To make available, with an offset, an additional $50,000,000 for Operation and Maintenance for Cooperative Threat Reduction.

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 1042, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1042) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2006 for the military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe
personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed
Forces, and for other purposes.

Recognition of the Majority Leader

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.

Schedule

Mr. FRIST. Today we resume consideration of the Defense authorization
bill. Under the agreement reached on October 26, we have a limitation
of amendments and debate to Defense authorization. Chairman Warner and
Senator Levin are here today and are prepared for Members to come to
the floor to offer their defense-related amendments. I noted last night
there will be no rollcall votes today, and we will delay votes until
Monday at approximately 5:30. We will announce later on how many votes
Senators can expect on Monday.
Finally, I do want to thank everybody for their participation and
cooperation over the course of yesterday's session, a lengthy session.
I think it was 22 consecutive rollcall votes. We didn't have any
scheduled breaks and things went very smoothly. Indeed, we were able to
meet our goal of 6 o'clock last night to allow Senators to attend what
was a wonderful event where we had over 50 former Senators--men and
women who had served in this body in the past--come back and join us
for a bipartisan event last night. It would not have been possible
without the patience of Senators and the efforts of so many staff
members who worked so hard to bring that deficit reduction bill to
completion by a vote of 52 to 47.

Budget Reconciliation

This was an important piece of fiscal legislation; I think clearly
the most important piece of fiscal legislation over the course of the
year, a bill that was called the deficit reduction bill because almost
$35 billion in savings does go down directly to reduce the deficit.
That is a period of 4 years, $35 billion. Over 10 years, it would be
right at $100 billion.
A number of people have said, well, spending cuts that we put in
yesterday don't go far enough, and I would not disagree with that
statement. The deficit reduction package we passed last night, however,
was a major and important first step forward in reining in what has
become out-of-control Federal spending, so I congratulate our
colleagues.
I also thank the committee chairmen one more time for their hard work
and leadership, both sides of the aisle working together. There was in
many instances bipartisan support for their recommendations. In
particular, I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee, Chairman Judd
Gregg, for his strong leadership. I also thank Senator McConnell, our
assistant Republican leader, for his deft handling of the process
yesterday, keeping us on track to success.
The Senate staffers, several of them were thanked last night. And
there are so many, I always hesitate to start naming them, but in
truth, as always, they are the ones who give the discipline to the
engine that makes it possible: Kyle Simmons, Scott Gudes, Bill
Hoagland, Sharon Soderstrom, Eric Ueland, all deserve special
recognition for their tireless efforts in bringing that bill to
completion.
By rallying our resources and our will, last night the Senate passed
the first spending reduction bill in 8 years. It was last in 1997 that
such a reconciliation on the spending side was passed. We took a tough
look at the budget, and we came up with a strong package of fiscally
responsible savings. And it is worth reflecting where we were even just
10 months ago. We tend to focus so much on minute to minute here and
day to day here, but if we look back 10 months ago when the President
submitted his budget proposal, at that

[[Page S12376]]

time the projected deficit was well past $400 billion and on its way up
to $500 billion. Critics had bet against the majority's success. They
said we could never pass a budget and be able to drive down the
deficit, and we have proved those critics wrong. Not only have smart
progrowth fiscal policies cut the deficit by $100 billion but direct
action in the Senate yesterday cut the bottom line by another $35
billion. Our GDP growth rate is strong right now, in the last quarter,
3.7 percent, with over 4 million jobs created since May, about 15, 16
months ago.

Hurricane Katrina hit and we know hit hard, but not even Hurricane
Katrina could knock our economy off track. As Alan Greenspan told the
Joint Economic Committee yesterday, the economic fundamentals remain
firm.
The Republican-led Senate has defied the critics at every turn. They
said we could not pass a budget resolution, and we passed a budget
resolution. They said we could not pass the 12 appropriations bills on
this floor, and we did. We passed the PATRIOT Act, we passed the
bankruptcy bill, we passed the class action bill, we passed the highway
bill, we passed the Energy bill, we passed the gun liability reform
bill--all this year, but we have a lot more to do.
Yesterday, I should add, as part of that deficit reduction bill, we
passed exploration in ANWR which will help reduce our dependence on
foreign oil. It will strengthen our domestic supplies, again a real
tribute to this body. Meanwhile, throughout the fall we have tackled
relief and recovery for the victims of Katrina and we have continued to
support our troops in the war on terror. We will be doing our Defense
authorization bill shortly, again, to focus on continued aggressive
support of the troops.
So despite all of the naysayers and sometimes pessimistic attitudes
as to what is going on, we are moving this country forward in a
positive and a constructive way.
Some have called the deficit reduction package yesterday immoral, and
it really does bother me when people use words like that because, to
me, what is immoral is saddling future generations with huge debt. What
is immoral is ducking or hiding from today's challenges with inaction
or empty platitudes or barriers to progress. What is immoral, to me, is
proposing more debt while accusing others of being fiscally
irresponsible.
During the budget process, the other side proposed spending
amendments, and we saw much of it on our spending speedometer--
spendometer, I guess we call it--of over $460 billion. The other side
proposed over $460 billion in increased spending. And who would pay for
this? I guess their answer would be raising taxes. It is unacceptable.
We have a different approach, an approach that strengthens our economic
growth, strengthens our national security, that delivers real relief,
real relief to American families.
The deficit reduction package we passed last night will drive down
the deficit. It will increase America's energy supply. It will help
students and families meet the cost of college tuition. It will take
critical steps to protect America's retirees, a huge victory for the
American people. We support real, measurable solutions and will
continue moving America forward. Our goal is to strengthen America's
families and secure America's future.
We have a lot more work to do, Mr. President. Next week we have some
of the world's top oil executives coming to Washington to explain why
gas prices are going so high, above $3, and why oil and home heating
oil prices are so high, and at the same time, we are seeing these
record profits going into their coffers.
The question that our constituents ask, and we ask, is Why? And those
executives will have that opportunity to explain, and we will get to
the bottom of it.
We also plan to continue our work on the nomination of Judge Samuel
Alito to the Supreme Court of the United States. The chairman and
ranking member of the Judiciary Committee announced a schedule
yesterday that does provide the strongest platform for Judge Alito to
argue and to explain and describe the judicial restraint, the crux of
his philosophy, and he will be confirmed by January 20.
Finally, we will continue to address the pressing issues the American
people sent us to Washington to resolve after the first of the year,
issues such as border security and immigration.
As I mentioned last night, we had a wonderful occasion in terms of
having a bipartisan reunion with one out of every three former Senators
who are still alive in our midst last night. Most all of our colleagues
were there sharing stories, sharing intergenerational stories which did
remind us what a powerful institution this is, the legacy that it
leaves, the important role it plays as the world's greatest
deliberative body. It was a reminder to all of us serving in this
Senate it is an honor and it is a privilege.
I look forward to continue working in a bipartisan way to deliver
bold and innovative solutions to keep this great country moving
forward.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the majority leader yield for a question?
Mr. FRIST. Be happy to.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the majority leader for making
reference to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and I just wanted to remind
our distinguished majority leader that Hurricane Wilma, which hit the
State of Florida, hit at a point on the southwest coast picking up
steam as it crossed the Everglades so that the back end of the
hurricane gave a huge punch to the southeast coast where we have 20,000
structures uninhabitable and where the winds were clocked at Lake
Okeechobee at 150 miles an hour. That is a category 5. So I just don't
want us to forget Hurricane Wilma and the people who are suffering in
Florida at this time.
Would the majority leader just keep that in mind as we address these
problems?
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, that is very well said. I think the
description and comments by the Senator from Florida demonstrate our
responsibility to respond appropriately and smartly to natural
disasters. If we look at our response to hurricanes and natural
disasters in the past, I think we have done so.
It is sometimes frustrating because we cannot do everything, and a
lot of people think the Federal Government has a responsibility to come
in and solve all the problems.
Our challenge in responding to all these natural disasters is to
respond quickly, responsibly, smartly, working hand in hand with the
locals.
I very much appreciate the Senator's attention to one other natural
disaster we must face.

Recognition Of The Minority Leader

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader.

Deficit Reduction Bill

Mr. REID. Mr. President, with regard to the deficit reduction bill,
you can have a cow and put a sign on him saying he is a horse, but he
is still a cow. I think we would be better informed if we called this
the bait-and-switch bill. How do you call a bill deficit reduction when
it raises the deficit in 1 year by $30 billion? How do you call a bill
a deficit reduction bill when it increases the deficit? If there was
ever an Orwellian pronouncement, that is it. I guess if you keep saying
deficit reduction, some people are going to believe it is deficit
reduction. It increases the deficit.
This could have been a good week for the American people. It could
have been a week Republicans joined Democrats and finally addressed
priorities of working families. The polls around the country today make
a pronouncement: President Bush's approval rating is 35 percent. Do you
think it could be because we are trying to call a bill a deficit
reduction bill that isn't one? How does the majority feel they can do
that? The American people can see through that: A deficit reduction
bill that increases the deficit $30 billion, and the Republicans are
bragging about increasing the deficit? They think they can get around
that by calling it a deficit reduction bill? No wonder this White House
has an approval rating of 35 percent.
This week could have been a week we agreed to do something about the
record debt. It could have been the week we addressed the needs of
middle-class families. The rich are getting richer, the poor are
getting poorer. The middle class is being squeezed between declining
incomes, rising prices of health care, college tuition, gas, and heat.
It could have been the week we finally got serious about helping our

[[Page S12377]]

brothers and sisters in the gulf coast. We can hear pronouncements from
the Republican majority that the response to these disasters has been
excellent. Prove that to the American people with the developments
after Katrina.
Listen to the radio. I listened to public radio this morning, and
they had a segment on about what is happening to the people in
Louisiana. They cannot go to school; there are no schools there.
This could have been the week we finally got serious about the gulf
coast, and we have not. That is the kind of week that we Democrats
hoped to have. The record will show we fought for multiple amendments
that would have helped working Americans.
Let me take a comment on the so-called spendometer. One of the
Senators brought that in the other day, and I commented on it. All the
amendments that have been offered by the Democrats, with rare
exception, have all been pursuant to Senator Conrad's pay-as-you-go
amendment that he offered; that is, we had offsets. They did not
increase the debt.
This spendometer is as phony as this deficit reduction bill. We could
have, if we had followed the direction of the amendments we offered--
there was one by Senator Bill Nelson to keep Medicare premiums from
increasing. That was defeated on a party-line vote. The Republicans
beat us on that. Senator Murray offered an amendment to protect
prescription drug coverage for many of our Nation's seniors. That was
defeated on a straight party-line vote. Senator Lincoln tried to
provide emergency health care for survivors of Katrina. That was
defeated on a straight party-line vote. Senator Jack Reed tried to
ensure an adequate supply of housing, and that was defeated on a
straight party-line vote. Finally, Senator Cantwell had an amendment to
protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska from oil
drilling. We fought for these amendments on this side of the aisle. We
reached out to the other side and asked: Join us, please join us,
because we understand that together America can do better.
I believe the Republicans have misplaced priorities. Unfortunately,
the good week we could have given the American people turned into a
great week for special interests.
My distinguished friend, the majority leader, talks about all these
great accomplishments we have had this past year. I am not going to
talk about every one of the items he mentioned, but I will talk about
the Energy bill.
The Energy bill did nothing to help the American consumer. All it did
was give a big sop to the already fat and beefy oil industry. They had
$100 billion in profits this year. I don't think it was much of an
Energy bill. I really do believe we can do better.
The Republican budget we focused on this week cuts $27 billion from
Medicare and Medicaid. It cuts housing, it cuts support for our
farmers, and then turns around and spends billions on tax breaks for
special interests and multimillionaires. The big tax cuts are going to
come the week after next. We will wind up with $30 billion, if things
go as has been indicated by the Finance Committee. I hope we can do
better than that.

Let's take a look at the tax breaks. Those who make over $1 million
will see a benefit of about $35,000. Those with incomes of between
$50,000 and $200,000 will see a benefit of $112, and those with incomes
of less than $50,000, the benefit will be $6.
Can't we do better than that? Yes.
Let's look at the lucrative benefits we handed out to the oil and gas
industry in the Energy bill I spoke about earlier and, of course,
opening the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. It
takes our country in the wrong direction. We should diversify, becoming
less dependent on oil as an energy source. We didn't do that in this
legislation.
Finally, let's look at what we didn't do this week. We didn't do
anything. Very minimally did we do anything to help those people who
are the survivors and those who were devastated along the gulf coast.
We didn't do anything to reduce energy prices. We didn't do anything to
deal with the pension crisis we are facing in America. We did nothing
to deal with the health care crisis we are facing in America. We have
not passed the Terrorism Reinsurance Act.
I think most Senators have gotten calls from major companies who
can't build. I got a call yesterday from one major hotel owner who has
hotels all over the world who said they have in Las Vegas four
properties they want to build and they cannot build them. They cannot
get anybody to give them the insurance.
We have 2 weeks before our next recess, and we have much to
accomplish. The American people are counting on us, and we on this side
of the aisle, the Democrats, are going to do everything we can to not
let them down. Just because you call something a Deficit Reduction Act
doesn't mean it reduces the deficit, by definition of a Republican-
controlled Washington.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Isakson). The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Is the Senate now
on the Defense bill?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Will the Senator
permit the Chair to make an announcement?
Pursuant to the order of October 26, all amendments previously
pending to this measure are withdrawn.
The list of withdrawn amendments is as follows:
Withdrawn:

Inhofe amendment No. 1311, to protect the economic and
energy security of the United States.
Inhofe/Kyl amendment No. 1313, to require an annual report
on the use of United States funds with respect to the
activities and management of the International Committee of
the Red Cross.
Ensign amendment No. 1374, to require a report on the use
of riot control agents.
Ensign amendment No. 1375, to require a report on the costs
incurred by the Department of Defense in implementing or
supporting resolutions of the United Nations Security
Council.
Durbin amendment No. 1379, to require certain dietary
supplement manufacturers to report certain serious adverse
events.
Hutchison/Nelson (FL) amendment No. 1357, to express the
sense of the Senate with regard to manned space flight.
Thune amendment No. 1389, to postpone the 2005 round of
defense base closure and realignment.
Kennedy amendment No. 1415, to transfer funds authorized to
be appropriated to the Department of Energy for the National
Nuclear Security Administration for weapons activities and
available for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator to the Army
National Guard, Washington, District of Columbia, chapter.
Allard/McConnell amendment No. 1418, to require life cycle
cost estimates for the destruction of lethal chemical
munitions under the Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives
program.
Allard/Salazar amendment No. 1419, to authorize a program
to provide health, medical, and life insurance benefits to
workers at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site,
Colorado, who would otherwise fail to qualify for such
benefits because of an early physical completion date.
Dorgan amendment No. 1426, to express the sense of the
Senate on the declassification and release to the public of
certain portions of the Report of the Joint Inquiry into the
Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, and to urge the
President to release information regarding sources of foreign
support for the hijackers involved in the terrorist attacks
of September 11, 2001.
Dorgan amendment No. 1429, to establish a special committee
of the Senate to investigate the awarding and carrying out of
contracts to conduct activities in Afghanistan and Iraq and
to fight the war on terrorism.
Salazar amendment No. 1421, to rename the death gratuity
payable for deaths of members of the Armed Forces as fallen
hero compensation.
Salazar amendment No. 1422, to provide that certain local
educational agencies shall be eligible to receive a fiscal
year 2005 payment under section 8002 or 8003 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
Salazar/Reed amendment No. 1423, to provide for Department
of Defense support of certain Paralympic sporting events.
Collins (for Thune) amendment No. 1489, to postpone the
2005 round of defense base closure and realignment.
Collins (for Thune) amendment No. 1490, to require the
Secretary of the Air Force to develop and implement a
national space radar system capable of employing at least two
frequencies.
Collins (for Thune) amendment No. 1491, to prevent
retaliation against a member of the Armed Forces for
providing testimony about the military value of a military
installation.
Reed (for Levin) amendment No. 1492, to make available,
with an offset, an additional $50,000,000, for Operation and
Maintenance for Cooperative Threat Reduction.
Hatch amendment No. 1516, to express the sense of the
Senate regarding the investment of funds as called for in the
Depot Maintenance Strategy and Master Plan of the Air Force.
Inhofe amendment No. 1476, to express the sense of Congress
that the President should

[[Page S12378]]

take immediate steps to establish a plan to implement the
recommendations of the 2004 Report to Congress of the United
States-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
Allard amendment No. 1383, to establish a program for the
management of post-project completion retirement benefits for
employees at Department of Energy project completion sites.
Allard/Salazar amendment No. 1506, to authorize the
Secretary of Energy to purchase certain essential mineral
rights and resolve natural resource damage liability claims.
McCain modified amendment No. 1557, to provide for uniform
standards for the interrogation of persons under the
detention of the Department of Defense.
Warner amendment No. 1566, to provide for uniform standards
and procedures for the interrogation of persons under the
detention of the Department of Defense.
McCain modified amendment No. 1556, to prohibit cruel,
inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment of persons
under the custody or control of the United States Government.
Stabenow/Johnson amendment No. 1435, to ensure that future
funding for health care for veterans takes into account
changes in population and inflation.
Murray amendment No. 1348, to amend the assistance to local
educational agencies with significant enrollment changes in
military dependent students due to force structure changes,
troop relocations, creation of new units, and realignment
under BRAC.
Murray amendment No. 1349, to facilitate the availability
of child care for the children of members of the Armed Forces
on active duty in connection with Operation Enduring Freedom
or Operation Iraqi Freedom and to assist school districts
serving large numbers or percentages of military dependent
children affected by the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, or by
other Department of Defense personnel decisions.
Levin amendment No. 1494, to establish a national
commission on policies and practices on the treatment of
detainees since September 11, 2001.
Hutchison amendment No. 1477, to make oral and
maxillofacial surgeons eligible for special pay for Reserve
health professionals in critically short wartime specialties.
Graham/McCain modified amendment No. 1505, to authorize the
President to utilize the Combatant Status Review Tribunals
and Annual Review Board to determine the status of detainees
held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Nelson (FL) amendment No. 762, to repeal the requirement
for the reduction of certain Survivor Benefit Plan annuities
by the amount of dependency and indemnity compensation and to
modify the effective date for paid-up coverage under the
Survivor Benefit Plan.
Durbin amendment No. 1428, to authorize the Secretary of
the Air Force to enter into agreements with St. Clair County,
Illinois, for the purpose of constructing joint
administrative and operations structures at Scott Air Force
Base, Illinois.
Durbin amendment No. 1571, to ensure that a Federal
employee who takes leave without pay in order to perform
service as a member of the uniformed services or member of
the National Guard shall continue to receive pay in an amount
which, when taken together with the pay and allowances such
individual is receiving for such service, will be no less
than the basic pay such individual would then be receiving if
no interruption in employment had occurred.
Levin amendment No. 1496, to prohibit the use of funds for
normalizing relations with Libya pending resolution with
Libya of certain claims relating to the bombing of the
LaBelle Discotheque in Berlin, Germany.
Levin amendment No. 1497, to establish limitations on
excess charges under time-and-materials contracts and labor-
hour contracts of the Department of Defense.
Levin (for Harkin/Dorgan) amendment No. 1425, relating to
the American Forces Network.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, now that we are on the bill, it is my
intention to eventually deliver an opening statement, but in courtesy
to our colleague from Florida--and I believe he will be followed by
Senator McCain to be followed by Senator Allard--I think we ought to
proceed immediately to the amendments. Senator Levin and I will be on
the floor to assist all Senators who wish to bring any matters to the
attention of the Senate.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Florida,
Mr. Nelson, be recognized for 15 minutes, to be followed by the Senator
from Arizona, Mr. McCain, for such time as he requires, to be followed
by the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Allard, to be followed on this side
of the aisle--we are trying to alternate--with such amendments as
Senator Levin may recommend.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Florida is recognized.

