNDER MEDICARE PART B.

       Chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 1111. NOTIFICATION OF CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS REGARDING 
                   OPTIONS FOR ENROLLMENT UNDER MEDICARE PART B.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense shall establish 
     procedures for identifying individuals described in 
     subsection (b). The Secretary of Defense shall immediately 
     notify individuals identified under the preceding sentence 
     that they are no longer eligible for health care benefits 
     under the TRICARE program under chapter 55 of title 10, 
     United States Code, and of any options available for 
     enrollment of the individual under part B of title XVIII of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395j et seq.). The 
     Secretary of Defense shall consult with the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services to accurately identify and notify 
     individuals described in subsection (b) under this 
     subsection.
       ``(b) Individuals Described.--An individual described in 
     this subsection is an individual who is a covered beneficiary 
     (as defined in section 1072(5) of title 10, United States 
     Code) at the time the individual is entitled to part A of 
     title XVIII of the Social Security Act under section 226(b) 
     or section 226A of such Act (42 U.S.C. 426(b) and 426-1) and 
     who is eligible to enroll but who has elected not to enroll 
     (or to be deemed enrolled) during the individual's initial 
     enrollment period under part B of such title.''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1785

 (Purpose: To require a report on the defense modeling and simulation 
                            industrial base)

       On page 429, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

     SEC. 1073. REPORT ON MODELING AND SIMULATION ACTIVITIES OF 
                   UNITED STATES JOINT FORCES COMMAND.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, 
     working through the Director for Defense Research and 
     Engineering, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
     Manufacturing and Industrial Base, and the Commander of the 
     United States Joint Forces Command, shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a report that describes 
     current and planned efforts to support and enhance the 
     defense modeling and simulation technological and industrial 
     base, including in academia, industry, and government.
       (b) Elements.--The report required under subsection (a) 
     shall include the following:
       (1) An assessment of the current and future domestic 
     defense modeling and simulation technological and industrial 
     base and its ability to meet current and future defense 
     requirements.
       (2) A description of current and planned programs and 
     activities of the Department of Defense to enhance the 
     ability of the domestic defense modeling and simulation 
     industrial base to meet current and future defense 
     requirements.
       (3) A description of current and planned Department of 
     Defense activities in cooperation with Federal, State, and 
     local government organizations that promote the enhancement 
     of the ability of the domestic defense modeling and 
     simulation industrial base to meet current and future defense 
     requirements.
       (4) A comparative assessment of current and future global 
     modeling and simulation capabilities relative to those of the 
     United States in areas related to defense applications of 
     modeling and simulation.
       (5) An identification of additional authorities or 
     resources related to technology transfer, establishment of 
     public-private partnerships, coordination with regional, 
     State, or local initiatives, or other activities that would 
     be required to enhance efforts to support the domestic 
     defense modeling and simulation industrial base.
       (6) Other matters as determined appropriate by the 
     Secretary.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1806

 (Purpose: To include additional members and additional duties for the 
    independent panel assessing the 2009 quadrennial defense review)

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

     SEC. 1083. ADDITIONAL MEMBERS AND DUTIES FOR INDEPENDENT 
                   PANEL TO ASSESS THE QUADRENNIAL DEFENSE REVIEW.

       (a) Finding.--Congress understands that the independent 
     panel appointed by the Secretary of Defense pursuant to 
     section 118(f) of title 10, United States Code, will be 
     comprised of twelve members equally divided on a bipartisan 
     basis.
       (b) Sense of Congress on Independent Panel.--It is the 
     sense of Congress that the independent panel appointed by the 
     Secretary of Defense pursuant to section 118(f) of title 10, 
     United States Code, should be comprised of members equally 
     divided on a bipartisan basis.
       (c) Additional Members.--
       (1) In general.--For purposes of conducting the assessment 
     of the 2009 quadrennial defense review under section 118 of 
     title 10, United States Code (in this section referred to as 
     the ``2009 QDR''), the independent panel established under 
     subsection (f) of such section (in this section referred to 
     as the ``Panel'') shall include eight additional members to 
     be appointed as follows:
       (A) Two by the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services 
     of the House of Representatives.
       (B) Two by the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services 
     of the Senate.
       (C) Two by the ranking member of the Committee on Armed 
     Services of the House of Representatives.
       (D) Two by the ranking member of the Committee on Armed 
     Services of the Senate.
       (2) Period of appointment; vacancies.--Any vacancy in an 
     appointment to the Panel under paragraph (1) shall be filled 
     in the same manner as the original appointment.
       (d) Additional Duties of Panel for 2009 QDR.--In addition 
     to the duties of the Panel under section 118(f) of title 10, 
     United States Code, the Panel shall, with respect to the 2009 
     QDR--
       (1) conduct an independent assessment of a variety of 
     possible force structures of the

[[Page 19043]]

     Armed Forces, including the force structure identified in the 
     report of the 2009 QDR; and
       (2) make any recommendations it considers appropriate for 
     consideration.
       (e) Report of Secretary of Defense.--Not later than 30 days 
     after the Panel submits its report with respect to the 2009 
     QDR under section 118(f)(2) of title 10, United States Code, 
     the Secretary of Defense, after consultation with the 
     Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees any comments of the 
     Secretary on the report of the Panel.
       (f) Termination.--The provisions of this section shall 
     terminate on the day that is 45 days after the date on which 
     the Panel submits its report with respect to the 2009 QDR 
     under section 118(f)(2) of title 10, United States Code.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1803

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of the Army to conduct a comparative 
       evaluation of extended range modular sniper rifle systems)

       Add the end of subtitle D of title II, add the following:

     SEC. 252. EVALUATION OF EXTENDED RANGE MODULAR SNIPER RIFLE 
                   SYSTEMS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than March 31, 2010, the 
     Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, 
     and Technology shall conduct a comparative evaluation of 
     extended range modular sniper rifle systems, including .300 
     Winchester Magnum, .338 Lapua Magnum, and other calibers. The 
     evaluation shall identify and demonstrate an integrated suite 
     of technologies capable of--
       (1) extending the effective range of snipers;
       (2) meeting service or unit requirements or operational 
     need statements; or
       (3) closing documented capability gaps.
       (b) Funding.--The Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
     Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology shall conduct the 
     evaluation required by subsection (a) using amounts 
     appropriated for fiscal year 2009 for extended range modular 
     sniper rifle system research (PE # 0604802A) that are 
     unobligated.
       (c) Report.--Not later than April 30, 2010, the Assistant 
     Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and 
     Technology shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of 
     the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House 
     of Representatives a report containing the results of the 
     evaluation required by subsection (a), including--
       (1) detailed ballistics and system performance data; and
       (2) an assessment of the operational capabilities of 
     extended range modular sniper rifle systems to meet service 
     or unit requirements or operational need statements or close 
     documented capabilities gaps.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1727

     (Purpose: To require the report on the global defense posture 
   realignment to include information relating to the effect of the 
comprehensive master plans for overseas military main operating bases, 
 forward operating sites, and cooperative security locations on United 
 States security commitments under international security treaties and 
      the current security environments in the combatant commands)

       On page 549, strike line 9 and all that follows through 
     ``any comments resulting'' on line 16 and insert the 
     following: ``congressional defense committees and the 
     Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives 
     a report on the status of overseas base closure and 
     realignment actions undertaken as part of a global defense 
     posture realignment strategy and the status of development 
     and execution of comprehensive master plans for overseas 
     military main operating bases, forward operating sites, and 
     cooperative security locations. The report shall address the 
     following:
       (1) How the plans would support the security commitments 
     undertaken by the United States pursuant to any international 
     security treaty, including, the North Atlantic Treaty, The 
     Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United 
     States and Japan, and the Security Treaty Between Australia, 
     New Zealand, and the United States of America.
       (2) The impact of such plans on the current security 
     environments in the combatant commands, including United 
     States participation in theater security cooperation 
     activities and bilateral partnership, exchanges, and training 
     exercises.
       (3) Any comments of the Secretary of Defense resulting


