To provide for funding the increased number of Army active-duty personnel out of fiscal year 2005 supplemental funding.

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005--Continued

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator from Connecticut wants to
modify an amendment at the desk. I suggest he lead off. The Senator
from Missouri wishes to speak for about 5 or 6 minutes, the Senator
from Rhode Island for whatever time he may wish, 5 or 10 minutes, and
then Senator Durbin also would like to speak. So, Mr. President, is
that an order which is agreeable to my colleagues?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Of course, there will be no more votes tonight. We do
anticipate a very active day tomorrow, and the leadership is in the
process of working out the sequencing of events tomorrow.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 3313, the amendment by the
Senator from Connecticut.

Amendment No. 3313, As Further Modified

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
Mr. WARNER. There is no objection, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so
modified.
The amendment (No. 3313), as further modified, is as follows:

On page 195, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:

SEC. 868. PROHIBITIONS ON USE OF CONTRACTORS FOR CERTAIN
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ACTIVITIES.

(a) Prohibition on Use of Contractors in Interrogation of
Prisoners.--(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law
and except as provided in paragraph (2), the use of
contractors by the Department of Defense for the
interrogation of prisoners, detainees, or combatants at any
United States military installation or other installation
under the authority of United States military or civilian
personnel is prohibited.
(2)(A) During fiscal year 2005, the President may waive the
prohibition in paragraph (1) with respect to the use of
contractors to provide translator services under that
paragraph if the President determines that no United States
military personnel with appropriate language skills are
available to provide translator services for the
interrogation to which the waiver applies.
(B) The President may also waive the prohibition in
paragraph (1) with respect to any other use of contractors
otherwise prohibited by that paragraph during the 90-day
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act,
but any such waiver shall cease to be effective on the last
day of such period.
(3) The President shall, on a quarterly basis, submit to
the appropriate committees of Congress a report on the use,
if any, of contractors for the provision of translator
services pursuant to the waiver authority in paragraph
(2)(A).
(b) Prohibition on Use of Funds.--No funds authorized to be
appropriated by this Act or any other Act may be obligated or
expended for the utilization of contractor personnel in
contravention of the prohibition in subsection (a), whether
such funds are provided directly to a contractor by a
department, agency, or other entity of the United States
Government or indirectly through a permanent, interim, or
transitional foreign government or other third party.
(c) Prohibition on Transfer of Custody of Prisoners to
Contractors.--No prisoner, detainee, or combatant under the
custody or control of the Department of Defense may be
transferred to the custody or control of a contractor or
contractor personnel.
(d) Records of Transfers of Custody of Prisoners to Other
Countries.--(1) No prisoner, detainee, or combatant under the
custody or control of the Department of Defense may be
transferred to the custody or control of another department
or agency of the United States Government, a foreign,
multinational, or other non-United States entity, or another
country unless the Secretary makes an appropriate record of
such transfer that includes, for the prisoner, detainee, or
combatant concerned--
(A) the name and nationality; and
(B) the reason or reasons for such transfer.
(2) The Secretary shall ensure that--
(A) the records made of transfers by a transferring
authority as described in paragraph (1) are maintained by
that transferring authority in a central location; and
(B) the location and format of the records are such that
the records are readily accessible to, and readily viewable
by, the appropriate committees of Congress.
(3) A record under paragraph (1) shall be maintained in
unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.
(e) Review of United States Policy on Use of Contractors in
Combat Operations.--(1) Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a
report on the Secretary's review of United States policy on
the use of contractors in combat operations.
(2) The report under paragraph (1) shall identify and
review all current statutes, regulations, policy guidance,
and associated legal analyses relating to the use of
contractors by the Department of Defense, and by other
elements of the uniformed services, in routine engagements in
direct combat on the ground, including any prohibitions and
limitations on the use of contractors in such engagements.
(f) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this
section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress''
means--
(1) the Committees on Armed Services, Foreign Relations,
and the Judiciary of the Senate and the Select Committee on
Intelligence of the Senate; and
(2) the Committees on Armed Services, International
Relations, and the Judiciary of

[[Page S6778]]

the House of Representatives and the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as
a cosponsor to Senator Dodd's modified amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Conrad
be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 3192 which was adopted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

fairness in public-private competitions

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Chairman Warner and Senator
Levin for working with Senator Chambliss and me to reach a worthwhile
bipartisan agreement on this amendment to produce greater fairness in
public-private competitions. We face great challenges on national
security and national defense in these times. We are doing all we can
to meet the needs of our armed forces, and we are proud of their
service to our country. The Federal civilian employees of the
Department of Defense deserve our strong support, too.
The rules put in place last May by the Office of Management and
Budget to implement public-private competition reforms in the Federal
Government, including the Department of Defense, are the most sweeping
changes in half a century. These rules have been controversial, and
Congress has passed important protections over the last year to ensure
that competitions to privatize Federal work are fair.
Last year, in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, a
bipartisan Congress guaranteed Federal employees the opportunity to
demonstrate that they can do the work better and for a lower cost than
private contractors. The fair competition amendment will make these
provisions permanent, guaranteeing the use of the most efficient
organizations in both streamlined competitions and other A-76
competitions at the Department of Defense. The amendment also reduces
the incentive for private contractors to deny health benefits or
provide inadequate benefits. Forty-four million Americans are uninsured
today, and the cost of health insurance premiums have soared by 43
percent over the last 3 years. Under this amendment, if contractors
offer inferior health benefits, comparative savings in health costs
will not be counted in assessing their bids.
The amendment corrects a major defect in the OMB rules, which prevent
Federal employees form competing effectively for a new work or work
conducted by private contractors. The administration opposed a similar
amendment in the House that established a pilot program. This amendment
addresses the administration's specific concerns about the pilot
project, while establishing a process for allowing and encouraging
Federal employees to compete for new work and work currently performed
by contractors.
The amendment also requires the inspector general to determine
whether the Department of Defense has the infrastructure necessary to
conduct public-private competitions and administer service contracts.
This amendment deals primarily with competitions in the Department of
Defense. We know there is also more work to be done with respect to
other Federal agencies.
Given the importance of this issue to my colleagues and me, we will
be closely monitoring public-private competitions at the Department of
Defense to ensure compliance with the current rules, to improve the
law, and to pursue further legislative solutions to ensure fair
competition. As we expand the Nation's military budget, we must see
that taxpayers and our men and women in uniform are obtaining all of
the benefits possible, and I hope very much that Chairman Warner and
Senator Levin will retain this important amendment in the conference
report.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. I appreciate the hard work of our chairman and ranking
member in working with Senator Kennedy and to approve the fair
competition amendment.
The amendment addresses a number of issues about which I am very
concerned. One of the key issues is the ability of civilian employees
to have the opportunity to compete for new work or work currently
performed by contractors. This amendment would encourage the Department
of Defense to level the playing field in these areas, improve
efficiency, and protect government employees' ability to perform
critical skills in key areas. And it does so in a way that addresses
the concerns expressed by the administration in its Statement of
Administration Policy.
Federal employees should compete in defense of their work, unless
national security dictates otherwise. Direct conversion, giving work
performed by Federal employees to contractors without competition,
disservices Federal employees and taxpayers. The OMB Circular A-76
allows for direct conversions with OMB's approval. But there is
evidence that agencies may be undertaking direct conversions without
OMB's approval. This amendment ensures that for DoD, the largest agency
and the one that does the most contracting out, there will be no direct
conversions of any functions performed by more than ten employees,
absent the invocation by the Secretary of Defense of a national
security waiver. We have also included strong language in the amendment
to close loopholes by which DoD could break up functions so that they
involve ten or fewer employees or arbitrarily designate the work as new
in order to get around this requirement.

Federal employees required to undergo public-private competitions
should be able to submit their most competitive bids through the most
efficient organization process. This amendment establishes such a
requirement for all functions performed by more than ten employees.
Due to the significant costs associated with conducting competitions,
contractors should be required to demonstrate that they will be
marginally more efficient than Federal employees before taking away
work performed by Federal employees. This amendment requires a minimum
cost differential for all functions performed by more than ten
employees of 10 percent of $10 million, whichever is smaller.
Privatization reviews should be predicated on agencies' capacity to
perform those reviews and then satisfactorily administer any resulting
service contracts. Our amendment ensures through its Inspector General
reporting requirement that the Congress will know whether DoD has the
capacity to conduct the privatization reviews required of it by OMB
over the next several years.
I am pleased that this amendment has been accepted by the Senate and
look forward to working with my colleagues during conference to include
it in law.
Mr. LEVIN. I appreciate the willingness of my colleagues to work with
the Chairman and me on this amendment. The amendment addresses a number
of important issues that face the Department of Defense's contracting
out policies.
For the first time, this amendment would make permanent provisions
that require a most efficient organization and a minimum cost
differential in almost all competitions. It ensures that contractors do
not have incentives to offer inferior health insurance packages as a
way to cut costs and make their bids more appealing. And it sets up a
process for Federal employees to gain opportunities to conduct new work
and work performed by contractors.
The amendment would, on a government-wide basis, put Federal
employees and contractors on the same basis with respect to competing
to perform new work. Contractors are not required to compete against
Federal employees for new work, either under the FAR or A-76. The
amendment would eliminate the requirement in A-76 that forces Federal
employees to compete for new work or to retain their own work when the
scope of that work expands.
Mr. KENNEDY. Given that the one concern identified by OMB in its SAP
has been addressed in the amendment, would the Senator anticipate that
the amendment will be included in the conference report?

[[Page S6779]]

Mr. LEVIN. That is my hope and expectation. I note that the House
bill contains a similar provision, so the differences between the two
provisions will have to be worked out by the conferees. I commit to
working with my colleagues in the conference to ensure that the final
language in the conference report achieves the purposes of the
amendment.

commission on the future of the national technology and industrial base

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to discuss section 841 of
S. 2400, entitled the Commission on the Future of the National
Technology and Industrial Base.
Mr. WARNER. Yes. This Commission will examine our national technology
and industrial base as it pertains to the national security of the
United States. The Commission will make important recommendations to
ensure we maintain our technological leadership in a global economy.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I commend the chairman for his advocacy of this
important issue. I would like to make the chairman aware of an effort
that has been underway at the National Academy of Sciences.
Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator please describe this effort to me?
Mr. BINGAMAN. Yes. For the past 12 years, the Board on Science
Technology and Economic Policy at the National Academies, has been
evaluating the effects of globalization on key U.S. Industries such as
biotechnology, software, telecommunications, semiconductors, flat panel
displays, lighting and heavy manufacturing industries such as steel.
The board produced a report in 2000 evaluating the effects of
globalization on a subset of these industries. They are now in the
process of evaluating the effects of outsourcing and globalization
trends over the past 4 years on many of these same industries. Many, if
not all, of these industries are important to our defense industrial
base. I would like to ask the chairman if he believes it is important
for the Commission to review the work of Board on Science Technology
and Economic Policy as it undertakes its research.
Mr. WARNER. Yes, I believe it is prudent that the Commission fully
utilize the expertise that the Board on Science Technology and Economic
Policy has developed in evaluating the trends of globalization and
outsourcing on the industries you have just discussed.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the chairman for his time in this matter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.