Amendment No. 2424

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2424.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Florida [Mr. Nelson], for himself, Mr.
Hagel, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Smith, Ms.
Cantwell, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Landrieu, Ms. Mikulski,
Mrs. Murray, Ms. Stabenow, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Durbin,
Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Salazar, proposes an
amendment numbered 2424.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. 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 repeal the requirement for the reduction of certain
Survivor Benefit Plan annuities by the amount of dependency and
indemnity compensation and to modify the effective date for paid-up
coverage under the Survivor Benefit Plan)

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

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

(a) Repeal.--Subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 10,
United States Code is amended--
(1) in section 1450(c)(1), by inserting after ``to whom
section 1448 of this title applies'' the following: ``(except
in the case of a death as described in subsection (d) or (f)
of such section)''; and
(2) in section 1451(c)--
(A) by striking paragraph (2); and
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs
(2) and (3), respectively.
(b) Prohibition on Retroactive Benefits.--No benefits may
be paid to any person for any period before the effective
date provided under subsection (e) by reason of the
amendments made by subsection (a).
(c) Prohibition on Recoupment of Certain Amounts Previously
Refunded to SBP Recipients.--A surviving spouse who is or has
been in receipt of an annuity under the Survivor Benefit Plan
under subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 10, United States
Code, that is in effect before the effective date provided
under subsection (e) and that is adjusted by reason of the
amendments made by subsection (a) and who has received a
refund of retired pay under section 1450(e) of title 10,
United States Code, shall not be required to repay such
refund to the United States.
(d) Reconsideration of Optional Annuity.--Section
1448(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new sentences: ``The
surviving spouse, however, may elect to terminate an annuity
under this subparagraph in accordance with regulations
prescribed by the Secretary concerned. Upon such an election,
payment of an annuity to dependent children under this
subparagraph shall terminate effective on the first day of
the first month that begins after the date on which the
Secretary concerned receives notice of the election, and,
beginning on that day, an annuity shall be paid to the
surviving spouse under paragraph (1) instead.''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the later of--
(1) the first day of the first month that begins after the
date of the enactment of this Act; or
(2) the first day of the fiscal year that begins in the
calendar year in which this Act is enacted.

SEC. 643. EFFECTIVE DATE FOR PAID-UP COVERAGE UNDER SURVIVOR
BENEFIT PLAN.

Section 1452(j) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``October 1, 2008'' and inserting ``October 1,
2005''.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, this is a very serious
amendment to this Defense authorization bill, but I am compelled to add
a couple of words to the colloquy that I had with the distinguished
majority leader regarding the hurricanes.
In the huge tragedy that occurred with Hurricane Katrina and the
continuing observations of the reconstruction efforts, attention has
been lost to the severe losses that have occurred in the last week and
a half in my State of Florida with a hurricane that hit with the force
of a category 3 on the southeast coast of Florida and parts of that
area having had winds of a category 5, with 20,000 residences lost.
We have now under consideration in the Department of Commerce
appropriations subcommittee conference committee deliberations
additional personnel for the National Hurricane Center, which hopefully
the Senate's position will be taken which provides that additional
personnel. But one huge, potential downfall is that we need some kind
of backup for the high-flying jet, the G-4, the Gulfstream-4, that
measures the steering currents that is owned by NOAA.
In the middle of this storm, that jet had to go down for maintenance.
Lord knows what would happen if that jet had an accident and could not
fly. The accuracy of our predictions of where

[[Page S12379]]

the hurricane is going is 25 percent greater by being able to fly at
41,000 feet measuring those steering currents.
It is my hope that we can see coming out of the Senate a provision
for a backup for NOAA, perhaps a jet shared with another agency, such
as the Air Force or NASA, but that would give us that protection, and
that accuracy, as we know all too well, is so important to warn people
in the accurate path of that storm because then prediction becomes a
matter of life and death.
Mr. President, I am honored today to speak about an amendment that is
necessary to fix a longstanding problem in our military survivor's
benefit system. The system in place right now, even with the important
changes we have made recently, does not take care of our military
widows and the surviving children in the way it should, and we should
act now to correct this deficiency.
We don't have to go any further than the Good Book to remind us that
one of our greatest obligations is to take care of the widows and the
orphans.
That is what we have. This amendment will protect the benefit of
widows and orphans of our 100-percent disabled military retirees and
those who die on active duty.
I will give some background on how this problem developed. Back in
1972, Congress established the military Survivor Benefit Plan--SBP for
short--to provide retirees' survivors an annuity to protect their
income. If we have a military retiree and they are deceased, we want to
protect the income of their survivors. This benefit plan is a voluntary
program, and it is purchased by the retiree or it is issued
automatically in the case of servicemembers who are active duty and who
die on active duty.
Retired servicemembers pay for this benefit from their retired pay.
Then upon their death, their spouse or dependent children can receive
up to 55 percent of their retired pay as an annuity. So it is a plan
that has been in place since 1972 which the retired military person can
purchase, and they do.
Surviving spouses or dependent children of service-connected 100-
percent disabled retirees or those who die on active duty are also
entitled to dependency and indemnity compensation under the Department
of Veterans Affairs. This is a separate program. So these surviving
spouses or dependent children of service-connected disabled veterans
are entitled to indemnity compensation.
So there are two different laws, two different eligibilities, but
watch what happens under current law. The annuity paid by the Survivor
Benefit Plan and received by a surviving widow or a child, what they
pay for on the pie chart that is in red, this is already paid for for
the surviving widow or the child. Under current law, they are also
entitled, as a service-connected disability, to that under the
Veterans' Administration. Under current law, one offsets the other. So
what happens is the amount of the SBP is reduced by the amount of the
DIC under current law, and a big slice of the pie, almost half of it,
is lost when, in fact, the survivor is entitled under the law to both.
So this big slice shows what they are losing.
I wish to introduce my colleagues to Jennifer McCollum. She is from
Jacksonville, FL. This is her with her son and a photo of her husband,
a U.S. marine who was killed in 2002 while deployed in support of the
war on terror. Jennifer was 4 months pregnant when he was killed, and
now she has realized that her survivor benefits are being taken away by
that offset that I just described. That is what this amendment is going
to stop. Jennifer's situation is unacceptable, and we have to fix it
for the sake of the widows and the orphans.
I do not know of any other annuity program in the Government or
private sector that is permitted to offset, terminate, or reduce
payments because of disability payments a beneficiary may receive from
another plan or program. That is the necessity for this amendment I am
offering today.
It also makes effective immediately a change to the military SBP
program that was enacted back in 1999. The Congress has already agreed
that military retirees who have reached the age of 70 and paid their
SBP premiums for 30 years should stop paying a premium. We agreed back
in 1999 that when a person reached the age of 70 and they had paid
their SBP premiums for 30 years, they ought to stop paying a premium.
But what happened? Recently, we delayed the effective date for this
relief until 2008.
The program began over 30 years ago. Under current law, people who
signed up at the beginning must pay long beyond the 30 years that
Congress intended. Do my colleagues know who this group is largely made
up of? It is made up of World War II veterans. We call them the
``greatest generation.'' Well, what it creates is the ``greatest
generation'' tax in SBP, and we should not be delaying their relief any
further.
This chart is going to give an example of the ``greatest generation''
tax. A lieutenant colonel or a commander in the Navy who joined SBP in
1972 when it began has paid 33 years and will continue to pay under the
current law until 2008, for a total of 36 years. But someone of the
same rank who retired 6 years later also will stop paying in 2008 under
the current law, but they will have paid less. The older retiree will
have paid 30 percent more over that time period.
Of course, many of those fighting men and women are going to pass
away by then and never enjoy the paid-up status that Congress intended
for them. This amendment I am offering today will fix the SBP system to
make sure it provides what Congress intended for our military retirees.
The United States owes its continued strength and protection to
generations of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who have
sacrificed throughout our history to keep us free. We owe them and
those they leave behind a lot--no less than a President who suffered
through war, President Lincoln, instructed us that ours is an
obligation to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his
widow and for his orphan. Too often, we have fallen short of this care.
I believe we must meet this obligation with the same sense of honor as
the service they and their families have rendered.
We need to continue to do right by those who have given this Nation
their all and especially for their loved ones they leave to us for our
care. Remember the instructions of the Good Book: The greatest
obligation is to take care of the widows and the orphans.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am opposed to Senator Bill Nelson's
amendment, and I intend to introduce a second degree amendment that
would give the Commission on Veterans' Disability Benefits, which
Congress established to study survivor benefits, the opportunity to
complete its work before further changes are made to the Survivor
Benefit Plan, or SBP.
I oppose Senator Nelson's amendment, because this blue ribbon
Commission on Veterans' Disability Benefits has been established, is
currently at work examining this issue, and, I believe, will provide
vitally needed facts and recommendations regarding veterans' benefits.
The commission includes two Medal of Honor winners, two Distinguished
Service Cross winners, and 6 winners of the Silver Star. They can be
relied on to provide a comprehensive study. The commission was
established to help the Congress, DOD, and the Veterans Administration
determine what steps should be taken to best assist disabled veterans
and their families. We should not implement another change to the SBP
until the Commission completes its work.
Let's remember that in last year's Defense Authorization Act, the
Senate significantly improved benefits provided under the SBP. Congress
directed the elimination of the so-called ``2-tier'' system which
reduced the monthly SBP annuity when the survivor reached age 62. This
was a significant change that works to the benefit of military retirees
and their spouses. We should stop and allow an assessment by the
commission of the effect of that change before we conclude that the SBP
is in need of change.
Here is another consideration: Senator Nelson's amendment does not
take into account the great improvements in death benefits for military
survivors that have been enacted this year. There has been an increase
in the death gratuity--from $12,000 to $100,000--and an increase from
$250,000 to $400,000 in the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, or
SGLI. These changes clearly are substantial, and

[[Page S12380]]

they have improved the quality of life for many of the survivors who my
friend, Senator Nelson, advocates for today. There have been various
other benefits implemented for retirees and their survivors since 2001.
I ask unanimous consent to have a list of these legislative
improvements printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and Other Leislation in
Support of Retirees and Military Survivors

NDAA FY 2001--TRICARE for Life Benefit for Military
Retirees (overage of 65 and their Families.--Under this
program, TRICARE pays what Medicare does not pay, and a
highly valuable pharmacy benefit at minimal cost.
NDAA FY 2002--Extension of Survivor Benefit Program SBP to
All Active Duty Members.--This legislation gave SBP coverage,
at no cost, to all military members' survivors who die on
active duty.
NDAA FY 2003--Special Compensation for Certain Combat-
Related Disabled Uniform Services Retirees (``Purple Heart
Plus'').--This afforded additional monetary monthly
compensation for any disabled military retiree whose
condition was the result of a wound or injury for which the
Purple Heart was awarded, and also for retirees with combat-
related disabling conditions rated at 60 percent or greater.
NDAA FY 2004--Elimination of prohibition on concurrent
receipt.--This legislation (phased in through 2014) permits
receipt of military retired pay and veterans' disability
compensation. It provides additional payments for all
disabled military retirees who have a rated disability of 50%
or greater.
NDAA FY 2005--Survivor Benefit Plan Improvements.--
Eliminated SBP ``two tier'' system (phased over three years)
which will result in no reduction in monthly annuity when
survivor becomes eligible for Social Security at age 62. Also
directed an ``open season for one year'' that will enable
retirees to opt in to SBP under prescribed conditions.
NDAA FY 2005--Accelerated Concurrent Receipt for 100
Percent Disabled.--This amendment eliminated the phase in
period for collection of both military retired pay and
veterans' disability compensation for individuals who have
been rated at 100 percent disabled.
Emergency Supplemental FY 2005--Increased Death Gratuity.--
This legislation approved payments of $238,000 to survivors
of military personnel who died from combat-related causes
retroactive to October 7, 2001, the beginning of Operation
Enduring Freedom. This increased benefit is part of S. 1042.
Emergency Supplemental FY 2005--Increased SGLI.--This
legislation, which has been made permanent by the Veterans'
Committee, increased the maximum amount of Servicemembers'
Group Life Insurance (SGLI) available from $250,000 to
$400,000. Additionally, a Traumatic Injury Protection Program
(TIPP) has been authorized that will provide lump sum
payments of up to $50,000 to certain wounded and injured
military personnel.
Commission on Veterans' Disability Compensation
Established.--The 13 member Congressionally-chartered
Commission begins its work.
Mr. WARNER. Mr President, the Department of Defense has opposed
Senator Nelson's proposal.
I ask unanimous consent that the DOD points of opposition be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Elimination of Survivor Benefit Program Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation

DoD Position: Oppose

The Department opposes eliminating the Survivor Benefit
Plan (SBP) and Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC)
offset.
SBP and DIC for active duty deaths are fully funded by the
Government. The offset of DIC from SBP avoids the duplication
of Government benefits. Since retirees pay premiums to cover
a portion of SBP funding, those premiums attributed to the
reduction for DIC are returned to the beneficiary, generally
in a lump-sum payment.
The policy is consistent with the private sector. In 2004,
the Department contracted with the SAG Corporation to conduct
a comprehensive review of military death benefits and compare
them to other public and private sector benefits.
Their study found the SBP/IDIC offset to be consistent with
the benefits offered by other employers. When more than one
annuity is available to survivors, the survivors must
generally choose one, or the annuities are sequential (one
commences when the other stops).
An active duty election exists. The National Defense
Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2004 authorizes survivors of
members who die on active duty who have children to elect to
have the SBP paid to the children. Thus, for Service members
who die on active duty, survivors have the option to pay DIC
to the spouse and SBP in the children's name.
Eliminating the SBP offset for all widows entitled to DIC
would cost the Military Retirement Fund more than $5 billion
over 10 years.
The Department opposes costly efforts that serve to
duplicate benefits.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, finally we can't ignore the cost of this
amendment. CBO estimates the cost of Senator Nelson's changes to the
SBP as $903 million in Fiscal Year 2006 and $9.3 billion over 10 years.
This is all mandatory spending for which there is no provision in the
budget resolution and no offset in the legislation before us.
I urge my colleagues to support my second degree amendment and look
to the Commission on Veterans' Disability Benefits before we implement
any further changes to the Survivor Benefit Plan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

Amendment No. 2425

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendments are set aside.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], proposes an
amendment numbered 2425.

Mr. McCain. 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: Relating to persons under the detention, custody, or control
of the United States Government)

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

SEC. 1073. UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR THE INTERROGATION OF PERSONS
UNDER THE DETENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE.

(a) In General.--No person in the custody or under the
effective control of the Department of Defense or under
detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be
subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not
authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field
Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.
(b) Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to with
respect to any person in the custody or under the effective
control of the Department of Defense pursuant to a criminal
law or immigration law of the United States.
(c) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to affect the rights under the United States
Constitution of any person in the custody or under the
physical jurisdiction of the United States.

SEC. 1074. PROHIBITION ON CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING
TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT OF PERSONS UNDER
CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT.