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1706

  (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of 
 Transportation to develop a plan for providing access to the national 
                    airspace for unmanned aircraft)

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

     SEC. 933. PLAN ON ACCESS TO NATIONAL AIRSPACE FOR UNMANNED 
                   AIRCRAFT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary 
     of Transportation shall, after consultation with the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security, jointly develop a plan for 
     providing access to the national airspace for unmanned 
     aircraft of the Department of Defense.
       (b) Elements.--The plan required by subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (1) A description of how the Department of Defense and the 
     Department of Transportation will communicate and cooperate, 
     at the executive, management, and action levels, to provide 
     access to the national airspace for unmanned aircraft of the 
     Department of Defense.
       (2) Specific milestones, aligned to operational and 
     training needs, for providing access to the national airspace 
     for unmanned aircraft and a transition plan for sites 
     programmed to be activated as unmanned aerial system sites 
     during fiscal years 2010 through 2015.
       (3) Recommendations for policies with respect to use of the 
     national airspace, flight standards, and operating procedures 
     that should be implemented by the Department of Defense and 
     the Department of Transportation to accommodate unmanned 
     aircraft assigned to any State or territory of the United 
     States.
       (4) An identification of resources required by the 
     Department of Defense and the Department of Transportation to 
     execute the plan.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense and the 
     Secretary of Transportation shall submit to the congressional 
     defense committees, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate, and the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives a report containing the plan required by 
     subsection (a).


                    AMENDMENT NO. 1749, as modified

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

     SEC. 904. REESTABLISHMENT OF POSITION OF VICE CHIEF OF THE 
                   NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU.

       (a) Reestablishment of Position.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 1011 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) by redesignating section 10505 as section 10505a; and
       (B) by inserting after section 10504 the following new 
     section 10505:

     ``Sec. 10505. Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau

       ``(a) Appointment.--(1) There is a Vice Chief of the 
     National Guard Bureau, selected by the Secretary of Defense 
     from officers of the Army National Guard of the United States 
     or the Air National Guard of the United States who--
       ``(A) are recommended for such appointment by their 
     respective Governors or, in the case of the District of 
     Columbia, the commanding general of the District of Columbia 
     National Guard;
       ``(B) have had at least 10 years of federally recognized 
     service in an active status in the National Guard; and
       ``(C) are in a grade above the grade of colonel.
       ``(2) The Chief and Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau 
     may not both be members of the Army or of the Air Force.
       ``(3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), an officer 
     appointed as Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau serves 
     for a term of four years, but may be removed from office at 
     any time for cause.
       ``(B) The term of the Vice Chief of the National Guard 
     Bureau shall end within a reasonable time (as determined by 
     the Secretary of Defense) following the appointment of a 
     Chief of the National Guard Bureau who is a member of the 
     same armed force as the Vice Chief.
       ``(b) Duties.--The Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau 
     performs such duties as may be prescribed by the Chief of the 
     National Guard Bureau.
       ``(c) Grade.--The Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau 
     shall be appointed to serve in a grade decided by the 
     Secretary of Defense.
       ``(d) Functions as Acting Chief.--When there is a vacancy 
     in the office of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau or in 
     the absence or disability of the Chief, the Vice Chief of the 
     National Guard Bureau acts as Chief and performs the duties 
     of the Chief until a successor is appointed or the absence of 
     disability ceases.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 1011 of such title is amended by 
     striking the item relating to section 10505 and inserting the 
     following new items:

``10505. Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau.
``10505a. Director of the Joint Staff of the National Guard Bureau.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 10506(a)(1) of such 
     title is amended by striking ``and the Director of the Joint 
     Staff of the National Guard Bureau'' and inserting ``, the 
     Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau, and the Director of 
     the Joint Staff of the National Guard Bureau''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1799

  (Purpose: To require the Department of Defense to improve access to 
mental health care for family members of members of the National Guard 
                 and Reserve who are deployed overseas)

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:

[[Page 19044]]



     SEC. 557. IMPROVED ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH CARE FOR FAMILY 
                   MEMBERS OF MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL GUARD AND 
                   RESERVE WHO ARE DEPLOYED OVERSEAS.

       (a) Initiative to Increase Access to Mental Health Care.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense shall develop and 
     implement a plan to expand existing initiatives of the 
     Department of Defense to increase access to mental health 
     care for family members of members of the National Guard and 
     Reserve deployed overseas during the periods of mobilization, 
     deployment, and demobilization of such members of the 
     National Guard and Reserve.
       (2) Elements.--The plan required by paragraph (1) shall 
     include the following:
       (A) Programs and activities to educate family members of 
     members of the National Guard and Reserve who are deployed 
     overseas on potential mental health challenges connected with 
     such deployment.
       (B) Programs and activities to provide such family members 
     with complete information on all mental health resources 
     available to such family members through the Department of 
     Defense and otherwise.
       (C) Efforts to expand counseling activities for such family 
     members in local communities.
       (b) Reports.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, and at such times thereafter as 
     the Secretary of Defense considers appropriate, the Secretary 
     of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services 
     of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on 
     this section.
       (2) Elements.--Each report shall include the following:
       (A) A current assessment of the extent to which family 
     members of members of the National Guard and Reserve who are 
     deployed overseas have access to, and are utilizing, mental 
     health care available under this section.
       (B) A current assessment of the quality of mental health 
     care being provided to family members of members of the 
     National Guard and Reserve who are deployed overseas, and an 
     assessment of expanding coverage for mental health care 
     services under the TRICARE program to mental health care 
     services provided at facilities currently outside the network 
     of the TRICARE program.
       (C) Such recommendations for legislative or administration 
     action as the Secretary considers appropriate in order to 
     further assure full access to mental health care by family 
     members of members of the National Guard and Reserve who are 
     deployed overseas during the mobilization, deployment, and 
     demobilization of such members of the National Guard and 
     Reserve.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1620

   (Purpose: To amend the Small Business Act to create parity among 
              certain small business contracting programs)

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

     SEC. 838. SMALL BUSINESS CONTRACTING PROGRAMS PARITY.

       Section 31(b)(2)(B) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     657a(b)(2)(B)) is amended by striking ``shall'' and inserting 
     ``may''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1688

 (Purpose: To create parity among small business contracting programs, 
                        and for other purposes)

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

     SEC. 1083. CONTRACTING IMPROVEMENTS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the terms ``Administration'' and ``Administrator'' mean 
     the Small Business Administration and the Administrator 
     thereof, respectively; and
       (2) the terms ``HUBZone small business concern'', ``small 
     business concern'', ``small business concern owned and 
     controlled by service-disabled veterans'', and ``small 
     business concern owned and controlled by women'' have the 
     same meanings as in section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 632).
       (b) Contracting Opportunities.--Section 31(b)(2)(B) of the 
     Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657a(b)(2)(B)) is amended by 
     striking ``shall'' and inserting ``may''.
       (c) Contracting Goals.--Section 15(g)(1) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644(g)(1)) is amended in the fourth 
     sentence by inserting ``and subcontract'' after ``not less 
     than 3 percent of the total value of all prime contract''.
       (d) Mentor-Protege Programs.--The Administrator may 
     establish mentor-protege programs for small business concerns 
     owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans, small 
     business concerns owned and controlled by women, and HUBZone 
     small business concerns modeled on the mentor-protege program 
     of the Administration for small business concerns 
     participating in programs under section 8(a) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(a)).


