To increase by $20,000,000 the amount made available by chapter 2 of title IX for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide for the purpose of assisting the African Union force in Sudan.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 5631, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 5631) making appropriations for the Department
of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and
for other purposes.

Pending:

Rockefeller amendment No. 4906, to strike the section
specifically authorizing intelligence and intelligence-
related activities.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from West
Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that that amendment be set aside
in order to consider the amendment to be offered by the Senators from
North Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, is recognized.

Amendment No. 4907

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

The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], for himself,
Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Salazar, and Mr. Menendez, proposes an
amendment numbered 4907.

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

(Purpose: To enhance intelligence community efforts to bring Osama bin
Laden and other key leaders of al Qaeda to the justice they deserve)

On page 230, beginning on line 15, strike ``$19,265,000''
and all that follows through line 16 and insert the
following: ``$219,265,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2008: Provided, That $200,000,000 of such funds
is available only for a unit dedicated to bringing to justice
Osama bin Laden and other key leaders of al Qaeda: Provided
further, That the Secretary of Defense shall, not later than
60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and
every 90 days thereafter, submit to the congressional defense
committees, the Committee on International Relations of the
House of Representatives, and the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate a classified report on progress made
by the operations in the global war on terrorism for which
funding is provided in this Act, including an assessment of
the likely current location of terrorist leaders, including
Osama bin Laden and other key leaders of al Qaeda, a
description of ongoing efforts to bring to justice such
terrorists, a description of the cooperation provided by the
governments of any countries assessed as likely locations of
top leaders of al Qaeda and by other relevant countries, a
description of diplomatic efforts currently being made to
improve the cooperation of any such governments, and a
description of the status of, and strategy for bringing to
justice, perpetrators of terrorism including the top
leadership of al Qaeda: Provided further, That the Secretary
of Defense shall prepare such reports in consultation with
other appropriate officials with regard to funds appropriated
under this chapter: Provided further, That the amount
provided under this heading is designated as making
appropriations for contingency operations directly related to
the global war on terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-
related operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con Res.
376 (109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of
Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress) and is
designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
402 of S. Con. Res. 83 (109th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2007, as made
applicable in the Senate by section 7035 of Public Law 109-
234.''

Mr. CONRAD. The amendment is on behalf of myself and Senators Dorgan,
Salazar, and Menendez.
Five years ago, our Nation was viciously attacked by al-Qaida. We all
remember the horrific images from that fateful day. I remember so well
arriving at the Capitol building for early morning meetings and, as we
entered, security personnel ordered an evacuation. Those of us who were
evacuated from this building went back to our offices and were again
evacuated there, as there was a belief that there was a potential
threat to the Capitol complex. Later on, we saw the results of the
attack. We saw people jumping from the World Trade Center. We saw the
attack on the Pentagon. We did not know, in the early hours, who was
responsible, but we knew the world had changed.
I remember very well that night, as Members of Congress stood on the
steps of the Capitol showing that we were shoulder to shoulder in
defense of America. That night, there were no Republicans, there were
no Democrats; there were just proud Americans on the steps of this
Capitol, men and women elected to represent our individual States here
in this Capitol. In the 20 years I have been in this Chamber, I never
saw such unity, such a sense of purpose that we would not let these
acts stand and that those who were responsible would be held to
account.
We need to renew that spirit. We need Democrats and Republicans
standing together to bring to justice those who were responsible for
these horrific acts. In this photo is the man who planned, financed,
and organized those operations, Osama bin Laden, the head of al-Qaida.
It has now been over 1,800 days since those attacks, and this man is
still on the loose. This man has still not been brought to justice. I
believe it is one of our Nation's highest priorities that he and the
other top leadership of al-Qaida be brought to justice. I include Mr.
al-Zawahiri. I think we also know that Mullah Omar, the leader of the
Taliban in Afghanistan, has not been apprehended and brought to justice
either.
To me, this is centrally important to the war on terrorism. We have
to get the terrorist leaders who designed the attack on our country. I
say to my colleagues that I graduated from high school from an American
military base in Tripoli, Libya, North Africa, Willis Air Force Base. I
had relatives who were in the intelligence service of the United States
who served in that part of the world as well. One thing I learned when
I was in that part of the world is that if a fight started, you better
get the leaders and you better get them quick; otherwise, it mushroomed
and escalated. My experience was very minor. It was on the basketball
court, where we would have shepherds periodically come and start
throwing