(a) In General.--No individual in the custody or under the
physical control of the United States Government, regardless
of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to
cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
(b) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to impose any geographical limitation on the
applicability of the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment or punishment under this section.
(c) Limitation on Supersedure.--The provisions of this
section shall not be superseded, except by a provision of law
enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act which
specifically repeals, modifies, or supersedes the provisions
of this section.
(d) Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Defined.--In this section, the term ``cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment or punishment'' means the cruel, unusual,
and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth,
Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the
United States, as defined in the United States Reservations,
Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations
Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York,
December 10, 1984.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the
conclusion of my remarks, letters from the Navy League of the United
States and from Abraham Sofaer of the Hoover Institution to Patrick
Leahy, which I think are important documents as far as constitutional
aspects of this issue, be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment is identical to the one
that was adopted by a vote of 90 to 9 on the appropriations bill, and
it does the following: Establishes the Army Field Manual as the uniform
standard for the interrogation of Department of Defense detainees and,
two, prohibits cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment of persons in
the detention of the U.S. Government.
Because of the extraordinary support for this legislation and its
importance

[[Page S12381]]

to our men and women in uniform, it is imperative that these provisions
remain on the appropriations measure which is now in conference,
although I understand the conferees have not been appointed on the
House side.
There is a rumor that with the inclusion in the authorizing bill,
then an argument will be made to have it taken out of the
appropriations bill, and then the authorizing bill would never reach
agreement in conference. That is a bit Machiavellian. Most of all, it
is very important because it thwarts the will of 90 Members of the
Senate, an overwhelming majority of the House of Representatives, and
an overwhelming majority of the American people.
I hope very sincerely that the inclusion of this provision on the
authorization bill, which is important in the authorizing process, does
not in any way give an excuse to have it removed from the
appropriations bill.
I commend Congressman Murtha for his leadership and efforts to date
to offer a motion to instruct conferees to keep this amendment intact
without modification. I hope that no one seeks procedural maneuvers to
thwart the overwhelming majorities in both Chambers.
I thank the leadership of the Armed Services Committee, particularly
our leader Senator Warner, as well as the ranking Democrat, Senator
Levin, who have provided guidance, leadership, and encouragement on
this very important issue. I am very grateful for their leadership.
Let me be clear.
Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. McCAIN. I would be glad to yield.
Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent to be an original cosponsor, as I
have been consistently on the Senator's amendments. He will recall that
our first meeting was when I was Secretary of the Navy when he returned
from Vietnam. So our relationship on this issue has a long history, and
I firmly believe it is in the best interest of the Department of
Defense that this manual be the guide for our men and women of the U.S.
military. I commend the Senator.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator. I ask unanimous consent that both
Senator Warner and Senator Levin be added as original cosponsors of the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank my dear friend. Maybe he does not want me to
recall that was 32 years ago when we first had the opportunity of
knowing each other, where I served under, with many layers in between,
then Secretary of the Navy Senator Warner. I remember the many
kindnesses he extended to me and my friends who had returned at that
time. I also recall--and I do not want to take too much time of this
body--that Senator Warner at that time had to make a very tough
decision about a couple of people who had not performed to the
standards we expected in that environment in Hanoi. Sometimes tough
decisions have to be made, and I think Senator Warner made a very
correct decision at that time.

I might add, he has not aged a bit since that moment when I first saw
him on my return.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think the Record should also reflect
that in the course of my service as Under Secretary and Secretary of
the Navy, I had the great privilege of working with the Senator's
father, a naval officer without peer, distinction and achievement. He
was commander in chief of all forces Pacific during several of those
critical years in Vietnam when the Senator was incarcerated.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend.
Mr. President, I say again on this issue, No. 1, it is not going
away. It is not going away. If, through some parliamentary maneuver,
temporarily the will of the majority of both Houses, both bicameral and
bipartisan, is thwarted, it will be on every vehicle that goes through
this body because you cannot override the majority of the American
people and their elected representatives in a functioning democracy.
No one wants this issue to go away more than I. This issue is
incredibly harmful to the United States of America and our image
throughout the world. The article on the front page of the Washington
Post the day before yesterday, describing prison systems that are run
by the CIA--the CIA wasn't set up to run prisons.
I point out there is no nation in the world that faces a greater
threat of terrorist attacks on a day-to-day basis than the State of
Israel. The State of Israel Supreme Court decided, and its military and
civil Government has implemented, a prohibition against cruel and
inhumane treatment and torture, and they do not practice it. They do
practice interrogation and, through various techniques--many of which I
am sure are classified--that are not violations of the rules laid down
by their Supreme Court, they obtain information, valuable and necessary
information.
Why is it some people feel we should carve out an exemption for a
branch of our Government to practice cruel and inhumane treatment or
even torture? Let me tell you what the consequence of that is, in case
of another war. If we get in another war and one of our men or women in
the armed services is captured, they will be turned over to the secret
police because they will use the same rationale that is being argued by
the proponents for the continuation of cruel and inhumane treatment and
torture, that they have to have this information. We all know we need
intelligence. We all know it is vital. We know how important it is. But
to do differently not only offends our values as Americans but
undermines our war efforts because abuse of prisoners harms, not helps,
us in the war against terror.
First, subjecting prisoners to abuse leads to bad intelligence
because under torture a detainee will tell his interrogator anything to
make the pain stop. Second, mistreatment of our prisoners endangers
U.S. troops who might be captured by the enemy, if not in this war then
in the next. And third, prisoner abuses exact on us a terrible toll in
the war of ideas because inevitably these abuses become public, as was
revealed--or at least a prison system was revealed; I don't know what
goes on in them--on the front page of one of our major newspapers.
If we inflict this cruel and inhumane treatment, the cruel actions of
a few darken the reputation of our country in the eyes of millions.
American values should win against all others in any war of ideas, and
we cannot let prisoner abuse tarnish our image.
Yet reports of detainee abuse continue to emerge, in large part
because of confusion in the field as to what is permitted and what is
not. That is why part of this amendment would establish the Army Field
Manual as the uniform standard for the interrogation of Department of
Defense detainees--so there is no confusion. Confusion about the rules
results in abuses in the field and that is not just my opinion, but it
is the opinion of GEN Colin Powell, GEN Joseph Hoar, GEN John
Shalikashvili, RADM John Hutson, RADM Don Guter, and many others, those
who have had the experience of being involved with treatment of
detainees/POWs. These and other distinguished officers believe the
abuses at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and elsewhere took place in part
because our soldiers received ambiguous instructions.
My friend from South Carolina is very aware and may chronicle the
development of these guidelines for treatment of prisoners which was
done without the consent of the military uniformed lawyers, and then a
couple of months later, because of how outrageous they were, they had
to be retracted. It is still not clear. It is still not clear what the
practices are that are sanctioned in treatment of prisoners.
The second part of this amendment is a prohibition against cruel,
inhumane, and degrading treatment. If that doesn't sound new, that is
because it is not. The prohibition has been a longstanding principle in
both law and policy in the United States. To mention a few examples:
The prohibitions are contained in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to
which the U.S. is a signatory; and the binding Convention Against
Torture, negotiated by the Reagan administration and ratified by the
Senate.
Nevertheless, the administration has held that the prohibition does
not legally apply to foreigners held overseas. They can, apparently, be
treated inhumanely. That means America is the only country in the world
that asserts a legal right to engage in cruel

[[Page S12382]]

and inhumane treatment. How far have we come?
What this also means is confusion about the rules becomes rampant
again. With this simple amendment we can restore clarity on a simple
and fundamental question: Does America treat people inhumanely? My
answer is no, and from all I have seen, America's answer has always
been no.
I noted this for my colleagues' consideration when I mentioned this
earlier. While the State of Israel is no stranger to terrorist attacks,
in 1999 the Israeli Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision to this
effect--it contained words we may wish to reflect on today. I quote
from the Israeli Supreme Court:

A democratic, freedom-loving society does not accept that
investigators use any means for the purpose of uncovering the
truth. The rules pertaining to investigations are important
to a democratic state. They reflect its character.

As I have said many times in response to a few Members of the Senate:
It is not about them; it is about us.
Let there be no question about America's character. In deciding these
rules, each Member of this body has a vital role. Under article I,
section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, the Congress has the responsibility
for making--I quote from the U.S. Constitution: `` . . . rules
concerning captures on land and water.'' Not the executive branch, not
the courts, but Congress.
Our brave men and women in the field need clarity. America needs to
show the world that the terrible photos and stories of prison abuse are
a thing of the past. Let's step up to this responsibility and speak
clearly on this critical issue.
We should do it not because we wish to coddle terrorists; we should
do it not because we view them as anything but evil and terrible; we
should do it because we are Americans and because we hold ourselves to
humane standards of treatment of people, no matter how evil or terrible
they may be. America stands for a moral mission, one of freedom and
democracy and human rights at home and abroad. We are better than these
terrorists--and we will win. I have said it before, but it bears
repeating: The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human
rights. They do not deserve our sympathy. But this isn't about who they
are, it is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us
from our enemies, and we can never allow our enemies to take those
values away.
I hope we could adopt this by voice vote at the appropriate time.
Since we voted recently by a vote of 90 to 9, I don't see any reason
why we should force people to be on record again.
Again, my heartfelt thanks to both Senator Warner and Senator Levin.
I hope we can make this issue go away so we can begin repairing the
image of the United States of America throughout the world and still
carry on a very effective intelligence capability this Nation so badly
needs.
I thank my colleague.

Exhibit 1

Navy League

of the United States,

Arlington, VA, November 1, 2005.
Hon. C.W. Bill Young,
Chairman, House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Young: On behalf of the more than 65,000
members of the Navy League of the United States, I want to
express our support for Sections 8154 and 8155 in the
Senate's version of H.R. 2863, the Defense Appropriations Act
of Fiscal Year 2006. These legislative provisions establish
the U.S. Army Field Manual on Interrogations and the
Convention Against Torture as the uniform standard for
interrogation of individuals detained by the Department of
Defense, and prohibit degrading treatment of detainees.
We encourage you to support adoption of Sections 8154 and
8155 in conference negotiations on H.R. 2863. America's hard-
earned reputation for respect of the rule of law and human
dignity is an integral part of our greatness as a Nation. The
world will judge us by our actions, and our troops have a
proven record of excellence. Establishing a written standard
for interrogation will only underscore this superb record.
The Navy League is proud to align itself with the position of
numerous credible voices in support of this action.
On behalf of the men and women of the sea services, for
whom the Navy League has advocated for more than 100 years,
thank you for your consideration of this important concern.
Sincerely,
John A. Panneton.
____

Hoover Institution,

Stanford, CA, January 21, 2005.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Leahy: I have read your letter of January 19,
2005, and am prepared to provide my views to you on the issue
you raised
First, I must disassociate myself from those who have
attacked Alberto R. Gonzales in connection with issues
related to the Torture Convention. I support his appointment
and urge you to vote for his confirmation. Judge Gonzales has
relied on the opinions of other attorneys on this and other
issues, and a distinction must be maintained concerning those
opinions and his own considered judgments. Moreover,
attorneys acting ethically and in good faith can reach
different conclusions on issues. It is unhelpful in
developing national policy when personal attacks are launched
on those with whom we disagree, despite ample grounds for
professional differences.
Second, I have read some but not all the documents to which
you refer in your letter, and given the time available have
relied on the material quoted in your letter and on my
recollection with regard to the intentions of the Bush
Administration in submitting the Convention for ratification.
Third, the issue in your letter, as you state, is not
whether acts amounting to torture under the Convention are
forbidden in areas within the jurisdiction of the US, but to
which the Eighth Amendment would not apply. As I understand
it, Judge Gonzales has made clear that he believes the
Torture Convention and U.S. law require the U.S. government
to undertake to prevent and to punish acts amounting to
torture committed by US officials anywhere in the world.
Having made these disclaimers, I do not hesitate to say
that I disagree with the merits and wisdom of the conclusion
reached by the Department of Justice and cited in the
response of Judge Gonzales concerning the geographic reach of
Article 16 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Article 16 on its face limits the obligation of the United
States to undertake to prevent cruel, inhuman, or degrading
acts not amounting to torture to ``territory under its
jurisdiction.'' Within such territory, the US is obliged to
undertake to prevent such ``other'' acts, even if they do not
amount to torture.
As you state in your letter, the Senate agreed to ratify
the Torture Convention at the urging of the Reagan and Bush
Administrations, and one of its reservations was that in
applying Article 16 the US government would not be obliged to
undertake to enforce its provisions, anywhere, in a manner
inconsistent with the US interpretation of its almost
identically worded Eighth Amendment prohibiting cruel and
unusual punishment. As I testified at the time, in writing
and orally, the purpose of this reservation was to prevent
any tribunal or state from claiming that the US would have to
follow a different and broader meaning of the language of
Article 16 than the meaning of those same words in the Eighth
Amendment. The words of the reservation support this
understanding, in that they relate to the meaning of the
terms involved, not to their geographic application: ``the
United States considers itself bound by the obligation under
article 16 . . . only insofar as the term `cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment' means the cruel, unusual
and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth,
Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments. . . .'' (Emphasis
added.) The Department of Justice at the time characterized
this reservation as ``modest,'' and explained its purpose as
being to use established meanings under the Eighth Amendment
instead of the Treaty's vague terms that had not yet evolved
under international law. No evidence of which I am aware
indicates that the reservation was intended to enable the US
to refuse to enforce Article 16 in any territory ``under its
jurisdiction.''
The Department of Justice contends, as I understand it,
that Article 16 has no application outside the territory of
the US, because the Supreme Court has interpreted the Eighth
Amendment to be inapplicable beyond our territorial limits.
The Department reasons that since the Senate reservation
limited enforcement of Artic1e 16 to the US understanding of
the Eighth Amendment's language, and since the Supreme Court
has concluded that the Eighth Amendment is inapplicable
beyond US territory, Article 16 itse1f is inapplicable beyond
US territory. On the basis of my understanding of the
purposes of the Convention, and of the purpose of the
reservation related to Article 16 and the Eighth Amendment, I
disagree with the Department's view and would urge the
Attorney General Designate to accept a different view.
The US has been in the vanguard of efforts to protect human
rights within the US and abroad. As President Bush has
repeatedly affirmed, the dignity and equality of all human
beings stems from natural law, i.e. the principle that the
Creator of life has endowed us all equally with the right to
be protected from abhorrent conduct. We agreed in the Torture
Convention that all humans should be protected against
official acts amounting to torture, or ``other acts'' covered
by Article 16, and we undertook to ``take effective
legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to
prevent acts of torture'' and the other acts covered by
Article 16, when they occur ``in any territory''

[[Page S12383]]

under US jurisdiction. Article 2 of the Treaty requires us to
take measures against acts of torture in territory under our
jurisdiction, and we understand this to mean any territory,
not just the territory of the US to which the Eighth
Amendment is applicable. Since the underlying objective is
the same everywhere--to prevent official acts of torture,
cruelty, or other abuse covered by the meanings of the words
involved which are within our legal capacity to prevent--no
good reason can be given to conclude that the geographic
scope of the words in Article 16 should be narrower than the
geographic scope of the same words in Article 2.
In conclusion, the reference in the reservation to the
Eighth Amendment's language was intended to prevent
inconsistent interpretation of our obligations under Article
16, not to excuse us from abiding by its obligations within
the ``territory'' to which it applies by its terms, i.e.,
territory that is within the jurisdiction of the United
States. To interpret it to limit our obligation under Article
16 would arguably allow US officials to act inconsistently
with the Treaty--and inconsistently with the Eighth
Amendment--in parts of the world in which we have
jurisdiction to prevent them from doing so. Judge Gonzales
said in his testimony that ``we want to be in compliance, as
a substantive matter under the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendment.'' I imagine that he and any other person who
shares the President's beliefs would not condone or seek to
protect any official from the full, potential consequences of
behavior so offensive as to violate the cruel and unusual
punishment clause in any place where the US has jurisdiction
to prevent and punish such conduct.
I hope that these views are helpful to you and the
Committee.
Sincerely,
Abe Sofaer.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, with regard to the McCain amendment on
which I spoke in favor, I have an obligation as manager of the bill to
present views of those who differ in some respects with Senator McCain
and myself.
I ask unanimous consent that the remarks made by Mr. Stephen Hadley,
National Security Adviser to the President, on Wednesday, November 2,
be printed in the Record. The material is taken directly from a
transcript, which I presume is authentic.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Press Briefing With National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley