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1765

    (Purpose: To require a report on the re-engining of E-8C Joint 
  Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System (Joint STARS) aircraft)

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

     SEC. 125. REPORT ON E-8C JOINT SURVEILLANCE AND TARGET ATTACK 
                   RADAR SYSTEM RE-ENGINING.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Air Force 
     shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report 
     on replacing the engines of E-8C Joint Surveillance and 
     Target Attack Radar System (Joint STARS) aircraft. The report 
     shall include the following:
       (1) An assessment of funding alternatives and options for 
     accelerating funding for the fielding of Joint STARS aircraft 
     with replaced engines.
       (2) An analysis of the tradeoffs involved in the decision 
     to replace the engines of Joint STARS aircraft or not to 
     replace those engines, including the potential cost savings 
     from replacing those engines and the operational impacts of 
     not replacing those engines.
       (3) An identification of the optimum path forward for 
     replacing the engines of Joint STARS aircraft and modernizing 
     the Joint STARS fleet.
       (b) Limitation on Certain Actions.--The Secretary of the 
     Air Force may not take any action that would adversely impact 
     the pace of the execution of the program to replace the 
     engines of Joint STARS aircraft before submitting the report 
     required by subsection (a).
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 1759

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like to speak today about an 
amendment I have offered to the National Defense Authorization Act, No. 
1759, to provide $16.8 million in funding for the research and 
development of a program called ``1760 in the Bay,'' which will allow 
for our B-52 fleet to carry GPS-guided ``smart weapons'' internally in 
the bomb bay.
  Currently, the B-52 can only carry these important weapons 
externally, on its wing pylons. Giving the B-52 this expanded 
capability would allow for an increase in the aircraft's overall bomb-
load capacity, or for an increase in its fuel efficiency and range by 
using an internal-only weapons load.
  As early as 1993, the Air Force documented the requirement for 
internal carriage of precision-guided munitions in its B-52H 
Conventional Upgrade Operational Requirements Document. The Air Force 
reaffirmed its belief in the need for this requirement in 2005, and 
Congress continued to fund the program in 2006 and 2007. The program is 
on the Air Force's fiscal year 2010 unfunded priorities list.
  My amendment would provide $16.8 million in R&D funding to complete 
required hardware and software development and testing for an 
electrical upgrade to ``military standard 1760,'' which provides a 
common electrical and digital interface between weapons and aircraft. 
The MIL-STD-1760 connecter is used to transfer guidance information to 
weapons including the GBU-32 JDAM, the AGM-154, and the CBU-103, CBU-
104, and CBU-105. This technology upgrade will also make it easier to 
add WCMD, JSOW, and JASSM weapons to the B-52 in the future.
  This is exactly the kind of investment we need to be making in the B-
52, an aircraft that is indispensable to maintaining an effective 
bomber force. It is unmatched in its range and payload ability. It is 
the most cost-effective and reliable component of our Nation's bomber 
force. It is a plane that we are going to be using more than 30 years 
from now. It is truly the ``best bomb truck for the buck.'' 
Particularly in light of the decision by the President and Secretary 
Gates to delay procurement of the next-generation bomber, it is 
critical that we continue to outfit each B-52 with new technology like 
the ``1760 in the Bay'' program.


                           amendment no. 1656

  Mr. President, I want to take a moment to talk about an amendment I 
have offered to the National Defense Authorization Act, No. 1656, that 
would require a study and report on the recruitment and retention of 
members of the Air Force in nuclear career fields.
  One of the key lessons learned from the nuclear incidents that 
occurred a couple of years ago is that we need to be able to keep our 
best and brightest in the nuclear force. Working with America's nuclear 
arsenal is one of the most demanding jobs in the Air Force.

[[Page 19045]]

It takes special people with unique skills to maintain and safeguard 
our nation's most powerful weapons. That is why the Air Force has 
stated that one of its biggest priorities is reinvigorating the nuclear 
mission.
  In recent months, I have heard from a number of senior Air Force 
leaders working in the nuclear mission that interest among airmen in 
the nuclear career field is very high, in part due to sustained 
leadership attention to the nuclear force. Right now, the best and the 
brightest are flocking to this career field. However, I remain 
concerned about the long-term outlook of this important area of work. I 
want to be sure that interest in the field will not wane if the Air 
Force's top priority shifts to other issues.
  There is absolutely no doubt that leadership at every level of the 
Air Force understands that our nuclear weapons are one of our Nation's 
most critical assets. By deterring America's enemies, assuring our 
allies, and dissuading potential future adversaries, our nuclear 
personnel are at war every single day. This is the message of Air Force 
and Department of Defense leadership, and it is the message of the 
Senate and the Congress. But it is not enough for our airmen to simply 
hear that message. They must be given evidence to demonstrate that it 
is more than words.
  Few needs are more critical than the ongoing effort to determine the 
best ways to make the systemic change necessary to ensure that every 
airman working on the nuclear mission believes each and every day that 
his job is critical to the strength and security of the United States. 
The standup of the Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration Office 
on the Air Staff and the new Global Strike Command major command are 
important steps. But steps must also be taken to make sure that the 
message is understood at every level, even to the youngest cadet.
  I believe it is necessary to examine what incentives could or should 
be built into the system in order to ensure that we continue to be able 
to recruit, retain, and develop highly trained and motivated nuclear 
personnel. That is why I have introduced this amendment to ask the Air 
Force to provide a report on the steps it has taken to improve 
recruiting and retention and to gauge the potential impact that new 
retention bonuses or assignment incentive pay could have on the 
attractiveness of serving in the nuclear mission, and, in turn, on the 
effectiveness of the force.


                           amendment no. 1780

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I wish to speak about an amendment that 
I have filed to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2010. The 
amendment is an attempt to improve our Nation's support system for our 
National Guard and Reserve members and their families. The amendment 
requires evaluating the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program, and 
identifying programs that will make the program truly comprehensive.
  Today, our military and our country have come to rely heavily on the 
men and women of our National Guard and Reserves to protect our 
national security. More and more, these citizen-soldiers and their 
families have gone above and beyond the call of duty to serve our 
country's interests, engaging in multiple deployments in dangerous 
regions all over the world. Since 9/11, we have seen this increasing 
reliance on our Guard and Reserves in States throughout the country. 
New Hampshire is no exception. Thousands of Guardsmen and women have 
already deployed overseas into combat areas. And more than 1,100 
members of the 197th Fires Brigade were recently notified that they 
will be deployed to the Middle East sometime in the next year. This 
will represent the single largest deployment in New Hampshire's 
history. Although our Guardsmen and Reservists show unwavering passion 
and courage no matter their assignment, these men and women and their 
families did not sign up for this high number of dangerous deployments. 
It is our responsibility to make sure servicemembers and their families 
receive the proper services before, during and after deployment so that 
they can return to their normal lives.
  The Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program provides important support 
services to Guard and Reserve members through informational events and 
activities throughout the predeployment and deployment phases, as well 
as after 30, 60, and 90 days upon their return. However, these 
programs--often held in an impersonal group setting--are not enough.
  The National Guard in New Hampshire came to realize that, despite 
their best efforts, many of those who deployed continued to fall 
through the cracks upon their return. They realized that they needed a 
more intensive, more personal, professional, and persistent program 
which catered to individual family needs. The New Hampshire National 
Guard developed a pilot program to provide each National Guard and 
Reservist a professional ``care coordinator'' who is responsible for 
the kind of personal attention and support that is required to identify 
and support those who are struggling.
  Though the names have been changed, the real-life stories of the New 
Hampshire Guard who have participated in the program are moving and 
demonstrate a clear need for creating a seamless, nationwide program.
  In his twenties and a self-employed mechanic by trade, Sergeant Joe 
served in Iraq from 2006 to 2007. Prior to his deployment, he set up 
his girlfriend and her children in a rental apartment and gave his 
savings to support her while he has in Iraq. When he returned to New 
Hampshire, he suffered from ongoing back pain and PTSD that went 
undiagnosed; he found that his girlfriend had squandered his savings 
and defaulted on the rent; and that his business partner had closed up 
shop. Distraught but not defeated, he rented a room and tried to 
reestablish his business. Despite his best efforts, he has faced a 
series of job losses, bills he could not pay, increasingly severe PTSD, 
and, ultimately, eviction. The New Hampshire National Guard Chaplain 
eventually found out about Joe's circumstances and connected him 
immediately with a care coordinator. His personal care coordinator 
helped Joe turn his life around: she used emergency funds to provide a 
modest income and secure temporary housing; she connected him with 
medical and mental health services through the VA; and paired him with 
the Easter Seals job placement services that helped Joe get a less 
physically demanding, full-time job with benefits. Because of this 
safety net, Joe recently bought a home and is continuing treatment for 
his PTSD.
  Because of the New Hampshire National Guard's unique partnership with 
the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services, Easter Seals 
in New Hampshire and 22 other civilian and veteran service 
organizations, Guard members and Reservists like Sergeant Joe are able 
to reenter civilian life.
  However, there is a clear need to provide counseling and support 
services predeployment as well. As shown in the story of Staff Sergeant 
Mary, a single mother of two who is slated for deployment later this 
year, predeployment services create a foundation for parents and 
families to adjust to deployment while minimizing disruptions to their 
lives.
  Mary, upon learning of her deployment, feared that she could not 
leave her children with her ex-husband and that she would be unable to 
fulfill her duty with the New Hampshire National Guard despite her 
desire to serve alongside her colleagues. Hesitant to take help from a 
stranger, she initially resisted meeting with her care coordinator. The 
coordinator persisted, slowly built a close bond with Mary, and 
designed a plan to address Mary's concerns. The care coordinator 
connected Mary to legal representation to negotiate how the children 
will be cared for while she is in Iraq--a necessary step to create a 
positive environment for Mary to leave her children. The coordinator 
also went to the children's school, met with the teachers and 
administration personally, and provided them with a direct link for 
communication and concerns while Mary is deployed. She also arranged 
counseling for the children so that they will have