[[Page S9076]]

stones. We found out early that you better get a stone and you better
nail a couple of their guys or the thing got worse. I think all of us
who have studied the Arab world know that in that culture, if somebody
attacks and is not held to account, that person grows in stature in
that culture.
We have to hold to account Osama bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, and all of
the rest of the al-Qaida leadership. I think that is absolutely
critical for success in the war on terror. Osama bin Laden continues to
call for attacks on us. We are now seeing a Taliban resurgence in
Afghanistan. Last month, we saw a plot that may have been orchestrated
by al-Qaida to blow up airliners flying between Britain and the United
States. Unfortunately, the latest intelligence--and this is not
classified, so I am not disclosing any state secrets here--according to
the National Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism, the number of
al-Qaida operatives worldwide has grown from 20,000 in 2001 to 50,000
today.
Some of our colleagues have likened this to World War II. I don't
believe that. This is not like World War II. This is fundamentally and
profoundly different. In World War II, we had Hitler Germany attempting
to achieve world dominance. In World War II, we had a state, the nation
of Germany, attacking its neighbors, seeking hegemony throughout Europe
and beyond. We had Germany attacking its neighbors. We had Germany on
the move against Great Britain. We had Germany with its allies
attacking the Soviet Union. That was profoundly different than a
network of terrorists spread in over 70 countries around the world
seeking to weaken our country. That is a profoundly different
circumstance than we faced in World War II. In World War II, we faced
the sneak attack by Japan on the United States, and Japan being allied
with Germany in a move to achieve world dominance. That is a profoundly
different circumstance than the one we face today. And if we don't
adapt our methods and tactics and strategy, we will be less successful.

It is critical that we have this debate, and it should not be a
partisan debate. To me, this is not a matter of Republicans and
Democrats; this is a question of how does our country succeed in this
battle against terrorism? How do we best succeed? My own conviction is,
it starts with this man. It doesn't end there, but it starts here.
Osama bin Laden has got to be brought to justice. Mr. Zawahiri has got
to be brought to justice. Mullah Omar has got to be brought to justice.
And I don't question--I don't question the intention of this
administration to attempt to do that, but I do note that it has now
been 5 years, and there has been a failure to get those who organized
the attack on our country. That is a fact. And we need to deal with
that fact and we need to adopt new methods, new strategies in order to
achieve success. That is my conviction.
These are things that disturb me greatly. In March of 2004, USA Today
reported:

In 2002, troops from the fifth special forces group who
specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for
Osama bin Laden to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq.
Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish
cultures.

Let's think about that a minute. After Osama bin Laden, who led the
attacks, we put in special forces to find him who were experts in Arab
culture and in Arab languages. But when we diverted our attention and
moved to Iraq, we pulled those forces out of Afghanistan in the search
for Osama bin Laden and replaced them, according to these news reports,
with troops with expertise in Spanish culture. There aren't many
Spanish speakers or much Spanish culture in Afghanistan. I think this
was a profound mistake.
The article goes on to say:

The CIA meanwhile was stretched badly in its capacity to
collect, translate, and analyze information coming from
Afghanistan.

When some say the center of the war on terrorism is Iraq, I think
they have it wrong. The center is in Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden
and Zawahiri have been located. I am not saying I know that they are
located there now. We know they were located there; perhaps they are
somewhere else at this point. But at the time we shifted our focus, I
believe it was a mistake. I believe we ought to have focused like a
laser on the leadership of al-Qaida. Al-Qaida attacked us; not Iraq.
There wasn't a single Iraqi on those airplanes that crashed into the
World Trade Center. There wasn't a single Iraqi on the plane that hit
the Pentagon. There wasn't a single Iraqi on the plane that went down
in Pennsylvania. They were al-Qaida operatives led by Osama bin Laden,
not Iraqis led by Saddam Hussein.
I might add that once we took our eye off the ball in getting the
terrorists and instead went to Iraq, we have now unfortunately freed up
Iran for all kinds of troublemaking in the Middle East. Iran is behind
the operations of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Is there any doubt that they
are the financial muscle behind that operation? This is a battle. It is
a battle that is critically important to our Nation's security, and we
have to fight it in a smart and disciplined and focused way if we are
to succeed. That is my belief.
Now we learn that the CIA has closed the unit that is focused on the
capture of Osama bin Laden. This report from July of this year says:

The Central Intelligence Agency has closed the unit that
for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and
his top lieutenants. The unit, known as Alec Station, was
disbanded late last year and its analysts reassigned within
the CIA Counter-Terrorist Center.

The article goes on to say:

In recent years, the war in Iraq has stretched the
resources of the intelligence agencies and the Pentagon,
generating new priorities for American officials.

I believe the priority remains getting those who attacked us. It
wasn't Iraq that attacked us; it was al-Qaida that attacked us, and it
is critically important we hold them to account.
On August 21, the President said this:

The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens
before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

He was then interrupted by a reporter who asked:

What did Iraq have to do with that?

The President:

What did Iraq have to do with what?

The reporter:

The attacks upon the World Trade Center.

The President:

Nothing.

That is correct, nothing. We know from the 9/11 Commission Iraq was
not involved in the attacks of 9/11. It was al-Qaida--al-Qaida led by
Osama bin Laden. That is where we have to focus. And this, to me, is
not a political debate. This is a question of the strategic policy of
the United States. How do we best defend America against those who have
already attacked us and intend to attack us again? I would submit the
first thing we have to do is get the leadership of the organization
that is worldwide in scope, that seeks to take us down. Make no
mistake, this is a battle with real consequences, and we have got to
fight it in the smartest, most effective way.
It has now been 1,823 days since Osama bin Laden attacked us. Madam
President, 1,823 days; that is a long time. That is nearly 5 years. The
President just issued a new intelligence estimate and analysis. There
is only one mention of Osama bin Laden in that document, and it is a
reference in passing.
I don't think it should be a matter that is mentioned in passing. I
deeply believe we have to refocus and we have to go after, in a
disciplined and dedicated way, the leadership of al-Qaida, starting
with Osama bin Laden, going to Zawahiri, and right down the list. I
applaud those successes that we have had in getting Zarqawi and others.
Thank God for that. But we have got to get those at the top.

This amendment adds $200 million to the intelligence budget for a
unit explicitly dedicated to bringing Osama bin Laden and other top al-
Qaida leadership to justice. The second part of this amendment requires
a classified report every 90 days on activities of our Government
related to bringing Osama bin Laden to justice. A classified report
because, obviously, we don't want to signal the game plan.
This is the amendment that I offer, and I thank my colleagues who
have cosponsored it with me: Senator Dorgan, my colleague from North
Dakota; Senator Salazar from Colorado; Senator Menendez from New
Jersey; and now I am informed that additional Senators have asked to
join, including Senator Lincoln of Arkansas, Senator Kerry of
Massachusetts, and Senator Obama of Illinois.

[[Page S9077]]