Q. Can I ask you a quick one on another subject? Why does
the administration feel it's necessary to maintain a network
of secret detention centers around the world, out of sight of
the Congress and the American people, and out of reach of
American law and values?
Mr. HADLEY: There have been some press reports this morning
that have touched on that subject. And as you can appreciate,
they raise some issues about possible intelligence
operations. And as you know, we don't talk about intelligence
operations from this podium.
Q. Don't they also raise issue of our values and our
reputation in the world?
Mr. HADLEY: Right, and I think the President has been
pretty clear on that, that while we have to do what we--do
what is necessary to defend the country against terrorists
attacks and to win the war on terror, the President has been
very clear that we're going to do that in a way that is
consistent with our values. And that is why he's been very
clear that the United States will not torture. The United
States will conduct its activities in compliance with law and
international obligations.
And in some of the issues involving detainees and the like,
as you know, where they have been allegations that people
have not met the standard the President has set, there have
been investigations, and they have been of two forms. There
are over a dozen investigations that have been done in the
Department of Defense to find out what has been going on. Two
things have happened as a result. There have been revisions
of procedures and practices to ensure that the standard the
President set is met; and then there have been
investigations, prosecutions, and people punished for the
failure to meet those standards. So we think that, consistent
with the President's guidance, we are both protecting the
country against the terrorists and doing it in a way that is
consistent with our values and principles.
Q. If I could just press you on that, how do those self-
correcting mechanism that affirm our values and laws, how do
they work if the sites are secret to begin with?
Mr. HADLEY: Well, the fact that they are secret, assuming
there are such sites, does not mean that simply because
something is--and some people say that the test of your
principles are what you do when no one is looking. And the
President has insisted that whether it is in the public, or
is in the private, the same principles will apply, and the
same principles will be respected. And to the extent people
do not meet up, measure up to those principles, there will be
accountability and responsibility.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, before we move to a vote, I see another
colleague who may wish to speak to this issue, the distinguished
Senator from South Carolina, who has been very much a part of the
integral working group of Senator McCain, myself, and the Senator from
South Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
Mr. GRAHAM. I echo the general themes of Senator McCain. This is an
important event in the war on terror. He described very well that this
is about us, not the terrorists. The terrorists are not having this
debate in their world. There is not much debate going on about how they
should behave toward innocent people, how they should behave toward
people under their control. We know how they behave.
The war is about, Is that a justified way of doing business? The
answer is, No.
Everyone condemns what they do, everyone who believes in freedom.
This war is about two sets of values, theirs and ours. As we adjust in
the war on terror, I think we have to understand that adjustment is
necessary, but the adjustments cannot equate to eroding what we are
fighting for. I am all for the PATRIOT Act. I think it has been very
good that we adjust the way we have electronic surveillance. I think it
has been very good that we allow the intelligence community and
domestic law enforcement personnel to talk to each other about what is
going on in the terrorist world. We are knocking some walls down with
the PATRIOT Act that have made us less secure.
We are adjusting our military policy. We are adjusting our legal
positions to adopt to a war that is new and different. Here is the new
and different part about it: The enemy we are fighting is
nontraditional in terms of the Geneva Conventions. I think the
President instinctively got it right, right after 9/11. He made a
declaration that al-Qaida members are not going to be treated under the
Geneva Conventions, considered Geneva Conventions qualified. He was
right because al-Qaida is not a standing army. It is a group of
terrorists who are not fighting for a nation. They don't wear a
uniform. They randomly attack civilians. To give them Geneva
Conventions protection would be undermining the purpose of the Geneva
Conventions that rewards people for playing fair.
The Geneva Conventions has within it reporting requirements and other
devices that I think would undermine the war on terror. Some people
that we catch, senior al-Qaida operatives or associates of al-Qaida, we
don't want the world and their fellow terrorists to know we have them.
Under the Geneva Conventions it would require reporting.
Here is what we are trying to do, with Senator McCain's amendment.
Even though they are not Geneva Conventions qualified, the President
said they will be treated humanely. We have had interrogation
techniques in the past for enemy combatants, people who do not fall
under the Geneva Conventions, but they have never been in one source
document. The Army Field Manual is an attempt on our part to provide
clarity to the troops.
I have gone with the chairman to Guantanamo Bay and I asked the
question to the interrogators: Is there anything in the Army Field
Manual that would prevent you from getting good intelligence, being
involved in interrogations that would be fruitful to protect our
Nation? They said no. They don't see the Army Field Manual as written
or being drafted or revised as an impediment to doing their jobs.
So what is the upside? The upside is the people in the Department of
Defense--who may find themselves in a situation where they will have a
group of prisoners, detainees, some Geneva Conventions qualified, some
not--will have a source document. The reason we are doing this
amendment is right after 9/11 there was an attempt by the Department of
Justice to cut corners, in my opinion, to give strained legal reasoning
to the Convention on Torture, trying to define what torture is in a way
that would get our own people in trouble.
The idea that you could actually break bones and that not be torture
under the convention, that it would have to be a near-death
experience--that gets us in a very dangerous area about physical abuse.
The point we were trying to make, and the uniformed JAGs were trying to
make, is when you start that reasoning, you have to understand there
are other

[[Page S12384]]

laws on the books that govern our military.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice has a whole section about what
is in bounds and out of bounds when it comes to detainees and how you
treat detainees. It has an assault provision, making it a crime for a
military member to degrade or assault someone in our charge.
The concern of the JAGs is that this new interpretation of the
Convention on Torture allowing certain activity would put military
personnel in jeopardy of being court martialed because of other laws on
the books. Now is the time to reconcile this. Now is the time to come
up with a standard that looks at every legal source of who we are and
how we behave. The Army Field Manual will be one-stop shopping.
It will have interrogation techniques classified and unclassified
that will be a roadmap of how we handle people at the Department of
Defense who are non-Geneva qualified. It is the best thing we can do
for the troops. Everybody is for the troops. We should be for the
troops. If you are for the troops, I believe the best thing you can for
them is to give them clarity so they will not run afoul of our values
and our laws. It is the best thing we can do to help them as they
execute this war on terror when it comes to interrogating people.
The second part of Senator McCain's amendment is equally important
but for a different reason. Abu Ghraib happened. Things happen on our
watch in war that we are not proud of. But that happens in every war.
The fact that some people make mistakes, some people commit crimes,
some people go too far, is a part of war. How you deal with it is
really about you.
What has made us different is that we hold our own people
accountable, and we don't let the end justify the means. We have been
doing that for a very long time because we are trying to set a value
system in place that will be good for the world. And when we take
someone who is a member of the military and prosecute them for abusing
a prisoner, that is different in a lot of places in this world. If we
are prosecuting people for abusing prisoners, the worst thing we could
do is confuse people about what is in bounds and what is out of bounds.
That is why the Army Field Manual is necessary. But the statement
Senator McCain is making about treating people humanely and cruel and
unusual punishment interrogation techniques being out of bounds applies
to everybody in the Government.
I believe we have to make a decision soon that that is what we are
going to do for many years to come. The war on terror is going to be a
long, hard road. We are going to be constantly asked to adapt to win
the war. The question is, Should we sometimes set aside exceptions that
are totally different than the way we have lived our lives for 200
years to win this war? My answer is, Absolutely not, because this war
is not about taking down a capital, sinking a navy, or capturing an
army; this war is about tolerance, values, religion, and respect for
human rights. This war is truly about character.
I believe with all my heart and all my soul that what happened in Abu
Ghraib is an aberration in terms of the men and women in the military.
It doesn't reflect on who they are and what they believe. But it has
done great damage to this country. To the terrorists, they are not the
audience; it is those millions of people out there who are looking at
democracy, checking under the hood, and trying to figure out which way
to go.
As a nation, we need to say as strongly as we can that no terrorist
will have a safe haven. We are coming after you. We are going to fight
you to the death. But if we capture a terrorist, we will want good
information. We want to try them for their crimes, but once we have
them in our charge, then it becomes about us because if you do not
practice what you preach, your children will go astray if you are a
parent. If you do not practice what you preach, your value set that has
made you a great nation, standing out in a world in a unique way--you
will tarnish who you are. The only way we are going to win this war is
to have American values shine brightly. And character is about doing
the right thing when nobody watches.
I am hopeful that we can have a compromise and accommodation between
the executive branch and the legislative branch on this issue; that we
can have a policy statement that if you are in the hands of the CIA or
a non-DOD agency, you can be interrogated aggressively, but you will be
treated with a value set that this country has been fighting for in the
past and is fighting for now. As the President reaffirmed just days
ago, no matter where the prison is, no matter whether it is a prison
known or unknown, American values follow that prisoner. That is what it
has to be.
Can we do better language? Maybe. I am certainly openminded to
working on language that makes who we are crystal clear. But I will not
entertain a retreat. I will not entertain an exception that washes away
what we have been standing for and fighting for and what over 2,000
young men and women have died for.
The courts are confused. The courts are crying out for congressional
involvement. The executive branch is trying to adapt. I really do
believe that the best thing we could do for this President and all
future Presidents is for the Congress to get into the game and be an
ally on how you detain, interrogate, and prosecute enemy combatants.
That is missing. We have been AWOL. It is now time for us to step up to
the plate and exercise our constitutional responsibility--not to weaken
the Presidency but to make the executive branch stronger in the eyes of
the courts.
If you had a policy that was signed off on by the Congress, signed
off on by the executive branch, I am totally convinced that the
judicial side of our Government would be much more deferential. They
are telling us that. What benefit would that be? We could go to the
world, and this President and the next could say that America at every
level of Government is united. We are going to have aggressive
interrogation techniques, we are going to detain people who are enemy
combatants, and we are going to take them off the battlefield. And some
of them are going to stand trial for their crimes. But we are going to
do it together, and we are going to do it within our values. That would
be the strongest message we could extend to the world. It would be the
right message to send to our own troops. If we do not get this right
now, people after us are going to pay a heavy price.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I followed that statement with great care.
I commend the Senator. I think he articulated the key issues. He used
the word ``compromise'' and keeping an open mind.
I wish to assure those who are following this that our group that
supports Senator McCain's amendment have taken careful consideration of
the continuing need to collect our intelligence, first and foremost to
protect our troops and, of course, first and foremost to protect our
citizens back here in this Nation from terrorists or other attacks.
It is a balanced approach that we have tried to take on this, a
careful one, thoughtfully moving each step of the way and entertaining
carefully the views of others who have views different from our own.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the war against terrorism is as much as a
contest of values and ideals as it is a military conflict. In this
struggle, America should lead as it always has, setting an example by
treating others as we would want to be treated ourselves, even in times
of war.
This golden rule has been tarnished and abandoned by the Bush
administration. As a result, for much of the world, the American face
in the war on terror is represented by images of torture and abuse. The
``anything goes'' attitude at the highest levels of the Bush White
House has made the war on terror much harder to win. And it has placed
our own soldiers at risk throughout the globe, should they be captured.
How can we demand that the rest of the world abide by standards of
common decency when we abuse prisoners ourselves?
So I come to the floor today in strong support of the McCain
amendment to protect American honor by ensuring clear rules for the
interrogation

[[Page S12385]]

of prisoners. This common sense proposal ensures that we have one
standard of interrogation for our Government, and it makes sure the
rules are clear so that our interrogators and case officers know what
the limits are.
Before September 11, 2001, everyone knew what the limits were. They
were clearly laid out in the Army Field Manual, our laws, and our
treaty obligations. Yet this administration began systematically taking
those rules apart.
COL. Larry Wilkerson, the chief of staff to Secretary Powell, said on
NPR yesterday, ``The Secretary of Defense, under cover of the Vice
President's office began to create an environment . . . of allowing the
President in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief to deviate from the
Geneva Conventions.''
William Taft, the State Department legal advisor in President Bush's
first term, knew the consequences of that fundamental shift. In an
address at American University, he said that the decision to violate
international standards ``unhinged those responsible for the treatment
of the detainees . . . from the legal guidelines for interrogation . .
. embodied in the Army Field Manual for decades. Set adrift in
uncharted waters and under pressure from their leaders to develop
information on the plans and practices of al Qaeda, it was predictable
that those managing the interrogation would eventually go too far.''
The Judge Advocate Generals from the Air Force, Navy, Army and
Marines--in other words, the chief lawyers for every one of the
uniformed services--warned that the adoption of interrogation policies
contrary to the Geneva Conventions would result in grave harms. These
are all professional military lawyers who have dedicated their lives
and distinguished careers to serving the men and women in uniform and
protecting their Nation. In an extraordinary set of memos they strongly
opposed the legal theories foisted on them by the administration's
lawyers. The JAGS warned that the policies would harm not only our
efforts to stop terrorism, but would also put U.S. forces at risk who
were themselves detained in this and future conflicts. One legal
scholar called the administration's case some of the worst legal
reasoning he had ever seen.
As Air Force Major General Jack Rives said: ``We need to consider the
overall impact of approving extreme interrogation techniques as giving
official approval and legal sanction to the application of
interrogation techniques that U.S. forces have consistently been
trained are unlawful.''
Yet; despite the condemnation of these new interrogation policies by
experienced diplomatic and military personnel alike, the administration
persists in pursuing these disturbing practices. Just last week, Vice
President Cheney himself suggested that the CIA should be exempt from
the prohibitions against cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. As of
this week, it is clear why. The CIA apparently is holding more than a
hundred detainees in secret prisons around the world to interrogate
them with the techniques roundly rejected by the military lawyers.
This is unacceptable. In America, no one is above the law. There is
no reason the CIA--or any other agency of our government--should be
immune from American norms and standards of conduct.
This amendment will make our message clear. As Americans, not only do
we fight for our ideals, but we live by them. We can no longer tolerate
ambiguity when it comes to the very standards we are trying to enforce
around the world.
In the first gulf war, our compliance with the Geneva Conventions--
the international gold standard for treatment of captives--was called
``the best of any nation in any conflict in the history of the
Conventions'' by the International Red Cross, the organization charged
with overseeing compliance with the conventions.
There are good reasons that we should abide by the Geneva
Conventions. They protect our own troops. The Conventions require that
all captured combatants or prisoners of war must be visited by the Red
Cross to help assure the world that their treatment is humane. The
International Red Cross visited U.S. servicemen held prisoner in Kosovo
in the 1990s. They visited our troops held in the first gulf war.
As Milt Bearden, a former CIA official, wrote in this morning's New
York Times, ``the treatment of prisoners generally reaches symmetry in
any war.'' In other words, if we abuse prisoners in a war, others will
abuse our soldiers if they are taken prisoner.
As Mr. Bearden pointed out, our actions make a difference, even in
extreme situations. He wrote, ``The policy of three presidents--Jimmy
Carter, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush--was that both the Afghan
mujahedeen insurgents we supported and their Soviet adversaries would
be treated within the precepts of the Geneva Conventions when taken
prisoner. I can state without reservation that the United States used
its influence consistently to promote that policy, with overwhelmingly
positive results.''
Sadly, our treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib, in Afghanistan,
Guantanamo, and other sites, makes it far more difficult for us to
guarantee the protections of the Geneva Conventions for our military if
they are captured, and degrades the international consensus against
such abuse.
America must lead by example. After the abuse of the detainees at Abu
Ghraib, President Bush said, ``Their treatment does not reflect the
nature of the American people. That is not the way we do things in
America.''
Let's make the President's bold words into a reality and adopt the
McCain amendment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that full text of Mr.
Bearden's op-ed be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the New York Times, Nov. 4, 2005]

When the C.I.A. Played by the Rules

(By Milt Bearden)

Today the Supreme Court justices are expected to debate
whether they will hear a case involving a Yemeni named Salim
Ahmed Hamdan, who is accused of being Osama bin Laden's
driver. A federal appeals court found that Mr. Hamdan, who
was captured in Afghanistan in 2001 and is being held at
Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, was not entitled to the protections
of the Geneva Conventions; he has appealed to the high court.
If the court does not choose to review the appellate
court's decision, and then overturn it, America's national
security will be endangered. I say that based on my
experience as the senior American intelligence officer during
the final three years of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan
(1986 to 1989). And I also feel that our intelligence
agencies and military commanders should make clear to the
Bush administration that our country's most fundamental
commitments of humanitarian treatment have long been extended
to the Afghan battlefield.
The policy of three presidents--Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan
and George H. W. Bush--was that both the Afghan mujahedeen
insurgents we supported and their Soviet adversaries would be
treated within the precepts of the Geneva Conventions when
taken prisoner. I can state without reservation that the
United States used its influence consistently to promote that
policy--with overwhelmingly positive results.
When in Pakistan, I oversaw America's covert support to the
Afghan resistance that had begun in December 1979. Throughout
that war, countless thousands of Afghan insurgents fell into
the hands of Soviet forces; a far smaller number of Soviet
soldiers were taken prisoner by the Afghan irregulars. I
urged the Afghans, the Pakistani officers who supported them,
and the politicians on both sides of the ``zero line'' (the
Afghan border with Pakistan) that all combatants taken
prisoner deserved the protection of the Geneva Conventions.
My most effective argument was founded on reciprocity--that
the treatment of prisoners generally reaches symmetry in any
war.
The Afghan war was exceptionally brutal, with more than a
million Afghans killed, a million and a half wounded, and
three million more driven into exile by the Soviet invaders
(who had 15,000 of their own killed). Early in the conflict,
the Afghans were brutal to their prisoners, using them as
beasts of burden and objects of amusement in traditional
knife play; the Soviets responded in kind. But as American
involvement deepened, the Afghans were persuaded to change
that behavior; at the same time, the Soviet troops, too,
began treating their prisoners in accordance with
international protocols.
One incident in particular drives home the wisdom of this
policy. In early August 1988, I was informed that a Soviet
Su-25 ground attack aircraft had been brought down, lightly
damaged, that day by antiaircraft fire in eastern
Afghanistan. Was I interested in ``buying'' it?
I was delighted. An Su-25, a superb plane often called the
Frogfoot, would nicely augment the equipment the United
States had been collecting from the Afghan battlefield over
the previous decade. After a little haggling, I agreed to
give the Afghan guerrillas eight Toyota pickup trucks and a
few rocket

[[Page S12386]]

launchers in exchange. Almost as an afterthought, the Afghans
told me they had also taken the pilot, a silver-haired
colonel. Was I interested?
I was, indeed, interested. I remembered that just after I
arrived in Pakistan, I was shown a photograph of a Soviet
pilot in a silver flight suit, up to his waist in snow, skin
burned by the relentless sun, with a bullet hole in the side
of his head. His Tokarev semi-automatic pistol was still
clutched in his hand. He had killed himself rather than be
captured by insurgents. Back then, Soviet pilots had it
particularly rough when captured.
I had made it clear from that moment that American policy
was that captured pilots be treated as prisoners of war under
international agreements, and that I would offer rewards for
any pilots used in prisoner exchanges, repatriated to the
Soviet Union, or, if they so desired, resettled in the West.
I threw in another couple of Toyotas and the pilot came
with his downed aircraft in a sort of package deal. The
colonel was handed over to the Pakistanis--not wanting to
create an incident, I stayed clear of him, though I did make
sure he knew that a condominium in Phoenix, or wherever, was
an option open to him. He eventually chose to return to the
Soviet Union, where he was hailed as a national hero. Part of
the swap, though, was the extraction of certain guarantees
from the Soviet commanders that their treatment of Afghan
prisoners would reach ``symmetry'' of a sort with the
treatment of that pilot.
The story didn't end there, however. The next time I saw
that colonel he was on TV, helping beat back the 1991 coup
against Mikhail Gorbachev. He soon became Boris Yeltsin's
vice president, then turned on Mr. Yeltsin in 1993. His name
is Aleksandr Rutskoi, and he remains a voice for democracy
and one of President Vladimir Putin's leading critics.
There are two salient points here. First, the present war
in Afghanistan must be seen as part of a struggle that has
been under way for more than a quarter-century. The Afghan
insurgents themselves are not likely to distinguish to any
large degree the differences between being taken prisoner by
the Soviets in Mazar-i-Sharif in 1985 or by the Americans in
the same tortured city in 2005.
The second thing being missed, or more likely ignored, is
that there was an American policy toward insurgents taken
prisoner by the Soviets in Afghanistan during the Soviet
occupation. That policy was to urge both sides toward
accepting that the Geneva Conventions applied, and to reach a
point where each side treated its prisoners within
established rules. In the case of Colonel Rutskoi, a graphic
point was made to both sides.
It is a point that has become muddied in the Hamdan case.
The issue is not whether Mr. Hamdan is a Qaeda terrorist, but
whether as a captive of the United States he should be
treated under the traditional rules of the Afghan conflict--
that is, under international norms. A unilateral change in
those rules dictated by America--the latest in the line of
foreign powers to find themselves in Afghanistan--is not only
unseemly, but would also put our troops there and elsewhere
in the struggle against terrorism in harm's way.
The questions of applicability and enforcement of the
Geneva Conventions posed by the Hamdan case should not go
unanswered by the Supreme Court. We are a better nation than
that.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2425) was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we had announced earlier--I see my
distinguished colleague, a member of the Armed Services Committee,
Senator Reed--that we would move to Senator Allard and then follow with
the Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Reed.