[[Page 19046]]

extra support while grappling with their mother's absence. Mary says 
that her care coordinator is a ``beacon of light'' who helps guide her 
through the challenges of being a single parent and deploying soldier. 
She finds comfort in knowing she has one person by her side throughout 
her deployment.
  Unfortunately, the problems Adam and Mary faced are not unique. 
National Guard and Reservists nationwide face similar problems, and 
without programs like the New Hampshire National Guard pilot program 
they may fall between the cracks.
  My amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to evaluate the 
nationwide Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program and to closely examine 
how states have filled gaps in the program to better serve our National 
Guard and Reserve members and their families. Furthermore, the 
amendment seeks to identify the best programs so that they can be 
replicated nationwide.
  As we call on the National Guard and Reserve to protect the Nation at 
home and abroad, I call on my colleagues in the Senate to protect these 
brave men and women and their families to the best of our ability. We 
need to make sure our policies and programs are worthy of the great 
sacrifice of our citizen-soldiers.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
pending amendment?
  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. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  Mr. LEVIN. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The assistant legislative clerk continued with the call of 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.


                    Amendment No. 1799, as Modified

  Mr. LEVIN. First, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify a 
previously agreed to amendment, No. 1799.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 1799), as modified, is as follows:

                    Amendment No. 1799, as modified

       At the end of subtitle F of title V add the following:

     SEC. 557. IMPROVED ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH CARE FOR FAMILY 
                   MEMBERS OF MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL GUARD AND 
                   RESERVE WHO ARE DEPLOYED OVERSEAS.

       (a) Initiative To Increase Access to Mental Health Care.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense shall develop and 
     implement a plan to expand existing initiatives of the 
     Department of Defense to increase access to mental health 
     care for family members of members of the National Guard and 
     Reserve deployed overseas during the periods of mobilization, 
     deployment, and demobilization of such members of the 
     National Guard and Reserve.
       (2) Elements.--The plan required by paragraph (1) shall 
     include the following:
       (A) Programs and activities to educate family members of 
     members of the National Guard and Reserve who are deployed 
     overseas on potential mental health challenges connected with 
     such deployment.
       (B) Programs and activities to provide such family members 
     with complete information on all mental health resources 
     available to such family members through the Department of 
     Defense and otherwise.
       (C) Efforts to expand counseling activities for such family 
     members in local communities.
       (b) Reports.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, and at such times thereafter as 
     the Secretary of Defense considers appropriate, the Secretary 
     of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services 
     of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on 
     this section.
       (2) Elements.--Each report shall include the following:
       (A) A current assessment of the extent to which family 
     members of members of the National Guard and Reserve who are 
     deployed overseas have access to, and are utilizing, mental 
     health care available under this section.
       (B) A current assessment of the quality of mental health 
     care being provided to family members of members of the 
     National Guard and Reserve who are deployed overseas, and an 
     assessment of expanding coverage for mental health care 
     services under the TRICARE program to mental health care 
     services provided at facilities currently outside the network 
     of the TRICARE program.
       (C) Such recommendations for legislative or administration 
     action as the Secretary considers appropriate in order to 
     further assure full access to mental health care by family 
     members of members of the National Guard and Reserve who are 
     deployed overseas during the mobilization, deployment, and 
     demobilization of such members of the National Guard and 
     Reserve.


                  Intercontinental Ballistic Missile.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with my 
esteemed colleague Senator Enzi, the cochairman of the Senate ICBM 
Coalition, about an amendment the coalition has offered to express the 
sense of Congress on the strategic importance of the intercontinental 
ballistic missile.
  I am happy to offer this amendment on behalf of the members of the 
Senate ICBM Coalition, including my cochairman Senator Enzi, as well as 
Senators Hatch, Tester, Bennett, Baucus, Barrasso, and Dorgan.
  This amendment, No. 1682, expresses the sense of the Congress that we 
must maintain the long-term vitality of the triad, that the land-based 
nuclear force is the most stabilizing portion of our nuclear arsenal, 
and that our robust ICBM force must be retained to advance our Nation's 
strategy of deterrence, assurance, and dissuasion.
  I strongly believe that all three legs of the triad must be 
maintained in order to retain a highly reliable and credible nuclear 
force, and we particularly believe that our ICBM force takes on even 
greater importance as we draw down our nuclear force.
  As GEN Larry Welch and others have argued, our land-based nuclear 
force is the most stabilizing portion of our nuclear arsenal, and it 
becomes even more so as total warhead numbers shrink. The readiness, 
broad dispersion, numbers, and low warhead loading of the ICBM force 
make a successful disarming attack nearly impossible. That deters 
attack from near-peer competitors and dissuades future adversaries from 
building their nuclear forces. It also eliminates the pressure to 
maintain a launch-on-warning posture.
  While almost everyone agrees with us that the ICBM is an essential 
part of the triad, some believe that the size of the force can or 
should be reduced. I strongly oppose cutting the ICBM force below its 
current force structure of 3 wings of 150 missiles each. A reduction in 
the size of the force below 3 wings would make it increasingly 
difficult to recruit, retain, and develop highly trained and motivated 
people. That would have a tremendous impact on the effectiveness of the 
force.
  Finally, in light of the serious fiscal challenges facing our Nation, 
it is worth noting that ICBMs are by far the most cost-effective leg of 
the nuclear triad, coming in at about one-fifth the annual operating 
cost of the submarine-launched leg. What is more, ICBM costs will be 
stable for many years to come, while an extremely expensive replacement 
program for the Ohio-class submarine is just about to begin.
  I support President Obama's efforts to negotiate a new arms control 
treaty with Russia to replace the expiring Strategic Arms Reduction 
Treaty. However, we must be very careful that reductions to our nuclear 
forces are conducted in a way that avoids creating unnecessary risks. 
Our ICBM force dramatically decreases the risk of nuclear war by 
providing a stabilizing constant in our nuclear posture, and it ought 
to be maintained at its current levels as an essential part of our 
nation's nuclear force.
  I thank my colleague Senator Enzi for his work as cochair of the ICBM 
Coalition.
  Mr. ENZI. I would echo my colleague's remarks, and I share his 
concern about a reduction in the current ICBM force. The current force 
of 3 missile wings of 150 missiles is appropriate for our national 
needs.