I ask unanimous consent to add them as original cosponsors of the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I yield the floor.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, Senator Conrad and I have, over the last
2 days, talked about the need for an amendment of this type to be
offered to the Defense appropriations bill. We have talked about
several different ways of offering this amendment and the circumstances
that require us to come here and draft an amendment and offer it to our
colleagues. This amendment represents some discussions, as well, with
colleagues. I want to say that almost all of that which persuaded us to
do this has now been described by my colleague, Senator Conrad.
He talked about 9/11 2001. I recall going to Ground Zero in New York
as the fire was still burning, smoke coming out of the wreckage of the
World Trade Center from the bombing of the trade center by the
terrorists and the murder of 3,000 innocent Americans. And as we toured
just several days after those terrorists had hit the World Trade Center
in New York, and the smoke was still billowing out of that twisted
steel wreckage, one of the grizzled firefighters who had not shaved for
several days, obviously had not slept, had bloodshot eyes, came up to
me as we were touring--a group of Senators--and he said to me: ``Get
'em. Ya'll have to get 'em. If you don't get 'em, they are going to do
it to us again.''
Having worked in this wreckage of the World Trade Center and having
seen the carnage and the bodies, what he meant was that if we don't get
those who did this, they will repeat it. That firefighter was speaking
with a real passion, a passion that I think is shared by the American
people. That passion was shared on that day and it is now, today.
That attack on 9/11--my colleague showed a picture of it--was with
commercial airplanes loaded with fuel used as weapons. The New York
Times ran a piece on August 11, 2004, by Nicholas Christoff, about a
book by Harvard professor Graham Allison called ``Nuclear Terrorism.''
Allison told a story in this book that exactly 1 month after 9/11, on
October 11 in 2001, aides told President Bush that a CIA source named
Dragon Fire had reported that al-Qaida had obtained a 10-kiloton
nuclear weapon, apparently stolen from Russian stockpiles, and had
smuggled it into New York City, and al-Qaida terrorists were now
prepared to detonate it. This is described in some detail in the book.
The CIA apparently found this report plausible. They knew that
apparently Russia had small 10-kiloton nuclear weapons. Russia was
reported to have lost some nuclear materials. Al-Qaida had made a
determined effort to acquire them. The CIA had apparently picked up al-
Qaida chatter about an ``American Hiroshima.'' This issue was taken
very seriously in October of 2001. Later it was determined the lead by
the agent named Dragon Fire was a false lead. But in retrospect of this
issue, all of those who evaluated it determined it could well have been
true.
It is not implausible that a nuclear weapon could be stolen. After
all, there are some 30,000 nuclear weapons on this Earth. It is not
implausible that having a nuclear weapon stolen by a terrorist group,
it could be detonated. And it is certainly likely they would attempt to
detonate a nuclear weapon in the center of a major city, especially a
city in the United States.

I describe that only to say these issues are critically important.
Yes,
9/11 breaks our heart--all of the innocent Americans killed by acts of
terrorism. But that will be an event that will be small by comparison
if, in fact, a nuclear weapon is acquired by a terrorist group like al-
Qaida and detonated in an American city in the future.
There are responsible people who have said they believe there is a
very substantial likelihood such an event could or will happen in the
next 10 years, unless this country provides the leadership to stop the
spread of nuclear weapons, stops the proliferation of nuclear weapons
and does everything necessary to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands
of terrorists.
The evil of terrorism requires and demands a unified American
resolve. As my colleague has previously said, when it comes to fighting
terrorism, there are no D's or R's, there are no Republicans or
Democrats, conservatives or liberals, there are only Americans resolved
to confront this evil.
We are determined to confront and defeat those who are intent on
murdering innocent people in the name of terrorism. We fight terrorism
to preserve freedom, but we betray rather than serve our freedom if we
turn a blind eye to the actions which will diminish the very freedoms
we cherish, even as we confront the actions of terrorists. As we wage
this fight against terrorism, we do not serve the interests of our
country by labeling others who may disagree with strategies as
appeasers, of the type who appeased Nazism. That does not serve
America's interests either.
I have heard colleagues today come to the floor to lament that there
have been some criticisms of Administration strategies. Let's all
understand no one is perfect. Big mistakes have been made. Mistakes,
and big mistakes, have been made, both with respect to Iraq and also
with respect to the war against terrorism.
In Iraq, we discovered later there were no weapons of mass
destruction. There was no yellow cake from Niger. The aluminum tubes
were not for the purpose of building a nuclear capability. There were
no mobile chemical weapons labs. Would we be treated as liberators as
was suggested? No. It turns out that was not the case.
Were mistakes made? Two days ago, a young fellow who left law school
after 9/11 to enlist in the Army to go to Iraq told me that when he got
to Iraq his mother, an elementary schoolteacher, had to go on the
Internet to buy body armor to send it to him. Were mistakes made? You
darned right mistakes were made. Mistakes were made. Let's understand
that. Recognizing and understanding that and admitting it allows us to
decide not to make those mistakes again.
All of us are here to support our soldiers in their fight against
terrorism, in their mission in Iraq. Let me say, as an aside as well,
that the violence and terrorism in Iraq does have an al-Qaida
component; it does. But by far the bulk and the majority of the
violence and terrorism in Iraq is Iraqi upon Iraqi, Sunni upon Shia,
Shia upon Sunni. There was not an Iraq connection with al-Qaida prior
to the war in Iraq.
Having said all of that, with respect to the broader war on terror,
when we open the newspaper this morning and we see the front page of
the Washington Post--and I suspect every other daily paper in this
country--and we see the pictures of terrorists who will now be
transferred to Guantanamo and be brought to justice, all of us say to
the President it is the right thing to do. We support that. Yes, this
is progress. We understand that progress and we salute it.
My colleague and I believe there is more to do, however. When we talk
about the war against terrorism and we talk about al-Qaida and those
who have orchestrated the vicious terrorist attacks that have murdered
so many innocent people in this country and around the world, the point
is there is one person who is the head of that organization, who has
admitted ordering the attacks against this country. That is Osama bin
Laden. It is 5 long years since 9/11, 2001, and Osama bin Laden is
still here.
The President, day before yesterday, mentioned Osama bin Laden 17
times in his speech of 45 minutes. That is appropriate to do, although
I might observe Osama bin Laden has not been mentioned at all with
respect to the war on terror by anyone in the Administration for some
long while until a couple of days ago. But I want to describe why I
think there is an urgency here and why my colleague, Senator Conrad,
and I put together an amendment and are offering it to this bill.
I have a record here going back to December 13, 2001--it is about
eight pages of Osama bin Laden talking to us, in America, talking to
people in the rest of the world, and talking to al-Qaida, his
organization. It is December 13, 2001; November 2, 2002; February 11,
2003; February 13, 2003; April 7, 2003; September 10, 2003. I shall not
go through the rest of it. But I want to talk about this year. Just
this year we have heard from Osama bin Laden on 5 occasions. This chart
shows January 19 this year. This is from the news report