Amendment No. 2423

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Allard] proposes an
amendment numbered 2423.

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

(Purpose: To authorize a program to provide health, medical, and life
insurance benefits to workers at the Rocky Flats Environmental
Technology Site, Colorado, who would otherwise fail to qualify for such
benefits because of an early physical completion date)

On page 378, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:

SEC. 3114. RETIREMENT BENEFITS FOR WORKERS AT ROCKY FLATS
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY SITE, COLORADO.

(a) Program Authorized.--Subject to the availability of
funds under subsection (d), the Secretary of Energy shall
establish a program for the purposes of providing health,
medical, and life insurance benefits to workers at the Rocky
Flats Environmental Technology Site, Colorado (in this
section referred to as the ``Site''), who do not qualify for
such benefits because the physical completion date was
achieved before December 15, 2006.
(b) Eligibility for Benefits.--A worker at the Site is
eligible for health, medical, and life insurance benefits
under the program described in subsection (a) if the
employee--
(1) was employed by the Department of Energy, or by
contract or first or second tier subcontract to perform
cleanup, security, or administrative duties or
responsibilities at the Site on September 29, 2003; and
(2) would have achieved applicable eligibility requirements
for health, medical, and life insurance benefits as defined
in the Site retirement benefit plan documents if the physical
completion date had been achieved on December 15, 2006, as
specified in the Site project completion contract.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Health, medical, and life insurance benefits.--The term
``health, medical, and life insurance benefits'' means those
benefits that workers at the Site are eligible for through
collective bargaining agreements, projects, or contracts for
work scope.
(2) Physical completion date.--The term ``physical
completion date'' means the date the Site contractor has
completed all services required by the Site project
completion contract other than close-out tasks and services
related to plan sponsorship and management of post-project
completion retirement benefits.
(3) Plan sponsorship and program management of post-project
completion retirement benefits.--The term ``plan sponsorship
and program management of post-project completion retirement
benefits'' means those duties and responsibilities that are
necessary to execute, and are consistent with, the terms and
legal responsibilities of the instrument under which the
post-project completion retirement benefits are provided to
workers at the Site.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--Of the amounts
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Energy in
fiscal year 2006 for the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology
Site, $15,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary to
carry out the program described in subsection (a).

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the incredible
achievements of the workers at the Department of Energy's Rocky Flats
Environmental Technology Site and to offer an amendment on the behalf
of these workers.
Rocky Flats is located just a few miles northwest of Denver, Co, and
for over four decades, this facility was the Department of Energy's
dedicated site for manufacturing plutonium pits for the U.S. nuclear
weapons stockpile. This highly classified production facility was run
by over 8,000 Coloradoans who worked day and night for most of the cold
war and used some of the most dangerous substances known to man,
including plutonium, beryllium, and uranium.
The workers at Rocky Flats were devoted to their job and believed in
their mission. They risked their lives on a daily basis, but did so
with the knowledge that their efforts were contributing to the security
of our Nation.
When plutonium pit production ended in 1991, it was unclear what role
these workers would play in the cleanup of Rocky Flats. They could have
walked away from the job. Yet the workers at Rocky Flats were not ready
to quit. They saw a new challenge in front of them--the cleanup of
Rocky Flats.
Their task was anything but simple. Five large plutonium processing
facilities, encompassing over a million square feet, were highly
contaminated with dangerous radioactive material. The contamination was
so severe that these buildings were ranked among the top 10 most
contaminated facilities in the Department of Energy nuclear weapons
complex.
I, however, had faith in the workers at Rocky Flats. I am pleased
that the workers at Rocky Flats have not disappointed us. The cleanup
at Rocky Flats was declared completed on October 12 of this year, a
full year and 3 months ahead of schedule.
We must keep in mind that most of these workers had to literally
develop an entire new skill set. They went from manufacturing plutonium
pits to dismantling over 1,400 highly radioactive gloveboxes.
They tore down buildings while wearing stiff environmental protection
suits. They cleaned up rooms that were so contaminated that they were
forced

[[Page S12387]]

to use the highest level of respiratory protection available.
Listen to some of the Rocky Flats workers' accomplishments:
All weapons grade plutonium was removed in 2003.
More than 1,400 contaminated glove boxes and hundreds of process
tanks have been removed.
More than 400,000 cubic meters of low-level radioactive waste has
been removed.
All 802 facilities have been demolished.
All four uranium production facilities have been demolished.
All five plutonium production facilities have been demolished.
All 360 sites of soil contamination have been remediated.
The last shipment of transuranic waste was shipped this past April.
Completion of the cleanup--1 year and 3 months ahead of schedule.
Just as important, these workers were extraordinarily productive even
though they knew they were essentially working themselves out of a job.
With the completion of the cleanup and the closure of Rocky Flats, they
knew they would have to find employment elsewhere. There was no
guarantee for a new job.
Despite knowing they were going to lose their jobs, the workers at
Rocky Flats remained highly motivated and totally committed to their
cleanup mission.
Given the sacrifice and dedication demonstrated by these workers, you
would think assisting those workers who lose their retirement benefits
because of the early completion of the cleanup would be a top priority
for the Department of Energy. After all, these workers saved the
Department billions upon billions in cleanup costs.
Last year, however, it became clear that the cleanup at Rocky Flats
would be completed much earlier than anyone expected. The workers were
supportive of early closure, but were concerned that some of their
colleagues would lose retirement benefits because of early closure.
I shared their concern and requested in last year's Defense
authorization bill that the Department of Energy provide Congress with
a report on the number of workers who would not receive retirement
benefits and the cost of providing these benefits. After a lengthy
delay, the Department of Energy reported that about 29 workers at three
cleanup sites would not receive pension and/or lifetime medical
benefits because of the closure, and the cost of providing benefits to
these workers, according to DOE's report, was just over $12 million.

To my dismay, the Department of Energy report was woefully
incomplete. I was informed later at least 50 workers would have
qualified for retirement benefits had the Department of Energy bothered
to include those workers who had already been laid off because of the
accelerated closure schedule. This means as many as 75 workers at Rocky
Flats will lose their pension, medical benefits or, in some cases, both
because they worked faster, less expensively, and achieved more than
they were supposed to. They not only worked themselves out of a job,
but they also worked themselves out of retirement benefits and, most
importantly, medical care.
Workers such as Doug Woodard and Leo Chavez now find themselves with
either severely reduced benefits or no benefits at all. Doug started
work at Rocky Flats all the way into 1982 and was responsible for
monitoring radiation contamination at the site. He missed qualifying
for medical benefits by less than 2 months. For Leo Chavez, who worked
at Rocky Flats for 17 years, DOE's treatment was even worse. The
Department of Energy thanked him for his service and showed him the
door 6 working days before he qualified for lifetime medical benefits--
I repeat, just 6 days before he qualified to medical benefits.
Sadly, the Department of Energy has failed to step up to the plate
and help these workers who did so much to save American taxpayers so
much money. Instead, the Department of Energy has played the numbers
game with these workers. The Department argues that the contract signed
with the workers already provided sufficient incentives, and those
individuals already received an additional year of service time. Yet
the Department will not bring up the numbers that matter most.
Here are a couple of examples. We saved over $35 billion, the amount
of money the Department of Energy in 1995 thought would be needed to
clean up Rocky Flats. That was with the 60-year cleanup schedule. Then
we came in with a plan to dramatically shorten that length of time by
one-tenth. The amount of money the American people saved when employees
at Rocky Flats agreed in 1999 to accelerate the cleanup at Rocky Flats
was $28 billion.
Now, $600 million exists. That is the amount of money the American
taxpayer saved on top of the $28 billion because the workers at Rocky
Flats exceeded even the accelerated cleanup schedule by over a year.
The Department of Energy does not talk about the hundreds of millions
the American people will save when workers at the Savannah River,
Hanford, and Idaho cleanup sites see they will not be punished for
accelerating their cleanup activities. Many of the workers at Rocky
Flats have served our Nation for over two decades. They have risked
their lives, day in and day out, first by building nuclear weapons
components and then by cleaning up some of the most contaminated
buildings in the world. All they have asked for in return is to be
treated with fairness and respect. To the great disappointment of the
workers at Rocky Flats, the Department of Energy has no intentions of
keeping its end of the bargain. These workers would have received their
retirement benefits had the cleanup continued to 2035, as originally
predicted. More importantly, these workers would have received their
retirement benefits had the cleanup continued to December 15 of 2006, a
little over a year, as the site cleanup contract specified. By
accelerating the cleanup by over a year and saving the American
taxpayer over $600 million, many of these workers will be left without
the medical, health, and life insurance benefits they deserve and have
earned.
The Department's refusal to provide these benefits has ramifications
far beyond Rocky Flats. Because Rocky Flats is the first major DOE
cleanup clean site, workers at other sites around the country are
watching to see how the Department of Energy treats the workers at
Rocky Flats. Unfortunately, they have seen how the Department of Energy
has failed to step up and provide retirement benefits to those who have
earned it. The workers at other sites now have no incentive to
accelerate cleanup. The question is, why should they? The Department of
Energy hasn't lifted a finger to help the workers at Rocky Flats. It
would be foolish for the workers at other sites, such as Hanford and
Santa Ana River, to think the DOE would act fairly with them.
To me, the Department's decision is penny wise and pound foolish. By
refusing to provide these benefits, the Department saves money in the
short term. Yet by discouraging the workers from supporting
acceleration, the Department is going to cost the American taxpayer
billions in additional funding in the long run.
To correct this mistake, I offer an amendment that will provide some
of the benefits to those workers who will have lost them because of
early closure. I am pleased my colleague from Colorado, Senator
Salazar, has agreed to cosponsor this important amendment. This
amendment is limited and narrowly focused. It provides health, medical,
and a life insurance benefits to those workers who would have qualified
had the site remained open until December 15, 2006, the date of the
site cleanup contract. This amendment does not add to the budget. In
fact, all it does is direct that a very small portion of the money
already provided in this bill for Rocky Flats be used to help those
workers.
To be clear, these benefits are not an additional bonus for a job
well done, nor is it a going away present for two decades of service.
The benefits--the health, medical, and life insurance benefits--are
what these workers have already earned, nothing more and nothing less.
Some might suggest these workers already received a bonus and a
year's worth of service time as part of their contract. Yet by closing
a year early, the Department of Energy has taken many of the bonuses
away from the workers, including the year of service time promised to
them.

[[Page S12388]]

The workers at Rocky Flats are ordinary people who achieved some
extraordinary goals. They made the impossible possible. We, in this
Senate, have an obligation to correct the injustice being perpetrated
by the Department of Energy. In my view, it is time for this Senate to
correct this mistake.
I have, in the Senate, a number of illustrations to share with
Members of the Senate. This is a picture of Rocky Flats in 1955. The
whole area was covered with construction. Most believed at that time it
would take 70 years and cost the American taxpayer $35 billion to clean
up Rocky Flats. The Department of Energy found several buildings in
this complex to be among the most contaminated in the country. Building
771, in particular, was dubbed by the national media as the most
dangerous building in Colorado.

Now I will proceed to some of the challenges we had. This picture
reflects the glove boxes. The most dangerous task the workers at Rocky
Flats had was to dismantle and eventually ship out over 1,400 highly
contaminated glove boxes. The workers placed their hands in the gloves
and worked with the contaminated material inside the boxes to break
these down and eventually ship them out. It was a real challenge. They
had been used primarily to fashion the plutonium pits and other nuclear
weapon components. Obviously, they were highly contaminated.
Eventually, they had to be shipped out as a whole unit in order to
dismantle these glove boxes.
The next illustration is the cleanup and demolishing of buildings at
Rocky Flats, another dangerous task. The actual demolishing of the
buildings and structures of Rocky Flats occurred with some very
contaminated buildings. Specialized machinery had to be brought in and
extra care had to be used to ensure the safety of all involved, as well
as to prevent radiation exposure. The workers had to learn how to work
in a new way in these cleanup processes. They had to use many
techniques to protect themselves in buildings in which the very same
workers had been working not too long before, building triggers for the
same nuclear weapons.
The next illustration is Rocky Flats in 2005. I want the Members to
compare the two illustrations. This is Rocky Flats before cleanup; this
is Rocky Flats after cleanup. We are getting back to the prairie and
the plains in Colorado. We have a great view of the mountains, with no
buildings. This is Rocky Flats 2 weeks ago. There are no buildings, no
waste deposits, no fences, not even asphalt. All this remains an open
space.
The workers at Rocky Flats achieved this. They should be proud about
saving the American taxpayer over $600 million. They completed the
mission a year and 3 months ahead of schedule. They worked safely and
in a manner that we can all be proud.
To give an idea of the kind of people we are talking about, here are
some of the workers at Rocky Flats. This is a group of them. They are
ordinary people. They performed their duties with professionalism and
extraordinary competence. They made the impossible possible and
achieved more than we ever expected. They deserve the benefits they
would have received had they not worked as hard or had they waited
until the date specified in the site cleanup time practice. They saved
the American people over $600 million. It is the least we can do to
provide them with the benefits they have earned.
I remind the Senate, it is time to act, it is time to correct this
mistake.
I yield the floor and I reserve the balance of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator reserves the balance of his time.
Under the unanimous consent, the Chair recognizes the Senator from
Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I see Senator Reed is here. I will make
a few comments on Senator Allard's amendment if that is all right. I
ask the unanimous consent be modified to the extent that I be allowed
to speak for a few minutes now and that Senator Reed then be recognized
immediately thereafter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Allard for his
leadership in the Senate, his superb leadership on the Committee on
Armed Services. We miss him. But he is also on the very important
Committee on Appropriations. I am sure he had a painful decision to
make, but I am sure it is a decision in which his constituents will
join in his decision to leave us and go to Committee on Appropriations.
The Senator knows this issue because he dealt with it for so many
years. In particular, he used to chair the subcommittee that I now
chair that deals with the issue. He has been committed to dealing with
and promptly and effectively eliminating the difficulties at Rocky
Flats. Our country is in his debt and the debt of those people who have
helped make the cleanup possible. Therefore, the Senator knows why I am
most reluctant to oppose his amendment as written, but I must do so. I
share a few thoughts about it.
The amendment reaches into a relationship between contract employees
for the Government who were performing environmental cleanup and their
employer, which was a private contractor, Kaiser Hill. Kaiser Hill won
this contract with the Department of Energy to perform the cleanup
work. They hired people under certain terms and agreements in a
negotiated contract with their employees. They were hired under that
basis.