[[Page 19047]]

  America's dispersed and alert Minuteman III ICBM force is a critical 
element of the nuclear triad and represents our most responsive, 
stabilizing, and cost-effective strategic force.
  The strategic nuclear forces that deterred Soviet aggression and kept 
the limited conflicts of the Cold War era from escalating continue to 
play a critical role in deterring aggression and dissuading new near-
peer competitors. At its present size, our ICBM force represents a 
nearly insurmountable hedge against strategic surprise. That force, 
because of its broad dispersion and high survivability, is nearly 
impossible to preempt or disarm. Additionally, the current ICBM force 
offers a high level of crisis stability. This capability also helps to 
reduce the risk of regional arms races that could encourage friends and 
allies to develop their own nuclear capabilities.
  As our Nation proceeds to analyze and make decisions on future 
strategic posture and U.S. nuclear policy, I believe that ICBMs will 
continue to be the most responsive and stabilizing element of the 
nuclear triad. Minuteman III is a robust, cost-effective, and highly 
capable system.
  I also thank my colleague, Senator Conrad, for his work on behalf of 
the coalition on this issue.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank my friend Senator Enzi and each 
member of the ICBM Coalition for their support for this amendment.


               national guard--state partnership program

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I would like to thank the chairman and 
ranking member for their leadership and courtesy regarding my amendment 
to provide budget authority for the National Guard--State Partnership 
Program. I understand that this amendment as accepted would provide the 
program with budget authority for fiscal year 2010. I urge the 
committee to consult with the Department of Defense, our combatant 
commanders in the field, and our State adjutant generals regarding the 
efficacy of permanent authority for the program as the committee 
prepares next year's defense bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the efforts of my friend from 
Ohio on this issue. I know that the committee will continue to consider 
the views of all stakeholders about this program. I encourage the 
Department of Defense to include a request for formal authority in its 
annual legislative proposal to the committee should they find permanent 
authority necessary.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I would like to thank Chairman Levin and 
Ranking Member McCain for their leadership and my colleagues on the 
Senate Armed Services Committee for working in a bipartisan fashion to 
craft the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. This 
bill provides our troops with the resources, training and equipment 
they need to fulfill their mission. It takes care of our troops and 
their families, including a 3.4-percent across-the-board pay raise. 
Additionally, it authorizes fiscal year 2010 end strengths to allow for 
the expansion of our Armed Forces and provide a greater time period 
between deployments, which will ease some of the burden placed on our 
troops and their families.
  This bill includes important language to ensure that the Iraqi and 
Afghan governments take more responsibility for ensuring their own 
security and stability. It provides nearly $7.5 billion to train and 
equip the Afghan National Army and National Police Force; extends for 
one year the authority for the Department of Defense--DOD--to support 
State Department programs for security and stabilization assistance; 
emphasizes the need to establish comprehensive measures of progress for 
the administration's strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan and report 
regularly to Congress on progress in the region; and provides funding 
for the Commanders' Emergency Response program in Iraq and Afghanistan 
to enable Commanders to quickly fund humanitarian relief and 
reconstruction projects and authorizes funds to promote Afghan-led 
local development.
  I am pleased that this bill provides our brave men and women in 
uniform the equipment, training and support they require. The bill 
fully funds readiness and depot maintenance programs to ensure that 
forces are trained and their equipment deployment ready. This bill 
provides $6.7 billion for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle 
Fund to protect our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill also 
provides full funding for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat 
Organization. This is very timely as there have been reports of stepped 
up use of Improvised Explosive Devices--IED--in Afghanistan. In light 
of the recent missile tests conducted by North Korea, the authorization 
to convert six additional Aegis ships for missile defense capabilities 
and field additional Terminal High Altitude Air Defense--THAAD--and 
Standard Missile 3--SM-3--missile defense capabilities is very timely. 
As a long time proponent of corrosion control for DOD systems, I am 
happy to note that this bill provides for corrosion protection to keep 
equipment working effectively for a longer period of time. This is 
especially important in light of our current budget situation. If we 
can protect our systems from the detrimental effects of corrosion and 
make them last longer, it will save valuable resources.
  As stewards of taxpayer dollars, we must ensure that there is 
thorough oversight of the Department of Defense's programs and 
activities. This bill takes important steps to accomplish this 
including, enhancing the ability of the DOD IG to conduct audits by 
authorizing the IG to subpoena witnesses; requiring DOD to justify all 
sole-source contract awards in excess of $20 million; and improving DOD 
financial management by requiring the Department to engage in business 
process reengineering before it approves a new business system 
modernization program.
  One of my priorities as a member of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee and chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee is to 
ensure our servicemembers and veterans receive the health care services 
they need, including treatment for invisible wounds of war such as 
post-traumatic stress disorder. I am pleased that this bill takes some 
important steps in caring for our troops. For example, it: Requires the 
Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a plan to increase the 
number of military and civilian behavioral health personnel and to 
consider the feasibility of additional officers and enlisted 
specialties as behavioral health counselors; authorizes the service 
secretaries to detail up to 25 officers each year as students to study 
for doctorate degrees in clinical psychology; requires person-to-person 
mental health assessments at designated intervals for servicemembers 
deployed in connection with contingency operations; requires an 
assessment of case management services for behavioral health care under 
TRICARE; authorizes travel and transportation allowances for up to 
three individuals to travel with seriously injured or wounded 
individuals during their inpatient stay; authorizes compensation to 
caregivers for the assistance they provide to servicemembers with 
combat-related catastrophic injuries or illnesses requiring assistance 
in daily living; and, requires the Department of Defense to initiate a 
process of reform and improvement of the TRICARE system. It extends 
eligibility for TRICARE Standard to gray area retirees.
  I have also worked to improve the collaboration and cooperation 
between the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans 
Affairs to help smooth the transition from military to civilian life. I 
applaud the inclusion of language in this bill that requires the 
Secretary of Defense to report on the exchange of medical data between 
the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, an 
issue I have worked on with Chairman Levin. In addition, the bill 
authorizes the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans 
Affairs to jointly operate a Federal Health Care Center to showcase its 
ability to work in unison to serve current and former servicemembers.
  This bill exemplifies what can be achieved when we put aside our 
party

[[Page 19048]]