[[Page S9078]]

that evening, Osama bin Laden speaking to the people of the United
States and the people of the world. That is the first message this
year.
Here is the second message, Osama bin Laden speaks again, the head of
al-Qaida, 5 years after 9/11. On April 23, he issues his second tape of
the year.
May 23, this year, once again the news reports:

Bin Laden boasts of masterminding the 9/11 attacks.
I was responsible for entrusting the 19 brothers. Those 19
who attacked this country.
June 29 of this year, another news report, the fourth tape of the
year by Osama bin Laden.
July 1, this year, the fifth tape of the year by Osama bin Laden.
We are talking a lot about the war on terrorism. We are talking a lot
about al-Qaida. This is the head of al-Qaida. This is the leader of
that terrorist group. This is the person who says he masterminded the
attack against this country, and 5 years after that attack he is still
sending us messages--five of them in this year alone. My colleague and
I do not question anyone's commitment to doing the right thing. That is
not the purpose of our amendment. My colleague, Senator Conrad, and I
believe, however, that it is important as we put together a piece of
legislation providing funding for the Department of Defense, for the
war against terrorism, that we decide on focus and priority with
respect to one issue and that is bringing to justice the head of an
organization that attacked this country and is determined to attack
this country again.
The amendment we have offered is not a particularly complex
amendment. It simply does two things. It asks that the unit in the CIA,
our intelligence community, that used to exist but was closed be
reconstituted. Let me describe that unit. I will describe it by a New
York Times, July 4, story. The lead of the story is:

The Central Intelligence Agency has closed the unit that
for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and
his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed on
Monday. Agency officials said that tracking Mr. bin Laden and
his deputies remained a high priority and that the decision
to disband the unit was not a sign that the effort had
slackened. Instead, the official said, it reflected a belief
the agency could better deal with high level threats by
focusing on regional trends rather than on specific
organizations or individuals.