Amendment No. 3251

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I have an amendment I wish to offer on
behalf of Mr. Bond and myself. It is at the desk. I ask it be called
up. It is amendment No. 3251.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are
set aside. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Talent], for himself and Mr.
Bond, proposes an amendment numbered 3251.

Mr. TALENT. 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 on America's National World
War I Museum)

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

SEC. 1068. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON AMERICA'S NATIONAL WORLD WAR
I MUSEUM.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Liberty Memorial Museum in Kansas City, Missouri,
was built in 1926 in honor of those individuals who served in
World War I in defense of liberty and the Nation.
(2) The Liberty Memorial Association, a nonprofit
organization which originally built the Liberty Memorial
Museum, is responsible for the finances, operations, and
collections management of the Liberty Memorial Museum.
(3) The Liberty Memorial Museum is the only public museum
in the Nation that exists for the exclusive purpose of
interpreting the experiences of the United States and its
allies in the World War I years (1914-1918), both on the
battlefield and on the home front.
(4) The Liberty Memorial Museum project began after the
1918 Armistice through the efforts of a large-scale, grass-
roots civic and fundraising effort by the citizens and
veterans of the Kansas City metropolitan area. After the
conclusion of a national architectural design competition,
ground was broken in 1921, construction began in 1923, and
the Liberty Memorial Museum was opened to the public in 1926.
(5) In 1994, the Liberty Memorial Museum closed for a
massive restoration and expansion project. The restored
museum reopened to the public on Memorial Day, 2002, during a
gala rededication ceremony.
(6) Exhibits prepared for the original museum buildings
presaged the dramatic, underground expansion of core
exhibition gallery space, with over 30,000 square feet of new
interpretive and educational exhibits currently in
development. The new exhibits, along with an expanded
research library and archives, will more fully utilize the
many thousands of historical objects, books, maps, posters,
photographs, diaries, letters, and reminiscences of World War
I participants that are preserved for posterity in the
Liberty Memorial Museum's collections. The new core
exhibition is scheduled to open on Veterans Day, 2006.
(7) The City of Kansas City, the State of Missouri, and
thousands of private donors and philanthropic foundations
have contributed millions of dollars to build and later to
restore this national treasure. The Liberty Memorial Museum
continues to receive the strong support of residents from the
States of Missouri and Kansas and across the Nation.
(8) Since the restoration and rededication of 2002, the
Liberty Memorial Museum has attracted thousands of visitors
from across the United States and many foreign countries.
(9) There remains a need to preserve in a museum setting
evidence of the honor, courage, patriotism, and sacrifice of
those Americans who offered their services and who gave their
lives in defense of liberty during World War I, evidence of
the roles of women and African Americans during World War I,
and evidence of other relevant subjects.
(10) The Liberty Memorial Museum seeks to educate a diverse
group of audiences through its comprehensive collection of
historical materials, emphasizing eyewitness accounts of the
participants on the battlefield and the home front and the
impact of World War I on individuals, then and now. The
Liberty Memorial Museum continues to actively acquire and
preserve such materials.
(11) A great opportunity exists to use the invaluable
resources of the Liberty Memorial Museum to teach the
``Lessons of Liberty'' to the Nation's schoolchildren through
on-site visits, classroom curriculum development, distance
learning, and other educational initiatives.
(12) The Liberty Memorial Museum should always be the
Nation's museum of the national experience in the World War I
years (1914-1918), where people go to learn about this
critical period and where the Nation's history of this
monumental struggle will be preserved so that generations of
the 21st century may understand the role played by the United
States in the preservation and advancement of democracy,
freedom, and liberty in the early 20th century.
(13) This initiative to recognize and preserve the history
of the Nation's sacrifices in World War I will take on added
significance as the Nation approaches the centennial
observance of this event.
(14) It is fitting and proper to refer to the Liberty
Memorial Museum as ``America's National World War I Museum''.
(b) Sense of Congress.--Congress--
(1) recognizes the Liberty Memorial Museum in Kansas City,
Missouri, including the museum's future and expanded
exhibits, collections, library, archives, and educational
programs, as ``America's National World War I Museum'';
(2) recognizes that the continuing collection,
preservation, and interpretation of the historical objects
and other historical materials held by the Liberty Memorial
Museum enhance the knowledge and understanding of the
Nation's people of the American and allied experience during
the World War I years (1914-1918), both on the battlefield
and on the home front;
(3) commends the ongoing development and visibility of
``Lessons of Liberty'' educational outreach programs for
teachers and students throughout the Nation; and
(4) encourages the need for present generations to
understand the magnitude of World War I, how it shaped the
Nation, other countries, and later world events, and how the
sacrifices made then helped preserve liberty, democracy, and
other founding principles for generations to come.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I rise today in support of an amendment to
designate the Liberty Memorial Museum in Kansas City, MO, as America's
World War I Museum. All of us in Missouri are privileged to have such
an outstanding museum and memorial to honor those who served during
this critical period in our Nation's history.
World War I is, of course, an important part of America's history,
and its history ought to be preserved so the generations of the 21st
century can understand the role played by the United States in the
preservation and advancement of freedom during that crucial time.
The Liberty Memorial Museum is the only public museum in the Nation
that exists for the exclusive purpose of interpreting the experiences
of the United States and its Allies in the

[[Page S6780]]

World War I years, both on the battlefield and on the homefront. It
deserves this designation as America's National World War I Museum.
The museum has a truly amazing history. After the guns were silenced
in 1918 and the huge celebrations died down, concerned citizens in the
United States reflected on the war and the losses sustained. The
Liberty Memorial Museum project began after the 1918 armistice through
the efforts of a large-scale, grassroots civic and fundraising effort
by the citizens and veterans in the Kansas City metropolitan area. In
less than 2 weeks, $2.5 million was raised through donations from local
citizens. That was in 1918. That gives the Senate some idea of the
enormity of the efforts on behalf of this memorial.
After the conclusion of a national architectural design competition,
ground was broken in 1921, construction began in 1923, and the Liberty
Memorial Museum was open to the public in 1926.
At the dedication on November 1, 1921, the main Allied military
leaders spoke to a crowd of close to 200,000 people.
It was the only time in history the leaders of the United States,
Belgium, Italy, France, and Great Britain were together at one place.
These were the military leaders during World War I and they convened in
Kansas City in 1921 to open this museum.
Today, the Liberty Memorial Museum seeks to educate a diverse group
of audiences through its comprehensive collection of historical
materials, emphasizing eyewitness accounts of the participants on the
battlefield and the homefront and the impact of World War I on
individuals, then and now. The Liberty Memorial Museum continues to
actively acquire and preserve such materials.
The designation of the museum as ``America's National World War I
Museum'' is a great opportunity to use the invaluable resources of the
Liberty Memorial Museum to teach the lessons of liberty to the Nation's
schoolchildren through onsite visits, classroom curriculum development,
distance learning, and other educational initiatives.
I am pleased to offer the amendment on behalf of Mr. Bond and myself.
I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for agreeing to
include the measure in the underlying bill. It has been cleared on both
sides and I look forward to the Senate adding it to this Defense
measure.
I yield the floor, and I ask for adoption of the amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the amendment is cleared on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to amendment No. 3251.
The amendment (No. 3251) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3352

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I have an amendment numbered 3352.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are
set aside and the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for himself, Mr.
Hagel, Mr. McCain, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Akaka and Mr. Biden
proposes an amendment numbered 3352.

Mr. REED. 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 increase the end strength for active duty personnel of the
Army for fiscal year 2005 by 20,000 to 502,400)

On page 59, line 7, strike ``482,400'' and insert
``502,400''.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, it is my intention this evening to spend a
few minutes to lay the amendment down and then I presume at the end of
the evening, with unanimous consent, I will be given at least an hour
of debate tomorrow which I will share with Senators McCain, Hagel, and
others. That is my understanding. I ask the Senator from Virginia if
that understanding is correct.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we will work that out along those lines.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I understand from the chairman that he will
offer a second-degree amendment at the appropriate time. At this
juncture, I would like to briefly explain the amendment and then have
the opportunity to discuss it in more detail tomorrow with my
colleague.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I understand it is in order to forward a
second-degree amendment to the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island has the floor.

Amendment No. 3450 to Amendment No. 3352

Mr. WARNER. I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an
amendment numbered 3450 to amendment No. 3352.

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

(Purpose: To provide for funding the increased number of Army active-
duty personnel out of fiscal year 2005 supplemental funding)

Strike line 2 and insert the following:
``502,400, subject to the condition that the costs of active
duty personnel of the Army in excess of 482,400 shall be paid
out of funds authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year
2005 for a contingent emergency reserve fund or as an
emergency supplemental appropriation''.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. My amendment will increase the end strength of the Army to
meet the incredible mission that has been thrust upon them in the wake
of the war on terror and the operations in Afghanistan and the
operations in Iraq. I believe it is incumbent that we formally increase
the end strength of the Army and we incorporate within the Army budget
the requirements for these additional soldiers.
At this juncture, the Army is being increased on an emergency basis
through supplemental appropriations. I think that is not the
appropriate way to do it. I think we have to recognize that the
struggles we are engaged in are long term; they are not temporary. We
have to have an end strength within the authorization bill that
reflects that long-term effort we are engaged in.
I also believe we have to have within the Army budget the baseline
established so that if a supplemental is delayed or is not sufficient
to cover these additional troops, the Army does not have to go among
its own programs and root about and find moneys to pay for these
troops.
These troops are necessary. It is expedient that we should in fact
engage and correct this discrepancy between the missions and the men
and women who are serving our Army so well.
This is a quick glimpse of our soldiers who are committed throughout
the world: 310,000 soldiers in 120 countries. The most significant, of
course, are operations in Afghanistan and in Iraq. There are 13,000 in
Afghanistan and 126,000 in Iraq. There are soldiers all across the
globe and I think we all understand the stresses of these operations
are wearing our Army down rapidly.
Some of the indications that we have too few troops can be cited very
quickly. First, literally a few days ago the Army announced a stop-loss
policy that would prevent soldiers from leaving the Army 90 days before
their unit deploys into Iraq. We are essentially telling volunteers
that they cannot leave at the end of their enlistment. That is an
obvious indication we have too few troops.
Second, we are withdrawing troops from Korea. There might be
strategic reasons to pull troops out of Korea. There might be
logistical reasons. Technology might be aiding them. But, frankly, this
is an indication of, again, the shortage of troops within the Army,
because we have huge risks in North Korea. This is a regime that has
announced they have nuclear weapons. This is a regime that has been
involved in on-and-off negotiations with us for a matter of many months
to see if we can resolve the situation peacefully.
The signal we are sending to the North Koreans, albeit unwittingly,
is this is not a major priority; we are actually taking troops away.
When troops are taken away, we may still have the ability to deter
the North Koreans from attacking South Korea but, frankly, our mission
over there is no longer just deterrence, it is disarmament, and that
requires diplomacy backed up by force. We hope diplomacy works, but we
are weakening our hand.
One of the most interesting and insightful indications of the
shortage of

[[Page S6781]]

troops is we are actually beginning to take apart the training
infrastructure of the U.S. Army. Recently it was announced that troops
from our training centers, the 11th Army Cavalry Regiment, which serves
as the op force, the enemy force, in training our units, is being
notified for deployment overseas. In addition to that, the 1st
Battalion of the 509th Infantry, which acts as the opposition force to
train our troops at Fort Polk, LA, is also on notice.