So, in effect, the Government is undertaking now to modify, amend,
alter, and fund additional moneys that relate to that contract between
the contractor and the employees. It directs the Secretary of Energy to
instruct Kaiser Hill to grant retirement and health benefits to
employees which those employees would have earned if the cleanup had
taken longer than it actually did.
The cleanup of Rocky Flats did not take as long as some predicted,
but everyone knew this was a contract that would end promptly or at
least at a certain date in the future. It came in quicker, for which
everyone is delighted. But there was no doubt people knew it was not a
permanent, lifetime contract.
So Rocky Flats is no more. Our country is the better for it. If you
go to the site, you will see, as Senator Allard has shown, an empty
space on that Colorado plateau. The workers for the most part have
dispersed and gone on to other jobs. Many Government contracts complete
early or do not run as long as originally anticipated. That is a fact.
We cannot start down the road of altering the benefits of contractor
workers when this happens, particularly when we have a contract that we
know is not going to be for an extended period of time.
Also, I would call to the attention of all our Members that the
Government and the contractor were not unaware of this problem, and
they advanced 1 full year of credit toward retirement and health care
benefits for every employee who was terminated. They also realized at
some point that the contract was going to be terminated early.
So union negotiations took place, and an agreement was reached. It
was agreed that,based on the termination date, additional funds would
be paid to compensate the employees. As I understand it, $4,200 turned
out to be the bonus, the incentive package, payment that they received
as a result of completing the contract early. In other words, it gave
them cash money they could use as a benefit or money they could utilize
to transition to another employer.
The Department of Energy is very concerned that this amendment alters
the bargain struck between Kaiser Hill and its employees. Most of the
Kaiser Hill employees were covered under collective bargaining
agreements, and staggered layoffs were anticipated as the cleanup
neared.
I would like to offer, Mr. President, for the Record, and do offer
for the Record, a summary of the benefits that were made available to
the employees as a result of the anticipated early termination of this
contract. I ask unanimous consent that summary be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Rocky Flats Employee Benefit Initiatives

The Department of Energy has instituted, through its
closure contractors, numerous incentives to reward employees
for accelerating closure. Rocky Flats-Kaiser Hill has
implemented many benefit initiatives and has dedicated a
significant percentage of their fee to support closure. The
following lists the initiatives:
Retirement Plan Improvements--A ``Rule of 70'' was put in
place that allows a laid off

[[Page S12389]]

employee to retire if their age and years of service equal at
least 70 and the employee is less than age 50. This was
reduced from the ``Rule of 80.'' This reduction results in an
investment of tens of millions of dollars in additional
retirement benefits provided to workers. The Rule of 70
allows employees access to retiree medical coverage. Upon
layoff, they will be eligible for a reduced pension benefit
which they have the option of taking in a lump sum
distribution.
Robust Workforce Transition Program--This program was
implemented to provide many services, including an onsite
Career Transition Center, job search training, resume
development, counseling, job fairs, and financial planning.
Approximately 2000-2500 people took advantage of this program
over the last two years.
Severance Pay for Steelworkers--Lump sum severance pay was
provided for steelworkers. Workers receive one week severance
pay for every year of service up to 20 years plus an
additional lump sum amount. 313 workers received a $5,000
lump sum payment and 358 workers received $7,000. (The amount
was increased in October 2004).
Bonuses--880 steelworkers received up to $4,200 in
performance bonuses. 365 salaried employees receive several
thousands in bonuses as well. On-the-spot bonuses are also
provided.
Improved Savings Plan--The 401(k) program was revised to
allow hourly steelworkers employees immediate plan
participation, and a Company match after 1 year of service.
This of course is in addition to traditional pension program.
Enhanced Tuition Reimbursement Program--This program
provides funds for education and retraining in non site
specific careers for employees. This is available for two
years after an employee is terminated.
Entrepreneurial Resource Program--This program provides up
to $5000 assistance for new business endeavors.
Leave Incentives--This program removes caps on paid leave
accrual, which allows employees to bank unused vacation time;
this provides employees with the opportunity to build an
additional financial cushion.
Relocation Incentives--This is provided for those who
relocate to another DOE site. Actual cost or $5,000 is
available. This is available for two years after an employee
is terminated.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I say this: This was anticipated.
Compensation for early termination was negotiated and agreed upon. And
at whatever date you choose, some will be out of it, and some will be
in it.
So I note this: In the Deficit Reduction Act we just completed
yesterday, we had a lot of talk about the fiscal situation in which
this country finds itself. There was debate about the hard choices we
face as a nation so we do not burden our children and grandchildren
with obligations that, in retrospect, were not wise.
I respect my colleague from Colorado as much as I respect any Senator
in the Senate. I commend the workers at Rocky Flats for what has been
achieved. I am proud of that. But I believe, as we face this amendment
as written, the concerns of the Department of Energy are legitimate,
principled concerns. They are not skinflinty concerns, mean-spirited
concerns, but a genuine concern that this is not a road we need to go
down.
What if we agree to build so many aircraft and we cut that number in
half? We do that every day. The number of ships, contracts are
terminated based on the terms of those contracts, and closure penalties
are paid, and we go on. We do not need to have the politicians come in
and redo those.
So I respect my colleague from Colorado. As written, I am of the
belief the Department of Energy's concerns are justified; therefore, I
must reject and ask my colleagues to not support this amendment.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama yields the floor.
The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to respond briefly, if I may.
First of all, I would like to state for the record, I was the
chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee on Armed Services before my good
friend and colleague from Alabama took over that responsibility. I
congratulate him for a job well done. There are some very difficult
issues relating to cleanup. Rocky Flats is the first major nuclear
facility in the country that has been cleaned up. This program has not
been moved forward like it should be moving forward. I think it is
important we leave a good taste with the workers because workers at
other plants are obviously going to be watching what happens at Rocky
Flats.
I would like to comment, the $15 million we have in here does not add
to the spending picture. It is out of the savings that comes from early
closure, which is about $600 million. So you can bring it down to about
$575 million. I think that is still a pretty good savings.
My point is, workers at these other nuclear sites, they will be less
willing to buy into these incentive contracts if they feel somehow or
other the members cannot get health insurance and life insurance. We
already have limited this amendment. We limit it to health insurance.
How would you like to be a citizen out there shopping for health
insurance, being exposed to radiation to one degree or another for 15
years? Insurance companies do not insure those kinds of risks. So it is
tough. For life insurance, it is the same thing because the incidence
of cancer and everything is well known. It is elevated whenever there
is increased exposure to radiation, particularly in the amounts we are
talking about being handled out there in Rocky Flats. They do not care
whether it is a little amount of exposure or a lot of exposure. A
little amount of exposure would not be a problem with a lot of them,
but it is the same concern that comes out of the insurance company;
they do not try to differentiate.
So we have workers out there, and we are just talking about their
health insurance and life insurance. I think that it is a small price
to pay to be fair to these workers.
My hope is we can continue to negotiate with the Department of
Energy. I hope we continue to negotiate with the staff and my good
friend from Alabama. Perhaps maybe we can tighten this down if we have
to, but we have already tightened it down a lot. We have it listed to a
very specific group of employees from certain dates. We have tightened
it down just to insurance and health benefits and nothing else. But we
will look and work with them to see if perhaps maybe we can find a
different way so we do not set a precedent. I am sensitive to that,
that we do not set an unfair precedent. But we have to be fair to the
workers, too.
I thank the Armed Services Committee and my good friend from Alabama.
I know they have some real concerns. They have shown a willingness to
want to work with us, so I thank them for that gesture.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I say to my colleague, maybe there is
something that can be worked out. I look forward to continuing
discussions.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields the floor.
Does the Senator from Colorado yield back?
Mr. ALLARD. I yield the floor, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.

Amendment No. 2427

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of
myself and Senator Levin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for Mr. Levin,
for himself and Mr. Reed, proposes an amendment numbered
2427.

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

(Purpose: To make available, with an offset, an additional $50,000,000
for Operation and Maintenance for Cooperative Threat Reduction)

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

SEC. 330. ADDITIONAL AMOUNT FOR COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION
PROGRAMS.

(a) Increased Amount for Operation and Maintenance,
Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs.--The amount authorized
to be appropriated by section 301(19) for the Cooperative
Threat Reduction programs is hereby increased by $50,000,000.
(b) Offset.--Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by
section 201(4) for research, development, test, and
evaluation, Defense-wide activities, is hereby reduced by
$50,000,000, with the amount of the reduction to be allocated
as follows:
(1) The amount available in Program Element 0603882C for
long lead procurement of Ground-Based Interceptors is hereby
reduced by $30,000,000.
(2) The amount available for initial construction of
associated silos is hereby reduced by $20,000,000.

[[Page S12390]]

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kerry,
Senator Feingold, and Senator Lautenberg be added as cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, we have spent the last several days making
difficult decisions about national priorities with respect to spending.
We also have to continue to make these difficult decisions within the
context of the Defense bill.
The amendment I propose today, along with Senator Levin and my
colleagues, would transfer $50 million from the Missile Defense Program
to the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. I believe this amendment
properly reallocates scarce resources so we can deal with an immediate
threat. That immediate threat is the proliferation of nuclear materials
and nuclear weapons.
When President Bush first took office in 2001, he made missile
defense one of his highest priorities. Since fiscal year 2002,
approximately $45 billion has been spent on missile defense. In fact,
this represents a huge amount. If you look back to 1984, when President
Reagan began the search for a strategic defense initiative--we have
spent, since President Bush took office, half again the amount of money
that was spent from 1984 to 2002. This has been a huge program.
It has been named as a priority by the President. In fact, the
Missile Defense Agency, as a result, rushed to field a system--any
system--in fact, a system that many claim--and it seems to be the
case--does not work very well.
So last year, six ground-based interceptors were placed in silos at
Fort Greely in Alaska. Two interceptors were placed in silos in
Vandenberg Air Force Base. In September 2004, President Bush declared
that this missile system was operational. A seventh interceptor was put
in place at Fort Greely last month.
Now, one of the critical aspects of declaring a system operational,
it seems to me, is successful testing. Unfortunately, this element--
successful testing--seems to be absent from the present ground-based
system. In fact, it is highly questionable whether this is at all
operational.
In missile defense, interceptor tests are critical, and they should
involve a real missile intercepting a real target. These tests are the
only means to truly assess whether a missile defense system has a
chance to work against an enemy missile.
The first intercept flight test of the system was conducted in
December 2002, and it was a failure. Over the next 2 years, seven other
planned tests that were contemplated were canceled because of technical
reasons. In December 2004, 3 months after the missile defense system
was declared operational--3 months after we supposedly had a working
system--the Missile Defense Agency conducted only the second integrated
flight test on this multibillion dollar system. It failed. On February
14, 2005, there was another integrated flight test, and it, too,
failed.
After three consecutive failures, Lieutenant General Obering, the
Director of the Missile Defense Agency, established an Independent
Review Team to examine test failures and recommend steps for improving
the test program. The team made some interesting observations. The
team's report stated:

With the focus on rapid deployment of the Ground-based
Midcourse Defense system, there was not always adequate
opportunity to fully ground test the system prior to each
flight attempt.

The team also found:

Schedule has been the key challenge that drives daily
decision making in the program.

What you have here today has been a rush to failure, a succession of
flight test failures, a premature declaration of operational
characteristics of the system. No one will argue that the development,
in a deliberate way and in a technically feasible way, of a missile
defense system is not a good thing for the country, but what has
happened over the last several years has been this rush to failure.
In addition to the evaluation team I previously mentioned, General
Obering requested RADM Kate Paige to direct a Mission Readiness Task
Force to study the review team's recommendations and put the program on
a path to success.
This task force made the following recommendation:

There will be a significant increase in ground testing of
all systems, components and processes before resuming flight
testing. Contractors will be held accountable for their
performance. The first flight test will not be an intercept
test and the first intercept test will not take place for
more than a year.
I commend General Obering and the Missile Defense Agency for
implementing these recommendations, for realistically assessing their
technical capacity, for realistically beginning to test on the ground
before they fly, for doing the things that are both prudent and
necessary in this regard. The next interceptor flight test is not
scheduled until a year from now, so we will not know until fiscal year
2007 whether the problems that led to the past test failures have been
fixed.
Let me evaluate where we are. We presently have nine interceptors in
the ground, but we do not know if they will work because we have not
had a fully successful flight test. In addition, the administration has
requested and Congress has provided most of the money for 30 more
interceptors. So we have nine in the ground which we have not
adequately tested, and we have also, through the President's request
and the majority's concurrence, purchased 30 more of these
interceptors. Yet in the President's fiscal year 2006 budget request,
he requested long lead funding for an additional 10 operational
interceptors. These are in addition to 30 interceptors we are already
buying on top of the 9 we have in the ground, all of which have not
been adequately tested.
Furthermore, it must be noted there is also the issue of production
rate capacity. Production rate capacity for the interceptor is 1 per
month, or 12 per year. That means the Defense Department is seeking
funding for more missiles than can be built in 1 year.
As we all know, this is an annual authorization process. There is no
need to pay for more interceptors than can be built in 1 year,
especially when there is no guarantee that any of them will work in
operational circumstances.
At this point the responsible thing to do is to slow down funding and
reallocate the money to a more pressing threat. That is what this
amendment does. This amendment takes $30 million from the long lead
procurement for more interceptors and $20 million for funding for
initial construction of silos to house these interceptors and increases
funding for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program by $50 million. As
we all know, the goal of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program is to
eliminate the threat of unsecured nuclear material from falling into
the wrong hands.
A 2001 task force, chaired by former Senator Howard Baker and former
White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler, studied nonproliferation programs for
almost a year and concluded:

The most urgent unmet national security threat to the U.S.
today is the danger that weapons of mass destruction or
weapons-usable material in Russia could be stolen and sold to
terrorists or hostile nation states and used against American
troops abroad or citizens at home.

That was before September 11. Certainly since September 11, this
warning is much more ominous and should be much more closely followed.
It is estimated that Russia has approximately 16,000 nuclear weapons
stored at 150 to 210 sites. Only about 25 percent of these sites have
received any upgrades for security in the past 5 years. At the rate
planned in the fiscal year 2006 budget request, it would be around 2011
or 2012 before work at only a portion of the sites would be completed
to bring them up to the levels of security and safety that we would
feel confident this nuclear material would not be stolen, misplaced, or
somehow diverted into the wrong hands.
Because of the agreement between President Putin and President Bush
at the February summit in Bratislava, we have a unique opportunity to
improve security at an additional 15 sites. The problem, of course, is
funding. The cost of securing these 15 sites is $350 million, funding
that is not in this budget. This project deserves top priority. This
amendment provides some funding--not complete funding--$50 million
toward securing nuclear material.
As I have said before, I support the concept and, deployment of a
system

[[Page S12391]]

that has been tested and truly works for national missile defense. I
think it is a system we should pursue. But I also believe the Missile
Defense Agency is more than adequately funded for its fiscal year 2006
mission, and some money can and should be diverted to more pressing
needs without harming this missile defense program.
This amendment does not affect the funding or deployment of the first
30 ground-based interceptors. They will continue to be built and
deployed. Again, this is all in a situation in which we haven't had a
truly effective, complete flight test of even the first missiles we
have acquired.
This amendment does not touch $53 million included in the bill for
long lead funding for eight test missiles. It is essential to produce
these missiles for testing.
This amendment simply takes into account that only 12 interceptors
can be produced in a year so the funding for the 6 that cannot be used
should be reallocated to the dire threat of nuclear proliferation so
that no one, no terrorist, can obtain nuclear material or a nuclear
device because we have been negligent in securing those materials along
with other countries, and use those weapons against our soldiers in the
field or citizens here at home.
We have an obligation. The most existential threat that faces this
country is a terrorist, nonstate actor obtaining a nuclear device,
surreptitiously moving into the United States or some other area of
vital interest to the United States, and detonating that device. The
more we do to resist and thwart that threat, the more we are responding
to the true threats that confront this country.
I retain the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will speak in opposition to this
amendment, but to accommodate a colleague who has remained on the
floor, I yield such time as the distinguished Senator from Colorado, a
former member of our committee, former expert on our committee on this
subject, needs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I miss the leadership on the committee and
the committee. I like to stay involved in many of the issues the
committee is still working on because of the importance of the many
military installations in my own State and because it is good for the
country.
I have some problems with the amendment proposed by Senators Levin
and Reed. The first is it is reducing a program that has already been
reduced at $1 billion by the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2006
and over a longer period of time, from 2006 to 2007, for a total of up
to $5 billion in this very vital program for our Nation's security.
The other concern I have is, the money they are taking here is going
to another program that hasn't spent all the money we gave it last
fiscal year. I don't see a need, when they haven't spent all their
money in the previous year.
I talk about the program itself because I think sometimes this
amendment brings up where we are going in missile defense and some of
the questions there. I understand the amendment eliminates $30 million
for long lead funding for ground-based interceptor missile defense and
then $20 million for associated silo construction. Currently, we have
nine ground based-interceptors emplaced to protect the United States
against a long-term limited ballistic missile attack. The $50 million
is supposed to be transferred to what we call the Cooperative Threat
Reduction Program, which is fully funded in the bill we have before us
and is $7 million more than we had last year. My understanding is the
same program last year had $107 million in unobligated funds remaining
after the 2005 fiscal year. So an additional $1.6 billion is funded for
DOE nonproliferation programs in addition to this. I think we have put
plenty of money in that area.
We do have a need in missile defense, and we should not back away
from our plan or obligation to develop missile defense because of
threats that we potentially could have from countries such as North
Korea and Iran, for example. This amendment unnecessarily delays by 1
year the fielding of the ground-based interceptors scheduled for 2009.
We simply cannot afford to delay it any more because we do have real
and imminent dangers as based on the testimony from General Cartwright,
Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command. I do believe North Korea is a
threat. We have already had testimony a number of years back from the
Director of Intelligence that missiles launched out of Korea have the
capability of reaching our west coast. Now North Korea is ready to
flight test another ICBM that many of us feel--and we have been
informed--will reach the United States. Iran may have such a capability
in 2015, according to the DIA. So we are facing a real threat.
We have already acted on this issue in the Defense appropriations
bill. The long lead funding for ground-based interceptors 31 through 40
was included in this year's fiscal year 2006 Defense appropriations
bill. And in the report language, the bill added $200 million to the
budget request ``to maintain the production schedule for ground-based
interceptors.''
With this amendment, we are backing off of that commitment we put in
the appropriations bill. I don't think we should run counter to the
Defense appropriations bill.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for bringing that
point up. He is on that committee.
Mr. ALLARD. I am.
Mr. WARNER. Therefore, you were participating at the time this took
place.
Mr. ALLARD. That is correct.
Mr. WARNER. And were the Senate to accede to the Reed amendment, it
would, in effect, be overruling or reversing what the Appropriations
Committee, through the conference report, will presumably bring before
the Senate in a matter of days.
Mr. ALLARD. That is right. We would be reversing the Senate action on
that. I appreciate the chairman emphasizing that point.
I do think it is important that we move ahead. Myself and two other
members on the Armed Services Committee made a special trip out to the
southern part of the test bed. We went to where they were launching the
target missile. We have had a few failures, but you learn from
failures. Our testing is not intended to be 100 percent successful. It
is spiral development. We are pushing the system to its limits.
Occasionally you learn from failures. We have had four successful
prototype launches, and of the operationally configured booster we now
have, we have had three successful flights. One of the problems we have
in some of these tests is the target we were supposed to be launching
wasn't launching. So we made a special trip to look at what was
happening with missile defense in the southern part of the test bed.
I have to tell you, it is very impressive. There are three aspects to
it. There is short range, midrange and long range. The role of the
naval forces in this program is very impressive. Ground forces are
coming along. Now we are working on some of the longer range missiles
through the Air Force. I was impressed.
The target missile, unfortunately, the first time it didn't launch
was because of a computer glitch. That has been corrected. The second
one was because you had the wrong part in the wrong place and the arms,
when they were supposed to retract for the missile, didn't come back
all the way so the missile didn't launch. This was human error, things
that were errors that should not have happened. They have been
corrected. It didn't have to do with new technology. It is things we
have had. We have been launching for years missiles out of silos, and
this was the wrong part in the wrong place at the wrong time so launch
did not occur.
We have run into these kind of things. Hopefully, they don't happen
again. Fundamentally, the technology is there. We need to rely on it.
The threat is there, and we need to be prepared for it.
I rise in opposition to the Levin-Reed amendment and thank Chairman
Warner for giving me an opportunity to make a few comments in this
regard.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we thank our former member, the Senator
from Colorado.
Would the Chair kindly advise the managers as to the time remaining
on both sides for this amendment?