differences and work together to support our military. Moreover, it 
demonstrates our commitment to provide our troops and their families 
with the support that they require and deserve.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Senator Kit Bond and I have worked for many 
years together as cochairs of the Senate National Guard Caucus. With 
the assistance of Chairman Levin, we were able to enact landmark 
legislation in the fiscal year 2008 Defense authorization bill that 
among other actions elevated the chief of the National Guard from 
three-star general to full general. That so-called National Guard 
Empowerment Act was designed to ensure that the Guard has a seat at the 
table in major budget and policy decisions.
  There were some important lessons learned as the Department of 
Defense moved forward with executing the important changes for the 
Guard implemented in the fiscal year 2008 Defense bill. One glaring 
omission in the reorganization of the Guard Bureau was the absence of a 
vice chief.
  This evening, Senator Bond and I have again worked closely with 
Chairman Levin and the Armed Services Committee to address this 
situation. We have proposed and the Senate has adopted an amendment to 
create the position of vice chief at the National Guard Bureau. This 
position is critical to the National Guard Bureau and will further 
improve the day-to-day operations of the National Guard organizing, 
training and equipping over 460,000 soldiers, airman and civilian 
forces serving in the United States and overseas.
  Since the elevation of the chief of the National Guard Bureau to a 
full general, the roles and responsibilities of the chief have greatly 
expanded. Much as there is a vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, it became apparent that the National Guard chief needs a senior 
general officer serving as a vice chief to adequately assist the chief 
with the demands of that new elevated role.
  In its new capacity as a joint activity, the National Guard bureau 
has a greater number of joint and interagency responsibilities assigned 
to it. The vice chief will provide essential support to the chief to 
execute these responsibilities.
  I join with Senator Bond in thanking Chairman Levin, the Armed 
Services Committee and all of our Senate colleagues for adopting this 
amendment to create a vice chief at the National Guard Bureau. Over the 
past 10 years, our nation has called on our Guard forces at home and 
abroad like never before. The Senate is again recognizing the role the 
Guard serves in our national defense by passing this important 
amendment.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, in 2005, the Base Realignment and Closure--
the so-called BRAC--Commission released a final report recommending the 
closure of 33 military installations and the realignment of 29 other 
bases. While many of us in Congress and communities across the country 
fought against these closures, the report was approved in September 
2005--an approval that resulted in dozens of cities and towns 
nationwide facing a new overwhelming, onerous burden in redeveloping 
these shuttered bases. According to the data contained in the 2005 
base-closing round, nearly 33,000 civilian jobs will be lost in base 
closures and realignments, 6,500 of which are projected to occur at the 
Brunswick Naval Air Station, BNAS, in my home State of Maine.
  These communities must be equipped with tools--not hamstrung by 
obstacles--to recover from such a dramatic event as a base closing. And 
so, I rise today to advocate that when this bill goes to conference, 
the conferees should retain language included in the House Armed 
Services Committee's, HASC, version of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 which would encourage the use of 
no-cost economic development conveyances, EDCs, when disposing of 
excess military property, in order to assist these communities with the 
difficult process of base closures. This language was based on a 
provision I originally authored in the Defense Communities Assistance 
Act of 2009, which was cosponsored by Senators Pryor, Collins, Cochran, 
and Cornyn.
  Undeniably, base closures have a devastating impact on local 
economies. In the wake of a closure, communities that have invested so 
much over the years to integrate servicemembers and their families 
invariably confront a sudden and sharp reduction in the number of 
townspeople. The children who have gone to their schools leave, 
threatening to lower the amount of funding their districts are eligible 
for and, in some cases, leading to layoffs of teachers who would no 
longer be required. Friends who have attended the same church, banked 
at the same financial institutions, and shopped at the same grocery 
store are gone. Tax revenues decrease and community programs suffer. 
The consequences of these changes are dramatic enough in even the best 
of economic times.
  No-cost EDCs mitigate this harm by providing land in the hands of 
communities faster--and by transferring property at no cost to the 
community. By accelerating the transfer process, the Department of 
Defense--DOD--will be turning property over to communities faster, 
allowing them to redevelop and create jobs more quickly. This approach 
benefits everyone involved. The DOD saves both time and money that 
would otherwise be spent maintaining these facilities during protracted 
negotiations; communities receive the property at no cost to them and 
can begin the critical work of economic development and job creation in 
less time; the taxpayers spend less because the land does not remain in 
Federal ownership for a period of years--even a decade; and economic 
redevelopment helps diminish the number of unemployed.
  Indeed, in 1999, with the help of the Clinton administration, we 
added no-cost EDCs to the DOD's property disposal toolbox. A January 
2005 Government Accountability Office, GAO, report indicated that the 
change in policy to no-cost EDCs had yielded successful gains. The 
report stated that, according to Department of Defense and community 
officials, the use of economic development conveyances ``. . . had 
gained in popularity with the adoption of the no-cost provision, which, 
in addition to saving money for the new user, virtually eliminated the 
delays resulting from prolonged negotiations over the fair market value 
of the property and accelerated economic development and job 
creation.'' In other words, the change in policy garnered the desired 
effect. In fact, the rate of property transfer increased nearly 200 
percent during the years following the no-cost provision.
  Yet regrettably, in 2001, some in this body added a requirement to 
the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act that stipulated that the 
Department of Defense, when using an EDC, should seek ``fair market 
value'' in return for the land being transferred. In the past four 
base-closure rounds, we have had 97 major base closures, along with 235 
smaller closures and 55 major realignments, and we never asked for fair 
market value. Why we took steps backward to this requirement of ``fair 
market value'' when we succeeded in clearing the logjam makes no sense 
to me.
  It is unfair to now begin placing such a high premium on fair market 
value for EDCs after four rounds that have spurred significant savings 
to the Department of Defense. Recognizing this problem, I introduced an 
amendment in 2005 to the Defense authorization bill that was far more 
stringent than the current House language. It would have essentially 
required all excess real and personal property to be transferred to 
communities at no-cost, with exceptions for national security reasons. 
That amendment received 36 votes then--even in its rather rigid form. 
In fact, then-Senator Obama voted for my amendment--an amendment that 
would have gone much farther in its scope than the language in the HASC 
bill.
  Earlier this year, to once again stand up for these base communities, 
I introduced the Defense Communities Assistance Act of 2009. As I 
mentioned before, this vital legislation includes a provision to strike 
existing language stating that the DOD shall seek fair market value 
when disposing excess military property, and encourage the transfer of

[[Page 19049]]

closed military installations to communities quickly by placing the no-
cost economic development conveyance on a level playing field with 
other methods of disposal. I am pleased a modified version of my 
provision was included in the House Armed Services Committee's bill. 
The Senate Armed Services Committee, SASC, meanwhile, has included 
language in its version of the DOD authorization bill reiterating the 
Department's ability to use a range of property transfer options, 
including the no-cost EDC. Regrettably, the Sense of the Senate 
language, even as improved by the amendment Senator Pryor and I have 
introduced, does not go far enough. That is why, moving forward, I urge 
my colleagues to support the House provision in conference.
  Redeveloping base properties today and in the near future, our 
defense communities must address an economic landscape that is unlike 
any other we have witnessed in decades. The unemployment rate stands at 
9.5 percent--the highest level in nearly 26 years. The economy shed 
467,000 jobs in June alone. More than 14.7 million Americans are 
presently without jobs, and 6.5 million payroll jobs have been lost 
since the beginning of this recession in December 2007. We are in the 
worst economy since the Great Depression, one that contracted 5.5 
percent in the first quarter of 2009.
  As such, there is much concern--particularly among those communities 
enduring impending base closures--that without increased use of no-cost 
EDCs, communities will not be able to quickly bring back the jobs that 
will be lost and acres upon acres of property will sit fallow, more a 
hazard to the community than a benefit. They fear that time-consuming, 
costly delays will hamper their effective and meaningful redevelopment 
efforts as the DOD attempts to play realtor. As former DOD Deputy Under 
Secretary for Installations, Randall Yim, summarized in 1999, ``The No-
Cost EDC authority provides an opportunity for a collaborative 
relationship by assisting communities with creating new jobs on the 
former installation and relieving the Department of needless caretaker 
expenses.'' And that is what the crux of the matter is--working with 
communities affected by the closure of a military installation to 
mitigate devastating economic consequences, and doing so in a timely 
manner that curbs the waste of taxpayer dollars.
  I also would like to add that the House Armed Services Committee's 
provision would not eliminate the Department's ability to use other 
methods of disposal presently available in the toolbox--such as public 
auctions, public benefit conveyances, disposal for use by the homeless, 
negotiated sales, transfers to other Federal agencies, and leases of 
land. Instead, it would put the no-cost EDC on a level playing field 
with these other essential disposal mechanisms, so that communities may 
begin the urgent process of creating good, high-paying jobs while 
simultaneously saving the Defense Department from needless costs and 
waste of taxpayer dollars.
  The No. 1 complaint I have heard over and over again from communities 
with BRAC-closed bases is the time-consuming, lengthy, and inefficient 
process with regard to property transfer. The House provision would 
take a giant step toward reversing these trends and help get 
communities back on their feet faster, particularly during the economic 
conditions our Nation presently faces. I hope we would respect the 
interests of the community that is directly affected. After all, they 
are the ones who are disproportionately bearing the costs of the base 
closure.
  In closing, I want to again cite Secretary Yim, who, in reference to 
the job losses facing communities with base closures, eloquently wrote 
that, ``. . . these jobs were an economic engine . . . of enormous 
power for these communities, and these communities contributed in many 
ways to our mission, from building roads, schools, utility systems, to 
making educational and business and consumer and recreational 
opportunities readily available for our military. Some communities even 
went so far as to give us the property for free. We have an obligation 
to help mitigate the impacts caused by our base closure decisions.'' He 
continued by saying that, ``We view it as an investment, not a give-
away, and a continuation of the tradition of taking care of our people 
before, during, and after our time of need.'' And, frankly, isn't that 
how we should view our defense communities that have time and again 
sacrificed so much for the good of the Nation? I certainly believe it 
is.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I wish to speak in support of 
the Levin-McCain amendment, Senate amendment No. 1469, to the 2010 
National Defense Authorization Act. Ending production of the F-22 and 
support for the Levin-McCain amendment reflects the best judgment of 
the President, Secretary of Defense Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff Mullen, the unanimous Joint Staff including the Chief of Staff 
of the Air Force Schwartz and Secretary of Air Force Donley. These 
individuals have carefully considered and weighed the current and 
likely threats to the nation. They have considered the Nation's 
national security priorities, policies, and budget, including the 
defense budget, and have reached the unanimous conclusion to end 
production at 187 aircraft.
  On July 16, Secretary Gates said in Chicago that ``the grim reality 
is that with regard to the defense budget, we have entered a zero-sum 
game. Every defense dollar devoted to--diverted to fund excess or 
unneeded capacity, whether for more F-22s or anything else, is a dollar 
that will be unavailable to take care of our people, to win the wars we 
are in, to deter potential adversaries, and to improve capabilities in 
areas where America is underinvested and potentially vulnerable. That 
is a risk I cannot accept and one that I will not take.''
  I agree with Secretary Gates; therefore, I voted to strike the $1.75 
billion to fund just seven more F-22 aircraft--not even a full 
squadron.
  Not only do I support the administration's budget request in this 
regard, but I also support the excellent work of the Armed Services 
Committee. Under the leadership of Chairman Levin and Senator McCain, 
the committee funded the urgent research and development priorities of 
the Air Force's Joint Strike Fighter Program; the high but unfunded 
priorities of the Navy; and the all-important operations and 
maintenance needs of the Army. As Secretary Gates said, ``we have 
entered a zero-sum game'' and every defense dollar counts.
  If the $1.75 billion F-22 funding stayed in the bill it would cut 
$850 million from operations and maintenance--O&M--accounts--this is 
money that would be used to perform depot maintenance on our Navy 
aircraft and ships at Navy and industry locations around the country 
including facilities located in Jacksonville, FL. The Chief of Naval 
Operations identified these funding priorities in the fiscal year 2010 
unfunded programs list, UPL. Mr. President, I will ask to have printed 
in the Record the Chief of Naval Operations and the Navy's UPL. If we 
authorize and fund continued procurement of F-22, then these critical 
shortages will not be addressed.
  Other accounts reduced to pay for the $1.75 billion unwanted F-22 
procurement include funding for aircraft maintenance for the Air Force 
and mission support and training activities for Special Operations 
Command. Furthermore, $400 million would be cut from military personnel 
accounts. Reductions in military personnel funding will affect unit 
readiness by hindering the Services' ability to meet manning goals for 
end strength and operational units prior to deployment.
  It has indeed become a zero-sum game; thus, I support the effort of 
Chairman Levin and Senator McCain to restore funding for these vital 
accounts for readiness, support, and personnel. I support the military 
and professional judgments of the President, the Secretary of Defense, 
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Joint Staff to end 
the F-22 program at 187 aircraft.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the