What can be more demonstrative of the shortage of troops than the
fact we are, in a sense, dismantling our training structure? That in
the long term is going to do great harm to the service. We need more
troops.
I am sure those who are opposed to the amendment will say we have
authorized in this bill again access to emergency authorization and
supplemental funding, but that is not doing it the right way, doing it
up front, doing it in a straightforward manner, increasing end strength
statutorily, and putting this into the regular budget process.
I hope tomorrow we can debate this bill. I am unaware of the second-
degree amendment. I will get with the chairman to see what his language
is. I feel very strongly that this is the way to do it, and I am joined
in that by my colleagues Senators McCain, Hagel, Corzine, Akaka, Biden,
and many others who feel very strongly this is the way to do it and it
should be done. I hope it will be done tomorrow.
With the expectation and the understanding that we will have at least
an hour tomorrow on my side to engage in debate on this issue, at this
point I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my good friend from Rhode Island
that this has been an issue he has expressed concern about for better
than a year or more in the course of our hearings in the Armed Services
Committee, where my colleague is a very valuable member. He also draws
on his own experience as a distinguished West Point graduate and Army
officer himself. He speaks against a background of experience and
knowledge.
Yes, the bill at the moment has a provision in it which gives the
flexibility to the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, and
others to increase on a temporary basis--actually we go up to 30,000 if
they need it, whereas the Senator from Rhode Island does 20,000. We
will work this out tomorrow. But I express two concerns tonight, as we
lay down the preliminary record. I pose this question to the Senator
from Rhode Island. You do not provide in your amendment any means by
which to pay for it; am I not correct?

Mr. REED. The Senator is correct.
Mr. WARNER. Then my next question would be, you know from your
experience on the committee that the Department of the Army primarily--
it could be it comes from other areas of the defense budget, but the
Department of the Army might have to get over $2 billion out of its
current budget to meet these added costs. Would that not be correct?
Mr. REED. If I may respond to the chairman, he is quite right about
the offset. I have some ideas from where the money could come. It is my
feeling it should come from funds outside the Army. I think what we
have done is we have increased it, but we haven't offset it by Army
programs. So there is the possibility--I hope the likelihood--the
offset would come from other programs.
Mr. WARNER. As I think the Senator will see--I think I have sent a
copy of my amendment over to him. It is very brief. It just specifies
that the funding will come from areas other than the Department of the
Army budget or elsewhere in the defense budget. Has the Senator had an
opportunity to look at the amendment?
Mr. REED. I have had an opportunity to read the amendment. It seems,
in keeping with the Senator's commitment to be constructive and
helpful, to be very constructive and very helpful, on first
examination.
Mr. WARNER. We will work on this tomorrow. But I think for the
purposes of tomorrow's debate, we framed the parameters in which the
debate is likely to occur. I am optimistic that we can work this out
together. I commend the Senator. He has been a lead, with Senator
McCain and others, from the very beginning.
At this point in time, the leadership, tonight, in consultation with
Senator Levin and myself, will work out the sequence of events
tomorrow. The Senator believes he needs a full hour on his side?
Mr. REED. Yes. Myself, Senator Hagel, and Senator McCain wish to
speak.
Mr. WARNER. Fine. I will indicate to the leadership I will not need a
full hour to speak to the second-degree amendment and to my concern
about the permanency of it. But the reality is I think this will move
tomorrow. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Illinois seeking
recognition. It is my hope and expectation we can work this matter out.
How much does he wish to address it tonight?
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I say to the chairman, who I respect so
much, I agree tomorrow we will take 30 minutes equally divided before
the vote on this amendment. My hope this evening is, in the span of
perhaps 20 minutes, to give a longer statement so it will not be
necessary to repeat it tomorrow and save us some time so we can move
more quickly. I know the Senator has been extremely patient.
Mr. WARNER. We have all been patient. I thank the Senator. I think
that is very helpful. If the Senator will proceed along those lines, I
will be working on the finalization of the unanimous consent request to
put in tomorrow. At the conclusion of the Senator's remarks, this
amendment will just be among the pending amendments?
Mr. DURBIN. That is correct.
Mr. WARNER. We may be able to work it out tomorrow such that we do
not require a recorded vote.
Mr. DURBIN. I might say to the chairman, because of the serious
nature of this amendment, I think we will want a recorded vote.
Mr. WARNER. That is the Senator's prerogative.
Mr. DURBIN. I hope we can work on this tomorrow, and I will confer
with the chairman on that aspect.
I come to the floor today to offer amendment to the Defense
Department authorization bill.
The amendment would reaffirm a very important, long-standing position
of our nation: that the United States shall not engage in torture or
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. This is a standard that is
embodied in the U.S. Constitution and in numerous international
agreements which the United States has ratified.
The amendment would require the Defense Secretary to issue guidelines
to ensure compliance with this standard and to provide these guidelines
to Congress. The Defense Secretary would also be required to report to
Congress on any suspected violations of the prohibition on torture or
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The amendment specifically
provides that this information should be provided to Congress in a
manner and form that would protect national security.
Let me also explain what this amendment would not do. It would not
impose any new legal obligations on the United States. It would not
limit our ability to use the full range of interrogation techniques
that are outlined in the Army interrogation manual. It would not affect
the status of any person under the Geneva Conventions or whether any
person is entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
It would only reaffirm and ensure compliance with our long-standing
obligation not to subject detainees to torture or cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment.
The amendment is supported by a broad coalition of organizations and
individuals, including human rights organizations like Human Rights
Watch and Amnesty International, religious institutions such as the
Episcopal Church, and military officers, such as retired Rear Admiral
John Hutson.
Admiral Hutson was a Navy Judge Advocate for 28 years and from 1997-
2000, he was the Judge Advocate General, the top lawyer in the Navy. In
a letter in support of this amendment, he wrote:

It is absolutely necessary that the United States maintain
the high ground in this area and that Congress take a firm
stand on the issue. . . . It is critical that we remain
steadfast in our absolute opposition to torture and [cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment]. Senator Durbin's proposed
amendment is a critical first step in that regard.

[[Page S6782]]

In the aftermath of 9/11, some have called for the United States to
abandon this commitment. But President Bush has made it clear that he
does not support this position. On June 26, 2003, the International Day
in Support of Victims of Torture, the President said:

The United States is committed to the world-wide
elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by
example. I call on all governments to join with the United
States and the community of law-abiding nations in
prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of
torture and in undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual
punishment.

I commend the President for standing behind our treaty obligations.
Now the Congress must do no less. The world is watching us. They are
asking whether the United States will stand behind its treaty
obligations in the age of terrorism. With American troops in harm's
way, we need to tell the world and the American people that the United
States is committed to treating all detainees humanely.
As we mourn the passing of President Ronald Reagan, we should recall
his vision of America as a shining city upon a hill--a model of
democracy, freedom and the rule of law that people around the world
look to for inspiration. As President Reagan said in his Farewell
Address to the Nation:

After 200 years, two centuries, [America] still stands
strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held
steady no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still
a magnet for all who must have freedom.

President Reagan was right. Our city upon a hill must hold steady in
defense of our principles no matter what storm. Despite the threat of
terrorism, we must stand by our opposition to torture and other cruel
treatment.
In fact, it was President Reagan who first transmitted the Convention
against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment to the Senate with his recommendation that the Senate ratify
the treaty.
We are in the process of defining our values as a country in the age
of terrorism. We need to make it clear that we will not compromise
principles that have guided us and other civilized nations for hundreds
of years.
The prohibition on torture and other cruel treatment is deeply rooted
in our history. In 15th and 16th Century England, the infamous Star
Chamber issued warrants authorizing the use of torture against
political opponents of the Crown. Supporters of the Star Chamber
claimed that torture was necessary to protect the security of the
state. Blackstone, the English jurist who greatly influenced the
Founding Fathers, said: ``It seems astonishing that this usage of
torture should be said to arise from a tenderness to the lives of
men.'' Those words still ring true today.
In 1641, the Star Chamber was abolished and the use of torture
warrants ended. A prohibition on torture and cruel treatment developed
in English common law. The English Bill of Rights of 1689, which served
as a model for our Bill of Rights, contained a ban on ``cruel and
unusual punishments.''
This history carried great weight with the Framers of our
Constitution. During the Constitutional Conventions, Patrick Henry, in
a statement that typified the Founders' views, said: ``What has
distinguished our ancestors? That they would not admit of tortures, or
cruel and barbarous punishment.''
During the Constitutional Convention, George Mason, who is known as
``the Father of the Bill of Rights,'' explained that the 5th Amendment
ban on self-incrimination and the 8th Amendment ban of cruel and
unusual punishment both prohibit torture and cruel treatment.
Our history makes clear that these principles also guided us during
times of war. During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln asked
Francis Lieber, a military law expert, to create a set of rules to
govern the conduct of U.S. soldiers in the field. The Lieber Code
prohibited torture or other cruel treatment of captured enemy forces.
It became the foundation for the modern law of war, which is embodied
in the Geneva Conventions.
In the early twentieth century, the emergence of large police
departments in the United States was accompanied by a dramatic increase
in the abuse of suspects in police custody. President Hoover appointed
the National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement, also known
as the Wickersham Commission, to review law enforcement practices. In
1931, the Commission's findings shocked the nation and permanently
transformed the nature of American law enforcement.
The Commission concluded:

The third degree is the employment of methods which inflict
suffering, physical or mental, upon a person, in order to
obtain from that person information about a crime. . . . The
third degree is widespread. The third degree is a secret and
illegal practice. When all allowances are made it remains
beyond a doubt that the practice is shocking in its character
and extent, violative of American traditions and
institutions, and not to be tolerated.