[[Page S12392]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 22 minutes remaining in opposition
and 20 minutes in favor.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at this time I would like to grant time to
our distinguished colleague from Alabama, a member of the Armed
Services Committee, bearing in mind it is the desire of the manager to
leave time for Monday. There are other colleagues on our side who wish
to speak in opposition. We are pleased he will take the time to join
us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
notified at 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment that would
eliminate $50 million in long lead funding for missiles 31 to 40 of the
ground-based interceptor, a key component of the missile defense system
protecting the United States against limited long-range ballistic
missile attack. Senators Levin and Reed have argued these funds would
be better spent on the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat
Reduction Program, but it is already fully funded at $415 million.
I don't believe they have spent all of their previous appropriations,
and we are being asked to make a choice between these two issues.
In addition to authorizing the requested $415 million for the
Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, the bill
provides $1.6 billion for the Department of Energy nonproliferation
programs. We have a lot of money being spent in these issues. These
accounts are fully funded. They were not reduced. They do not need
additional funding, especially not by taking money from our ballistic
missile defense system.
While CTR is fully funded, it is important, please, to note that the
Department of Defense, in its last-minute preparations of the 2006
budget, bit the bullet. They had some tough decisions to make, and they
made a decision that I regretted but one I guess I would acknowledge
and yield to, to make significant cuts in our missile defense program.
This year's request represents a $1 billion reduction, while the
Missile Defense Agency has programmed a $5 billion overall reduction in
years 2006 through 2011. So the Department of Defense did not reduce
the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program and fully funded it, but they
did make cuts in missile defense of a significant amount.
The $50 million identified as an offset for this amendment
specifically targets the long-lead funding for ground-based interceptor
missiles 31 through 40 and associated silo construction. These missiles
are scheduled for manufacture in 2007, in the 2007 timeframe, for
deployment in 2009 and 2010 to actually be deployed. Eliminating these
funds would delay fielding this important defensive capability even
while our intelligence and military officials tell us there is a near-
term threat. Additionally, the amendment would cause a break in the GBI
ground-based interceptor production line that would cost some $270
million to restart, according to General Obering.
I want to make that clear. This is the problem we are dealing with.
We have cut that budget significantly. We have tightened up the missile
defense budget. We have reduced it $1 billion a year, $5 billion in 5
years, but if we cut it any more, as this amendment suggests, we will
break the production line that is ongoing today because if a
manufacturer can't keep his employees producing at least a minimum
number of missiles, then the assembly line breaks, and under the
contracts and other ramifications, General Obering has estimated that
it would cost some $270 million to restart that line.
The sponsors of this amendment argue that these missiles have not
been sufficiently proven through operational testing, and they point to
recent test difficulties as evidence that further procurement of GBIs
is unwise at this time.
While I believe the GMD system requires additional testing--we are
going to have additional testing, we must have additional testing--I
would argue that the Missile Defense Agency has conducted sufficient
ground and flight intercept testing over the past 5 years to provide
the confidence necessary to acquire the basic ground-based interceptors
on the current schedule.
I would point out that in fiscal year 2004, the annual report to
Congress by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation notes that
``the test bed architecture is now in place and should have some
limited capability to defend against a threat missile from North
Korea.''
The independent review team, established by the Missile Defense
Agency to investigate the test problems, found that recent test
problems are attributable to quality control factors rather than the
basic technology necessary to hit a missile with a missile. In fact, it
has been proven. For example, between 2001 and 2002, MDA conducted four
out of five successful intercept tests using a GBI prototype, while in
2003 and 2004, MDA conducted three successful test flights with the GBI
booster.
According to the director of MDA, it is unlikely we will discover
something in our testing in the next year or 2 that would require any
major redesign of the system.
With respect to the threat that we face, General Cartwright, the
commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, has testified before the Armed
Services Committee that ``we have a realistic threat. We have an
imperative.''
The Director of Central Intelligence has testified that the North
Korean Taepo Dong 2 missile is capable of reaching the United States
with a nuclear warhead and that North Korea could resume flight testing
at any time.
The Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency confirmed this
assessment as recently as April 28 in a hearing before the Senate Armed
Services Committee, and he has testified separately that Iran will have
the capability to develop an intercontinental missile by 2015.
In closing, I ask for your support for the continuing production of
the GBIs through missile No. 40 by defeating this amendment. The GBI
production line has been stretched to the limit by slowing production
to some 8 to 10 missiles a year, the result of Congressional actions
last year. Moreover, General Obering recently announced plans to divert
another four operational GBIs. Denying additional funding for
additional missiles will break the assembly line.
Mr. President, I would oppose this amendment. I respect my colleagues
but feel that we should not break the assembly line at the time.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, speaking on my time under my control on
this amendment, I wish to express my opposition to this Levin-Reid
amendment would transfer $50 million from the Ground-based Midcourse
Defense, GMD, program to the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. The
impact of this amendment would be, first and foremost, to delay the
fielding of ballistic missile defense capabilities to protect the U.S.
homeland against the threat posed by long-range ballistic missiles; and
secondly, to cause a break in the production of ground-based
interceptors, GBIs--a production break that would cost the government
$270 million to restart.

While I agree with the sponsors of this amendment that the
Cooperative Threat Reduction Program is an important national security
initiative, the defense of our homeland against the growing threat of
long-range ballistic missiles is equally, if not more, important.
Asking us to choose between missile defense protection and CTR is a
false choice: we need to do both. And, in fact, this bill fully funds
the President's requested amount for both programs.
The bill before the Senate authorizes the requested amount of $415.5
million for CTR programs within the Department of Defense, and $1.6
billion for other non-proliferation efforts in the Department of
Energy. There is no current need for extra CTR funds; in fact, the CTR
program has an unobligated balance of some $100 million. With a backlog
in spending, it is hard to understand why the proponents of this
amendment think that more money is needed at this time for the CTR
program.
The President's budget for missile defense, on the other hand, has
already

[[Page S12393]]

taken its share of cuts. Due to last minute decisions made at the
Pentagon as the fiscal year 2006 budget was being finalized, the
missile defense budget request was reduced by $1 billion in fiscal year
2006, and $5 billion overall between fiscal year 2006 and 2011.
Sponsors of this amendment argue that we should not provide long-lead
funding for GBI missiles 31-40 because of recent test failures. I am
mindful of the recent difficulties encountered by the GMD system test
program, but in my view--and that of independent test authorities--
these difficulties do not represent serious technological hurdles for
the GMD program. Indeed, such problems are to be expected during the
research and development phase of complicated weapon systems.
To get at the root cause of these testing problems, the Director of
the Missile Defense Agency, to his great credit, commissioned an
independent review team, IRT, to examine these recent GMD test
failures. The IRT found no fundamental GMD system design flaws related
to the recent test failures. Moreover, the IRT found no evidence that
major modifications of the current system hardware or software will be
required. In other words, it is unlikely that future testing will find
some major fault in the system that will require a costly retrofit to
fielded GBIs.
For those of my colleagues concerned about testing, I point out that
this bill before you contains a provision--developed in a bipartisan
fashion during the committee's markup--which requires the Missile
Defense Agency, the service operational test agencies, and the Director
of Operational Test and Evaluation to plan and conduct tests that
demonstrate the operational capability of the ballistic missile defense
system. The bill also reallocates $100 million from longer term
development efforts to GMD testing, consistent with the recommendations
of the independent review team.
The current and growing threat posed to our country by long-range
ballistic missiles argues for proceeding without delay with the
Department's approach of concurrent testing and fielding of ballistic
missile defense capabilities for the homeland.
Some of my colleagues suggest that because the current system is not
fully proven, we should not procure additional missile interceptors. To
this I would respond that General Cartwright, Commander of U.S.
Strategic Command--the senior military official charged with advising
the Secretary of Defense and the President on missile defense matters--
has testified, with respect to the current GMD system, that ``in an
emergency, we are in fact in the position that we are confident that we
can operate and employ it.''
In addition, the Pentagon's chief independent weapons tester, the
Director for Operational Test and Evaluation, noted in his most recent
Annual Report to Congress that ``the test bed architecture is now in
place and should have some limited capability to defend against a
threat missile from North Korea.''
In my view, it is a good thing that we have some capability--albeit
limited--to defend the homeland against long range missiles. For as
General Cartwright testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee
in April, ``we have a realistic threat here; we have an imperative.''
General Cartwright is referring to CIA and DIA estimates that the
North Korean Taepo-Dong 2 ballistic missile is capable of reaching the
United States with a nuclear warhead--and that North Korea could resume
flight testing of the Taepo-Dong 2 at any time. The Defense
Intelligence Agency also estimates that Iran will have the capability
to develop intercontinental ballistic missile, IBCM, by 2015.
We simply can't wait until the threat is upon us to deploy missile
defenses; we can't wait until the GMD system is fully and completely
tested before we start providing some measure of protection against
this threat. It is our responsibility to field what capabilities
currently exist, even while we continue to test and improve the system.
By continuing to field missile defenses today, we send a message to
potential adversaries that we will not be deterred or coerced by their
possession of long-range ballistic missiles.
In summary, I ask my colleagues to reject the amendment offered by
Senator Levin. This amendment would needlessly delay the fielding of a
ballistic missile defense capability to protect the homeland. As the
Commander of STRATCOM warns, the threat is real. We must continue on
the current path of fielding available capabilities--even while testing
continues to improve the system over time.
Mr. President, at this time I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

Amendment No. 2430

(Purpose: To establish a national commission on policies and practices
on the treatment of detainees since September 11, 2001)

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, I thank my dear friend from Virginia
for his invariable courtesies. We have brought a bill to the floor,
finally, which I will have much more to say on Monday, but at this time
I simply would call up an amendment that is at the desk. I think it is
No. 2430.
I would make inquiry of the Chair as to whether I need to lay aside
any pending amendments in order to do that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does need to lay aside pending
amendments.
Mr. LEVIN. In that case, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the
pending amendment and to call up amendment 2430.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] proposes an amendment
numbered 2430.

(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I introduce this amendment on behalf of
Senators Reed of Rhode Island, Kennedy, Rockefeller, Bingaman, Boxer,
and Durbin, and I ask unanimous consent that they be added as
cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. The amendment would establish an independent commission on
the treatment of detainees in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo, and
elsewhere. This would be modeled after the bipartisan 9/11 Commission,
which was an independent commission that we all recognize as being an
extremely successful commission. This bipartisan independent commission
would examine U.S. policies and practices related to the treatment of
detainees, including their detention, interrogation, and rendition. It
would also examine the causes of detainee abuses and assess the
responsibility of military and civilian leaders within and outside the
Department of Defense for policies, actions, and failures to act which
may have contributed to such abuse. It would also evaluate the
effectiveness and propriety of interrogation techniques and practices
for producing intelligence. The independent commission would report on
its findings and recommendations to the President and to the Congress.
Mr. President, our troops serve honorably, they serve courageously
across the globe. Their honor is besmirched when some of those who we
capture are abused. And on top of that our troops' security is
jeopardized when people that we detain are not treated as we rightfully
insist others treat our troops when they are captured.
The amendment that we are proposing today will help reaffirm the
values that we cherish as Americans, will help to reestablish our
credibility around the world, and will help to protect our troops
should they be captured.
When Secretary Rumsfeld appeared before the Senate Armed Services
Committee on May 7, 2004, shortly after the horrific pictures of Abu
Ghraib appeared in the media, he asked the world to ``judge us by our
actions.'' Those were his words. And he went on to say, telling
everybody, ``watch how a democracy deals with wrongdoing and with
scandal and the pain of acknowledging and correcting our own mistakes
and our own weaknesses.'' Secretary Rumsfeld asked all who were
watching and within the sound of his voice to ask those who would
spread hatred of America if ``the willingness of Americas to
acknowledge their own failures before humanity doesn't like the world
as surely as the great ideas and beliefs that make this nation a beacon
of hope and liberty for all who strive to be free.''

[[Page S12394]]

Secretary Rumsfeld's words were direct and they were right. It is
important to our efforts to defeat terrorism that the United States
investigate itself openly and thoroughly. That is the standard by which
we and our causes will be judged and should be judged.
In nearly 2 years since Specialist Darby courageously came forward to
report the abuses at Abu Ghraib, the Defense Department has had every
opportunity to investigate itself. But the results have fallen far
short of the standard that Secretary Rumsfeld set up. Some seek to
downplay the significance of these detainee abuses, arguing at the
start that they were the result of aberrant behavior of a few rogue
reserve Military Police on the night shift at Abu Ghraib, but with each
successive of Department of Defense report it has become increasingly
clear that the claim that these were the isolated acts of a few rogue
reserve MPs does not explain the causes and the factors contributing to
detainee abuse, and it does not explain the scope of those abuses.
There have been a number of Department of Defense reviews--8, 10, 12,
pick a number. Every one of them has failed to provide a comprehensive
picture of the extent and the causes of detainee abuses, and put
together, they don't come close to a comprehensive picture of the
extent and causes of detainee abuses.
Every one of those reviews and investigations of detainee abuse has
been carefully circumscribed, leaving significant gaps and omissions.
I want to go through some of the gaps and omissions of these
investigations because we are going to hear on the floor that there
have been 10, there have been 12 reviews--whatever the number; you can
count them different ways--but when you put them all together, there
are massive gaps. That cannot be allowed to remain.
First, we don't know the role of the CIA and other parts of the
intelligence community in the mistreatment of detainees or what
policies apply to those intelligence personnel. Witness after witness
who was in charge of these reviews has told us they had no jurisdiction
to look into the intelligence community's mistreatment of detainees or
what their role is. They all disclaim the capability, the competence,
or the authority to look into the role of the intelligence community,
which we know from public statement after public statement of people
who have been found guilty and not found guilty, people who were
pictured in these pictures at Abu Ghraib, that the intelligence
personnel told them to soften up detainees. Yet gap No. 1, the policies
of intelligence communities, their activities, their involvement, has
not been reviewed.
Second, we don't know what the policies and practices are of the
United States regarding the rendition of detainees to other countries,
where they may be interrogated using techniques that would not be
permitted at U.S. detention facilities.
Third, there is insufficient information, almost total lack, on the
role of contractors in U.S. detention and intelligence operations. We
are using contractors to interrogate detainees. What is their role?
There is total silence, a total gap on their role, with all these
reports we have.
Fourth, the detention and interrogation of detainees by special
operation forces, that needs close examination.
Fifth, and this is one of the largest gaps of all, all of the
unanswered questions regarding the legality under U.S. and
international law of the interrogation techniques used by Department of
Defense personnel, regardless of whether they were authorized or not
authorized by a higher authority. We have sought for a year or more the
two key documents that set forth the standards to be used in
interrogation that were approved by the Department of Justice. We
cannot get the Office of Legal Counsel documents.
These issues are not going to go away. They can't be swept under the
rug. With each passing day, we have new revelations of detainee abuses.
Courageous and honorable soldiers, such as Captain Fishback, come
forward--just a few weeks ago now--with new allegations of mistreatment
of prisoners, of confusion over what policies applied, and commanders
who appear to have condoned this behavior. He was there. He is speaking
out publicly.
There is not a week that goes by that there is not a revelation. We
have to get an independent investigation going so that we can refer
allegations to an independent commission, to put it in the hands of a
bipartisan group.
These revelations only serve to further undermine our international
standing and put our troops at risk of being treated similarly should
they be captured. That is why a group of retired generals and admirals
wrote to the President in September 2004 calling for an independent
commission to investigate the treatment of detainees.
So we have a significant group of retired military leaders saying we
must have an independent commission. That is why the American Bar
Association has endorsed an independent commission.
The administration, I know, opposes this, just the way they have
opposed Senator McCain's amendment and Senator Graham's amendment that
will get us into the future as to what future standards there are. The
administration doesn't want to look at the history. They are wrong. Let
the chips fall where they may, wherever that may be. It will benefit
everybody.
Most importantly, it will benefit the men and women who wear the
uniform of the United States. They are entitled to have their honor.
They deserve their honor. They deserve an independent commission which
will look at how this happened and prove to the world this is not us.
Whatever it is, whatever the policies were, whatever the practices
were, we are willing to look them straight in the face and say: We are
going to correct that. We are not going to hide it. We are not going to
run away from it. We are not going to sweep it under the rug. We are
going to look it square in the face. We are going to fill the gaps.
Those gaps are huge. No matter how often it is stated that we have
had 8 or 10 reviews, it does not fill the gaps because of the limits
placed on those reviews and the gaps that were left.
Mr. President, how much time do I have on this amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 18 minutes remaining.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Rhode Island.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will yield a few
minutes to me before he departs the floor?
There are evolving aspects with regard to the underlying goal of this
amendment, as he and I speak, on information which is circulating which
goes to how the administration dealt with these issues.
I am going to reserve until Monday exactly the approach the Senator
from Virginia is going to take. I wish to consult with a number of my
colleagues in that connection. But I wish to point out two things.
The Senator from Michigan said we should face--speaking, of course,
to the committee but also the United States and colleagues in the
Senate--this issue square on. I know my distinguished friend and
colleague of so many years would say, by virtue of him and me being the
two principal cosponsors of the McCain amendment, that we are within
the rights of this committee facing certain aspects of this issue head
on as it relates to the future conduct of this country.
I also hope at some point in our debate that we can address the very
valuable contribution that two individuals, together with the staff and
a third member of the commission--namely, former Secretary of Defense
Schlesinger and former Secretary of Defense Harold Brown. Each of those
extraordinary men--and I have been privileged to know and work with
each of them quite closely through the years. Actually, I served under
three Secretaries of Defense when I was in the Navy Department as
Secretary, and one of them, the last, was Secretary Schlesinger. He
remains to this day one of my closest confidantes and advisers on a
wide range of issues.
Harold Brown, my colleague, the Senator from Michigan, will recall, I
sponsored--and I think the Senator from Michigan joined me when I was
on the Intelligence Committee in an overall review of our intelligence.
The first chairman of that commission was a distinguished former Member
of Congress, Les Aspin, and then, following his untimely death, Harold
Brown. I

[[Page S12395]]

was the one who recommended he take over the work on that commission,
on which I was privileged to serve as a member.
A lot of things have been done to address the issue, which is the
goal of this amendment. Again, I am going to reserve until Monday just
how I am going to further approach this issue, but I wanted to bring
those two points up should the Senator from Michigan wish to comment on
either.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I do appreciate that, and I will take 1
minute to respond.
The chairman very properly points out that there was a Schlesinger
panel. That panel said the following relative to the lack of
cooperation from the CIA with the panel, which is gap No. 1 I have
listed as one of the reasons we need an independent commission. The
Schlesinger panel said the following:

The panel did not have full access to information involving
the role of the Central Intelligence Agency in detention
operations. This is an area the panel believes needs further
investigation and review.