[[Page 19050]]

Chief of Naval Operations and the Navy's UPL to which I referred.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           Department of the Navy,


                                    Chief of Naval Operations,

                                     Washington, DC, May 19, 2009.
     Hon. John M. McHugh,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Armed Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington. DC.
       Dear Mr. McHugh; Thank you for your letter of April 21. 
     2009. concerning the Navy's Fiscal Year 2010 Unfunded 
     Programs. Our unfunded list includes both aviation and ship 
     depot maintenance actions totaling $395M. A brief summary of 
     details are provided on the enclosed list. Nothing in these 
     Unfunded Requirements is of a higher priority than anything 
     contained in Navy's Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Submissions.
       Thank your for your Committee's interest in addressing the 
     Navy's needs. If I may be of further assistance. please let 
     me know.
           Sincerely.
                                                      G. Roughead,
                                               Admiral, U.S. Navy.
       Enclosure: 1. Fiscal Year 2010 Unfunded Programs List.

                      FY 10 UNFUNDED PROGRAMS LIST
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Title (program/issue)            FY10         Justification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aviation Depot Maintenance...........    $195M  Program funded 87% of
                                                 goal. Accepted risk to
                                                 goal in order to
                                                 balance across
                                                 portfolio. Funds 86
                                                 deferred airframes/314
                                                 deferred engines.
Ship Depot Maintenance...............     200M  Program funded 96% of
                                                 goal. Accepted risk to
                                                 goal in order to
                                                 balance across
                                                 portfolio. Funds 20
                                                 surface ship
                                                 availabilities.
    Total Unfunded Programs List:....     395M  ........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act. Let me begin by 
thanking the committee's distinguished chairman, Senator Levin, and 
ranking member, Senator McCain, for their leadership in crafting this 
bill and for their strong commitment to our Nation's Armed Forces.
  This legislation will provide essential training, equipment, and 
support to our troops as they engage in combat overseas and in 
exercises at home. The legislation will provide critical force 
protection to our men and women in uniform; help restore our military's 
readiness; and continue the development of technologies to counter 
existing and emerging threats. This is a critical time in our nation's 
history and the committee has, once again, demonstrated its strong 
support of our soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines and their 
families.
  It also offers an important opportunity for continued debate as to 
our Nation's strategy in Afghanistan. The legislation we are now 
debating contains an amendment that Senator Ben Nelson and I offered 
during committee markup to express the sense of Congress that the 
administration should review any previously established measures of 
progress and establish further measures of progress for both 
Afghanistan and Pakistan.
  Our proposal was approved unanimously by the Senate Armed Services 
Committee. It represents a significant bipartisan call for the 
administration to establish clearly defined policy objectives for 
Afghanistan as our nation sends more troops and billions of additional 
dollars to the region.
  Time and again, I have expressed serious reservations about sending 
more troops to Afghanistan without clear, specific benchmarks. The 
President needs to provide clear, measurable goals for Afghanistan and 
the region. I have raised my concerns with top Pentagon officials, 
including Commander of U.S. Central Command General David Petraeus and 
Commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal 
about the risks in sending additional troops to Afghanistan. I have no 
doubts at all about the courage and skill of our men and women in 
uniform. They are simply the best in the world. I have considerable 
doubts about whether the President's strategy can succeed.
  The legislation before us also includes a strong commitment to 
strengthening Navy shipbuilding. A robust Navy budget is of critical 
importance. Our nation needs a strong and modern naval fleet in order 
to counter existing and emerging threats.
  For several years, military leaders have documented a minimum 
national requirement for 313 ships to support our Navy and Marine 
Corps. Unfortunately, however, the Navy's fleet has declined to 283 
ships. I am deeply concerned by the decreasing size of the Navy fleet 
and have worked to increase the funding allocated to shipbuilding. This 
legislation is an important step toward reversing that troubling 
decline.
  As the threats from around the world continue to grow, it is vitally 
important that the Navy have the best fleet available to counter those 
threats, keep the sealanes open, and to defend our Nation. Bath Iron 
Works and the shipyards of this country are ready to build whatever 
ships the Navy needs. It is vitally important that there not be a gap 
in shipbuilding that jeopardizes our industrial base. That is what this 
legislation works to accomplish.
  The instability and inadequacy of previous naval shipbuilding budgets 
have had a troubling impact on our shipbuilding industrial base and 
have contributed to significant cost growth in the Navy's shipbuilding 
programs. The 313-ship plan, combined with more robust funding by 
Congress, will begin to reverse the decline in Navy shipbuilding.
  This bill authorizes $1 billion in funding for construction of the 
third DDG-1000 and honors the agreement the Navy negotiated to build 
all three ships at Bath Iron Works, BIW. The Pentagon's preference to 
have BIW build all three of the DDG-1000s demonstrates confidence in 
BIW, should ensure stable work for the shipyard, and should also help 
to stabilize production costs for the Navy.
  That same confidence was also demonstrated this May when Defense 
Secretary Robert Gates toured BIW, the first official tour of our 
shipyard by a Defense Secretary since the 1950s. Secretary Gates said 
that what impressed him most during his tour was BIW's ability to 
innovate and the pride and professionalism of its workforce. Maine has 
a long and proud history of innovation and creativity, and BIW 
represents Maine ingenuity at its best. Secretary Gates's statement 
that the men and women of BIW will have consistent work for years into 
the future was a very welcome acknowledgement of the yard's 
accomplishments.
  In addition, this legislation authorizes $2.2 billion for continued 
DDG-51 procurement and nearly $150 million for the DDG-51 modernization 
program.
  Our bill also includes a provision that repeals a requirement enacted 
in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 that 
would require all future surface combatants to have nuclear propulsion 
systems. The provision allows the Navy to conduct analyses of 
requirements capabilities for new ship classes without biasing the 
analyses in favor of one propulsion option or another. Continuing this 
requirement would dramatically increase the costs of large surface 
combatants, reduce the overall number of ships that could be built at a 
time when the Navy is seeking to revitalize and modernize its fleet, 
and would undermine the Chief of Naval Operations' 313-ship plan.
  Our Senate bill also includes funding for additional littoral combat 
ships. While this program has suffered a number of setbacks, the Navy, 
with the help of Congress, has taken significant steps in order to 
better oversee this program. These ships are important for the Navy in 
order to counter new, asymmetric threats, and the Navy needs to get 
these ships to the fleet soon.
  The Senate's fiscal 2010 Defense authorization bill also includes 
funding for other defense-related projects that benefit Maine and our 
national security.
  The bill authorizes $28 million for a new aircraft hangar at the 
Bangor Air National Guard base in Bangor, ME. This new hangar is 
essential for the Maine Air National Guard and will replace the 55-
year-old building the guard now uses. With the construction of a new 
hangar, the Maine Air Guard will be able to better maintain its 
aircraft.
  The bill also authorizes $7.1 million for Portsmouth Naval Shipyard 
to be used for security improvements at