The commission catalogued and condemned ``third degree'' methods,
including, physical brutality, threats, sleep deprivation, exposure to
extreme cold or heat--also known as ``the sweat box''--and blinding
with powerful lights and other forms of sensory overload or
deprivation.
The commission also discussed practical reasons to reject the ``third
degree'':

The third degree involves the danger of false confessions.
. . so many instances have been brought to our attention
during this investigation that we feel convinced not only of
its existence but of its seriousness.
The third degree impairs police efficiency. . . . It tends
to make [police] less zealous in the search of objective
evidence.
The third degree brutalizes the police, hardens the
prisoner against society, and lowers the esteem in which the
administration of justice is held by the public. Probably the
third degree has been a chief factor in bringing about the
present attitude of hostility on the part of a considerable
portion of the population toward the police and the very
general failure of a large element of the people to aid or
cooperate with the police in maintaining law and order.
Over the next two decades, numerous Supreme Court opinions
cited the Wickersham Commission report and condemned the use
of various third degree methods as unconstitutional.
As the landscape of American policing was being reshaped,
the horrific abuses of Nazi Germany began to come to light.
This reinforced American opposition to torture and other
forms of cruel treatment.
One of the counts in the Nuremberg indictment of Gestapo
officials detailed official orders approving the application
of ``third degree'' techniques, including ``[a] very simple
diet (bread and water)[,] hard bunk[,] dark cell[,]
deprivation of sleep[,] exhaustive drilling[,] . . . [and]
flogging (for more than 29 strokes a doctor must be
consulted)'' as a means of obtaining evidence, or
``information of important facts'' regarding subversion. One
of the defenses raised by Gestapo officers was that such
actions were necessary to protect against Resistance
terrorism.

After World War II, in the aftermath of Nuremberg and the disclosure
of Nazi Gestapo tactics, the United States and our allies created a new
international legal order based on respect for human rights.
One of its fundamental tenets was a universal prohibition on torture
and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The United States took the
lead in establishing a succession of international agreements that ban
the use of torture and other cruel treatment against all persons at all
times. There are no exceptions to this prohibition.
Eleanor Roosevelt was the Chair of the U.N. Commission that produced
the Universal Declaration on Human Rights in 1948. The Universal
Declaration states unequivocally, ``No one shall be subjected to
torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.''
The United States, along with a majority of countries in the world,
is a party to the Geneva Conventions, the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, all of which
prohibit torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
Army regulations that implement these treaty obligations state:

Inhumane treatment is a serious and punishable violation
under international law and the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ). All prisoners will receive humane treatment
without regard to race, nationality, religion, political
opinion, sex, or other criteria. The following acts are
prohibited: murder, torture, corporal punishment, mutilation,
the taking of hostages, sensory deprivation, collective
punishments, execution without trial by proper authority, and
all cruel and degrading treatment. All persons will be
respected as human beings. They will be protected against all
acts of violence to include rape, forced prostitution,
assault and theft, insults, public curiosity, bodily injury,
and reprisals of any kind This list is not exclusive.

[[Page S6783]]

Some people may be asking, ``What is, `cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment.' '' How can the United States be bound by such an uncertain
standard?
The United States Senate debated this question before ratifying the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Torture
Convention. In response to this concern, we filed reservations to both
of these agreements. A reservation is a statement filed by the Senate
that clarifies our obligations under international agreements.
These reservations state that the United States is bound to prevent
``cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment'' only to the extent that that
phrase means the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment
prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. In other words, ``cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment'' is defined by the U.S. Constitution, and the
United States is only prohibited from engaging in conduct that is
already unconstitutional.
This provides certainty and clarity. In 1990, the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee held a hearing on the Torture Convention and an
official from the first Bush administration explained the reservation:

We have proposed this reservation because the terms
``cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment'' used
in this Convention are vague and are not evolved concepts
under international law. . . . On the other hand, the concept
of cruel and unusual punishment under the United States
Constitution is well developed, having evolved through court
decisions over a period of 200 years.

The current administration has confirmed that it stands by this
reservation. Last year, Defense Department General Counsel William
Haynes said:

``[C]ruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment''
means the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment
prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments
to the Constitution of the United States. United States
policy is to treat all detainees and conduct all
interrogations, wherever they may occur, in a manner
consistent with this commitment.

Aside from our legal obligations, there are also important practical
reasons for standing by our commitment not to engage in torture or
other cruel treatment.
Torture is an ineffective interrogation tactic because it produces
unreliable information. People who are being tortured will often lie to
their torturer in order to stop the pain.
Resorting to torture and ill treatment of detainees would make us
less secure, not more. It would create anti-American sentiment at a
time when we need the support and assistance of other countries in the
war on terrorism.
Finally, and most importantly, if we were to engage in torture or ill
treatment of detainees, we would increase the risk of subjecting
members of the Armed Forces to torture if they are captured by our
enemies.
The U.S. Army fully recognizes these practical downsides. The Army
Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation states:

Use of torture and other illegal methods is a poor
technique that yields unreliable results, may damage
subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to
say what he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. Revelation
of use of torture by U.S. personnel will bring discredit upon
the U.S. and its armed forces while undermining domestic and
international support for the war effort. It may also place
U.S. and allied personnel in enemy hands at a greater risk of
abuse by their captors.

As the great American patriot Thomas Paine said: ``He that would make
his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression.''
Sadly, the ``third degree,'' which was condemned by the Wickersham
Commission in 1931 and in subsequent Supreme Court decisions, has
reemerged in modern times with a new name: ``stress and duress.''
``Stress and duress'' tactics, which are also known as ``torture
lite,'' include extended food, sleep, sensory, or water deprivation,
exposure to extreme heat or cold, and ``position abuse,'' which
involves forcing detainees to assume positions designed to cause pain
or humiliation. ``Stress and duress'' tactics clearly constitute
torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
As the Supreme Court explained in Blackburn v. Alabama, a 1960 case:

[C]oercion can be mental as well as physical . . . the
blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of an
unconstitutional inquisition. A number of cases have
demonstrated, if demonstration were needed, that the
efficiency of the rack and the thumbscrew can be matched,
given the proper subject, by more sophisticated modes of
``persuasion.''

Let's take one example: sleep deprivation. In Ashcraft v. Tennessee,
a 1944 case, the Supreme Court held that a confession obtained by
depriving a suspect of sleep and continuously questioning him for 36
hours was involuntarily coerced. For the majority, Justice Hugo Black
wrote:

It has been known since 1500 at least that deprivation of
sleep is the most effective torture and certain to produce
any confession desired [quoting the Wickersham Commission]. .
. . We think a situation such as that here shown by
uncontradicted evidence is so inherently coercive that its
very existence is irreconcilable with the possession of
mental freedom by a lone suspect against whom its full
coercive force is brought to bear.

As explained in a recent New York Times article by Adam Hochschild,
sleep deprivation was widely used in the Middle Ages on suspected
witches--it was called tormentum insomniae. Stalin's secret police
subjected prisoners to the ``conveyer belt,'' continuous questioning by
numerous interrogators until the prisoner signed a confession. Former
Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin wrote about his experience with
sleep deprivation in a Soviet prison in the 1940's:

In the head of the interrogated prisoner a haze begins to
form. His spirit is wearied to death, his legs are unsteady,
and he has one sole desire: to sleep, to sleep just a little.
. . . Anyone who has experienced this desire knows that not
even hunger or thirst are comparable with it. . . . I came
across prisoners who signed what they were told to sign, only
to get what the interrogator promised them . . .
uninterrupted sleep!

Another example is ``position abuse.'' In 2002, in a case called Hope
v. Pelzer, the Supreme Court addressed this issue. Hope, a prisoner,
was handcuffed to a ``hitching post'' for seven hours in the sun and
not allowed to use the bathroom. The Court held that this violated the
8th Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The Court
said:

The obvious cruelty inherent in this practice should have
provided [the prison guards] with some notice that their
alleged conduct violated Hope's constitutional protection
against cruel and unusual punishment. Hope was treated in a
way antithetical to human dignity--he was hitched to a post
for an extended period of time in a position that was
painful, and under circumstances that were both degrading and
dangerous.

In the 1930s, Stalin's secret police forced dissidents to stand for
prolonged periods to coerce confessions for show trials. In 1956,
experts commissioned by the CIA documented the effects of forced
standing. They found that ankles and feet swell to twice their normal
size within 24 hours, the heart rate increases, some people faint, and
the kidneys eventually shut down.
For many years, the United States has characterized the use of
``stress and duress'' by other countries as ``Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman and Degrading Treatment.'' The State Department's ``Country
Reports on Human Rights Practices,'' which are submitted to Congress
every year, have condemned ``beatings,'' ``threats to detainees or
their family members,'' ``sleep deprivation,'' ``depriv[ation] of food
and water,'' ``suspension for long periods in contorted positions,''
``prolonged isolation,'' ``forced prolonged standing,'' ``tying of the
hands and feet for extended periods of time,'' ``public humiliation,''
``sexual humiliation,'' and ``female detainees . . . being forced to
strip in front of male security officers.''
The Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation characterizes
``stress and duress'' as illegal physical and mental torture. The
Manual states that ``acts of violence or intimidation, including
physical or mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to inhumane
treatment as a means of or an aid to interrogation'' are ``illegal.''
It defines ``infliction of pain through . . . bondage (other than
legitimate use of restraints to prevent escape),'' ``forcing an
individual to stand, sit, or kneel in abnormal positions for prolonged
periods of time,'' ``food deprivation,'' and ``any form of beating,''
as ``physical torture'' and defines ``abnormal sleep deprivation'' as
``mental torture'' and prohibits the use of these tactics under any
circumstances.
The Army Field Manual provides very specific guidance about
interrogation techniques that may approach the

[[Page S6784]]

line between lawful and unlawful actions. Before using a questionable
interrogation technique, an interrogator is directed to ask whether
``If your contemplated actions were perpetrated by the enemy against
U.S. [prisoners of war], you would believe such actions violate
international or U.S. law. . . . If you answer yes . . . do not engage
in the contemplated action.''
This is the Army's version of ``the golden rule''--do unto others as
you would have them do to you. It is an important reminder that the
prohibition on torture and other cruel treatment protects American
soldiers as much as it does the enemy. If enemy forces used stress and
duress tactics on American soldiers, we would condemn them. We must
hold ourselves to the same standard.
The United States is not alone in condemning ``torture lite.'' In
Israel, a country that has grappled with terrorism for decades, the
Supreme Court held that ``stress and duress'' techniques violate
international law and are absolutely prohibited. As the Court
explained:

These prohibitions are ``absolute.'' There are no
exceptions to them and there is no room for balancing. Indeed
violence directed at a suspect's body or spirit does not
constitute a reasonable investigation practice.