Let me quote the former senior CIA official who is quoted by name,
Mr. Michael Scheuer, a former senior CIA official, who was the first
head of this unit at the CIA. He said the move ``reflected a view
within the agency that Mr. Bin Laden was no longer the threat he once
was.'' Mr. Scheuer says, ``That view is mistaken.''
Madam President, our amendment would provide the funds to
reconstitute that unit, to provide focus, clarity and a specific set of
goals. And, second, to require a quarterly classified report to the
Congress that would describe, from the standpoint of those in the
intelligence community and the defense community who are involved, what
they have done with respect to apprehending and bringing to justice
those who head the organization called al-Qaida.
My hope and expectation would be that upon passage of this amendment
my colleague and I will have provided some more clarity and some more
focus and even perhaps some more determination that a significant goal
of ours is the apprehension of the head of the organization that
attacked our country. I do not think that apprehension will occur by
accident. I think it will occur if it is in fact a significant goal and
one that we pursue with the resources and the vigor that is necessary.
I understand that there will be some who say that we have other
priorities; this remains a priority but there are many other things to
do. Let me go back to the position that I started with and that is
this. We live in a very dangerous world, a very uncertain world. The
President is dead right when he talks about the war on terrorism being
a war in which we must prevail. He is absolutely right that we have to
work together and have to be as one as we confront this evil that
exists around the world.
But I also want to point out that we live in a world, now, where, as
I indicated before, there are almost 30,000 strategic and tactical
nuclear weapons that exist in this world. Going back to October 11 of
2001, the threatened loss of one of those nuclear weapons, because of a
rumor that it had been stolen from the Russian stockpile, caused an
apoplectic seizure in parts of the government because everyone, at that
point, in the intelligence community, who had heard of this rumor, knew
it was plausible and that the detonation of a nuclear weapon in a major
American city by al-Qaida would be devastating. The consequences of
that are impossible to describe. The next terrorist act may render the
attack of
9/11/2001, a much less significant attack in terms of casualties. Let's
hope that is not the case.
That is why it is so urgent for us to determine that we are going to
apprehend and bring to justice those who head the al-Qaida organization
and who masterminded the attack against this country on 9/11/2001. That
is what our amendment seeks to do, to provide the resources and the
assistance to make that possible.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Pryor be added as an original cosponsor as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask the Senator from Massachusetts if
he seeks time on this amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, we have time on the floor. I seek
recognition.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I have not relinquished my right to the
floor. I simply asked a question.
Mr. STEVENS. He is right.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this amendment is an urgent matter. I hope
very much our colleagues would support this amendment on a bipartisan
basis so that we send the clear message that this country intends to
hold to account those who organized the attack on America. I think that
is absolutely essential.
I also say to my colleague, if the Senator from Alaska seeks
recognition, I will be happy to yield the floor so he can do that.
I ask him at this point if he would have an interest in a time
agreement on the amendment? We were approached earlier with a request
on that matter. I would be happy to explore that, if the Senator from
Alaska has any interest.
Mr. STEVENS. If that is an inquiry to me, I am interested in a time
agreement, without any question. I am happy to set a time to vote, at
noon or at any time.
Mr. CONRAD. We would be happy to agree to a time. Would noon be an
acceptable time?
Mr. STEVENS. We are checking.
Mr. CONRAD. Perhaps later on in this discussion we can reach an
agreement. We would certainly be willing to agree to that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would welcome the opportunity to make
some brief comments on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has been
recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend my colleagues from North Dakota
and Colorado and others who are supporting this amendment. In many
respects, this gives real focus to what I think is part of the dilemma
that we are facing in our battles with al-Qaida and the issues of
security. A number of us opposed the resolution to go to war in Iraq. I
did. I said it was the best vote that I cast in the U.S. Senate. And I
did it primarily as a result of listening to military commanders in the
Armed Services Committee.
We had testimony--although he didn't testify personally--from General
Zinni. We listened to General Hoar of the U.S. Marine Corps, actually
from my own State of Massachusetts. We listened to General Wesley Clark
and General Nash--a number who have been combat commanders. If you look
back in terms of the history and the testimony of those military
commanders, virtually all of them were saying to the Armed Services
Committee that we ought to keep our focus