I agree they did good work, but they were limited in what they were
allowed to do, and they themselves recommended further investigation
and review.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. The order has it that the distinguished Senator from
Rhode Island will now continue his contribution to the Levin amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Levin amendment,
which establishes a commission to look into the treatment of detainees
by our national security forces.
Let me say as an initial point, I am a strong supporter of the
McCain-Graham amendment which would clarify the law. But the issues we
are confronting today with respect to Abu Ghraib and with respect to
other notorious incidents is not simply a failure of law, a failure of
lacking legal precedent; it is a failure of leadership and a failure of
institutions. Unless we look carefully, objectively, and independently
at this leadership and these institutions, we will be bound to repeat
the mistakes of the past several years. I urge my colleagues to support
the Levin amendment.
What prompts me to support this amendment is the belief and
understanding that the treatment of our soldiers on the battlefield is
a function of how we treat our opponents. If we do not have high
standards of treatment, then we cannot make the moral claim that our
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines should be similarly treated.
I understand the nature of our adversaries might reject those claims,
might reject standards, but if we reject those standards, then our
ability to protect our soldiers is diminished substantially.
I think also one just has to take note of the events of the last
several years and understand that not only is there a legal and moral
premise to our use of suitable standards of conduct, there is a very
practical one. The incidents of Abu Ghraib, the reports of abuse of
prisoners, have been a disastrous situation with respect to our
progress in the Middle East. It is harming our efforts to convince
people that we are there not to exploit them, not to abuse them, but to
try to lift them up.
It is essential we get to the heart of these failures of leadership,
institutional direction, and policy. I think it is also essential that
we have accountability. One of the essential aspects of any military
organization is accountability. Everyone who enters the military,
particularly an officer, learns that the first rule is they are
responsible for what happens and what fails to happen on their command.
There has been a dearth of accountability when it comes to these issues
of abuse of detainees.
The plan seemed to be from the very beginning to portray this as the
fault of aberrant soldiers. In fact, if we look at those people who
have been prosecuted, those people who have been brought to justice, it
is a handful of enlisted soldiers. We know this process, this approach,
was not simply the result of a few soldiers. It was the result of
decisions that were made at the very highest level.
Today, in the International Herald Tribune, COL Larry Wilkerson, a
former chief of staff to Colin Powell, pointed out that, in his words:
There was a visible audit trail from the Vice President's office to the
Secretary of Defense down to the commanders in the field authorizing
practices that led to the abuse of detainees.
That suggests to me that the evidence has accumulated where we need
to take a good look not just at individual soldiers, not just
compartmental reviews of certain aspects, we have to take the approach
that Senator Levin suggests, a comprehensive review by an independent
panel on the model of the 9/11 Commission to look at how we came to
this point; not just to establish accountability I think that is
principal and important but to ensure that we do not do it again, to
ensure that when we enter into a conflict everyone understands the law,
everyone follows the law. That is to the benefit not only of the
protection of our troops but also to claiming the moral high ground,
aiding our mission, aiding our military forces in the field, by
creating an image in the world that we are bound to the highest
standards and we are not there for self-interest but to help other
people.
If we fail to pursue this commission, we will see a situation where
what has happened in the past will happen again. It will be replicated
time and time again. It will create a terrible situation within our
military forces. It will appear, as it appears now, that the only
people who are punished for these abuses are low-ranking, enlisted
personnel. They bear the brunt, but the officers who directed it, the
officers who could have stopped it, the civilian leaders in our
Government who might have directed it or encouraged it, will walk away.
That is unfair and that is so corrosive that it will undermine our
military forces in the future.
I urge passage of the Levin amendment.
I reserve the remainder of time on our side and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this amendment is one of great importance
and has far-reaching consequences. As I said, as we speak, there are
some facts coming into the public domain. I have no idea of evaluating
their authenticity, but it does, in my judgment, bear on this issue.
Therefore, speaking for myself, we will have further statements
regarding this amendment Monday and quite likely Tuesday before we
vote.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. 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. 2432

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have an amendment to be considered. I
consider it to be perhaps one of the most important amendments. It is
referred to as the train and equip amendment.
What I am not going to do is take a lot of time today talking about
it because in the event there is opposition to it, I want an
opportunity to respond to that opposition.
Primarily, this is what our amendment would do: Under sections 1201
and 1204 of Title XII, it would allow the military to train and equip
some of these countries where we see an opportunity to be using their
resources and their militia as opposed to sending our troops there.
Right now, in order to get it done, the process is one has to go
through the State Department and then the Department of Defense. A good
example is when the U.S. Government wanted to train and equip some of
the Georgia forces for counterterrorism. Seven different authorities
for funding and sources had to be stitched together to make this
effort. It took 8 months. By the time 8 months goes by, the problem is
no longer the same problem it was 8 months before.
What we would do is take existing O&M moneys, $750 million, that we
would be able to use to train and equip in a streamlined way of doing
this.
I will share some personal experiences and then I will yield the
floor. We have been talking about the five African brigades, that we
would be training and equipping various countries in regional areas in
Africa to take care of some of the problems. I am sure

[[Page S12396]]

I am not the only one who has been in Djibouti and worked with our
marines there. I have been very much concerned that they are not able
to do as good a job and as fast a job at training some of the African
forces as they could otherwise.
I have talked to President Museveni of Uganda. There are problems in
the northern part of Uganda where they have adequate troops, but they
are not trained and equipped to protect themselves against the global
war on terrorism and would be dependent upon our troops if that should
happen. It is far better for us to be able to train them than it is for
them to have to be in a situation where they are going in untrained.
I say to my chairman, I visited with my counterpart in Angola. He is
the second ranking member on the armed services committee there,
although it is called something different. His name is Paiza. As we all
know, in Angola they have been undergoing a civil war and there are
endless numbers of troops. They have been bush troops. They have not
been trained to do the kind of defense that would be necessary in our
global war on terrorism. Consequently, what they say they need--they
have the Unita forces, they have their forces on both sides of the
civil war. They need to have an opportunity to train these people.
I also spoke with the President of Burundi 2 weeks ago when I was
there. They had the fighting, as we all know, for a long period of time
between the Hutus and the Tutsis, but they are now united. What they
need, though, is to be able to be trained. I know that General Jones
and others, and certainly Secretary Rumsfeld, feel very strongly that
we need to have a streamlined process where we can go in and train
these guys to do the job that otherwise American troops are going to
have to do.
That is essentially what this is all about. I will wait until Monday
to give a little more complete description of it.
At this time I would like to officially call up the amendment, No.
2432. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and
call up amendment No. 2432 for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] proposes an
amendment numbered 2432.

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

(Purpose: Relating to the partnership security capacity of foreign
military and security forces and security and stabilization assistance)

At the end of title XII, add the following:

SEC. __. BUILDING THE PARTNERSHIP SECURITY CAPACITY OF
FOREIGN MILITARY AND SECURITY FORCES.

(a) Authority.--The President may authorize building the
capacity of partner nations' military or security forces to
disrupt or destroy terrorist networks, close safe havens, or
participate in or support United States, coalition, or
international military or stability operations.
(b) Types of Partnership Security Capacity Building.--The
partnership security capacity building authorized under
subsection (a) may include the provision of equipment,
supplies, services, training, and funding.
(c) Availability of Funds.--The Secretary of Defense may,
at the request of the Secretary of State, support partnership
security capacity building as authorized under subsection (a)
including by transferring funds available to the Department
of Defense to the Department of State, or to any other
Federal agency. Any funds so transferred shall remain
available until expended. The amount of such partnership
security capacity building provided by the Department of
Defense under this section may not exceed $750,000,000 in any
fiscal year.
(d) Congressional Notification.--Before building
partnership security capacity under this section, the
Secretaries of State and Defense shall submit to their
congressional oversight committees a notification of the
nations designated by the President with which partnership
security capacity will be built under this section and the
nature and amounts of security capacity building to occur.
Any such notification shall be submitted not less than 7 days
before the provision of such partnership security capacity
building.
(e) Complementary Authority.--The authority to build
partnership security capacity under this section is in
addition to any other authority of the Department of Defense
to provide assistance to a foreign country.
(f) Military and Security Forces Defined.--In this section,
the term ``military and security forces'' includes armies,
guard, border security, civil defense, infrastructure
protection, and police forces.

SEC. __. SECURITY AND STABILIZATION ASSISTANCE.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, upon a request from the Secretary of State and upon a
determination by the Secretary of Defense that an unforeseen
emergency exists that requires immediate reconstruction,
security, or stabilization assistance to a foreign country
for the purpose of restoring or maintaining peace and
security in that country, and that the provision of such
assistance is in the national security interests of the
United States, the Secretary of Defense may authorize the use
or transfer of defense articles, services, training or other
support, including support acquired by contract or otherwise,
to provide such assistance.
(b) Availability of Funds.--Subject to subsection (a), the
Secretary of Defense may transfer funds available to the
Department of Defense to the Department of State, or to any
other Federal agency, to carry out the purposes of this
section, and funds so transferred shall remain available
until expended.
(c) Limitation.--The aggregate value of assistance provided
or funds transferred under the authority of this section may
not exceed $200,000,000.
(d) Complementary Authority.--The authority to provide
assistance under this section shall be in addition to any
other authority to provide assistance to a foreign country.
(e) Expiration.--The authority in this section shall expire
on September 30, 2006.

Mr. INHOFE. Parliamentary inquiry: Since we have this in proper form
to be treated, are the comments I made to be used as time for the
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That would be an appropriate allocation of
time.
Mr. INHOFE. Can you tell me how much time has been used?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. INHOFE. So it will be 20-some minutes. At this point I yield the
floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. With permission from Senator Warner, I would like to
speak on the issue of this commission and express some comments on
that.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am delighted my distinguished colleague,
a member of the committee, would like to contribute his thoughts on
this very important issue and take such time, I think up to 5 or 6
minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. I ask to be notified in 5 minutes, and I will
definitely try to keep my time within that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator inform the Chair about which
amendment he will be speaking?
Mr. SESSIONS. The Levin-Reed commission suggestion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.

Amendment No. 2427

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, my problem with this matter is that we
have created, through our complaints--and some of it has been
political, frankly--and debates beginning back during the past
election, a determination to embarrass President Bush or undermine,
maybe, even his policies by some; to call for the resignation of the
Secretary of Defense. And all of these matters were taken out of
context and blown up and distorted in a way that I think was
unfortunate. Yes, we have had problems with abuse of prisoners. We
really have. But not nearly as many as would be suggested.
Senator Levin said it seems like it is every week. It has been talked
about every week. Somebody comes up and repeats something that occurs,
and then they repeat it again like it is new. So we are keeping alive a
perception that our military is not performing according to the high
standards that it sets for itself with regard to prisoner abuse. I do
not believe that is so.
I have been there. I have talked to the troops. But it is a tough war
and a tough enemy. It is not great duty. We know what happened in Abu
Ghraib, and I would point out the general there, within 1 day or 2
days--1 day of hearing of the Abu Ghraib problem--commenced an
investigation, and 3 days later announced to the world that we were
conducting an investigation of abuse and did so publicly to the TV,
long before any photographs were ever released because the military,
the Army, did not approve of what went on there.

[[Page S12397]]

They have had an investigation. It was suggested that the higher ups
were responsible for this; interrogation tactics and procedures were
not clear, and that is why all this happened.
I would just ask our colleagues to remember that when the evidence
came out during the prosecution of those individuals, the conviction of
them, and their being sentenced to jail, I point out it was never
suggested that was part of an interrogation technique. These people
were not being interrogated. Most of them were not even members of al-
Qaida. A lot of them are street thugs that had been arrested for normal
criminal behavior. They didn't have any intelligence to give us about
the enemy we were facing over there. So all this that has been
suggested, that we are completely out of control and somehow the
Department of Justice memorandums about what is the maximum ability of
a U.S. office to conduct investigation, somehow that affected that.
Remember Mr. Sivitz, a private, I believe, or a corporal or sergeant,
who pled guilty and was convicted and sentenced to jail? He said our
leaders didn't know what we were doing. If they had known what we were
doing, it would have been hell to pay.
Do you remember the incident of the African-American colonel who had
a sterling career who, in a fire fight, pulled out a gun and fired a
bullet near the head of an individual he had captured to frighten him
to get information he thought might help him save his troops? They
cashiered him out of the Army.
We had case after case of people being disciplined. Over 200 have
been. So this myth has been created that people didn't know what was
going on and were not properly instructed.
We had hearings. I am on Judiciary, and I am on Armed Services in the
Senate. We have House Judiciary and Armed Services and we have Senate
Intelligence and we have Senate and House Intelligence. We have had
over 26 hearings on this issue, more than any other.
We ought to spend some time trying to figure out how to win this war
rather than going back and suggesting to the whole world, by hearing
after hearing, after report after report after commission, that we are
out of control, mistreating prisoners, when it is not so. Our soldiers
are consistently abiding by the Geneva Conventions as they have been
instructed, and they do their duty every day. The Field Manual applies
to men and women in the military, and they know that. That has been
reaffirmed to them with clarity, that that controls the treatment of
the prisoners in Iraq.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. My 5 minutes is up? Mr. President, I will conclude--I
may like to talk about this later on--with a letter from a sergeant
from the Arkansas National Guard who was in Iraq from April 2004 to
March of 2005. He said:

My job was that of fire-team leader, responsible for three
soldiers. We patrolled the streets of Baghdad daily [not a
safe place to be] conducted raids, manned checkpoints, and
cleared houses and other buildings. During our stay we
detained dozens of Iraqis.
So I was somewhat astounded at Capt. Ian Fishback's letter.
. . .

He said he saw beatings, broken bones and other improper treatment of
prisoners. That is inconsistent with my observations--of mine. I will
offer this for the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. SESSIONS. I will quote one paragraph.

We never experienced the confusion that Capt. Fishback and
his soldiers evidently experienced. Our directives were clear
and our approach to treating detainees was consistent: I
never saw a U.S. soldier physically mistreat an Iraqi. I saw
professional treatment of detainees from top to bottom, and I
was proud to be a part of this great combat team.

That is what is going on. That is the reality, in my view, of what is
going on in Iraq. We have subjected ourselves and our soldiers to great
risk because we demanded restraint on their part, and for the most part
they have given us that.
There have been problems. We know that. But we are not allowing them
to continue. We are stopping them and prosecuting people if they have
violated the law, as they should be prosecuted. So I am concerned that
what we do today sends a message to the world that Members of this body
and members of the leadership of the U.S. Government believe that our
military is out of control and that we need some sort of commission to
get them in control.
That is not accurate in my view. We don't need another commission. We
have had at least six, eight or nine major reports, and we have had, of
course, over 20 hearings in the House and Senate. I have been a part of
more of them than I would have wished.
I honestly and truly believe we need to watch our rhetoric and not
demean the fine men and women who are serving us because we sent them
there in harm's way, and they are serving us with fidelity to duty and
the highest degree of professionalism, giving their lives to help the
Iraqi people to have a better life. That is our goal. That is what we
need to keep at. I hope we will remember that as we debate these
subjects.
I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

I am a sergeant in the Arkansas Army National Guard, and I
was in Iraq from April 2004 to March 2005. My job was that of
fire-team leader, responsible for three soldiers. We
patrolled the streets of Baghdad daily, conducted raids,
manned checkpoints, and cleared houses and other buildings.
During our stay in Iraq, we detained dozens of Iraqis.
So I was somewhat astounded at Capt. Ian Fishback's letter
to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) about what he saw and observed
in Iraq concerning beatings, broken bones and other improper
treatment of prisoners [op-ed, Sept. 28]. His experience and
observations are inconsistent with mine.
Our unit was attached to the 1st Cavalry Division. We
worked with active-duty soldiers, and when I moved to a
forward operating base known as Headhunter, I worked every
day with the 1st Cavalry, which I found to be a professional
organization.
We never experienced the confusion that Capt. Fishback and
his soldiers evidently experienced. Our directives were clear
and our approach to treating detainees was consistent: I
never saw a U.S. soldier physically mistreat an Iraqi. I saw
professional treatment of detainees from the top to the
bottom, and I was proud to be part of this great combat team.
I do not challenge Capt. Fishback or his observations. But
I saw U.S. soldiers, both active-duty and National Guard,
conduct themselves professionally on a daily basis.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I just made a presentation on my amendment
No. 2432. I ask unanimous consent to add cosponsors--Senators Stevens,
Roberts, Sessions, Ensign, Graham, Thune, and Kyl.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we have had a very good and productive
morning on the Defense authorization bill, a continuation by the Senate
of that important legislation.
Matters relating to the bill are concluded. I will now await the
directions of the majority leader as to the concluding of today's
proceedings before the Senate.
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.

____________________