For all of these reasons, it is vitally important that the Congress
affirm the United States' commitment not to engage in torture or cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment.
Our commitment to principle, even during difficult times, has made
America a special country. In the age of terrorism, we may be tempted
by the notion that torture is justified. But to sacrifice this
principle would grant the terrorists a valuable victory at our expense.
The Israeli Supreme Court has explained:

Although a democracy must often fight with one hand tied
behind its back, it nonetheless has the upper hand.
Preserving the Rule of Law and recognition of an individual's
liberty constitutes an important component in its
understanding of security. At the end of the day, they
strengthen its spirit and allow it to overcome its
difficulties.

The brutal slaying of Nicholas Berg reminded us that our enemies do
not respect any rules in their relentless quest to kill Americans. But
that is what distinguishes us from the terrorists we fight. There are
some lines that we will not cross. Torture and cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment are inconsistent with the principles of liberty and
the rule of law that underpin our democracy.
As President Reagan reminded us, our city upon a hill must stand
firm. The eyes of the world are upon us.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
It has been suggested to me by staff that perhaps I would offer the
amendment this evening and then ask unanimous consent it be set aside
while we work things out with Chairman Warner and other Senators who
are interested in this issue.
If there is no objection, with the understanding that I will not call
up the amendment this evening and will wait until a decision from the
chairman and the ranking member as to my place in line, I offer the
amendment and merely at this point ask it be reported by the clerk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 3386

Mr. DURBIN. I send to the desk amendment No. 3386.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Illinois, [Mr. Durbin], proposes an
amendment numbered 3386.

Mr. DURBIN. 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 affirm that the United States may not engage in torture or
cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment)

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

SEC. 1055. HUMANE TREATMENT OF DETAINEES.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) After World War II, the United States and its allies
created a new international legal order based on respect for
human rights. One of its fundamental tenets was a universal
prohibition on torture and ill treatment.
(2) On June 26, 2003, the International Day in Support of
Victims of Torture, President George W. Bush stated, ``The
United States is committed to the world-wide elimination of
torture and we are leading this fight by example. I call on
all governments to join with the United States and the
community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting,
investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture and in
undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment.''.
(3) The United States is a party to the Geneva Conventions,
which prohibit torture, cruel treatment, or outrages upon
personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading
treatment, during armed conflict.
(4) The United States is a party to 2 treaties that
prohibit torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment
or punishment, as follows:
(A) The International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, done at New York December 16, 1966.
(B) The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, done at New York
December 10, 1984.
(5) The United States filed reservations to the treaties
described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (4)
stating that the United States considers itself bound to
prevent ``cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment'' to the extent that phrase means the cruel,
unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by
the 5th amendment, 8th amendment, or 14th amendment to the
Constitution.
(6) Army Regulation 190-8 entitled ``Enemy Prisoners of
War, Retained Personnel, Civilian Internees and Other
Detainees'' provides that ``Inhumane treatment is a serious
and punishable violation under international law and the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). . . . All prisoners
will receive humane treatment without regard to race,
nationality, religion, political opinion, sex, or other
criteria. The following acts are prohibited: murder, torture,
corporal punishment, mutilation, the taking of hostages,
sensory deprivation, collective punishments, execution
without trial by proper authority, and all cruel and
degrading treatment. . . . All persons will be respected as
human beings. They will be protected against all acts of
violence to include rape, forced prostitution, assault and
theft, insults, public curiosity, bodily injury, and
reprisals of any kind. . . . This list is not exclusive.''.
(7) The Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation of the
Department of the Army states that ``acts of violence or
intimidation, including physical or mental torture, threats,
insults, or exposure to inhumane treatment as a means of or
an aid to interrogation'' are ``illegal''. Such Manual
defines ``infliction of pain through . . . bondage (other
than legitimate use of restraints to prevent escape)'',
``forcing an individual to stand, sit, or kneel in abnormal
positions for prolonged periods of time'', ``food
deprivation'', and ``any form of beating'' as ``physical
torture'', defines ``abnormal sleep deprivation'' as ``mental
torture'', and prohibits the use of such tactics under any
circumstances.
(8) The Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation of the
Department of the Army states that ``Use of torture and other
illegal methods is a poor technique that yields unreliable
results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can
induce the source to say what he thinks the interrogator
wants to hear. Revelation of use of torture by U.S. personnel
will bring discredit upon the U.S. and its armed forces while
undermining domestic and international support for the war
effort. It may also place U.S. and allied personnel in enemy
hands at a greater risk of abuse by their captors.''.
(b) Prohibition on Torture or Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment.--(1) No person in the custody or
under the physical control of the United States shall be
subject to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment
or punishment that is prohibited by the Constitution, laws,
or treaties of the United States.
(2) Nothing in this section shall affect the status of any
person under the Geneva Conventions or whether any person is
entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
(c) Rules, Regulations, and Guidelines.--(1) Not later than
180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall prescribe the rules, regulations, or
guidelines necessary to ensure compliance with the
prohibition in subsection (b)(1) by the members of the United
States Armed Forces and by any person providing services to
the Department of Defense on a contract basis.
(2) The Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense
committees the rules, regulations, or guidelines prescribed
under paragraph (1), and any modifications to such rules,
regulations, or guidelines--
(A) not later than 30 days after the effective date of such
rules, regulations, guidelines, or modifications; and
(B) in a manner and form that will protect the national
security interests of the United States.
(d) Report to Congress.--(1) The Secretary shall submit, on
a timely basis and not less than twice each year, a report to
Congress on the circumstances surrounding any investigation
of a possible violation of the prohibition in subsection
(b)(1) by a member of the Armed Forces or by a person
providing services to the Department of Defense on a contract
basis.

[[Page S6785]]

(2) A report required under paragraph (1) shall be
submitted in a manner and form that--
(A) will protect the national security interests of the
United States; and
(B) will not prejudice any prosecution of an individual
involved in, or responsible for, a violation of the
prohibition in subsection (b)(1).
(e) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or
punishment'' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment
or punishment prohibited by the 5th amendment, 8th amendment,
or 14th amendment to the Constitution.
(2) The term ``Geneva Conventions'' means--
(A) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of
the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, done at
Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3114);
(B) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of
the Wounded, Sick, and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at
Sea, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3217);
(C) the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners
of War, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316); and
(D) the Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian
Persons in Time of War, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST
3516).
(3) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Defense.
(4) The term ``torture'' has the meaning given that term in
section 2340 of title 18, United States Code.

Mr. WARNER. Would the Senator from Illinois clarify this?
Mr. DURBIN. I offered the amendment and asked unanimous consent that
it be set aside pending a decision by the chairman and Senator Levin
and other Senators.
Mr. WARNER. I wonder if the Senator might withhold until Senator
Reid, with whom I am working tonight, will give me some advice. What we
will be doing--Senator Reid could draw his up--we are going to
incorporate this into the agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment has already been reported.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be set aside until
there is an agreement between Senator Warner, Senator Levin, Senator
Reid, and others as to the time that it may be considered.
Mr. WARNER. I was under the understanding we would do it differently.
I have not had a chance to discuss this with Senator Levin. I
understood you were just going do speak to this and not propose it.
What is done, is done.
Mr. DURBIN. I asked unanimous consent to set it aside, and it will
not be considered until you, Senator Warner, and Senator Levin say it
is appropriate, whatever that time may be.
Mr. WARNER. What was the decision we made with respect to Senator
Reed?
We have to have some equality of how we are handling these things.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Reed amendment has been called up and is
now set aside by the Durbin amendment.
Mr. WARNER. This amendment would then have the same status of being a
pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. DURBIN. I thought by asking unanimous consent that it be set
aside, it would not in any way supersede any other Members' rights.
Mr. WARNER. We get so many gatekeeping amendments up here we could
encounter difficulty tomorrow morning.
Mr. DURBIN. You have been so cooperative and helpful, I ask unanimous
consent that my amendment be withdrawn and I will offer it tomorrow. I
want to do whatever the chairman wishes.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield?
Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. REID. The Senator from Illinois is willing to have his amendment
set aside. He is certainly not trying to take advantage of anyone. I
think it does not solve our problem if he withdraws his amendment.
Mr. WARNER. I just want to treat--Senator Reed was here momentarily,
and we worked with him. Anyway, I want to be fair to all Senators.
Mr. REID. We have a queue that is tentatively going to be set up to
handle all this tomorrow.
Mr. WARNER. We will work this out tonight, hopefully.
Mr. LEVIN. The Senator from Illinois has indicated--if I could just
ask whoever has the floor to yield?
Mr. DURBIN. I yield.
Mr. LEVIN. His amendment will be back in order when the chairman and
ranking member so designate it. He is not trying to use his amendment
as a gatekeeper. Why don't we just leave it pending and then set it
aside?
Mr. WARNER. If he will withdraw it, we can include it in the
unanimous consent tonight.
Mr. REID. We do not need to have him withdraw it.
Mr. WARNER. I beg your pardon?
Mr. REID. We do not need to have him withdraw it.
Mr. WARNER. Well, I am going to rely on your assurances.
Mr. REID. Because the Senator from Illinois has said he is not trying
to take advantage of anyone, not trying to be a gatekeeper, that it is
up to the two managers of the bill when the amendment of the Senator
from Illinois is acted upon.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, may I suggest this. If I could have the
chairman's attention, if we have a unanimous consent agreement that is
entered into tonight, and if we include Senator Durbin's amendment in
that list, that would supersede whatever status that amendment has at
this point. Would that be agreeable to everyone?
Mr. WARNER. That is agreeable.
Mr. DURBIN. That is agreeable to me, as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am curious, having offered the
amendment, whether I need to make a unanimous consent request to make
it clear what has been agreed upon?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
Mr. DURBIN. It appears it has become part of the legend and lore of
the Senate, and I cannot add anything to it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. 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. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3167, As Modified

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan and myself will
now proceed to do some cleared amendments. Domenici amendment No. 3167
was inadvertently approved by the Senate yesterday without a
modification that was agreed to by both the majority and minority. I
send to the desk a modified amendment No. 3167, as agreed to, as a
substitute for the original amendment and ask unanimous consent that it
be substituted for the version agreed to yesterday.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3167), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:

(Purpose: To require a report on the availability of potential overland
ballistic missile defense test ranges)

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

SEC. 1022. REPORT ON AVAILABILITY OF POTENTIAL OVERLAND
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TEST RANGES.