[[Page 19051]]

Gate No. 2. The money will be used to install new antiterrorism and 
protection measures at the guard house that will improve security.
  Funding also is provided for machine guns and grenade launchers, both 
of which are manufactured by the highly skilled workers at Saco Defense 
in Saco, ME.
  In addition, the legislation authorizes $10.5 million for the 
University of Maine. This funding would support continued research and 
development of light weight modular ballistic tent insert panels 
designed by the University of Maine's Army Center of Excellence in 
Orono. These panels provide crucial protection to servicemembers in 
temporary dining and housing facilities in mobile forward operating 
bases in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  The funding would also support continued research and development of 
high temperature sensors for health monitoring of aerospace components. 
These sensors are capable of sensing physical properties such as 
temperature, pressure, corrosion and vibration in critical aerospace 
components.
  And, the bill would also support continued research and development 
of cellulose nanocomposites panels for enhanced blast and ballistic 
protection as well as provide for woody biomass conversion to JP-8 
Fuel.
  Finally, I am pleased that this bipartisan Defense bill also 
authorizes a 3.4- percent across-the-board pay increase for 
servicemembers, half a percent above the President's budget request.
  This bill provides the vital resources to our troops and our nation 
and recognizes the enormous contributions made by the State of Maine to 
our national security. The bill provides the necessary funding for our 
troops, and I offer it my full support.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no further 
amendments be in order other than the pending amendments; that upon 
disposition of the pending amendments and managers' amendments as noted 
below, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate then proceed to 
vote on passage of S. 1390, as amended; further, that upon passage of 
S. 1390, it be in order, en bloc, for the Senate to consider the 
following Calendar items: 90, 91, and 92; that all after the enacting 
clause of each bill be stricken and the following divisions of S. 1390, 
as passed by the Senate, be inserted as follows: Division A, S. 1391; 
Division B, S. 1392; Division C, S. 1393; that these bill be read a 
third time, passed, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the 
table, en bloc; further, that the consideration of these items appear 
separately in the Record; further, that the Senate then proceed to the 
consideration of Calendar No. 96, H.R. 2647, the House companion; that 
all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 1390, as 
amended, and passed by the Senate be inserted in lieu thereof, the bill 
be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon 
the table; that upon passage of H.R. 2647, as amended, the Senate 
insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to 
appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, with the Armed Services 
Committee appointed as conferees; that notwithstanding passage of S. 
1390, it still be in order for managers' amendments to be considered 
and agreed to if they have been agreed upon by the managers and the 
leaders; and that no points of order be considered waived by virtue of 
this agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we will be in session tomorrow. We have some 
work to do. There will be no votes tomorrow. We received permission 
from everyone to move to the Energy and Water appropriations bill. We 
will do that sometime late Monday afternoon. We have to make sure the 
managers are available.
  We have accomplished a great deal with this massive bill that is now 
before this body. We had a few rocky roads to begin with--hate crimes 
and gun legislation--but we were able to arrive at this point with the 
skill of the two managers, frankly. I appreciate very much Senator 
Levin and Senator McCain for their brilliant work on this bill. We have 
2 weeks after we come back. We have two appropriations bill to do. We 
have the Supreme Court nomination. We have to make sure we take action 
so the highway fund doesn't go dry. We have some FHA stuff that is 
important. We have some unemployment stuff. It appears at this time the 
House is going to send us a single package for that. We have travel 
promotion. All of these things I have spoken about in some detail with 
the Republican leader. Now that we have a pathway forward, I think we 
can have a very productive work period.
  The Finance Committee is still working on a markup as it relates to 
health care, but that is a different issue, and I don't think we need 
to involve that tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                Amendment No. 1657, as Further Modified

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 
1657, Senator Sessions amendment, be further modified and that we agree 
to it by voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is further 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 1657), as further modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. NO MIRANDA WARNINGS FOR AL QAEDA TERRORISTS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the term ``foreign national'' means an individual who 
     is not a citizen or national of the United States; and
       (2) the term ``enemy combatant'' includes a privileged 
     belligerent and an unprivileged enemy belligerent, as those 
     terms are defined in section 948a of title 10, United States 
     Code, as amended by section 1031 of this Act.
       (b) No Miranda Warnings.--Absent an unappealable court 
     order requiring the reading of such statements, no military 
     or intelligence agency or department of the United States 
     shall read to a foreign national who is captured or detained 
     as an enemy combatant by the United States the statement 
     required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), or 
     otherwise inform such a prisoner of any rights that the 
     prisoner may or may not have to counsel or to remain silent 
     consistent with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). No 
     Federal statute, regulation, or treaty shall be construed to 
     require that a foreign national who is captured or detained 
     as an enemy combatant by the United States be informed of any 
     rights to counsel or to remain silent consistent with Miranda 
     v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) that the prisoner may or may 
     not have, except as required by the United States 
     Constitution. No statement that is made by a foreign national 
     who is captured or detained as an enemy combatant by the 
     United States may be excluded from any proceeding on the 
     basis that the prisoner was not informed of a right to 
     counsel or to remain silent that the prisoner may or may not 
     have, unless required by the United States Constitution.
       (c) This section shall not apply to the Department of 
     Justice.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1657, as further modified.
  Without objection, the amendment, as further modified, is agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the 
bill pass?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), 
and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Utah (Mr. Bennett).

[[Page 19052]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 87, nays 7, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 242 Leg.]

                                YEAS--87

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--7

     Barrasso
     Coburn
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Sanders
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bennett
     Byrd
     Feinstein
     Kennedy
     Mikulski
     Rockefeller
  The bill (S. 1390), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider that vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion upon the table.
  The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, S. 1390, as amended, 
is inserted in lieu of the language of H.R. 2647.
  Without objection, the bill is considered read the third time and the 
bill is passed, as amended.
  The bill (H.R. 2647), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)

                          ____________________