The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report
assessing the availability to the Department of Defense of
potential ballistic missile defense test ranges for overland
intercept flight tests of defenses against ballistic missile
systems with a range of 750 to 1,500 kilometers.

Mr. WARNER. 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.

Amendments Nos. 3395; 3392, As Modified; 3402, As Modified; 3346, As
Modified; 3326, As Modified; 3349, As Modified; and 3385, As Modified,
En Bloc

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send a package of amendments to the desk
and ask that they be considered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to considering the
amendments en bloc?
Mr. LEVIN. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Is there further debate? If not, without objection, the amendments
are agreed to.
The amendments were agreed to, as follows:

[[Page S6786]]

ammendment no. 3395

(Purpose: to encourage the Secretary of Defense to achieve maximum cost
effective energy savings)

On page 195, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:

SEC. 868. ENERGY SAVINGS PERFORMANCE CONTRACTS.

The Secretary of Defense shall, to the extent practicable,
exercise existing statutory authority, including the
authority provided by section 2865 of title 10, United States
Code, and section 8256 of title 42, United States Code, to
introduce life-cycle cost-effective upgrades to Federal
assets through shared energy savings contracting, demand
management programs, and utility incentive programs.

amendment no. 3392, As modified

(Purpose: To clarify the duties and activities of the Vaccine
Healthcare Centers Network)

On page 147, after line 21, add the following:

SEC. __. VACCINE HEALTHCARE CENTERS NETWORK.

Section 1110 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(c) Vaccine Healthcare Centers Network.--(1) The
Secretary shall carry out this section through the Vaccine
Healthcare Centers Network as established by the Secretary in
collaboration with the Director of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.
``(2) In addition to conducting the activities described in
subsection (b), it shall be the purpose of the Vaccine
Healthcare Centers Network to improve--
``(A) the safety and quality of vaccine administration for
the protection of members of the armed forces;
``(B) the submission of data to the Vaccine-related Adverse
Events Reporting System to include comprehensive content and
follow-up data;
``(C) the access to clinical management services to members
of the armed forces who experience vaccine adverse events;
``(D) the knowledge and understanding by members of the
armed forces and vaccine-providers of immunization benefits
and risks.
``(E) networking between the Department of Defense, the
Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of
Veterans Affairs, and private advocacy and coalition groups
with regard to immunization benefits and risks; and
``(F) clinical research on the safety and efficacy of
vaccines.
``(3) To achieve the purposes described in paragraph (2),
the Vaccine Healthcare Centers Network, in collaboration with
the medical departments of the armed forces, shall carry out
the following:
``(A)(i) Establish a network of centers of excellence in
clinical immunization safety assessment that provides for
outreach, education, and confidential consultative and direct
patient care services for vaccine related adverse events
prevention, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up with respect
to members of the armed services.
``(ii) Such centers shall provide expert second opinions
for such members regarding medical exemptions under this
section and for additional care that is not available at the
local medical facilities of such members.
``(B) Develop standardized educational outreach activities
to support the initial and ongoing provision of training and
education for providers and nursing personnel who are engaged
in delivering immunization services to the members of the
armed forces.
``(C) Develop a program for quality improvement in the
submission and understanding of data that is provided to the
Vaccine-related Adverse Events Reporting System, particularly
among providers and members of the armed forces.
``(D) Develop and standardize a quality improvement program
for the Department of Defense relating to immunization
services.
``(E) Develop an effective network system, with appropriate
internal and external collaborative efforts, to facilitate
integration, educational outreach, research, and clinical
management of adverse vaccine events.
``(F) Provide education and advocacy for vaccine recipients
to include access to vaccine safety programs, medical
exemptions, and quality treatment.
``(G) Support clinical studies with respect to the safety
and efficacy of vaccines, including outcomes studies on the
implementation of recommendations contained in the clinical
guidelines for vaccine-related adverse events.
``(H) Develop implementation recommendations for vaccine
exemptions or alternative vaccine strategies for members of
the armed forces who have had prior, or who are susceptible
to, serious adverse events, including those with genetic risk
factors, and the discovery of treatments for adverse events
that are most effective.
``(4) It is the sense of the Senate--
``(A) to recognize the important work being done by the
Vaccine Healthcare Center Network for the members of the
armed forces; and
``(B) that each of the military departments (as defined in
section 102 of title 5, United States Code) is strongly
encouraged to fund the Vaccine Healthcare Center Network.''.

amendment no. 3402, As modified

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress that the elimination of the
drug trade in Afghanistan should be a national security priority for
the United States, and to require a report on related efforts)

On page 272, after the matter following line 18, insert the
following:

SEC. 1055. DRUG ERADICATION EFFORTS IN AFGHANISTAN.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The United States engaged in military action against
the Taliban-controlled Government of Afghanistan in 2001 in
direct response to the Taliban's support and aid to Al Qaeda.
(2) The military action against the Taliban in Afghanistan
was designed, in part, to disrupt the activities of, and
financial support for, terrorists.
(3) A greater percentage of the world's opium supply is now
produced in Afghanistan than before the Taliban banned the
cultivation or trade of opium.
(4) In 2004, more than two years after the Taliban was
forcefully removed from power, Afghanistan is supplying
approximately 75 percent of the world's heroin.
(5) The estimated value of the opium harvested in
Afghanistan in 2003 was $2,300,000,000.
(6) Some of the profits associated with opium harvested in
Afghanistan continue to fund terrorists and terrorist
organizations, including Al Qaeda, that seek to attack the
United States and United States interests.
(7) The global war on terror is and should remain our
Nation's highest national security priority.
(8) United States and Coalition counterdrug efforts in
Afghanistan have not yet produced significant results.
(9) There are indications of strong, direct connections
between terrorism and drug trafficking.
(10) The elimination of this funding source is critical to
making significant progress in the global war on terror.
(11) The President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, has stated
that opium production poses a significant threat to the
future of Afghanistan, and has established a plan of action
to deal with this threat.
(12) The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has
reported that Afghanistan is at risk of again becoming a
failed state if strong actions are not taken against
narcotics.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the President should make the substantial reduction of
drug trafficking in Afghanistan a priority in the war on
terror;
(2) the Secretary of Defense should, in coordination with
the Secretary of State, work to a greater extent in
cooperation with the Government of Afghanistan and
international organizations involved in counterdrug
activities to assist in providing a secure environment for
counterdrug personnel in Afghanistan; and
(3) because the trafficking of narcotics is known to
support terrorist activities and contributes to the
instability of the Government of Afghanistan, additional
efforts should be made by the Armed Forces of the United
States, in conjunction with and in support of coalition
forces, to significantly reduce narcotics trafficking in
Afghanistan and neighboring countries, with particular focus
on those trafficking organizations with the closest links to
known terrorist organizations.
(c) Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit
to Congress a report that describes--
(1) progress made towards substantially reducing the poppy
cultivation and heroin production capabilities in
Afghanistan; and
(2) the extent to which profits from illegal drug activity
in Afghanistan fund terrorist organizations and support
groups that seek to undermine the Government of Afghanistan.

amendment no. 3346, As modified

(Purpose: To reduce barriers for Hispanic-serving institutions in
defense contracts, defense research programs, and other minority-
related defense programs)

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

SEC. 1068. REDUCTION OF BARRIERS FOR HISPANIC-SERVING
INSTITUTIONS IN DEFENSE CONTRACTS, DEFENSE
RESEARCH PROGRAMS, AND OTHER MINORITY-RELATED
DEFENSE PROGRAMS.

Section 502(a)(5)(C) of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1101a(a)(5)(C)) is amended by inserting before the
period the following: ``, which assurances--
``(i) may employ statistical extrapolation using
appropriate data from the Bureau of the Census or other
appropriate Federal or State sources; and
``(ii) the Secretary shall consider as meeting the
requirements of this subparagraph, unless the Secretary
determines, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that
the assurances do not meet the requirements''.

amendment no. 3326, As modified

(Purpose: to clarify the authorities of the Judge Advocates General)

On page 221, between the matter following line 17 and line
18, insert the following:

SEC. 915. AUTHORITIES OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL.

(a) Department of the Army.--(1) Section 3019(b) of title
10, United States Code, is amended by striking ``The General
Counsel'' and inserting ``Subject to sections 806 and 3037 of
this title, the General Counsel''.
(2)(A) Section 3037 of such title is amended to read as
follows:

[[Page S6787]]

``Sec. 3037. Judge Advocate General, Assistant Judge Advocate
General: appointment; duties

``(a) Position of Judge Advocate General.--There is a Judge
Advocate General in the Army, who is appointed by the
President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,
from officers of the Judge Advocate General's Corps. The term
of office is four years, but may be sooner terminated or
extended by the President. The Judge Advocate General, while
so serving, has the grade of lieutenant general.
``(b) Appointment.--The Judge Advocate General of the Army
shall be appointed from those officers who at the time of
appointment are members of the bar of a Federal court or the
highest court of a State or Territory, and who have had at
least eight years of experience in legal duties as
commissioned officers.
``(c) Duties.--The Judge Advocate General, in addition to
other duties prescribed by law--
``(1) is the legal adviser of the Secretary of the Army,
the Chief of Staff of the Army, and the Army Staff, and of
all offices and agencies of the Department of the Army;
``(2) shall direct and supervise the members of the Judge
Advocate General's Corps and civilian attorneys employed by
the Department of the Army (other than those assigned or
detailed to the Office of the General Counsel of the Army) in
the performance of their duties;
``(3) shall direct and supervise the performance of duties
under chapter 47 of this title (the Uniform Code of Military
Justice) by any member of the Army;
``(4) shall receive, revise, and have recorded the
proceedings of courts of inquiry and military commissions;
and
``(5) shall perform such other legal duties as may be
directed by the Secretary of the Army.
``(d) Position of Assistant Judge Advocate General.--There
is an Assistant Judge Advocate General in the Army, who is
appointed by the President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, from officers of the Army who have the
qualifications prescribed in subsection (b) for the Judge
Advocate General. The term of office of the Assistant Judge
Advocate General is four years, but may be sooner terminated
or extended by the President. An officer appointed as
Assistant Judge Advocate General who holds a lower regular
grade shall be appointed in the regular grade of major
general.
``(e) Appointments Recommended by Selection Boards.--Under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, the
Secretary of the Army, in selecting an officer for
recommendation to the President under subsection (a) for
appointment as the Judge Advocate General or under subsection
(d) for appointment as the Assistant Judge Advocate General,
shall ensure that the officer selected is recommended by a
board of officers that, insofar as practicable, is subject to
the procedures applicable to selection boards convened under
chapter 36 of this title.''.
(B) The item relating to such section in the table of
sections at the beginning of chapter 305 of such title is
amended to read as follows:

``3037. Judge Advocate General, Assistant Judge Advocate General:
appointment; duties.''.
(b) Department of the Navy.--(1) Section 5019(b) of title
10, United States Code, is amended by striking ``The General
Counsel'' and inserting ``Subject to sections 806 and 5148 of
this title, the General Counsel''.
(2) Section 5148 of such title is amended--
(A) in subsection (b), by striking the fourth sentence and
inserting the following: ``The Judge Advocate General, while
so serving, has the grade of vice admiral or lieutenant
general, as appropriate.''; and
(B) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
``(d) The Judge Advocate General, in addition to other
duties prescribed by law--
``(1) is the legal adviser of the Secretary of the Navy,
the Chief of Naval Operations, and all offices, bureaus, and
agencies of the Department of the Navy;
``(2) shall direct and supervise the judge advocates of the
Navy and the Marine Corps and civilian attorneys employed by
the Department of the Navy (other than those assigned or
detailed to the Office of the General Counsel of the Navy) in
the performance of their duties;
``(3) shall direct and supervise the performance of duties
under chapter 47 of this title (the Uniform Code of Military
Justice) by any member of the Navy or Marine Corps;
``(4) shall receive, revise, and have recorded the
proceedings of courts of inquiry and military commissions;
and
``(5) shall perform such other legal duties as may be
directed by the Secretary of the Navy.''.
(c) Department of the Air Force.--(1) Section 8019(b) of
title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking ``The
General Counsel'' and inserting ``Subject to sections 806 and
8037 of this title, the General Counsel''.
(2) Section 8037 of such title is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking the third sentence and
inserting the following: ``The Judge Advocate General, while
so serving, has the grade of lieutenant general.''; and
(B) in subsection (c)--
(i) by striking ``General shall,'' in the matter preceding
paragraph (1) and inserting ``General,'';
(ii) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as paragraphs
(4) and (5), respectively, and, in each such paragraph, by
inserting ``shall'' before the first word; and
(iii) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraphs:
``(1) is the legal adviser of the Secretary of the Air
Force, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and the Air
Staff, and of all offices and agencies of the Department of
the Air Force;
``(2) shall direct and supervise the members of the Air
Force designated as judge advocates and civilian attorneys
employed by the Department of the Air Force (other than those
assigned or detailed to the Office of the General Counsel of
the Air Force) in the performance of their duties;
``(3) shall direct and supervise the performance of duties
under chapter 47 of this title (the Uniform Code of Military
Justice) by any member of the Air Force;''.
(d) Exclusion From Limitation on General and Flag Officer
Distribution.--Section 525(b) of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(9) An officer while serving as the Judge Advocate
General of the Army, the Judge Advocate General of the Navy,
or the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force is in addition
to the number that would otherwise be permitted for that
officer's armed force for officers serving on active duty in
grades above major general or rear admiral under paragraph
(1) or (2), as the case may be.''.

amendment no. 3349, As modified

(Purpose: To modify the authority to convey land at Equipment and
Storage Yard, Charleston, South Carolina)

On page 365, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:

SEC. 2830. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITY FOR LAND CONVEYANCE,
EQUIPMENT AND STORAGE YARD, CHARLESTON, SOUTH
CAROLINA.

Section 563(h) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 (Public Law 106-53; 113 Stat. 360) is amended to read as
follows:
``(h) Charleston, South Carolina.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may convey to the City of
Charleston, South Carolina (in this section referred to as
the `City'), all right, title, and interest of the United
States in and to a parcel of real property of the Corps of
Engineers, together with any improvements thereon, that is
known as the Equipment and Storage Yard and consists of
approximately 1.06 acres located on Meeting Street in
Charleston, South Carolina, in as-is condition.
``(2) Consideration.--As consideration for the conveyance
of property under paragraph (1), the City shall provide the
United States, whether by cash payment, in-kind contribution,
or a combination thereof, an amount that is not less than the
fair market value of the property conveyed, as determined by
the Secretary.
``(3) Use of proceeds.--Amounts received as consideration
under this subsection may be used by the Corps of Engineers,
Charleston District, as follows:
``(A) Any amounts received as consideration may be used to
carry out activities under this Act, notwithstanding any
requirements associated with the Plant Replacement and
Improvement Program (PRIP), including--
``(i) leasing, purchasing, or constructing an office
facility within the boundaries of Charleston, Berkeley, and
Dorchester Counties, South Carolina; and
``(ii) satisfying any PRIP balances.
``(B) Any amounts received as consideration that are in
excess of the fair market value of the property conveyed
under paragraph (1) may be used for any authorized activities
of the Corps of Engineers, Charleston District.
``(4) Description of property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under
paragraph (1) and any property transferred to the United
States as consideration under paragraph (2) shall be
determined by surveys satisfactory to the Secretary.
``(5) Additional terms and conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under paragraph (1) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.''.

amendment no. 3385, As modified

(Purpose: To exempt procurements of certain services from the
limitation regarding service charges imposed for defense procurements
made through contracts of other agencies)

On page 163, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
``(c) Inapplicability to Contracts for Certain Services.--
This section does not apply to procurements of the following
services:
``(1) Printing, binding, or blank-book work to which
section 502 of title 44 applies.
``(2) Services available under programs pursuant to section
103 of the Library of Congress Fiscal Operations Improvement
Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-481; 114 Stat. 2187; 2 U.S.C.
182c).

Mr. WARNER. 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.

[[Page S6788]]

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my
colleague Senator Feinstein in support of amendment No. 3402 to S.
2400, the Department of Defense Reauthorization bill. We hope this
resolution expressing Congress's expectations will encourage the
Department to do more to address narcotics trafficking in Afghanistan.
This resolution calls upon the President to make the elimination of
drug trafficking in Afghanistan a priority in the global war on terror;
encourages the Secretary of Defense to increase cooperation and
coordination with the Government of Afghanistan and our allies to
assist in providing a secure environment for counterdrug personnel
operating in Afghanistan; and calls upon the Armed Forces to work with
our allies against the regional illicit narcotics trade.
These are not original observations. In testimony before both
committees in both Chambers, several officials from the Department of
Defense have affirmed that there is a strong, direct connection between
terrorism and drug trafficking. We know from this testimony and other
evidence that some of the profits generated by narcotics trafficking
support terrorists.
This resolution is needed, because there is some inconsistency
between the direction that we are providing to our troops in
Afghanistan and the narco-terrorist connection. I do not believe that
we will see long-term success in the global war on terror until the
financial underpinnings of terrorists are eliminated, and I do not
believe that Afghanistan can avoid becoming a narco-state if the drug
trafficking there is not addressed. To avoid these potential pitfalls,
we must step up our counter-narcotics activities in Afghanistan. I hope
the administration, and particularly the Department of Defense, will
heed this resolution.
Narcotic trafficking is not only a source of funding for terrorist
organizations, but its production poses a threat to the future
stability of Afghanistan. President Karzai has stated repeatedly that
he believes opium production poses a significant threat to the future
of Afghanistan. His concerns are echoed by the United Nations Office on
Drugs and Crime, which recently warned that Afghanistan is at risk of
again becoming a failed state if strong actions are not taken against
narcotics. If we are going to assist the people of Afghanistan in their
efforts to create a stable country, we cannot ignore their pleas for
greater action against the narco-terrorists operating in the region.
Mr. President, I believe that our current policy in Afghanistan does
not square with these observations about the threat that narcotics pose
to the future of Afghanistan. Attempts are being made to separate anti-
terror operations from anti-drug operations, despite the acknowledged
link between the two. We know that drug trafficking is a war industry
of terrorism. If we are going to be successful, we must eliminate the
financial underpinnings of terrorism just as effectively as the
organizations themselves.
Those who sell and trade opium in Afghanistan are narco-terrorists.
They support terrorists and insurgents who oppose the legitimate
government. By supporting terrorists and insurgents, they become
legitimate targets for the Combined Forces Command-Afghanistan. Just as
ball bearing factories in Nazi Germany were important military targets
during World War II, drug labs, and those who facilitate the drug
trade, should also be considered viable military targets as we
prosecute the War on Terror.
I believe that the United States should treat narcotics traffickers
no different than others suspected of cooperating with terrorists. The
connection is real, and cannot be ignored. I urge my colleagues to join
us in supporting this resolution.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Grassley-
Feinstein amendment, which calls upon the President to make the
decimation of the Afghanistan heroin trade one of his highest national
security priorities, asked the Defense Department to devote more time,
energy and resources to anti-drug efforts in Afghanistan, and asks for
a study into whether profits from the illegal drug trade continue to
fund terrorists and others who upset the stability of that nation.
Afghanistan has long been the world's major supplier of heroin,
providing the global market as much as 80% of all the heroin consumed
each year.
This is a grave problem--not just because heroin is a bad thing in
and of itself, but because profits from the heroin trade in Afghanistan
have historically been funneled, in large part, to terrorists bent on
doing America harm or those that aid and protect those terrorists.
Indeed, it has been estimated that millions of dollars--even hundreds
of millions of dollars--in drug profits have been funneled to al-Qaida
and other terrorist organizations throughout the world. Those
organizations, in turn, can use the money to run terrorist training
camps; to buy guns, bombs and other supplies; to recruit; and to fund
terrorist operations throughout the world.
Needless to say, this is a major problem. If we continue to allow
terrorist organizations to rake in hundreds of millions of untraceable
dollars, the war on terror is going to go quite poorly for us indeed.
This is not the first time I have raised these concerns. Last May,
for instance, I expressed concern that this administration had made a
decision to allow warlords and others in Afghanistan to continue to
grow poppy and to produce opium, in the hopes of maintaining
relationships and alliances with those who were trafficking in drugs.
In other words, the administration was essentially turning a blind eye
to drug production, in order to work more closely with those who were
profiting from it.
This was not acceptable then, and it remains unacceptable now. The
very reason we went to Afghanistan--to remove al-Qaida's means of
support--will be lost if we continue to allow these drug lords to fund
al-Qaida and those that hide them, protect them, fund them and help
them in other ways.
More than two years after we went into Afghanistan, we don't have bin
Laden. We have not stopped the terrorist attacks. We do not control the
countryside in Afghanistan. And now we are standing by while the drug
trade flourishes beyond levels experienced even before 9/11.
I know this is not an easy problem to solve. Farmers in Afghanistan,
like in many other nation's involved in illegal drug production, often
find that growing poppy is far more profitable than the country's other
staples--cereals, wheat, barley, rice, and so on.
So combined with Afghanistan's foreboding terrain and chaotic
political and security situation, it is not a simple matter to
eliminate drug production.
Many farmers survive either solely on poppy production or by growing
a mix of legal, and illegal crops.
There is hope--poppy production represents only about 8% of
Afghanistan's crop production (in volume). So many farmers do grow
alternate crops, and they make a living doing it.
But we need to make better efforts to provide farmers good
alternatives; to deter production; and, most importantly, to eradicate
the crops on the ground.
Eradicating poppy is not easy--particularly in a nation where the
central government has so little control over its distant--and even
not-so-distant--provinces.
Only with military assistance can anti-drug operatives go into an
area and take out the poppy fields. Some of these warlords have virtual
armies at their disposal--helicopters, rocket launchers, you name it.
This is not your local marijuana field in someone's backyard. This,
truly, is akin to war.
The war in Iraq has certainly hindered the Defense Department's
ability to assist in these operations--there is only so much manpower
and equipment to go around. This is one reason why so many questioned
the advisability of going into Iraq before the job in Afghanistan was
finished.
But tough as it may be to solve, this issue is simply too important
to ignore, and we cannot wait any longer.
Recent estimates put Afghanistan's poppy production this year at more
than 5,000 metric tons--more than 50 percent higher than last year.
Even if the most aggressive current efforts at eradication succeed in
every respect, only 25 percent of the crop this year will be destroyed.
This means that no matter what, more heroin will be produced this
year

[[Page S6789]]

than last. The value of that heroin could easily exceed three billion
dollars. Farmers only get about a penny on the dollar. Where is the
rest of the money going? Best estimates are that much of it goes to
terrorists or their protectors.
This simply cannot continue if we hope to win the war on terror. This
amendment calls upon the Defense Department to better assist in
protecting drug eradication efforts and to work to disrupt and destroy
those who aid terrorist activity through the drug trade.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate resume the Defense authorization bill on Wednesday, there be 30
minutes equally divided for debate in relation to the Dodd amendment,
No. 3313, as further modified. I further ask that following that time,
the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the amendment, with no
amendments in order to the amendment prior to the vote. I further ask
that following the disposition of the Dodd amendment, the Senator from
Virginia, Mr. Warner, or his designee, be recognized to offer the next
first-degree amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

commission on the future of the national technology and industrial base

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as we are considering the National Defense
Authorization Act, I thank my colleagues, Senators Warner and Levin,
the Chairman and ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee, for so
graciously agreeing to accept an amendment that I and several of my
colleagues have proposed to modify Section 841 of that bill to enhance
the work of the new ``Commission on the Future of the National
Technology and Industrial Base,'' which is being established by this
legislation. This amendment is the result of collaboration between
myself and Senators Snowe and Kerry, Chairman and ranking Member of the
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, as well as Senators
Allen and Coleman.
First of all, our amendment will require this new Commission to
consider carefully the problem of current or potential shortages of
critical technologies in the United States. It will also require the
Commission to examine the issue of existing or future shortages of the
raw materials that are essential to the production of these
technologies.
America's national security continues to be threatened by dwindling
supplies of U.S.-made components and raw materials. Our Nation's
industrial base can be expected to experience a decline in the
production of certain technologies and the raw materials necessary to
create them, as more and more small and medium-sized U.S. firms shift
their production overseas. To the extent that these firms specialize in
the manufacture of unique components, or are ``sole source'' producers
of materials needed to supply the U.S. defense industry, their
departure from the U.S. market leaves manufacturers of America's
critical technologies with a dearth of reliable suppliers.
The amendment that my colleagues and I offer today requires the
Commission to examine whether, and in which areas, the United States
now suffers, or might suffer in the future, shortages of critical
technologies and their raw material inputs. The amendment also
accelerates the deadline by which the report must be issued, requiring
that it be issued on March 1, 2007, rather than a year later. Further,
it requires the Commission to make recommendations addressing these
shortages, so that our Nation can attempt to alleviate, ahead of time,
any adverse impact that such shortages might have on the national
security of the United States.
We cannot wait to discover whether our Nation will be confronted with
these shortages. Once they are upon us, it will be too late. If we wait
until confronted with the fact that our Nation can no longer access the
materials it needs to feed its technological advancement or maintain
its industrial base, the consequences could be disastrous. An ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure, and we hope that by requiring this
Commission to examine today possible shortages that could affect our
Nation's technology and industrial base tomorrow, we can enhance and
protect the national security of the United States.
I would note, in closing, that our amendment will also make certain
that representatives of small business can join labor representatives
and others associated with the defense industry as members of this new
Commission. I ask my colleague from Maine, the distinguished Chair of
the Small Business Committee, how exactly will this provision make
certain that the Commission has the benefit of obtaining a broad range
of diverse opinions drawn from a wide cross-section of America?
Ms. SNOWE. I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for
his question. Just like its previous version which I introduced on June
3, this amendment is intended to ensure that small business interests
are represented in the Commission's composition and in the subjects of
the Commission's activities.
As I stated before, the Commission's activities will be incomplete
without taking into account small business contributions to our
Nation's defense. The most recent data from the Department of Defense
suggests that more work needs to be done to secure small business
access to national defense contracts. Representatives of small business
contracting concerns would make important contributions to the work of
the Commission. In addition, the Commission would benefit from
participation by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration or his representative. Congress and President Bush
endowed the Chief Counsel's Office of Advocacy with the unique mandate
to represent America's small businesses before the agencies of our
government. The Chief Counsel's trained staff of economists, analysts,
and lawyers would provide much needed perspectives for the Commission
deliberations.
I thank Senator Byrd, Chairman Warner and Senator Levin for their
work for America's small business. I also wish to thank the esteemed
Senators Allen, Coleman, and Kerry for their support.
Mr. BYRD. I commend the distinguished Chair Snowe for her tireless
efforts on behalf of America's industrial base.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, last night the Senate accepted two very
important amendments to level the playing field for Federal employees
whose jobs are being contracted out. I am so pleased that we agreed to
the Kennedy-Chambliss amendment to fix the worst problems with DoD's
contracting out process, and the Collins amendment to--at long last--
give Federal employees the right to protest contracting out decisions
to an independent entity.
DoD is pursuing a political agenda masquerading as management reform.
DoD's zeal for privatization costs money, it costs morale, it costs the
integrity of the civil service, and now it's costing our reputation in
Iraq. I was shocked to hear about about the role of contractors in the
appalling abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. DoD is taking contracting
out too far. How can you contract out the interrogation of prisoners?
America needs an independent civil service. Our Federal employees are
on the front lines every day working hard for America. At a time when
we are fighting terrorism and struggling with chaos in Iraq, how does
the administration thank DoD employees? By forcing them into unfair
competitions. Forcing them to spend time and money competing for their
jobs instead of doing their jobs.
Make no mistake. I am not opposed to privatization. In some instances
privatization works well. Look at Goddard, in my State of Maryland
3,000 government jobs and 9,000 private contractors. I am proud of them
both. What I am opposed to is the Bush administration stacking the deck
against Federal employees to pursue an ideologically-driven agenda.
The Kennedy-Chambliss amendment fixes the worst problems with DoD's
procedures for contracting out to make competitions more fair for DoD
employees. The Kennedy-Chambliss amendment does six things to level the
playing field. It guarantees employees the right to submit their own
``best bid'' during a competition. It requires contractors to show that
they are actually saving money. It makes sure privatization doesn't
come at the expense

[[Page S6790]]

of health benefits for employees. It closes loopholes that allow DoD to
contract out jobs without a competition. It establishes a process for
allowing and encouraging Federal employees to conduct new work and work
currently performed by contractors. And it makes sure that DoD has the
infrastructure in place to effectively conduct competitions and oversee
the contracts.
This amendment is so important. Civilian employees at the Defense
Department work hard to support our troops and to protect our country.
If we are going to contract out Defense Department work, we need to be
very cautious. It's a matter of national security. Can we trust a
private company to do the job? What if the company goes out of
business? What if it is bought by a foreign company? How do we know a
private company will have the same mission--and the same motive as U.S.
military personnel?
The Bush administration's rules do just the opposite. They're
reckless. They give private contractors the edge--whether they deserve
it or not. 75 percent of Federal jobs that were contracted out in 2002
and 2003 were DoD jobs. And DoD is targeting 240,000 more jobs for
privatization. More than 20 percent of DoD employees who lost their
jobs to contractors never had the chance to compete for their own jobs.
I want to know why the Bush administration is trying to undermine our
Federal workforce--pushing a process so clearly stacked in favor of
private contractors. Civilian Defense Department employees are not the
enemy. Who are these employees? They are the shipbuilders at Naval
Academy in Annapolis, they are intelligence analysts, and they are the
electricians at the Pentagon--who know every nook and cranny of top
secret buildings.
These Federal employees are on the front lines. They lost their lives
in the Pentagon on September 11. They are committed to making sure our
soldiers are ready to protect us. These men and women are dedicated and
duty driven. They are not political strategists. They cannot be bought.
Why are some trying to make Federal employees the enemy? They aren't
part of the problem, they are part of the solution. I know what Federal
employees do, how hard they work. I know they think of themselves first
as citizens of the United States of America, second as workers at
mission driven agencies.
The way the Defense Department pursues contracting out is
irresponsible and dangerous. DoD is pushing contracting out even when
it just doesn't make sense, even when it puts our Nation's security at
risk, or the integrity of our Armed Forces on the line. They are
pushing contracting out even when it costs more to conduct competitions
than it saves in the long run.
I know DoD isn't used to holding fair competitions. Look at their
track record--no-bid contracts for cronies like Halliburton. But we
can't let the Defense Department's zeal for privatization get in the
way of the ability of our Armed Forces to carry out their duties. And
we can't let them replace our civil service with cronyism and political
patronage. That means putting some checks and balances on
privatization.
I also want to say a few words about an amendment that Senator
Collins offered to give Federal employees the right to appeal unfair
contracting out decisions to GAO. This legislation is long overdue.
Contractors have always been allowed to appeal to GAO or to the Court
of Federal Claims when they lose a competition. Yet Federal employees
can only appeal within their agency--the same agency that's trying to
contract them out. That is unfair.
Giving Federal employees the right to appeal is vital to level the
playing field during competitions, to hold agencies accountable for
conducting fair competitions, and to make sure taxpayers are getting
the best deal.
The Collins amendment is a compromise. It doesn't give employees the
exact same rights as contractors. For instance, they can't appeal to
the Court of Federal Claims. And it creates hurdles for allowing unions
to represent their members in an appeal. I am sick of union busting. I
think we can do more for employees. I hope we fix these problems as the
process moves forward. But we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the
good. I support the Collins amendment because it is a good compromise,
and it would--finally--allow employees to appeal when an agency makes a
mistake.

____________________