[[Page S9079]]

on what was really the challenge: Osama bin Laden, al-Qaida, and
Afghanistan. That was the testimony before the Armed Services
Committee.
I will not take the time now to repeat the series of statements and
comments that were made by the President and the Secretary of Defense.
I remember the testimony of the Secretary of Defense before the Armed
Services Committee when he talked about weapons of mass destruction. He
was asked at that time by the ranking minority member, Senator Levin.
His response was they were north, south, east, and west of Baghdad.
That was where the weapons of mass destruction were. That is the
testimony of the Secretary of Defense.
We remember all of those comments. We saw the Nation move and shift
thinking that there were weapons of mass destruction, and al-Qaida was
the primary force in bringing about 9/11. Of course, there wasn't
adequate intelligence to justify that. Even the President admitted that
there were no weapons of mass destruction. Even the bipartisan 9/11
Commission's thorough examination shows very clearly that those were
the representations made by the Vice President of the United States.
During that period of time, the combat commanders who testified
understood where we were going--the real challenge was finding Osama
bin Laden. We saw the extraordinary efforts that were made by the
military, all of which had this Nation focused on trying to get al-
Qaida. The world was supporting the United States. The world understood
that the United States had been assaulted and attacked. The world
intelligence community was coming together and saying we are going to
help the United States of America find the person who perpetrated the
9/11 attack in the United States. All of that was happening all over
the world.
Then what happened? The judgment and the decision was made in the
White House: Well, we have the role of going over there to Afghanistan,
so we are going into Iraq. The rest is history.
In spite of the fact that Osama bin Laden was on the run, despite the
fact that the intelligence reports showed that he was just within hours
of almost getting captured, the diversion of both troops and diversion
of focus, the diversion of intelligence went to Iraq.
Now we have an amendment to try to get us back in focus on the
primary individual who was the organizer of 9/11.
I share the concerns that have been stated by both Senators and the
frustration when the judgment and decision was made by the Pentagon
that they no longer had the priority of going after bin Laden.
We all understand the complexities of trying to find him in the
mountainous areas around Afghanistan's border and into Pakistan. We all
understand those complexities and those difficulties and the political
problems and all the rest. But, nonetheless, we had the world combined
to find him and bring him to account. We have failed to do so.
I think this amendment brings the Senate, in hopefully a bipartisan
way, to say we want to give focus and attention to finding and bringing
to justice Osama bin Laden.
Listening to Senators, I am mindful that at the end of this year we
will have been fighting the war in Iraq longer than we fought in World
War II. Understand that we took on the Germans in western Europe, north
Africa, the Japanese in the Far East, mobilizing 12 million to 14
million people over this period of time. And we will have by the end of
the year--we are now in September--we have been fighting in Iraq longer
than we fought in World War II--28 million people. We virtually
occupied with air supremacy over the whole country--the top third of it
and the lower third of it was a heavy embargo, violations of embargoes.
But the amount was $14 billion a year in terms of the military, and we
now have servicemen still weighted down over there.

I agree with those who said the service men and women have done their
job. The politicians haven't done theirs with regard to Iraq.
That doesn't get away from the point that our focus has been diverted
to Iraq.
We have seen the number of al-Qaida grow. According to the National
Security Project, in 2001 it was 20,000. In 2006, it is 50,000. The
number of al-Qaida terrorist attacks 5 years before 1991 was 3. But now
the number 5 years since 9/11 is 30. We have the growth happening all
over the world and no accounting for Osama bin Laden.
This is what has happened with al-Qaida. The number of significant
global terrorist attacks reported by the U.S. State Department in 2003
was 175. The number exceeded 3,000 in 2004, and 11,000 in 2005.
Look at the growth. We are weighted down in Iraq, and Osama bin Laden
is out there someplace.
This amendment makes a great deal of sense. I thank both my
colleagues for doing something. This is a small amount of resources
which are asked for. Look at what we are spending, more than $200
million a day in Iraq. I believe this is $20 million--$200 million a
day we are spending in Iraq.
Do we realize that if we weren't spending $200 million a day--and
over $350 billion has been expended--what we could have done with
regard to homeland security? How could we have protected Americans with
those resources more effectively? How could we have gone after al-Qaida
more effectively? How could we have enhanced the security of the
American people more effectively?
This has been a catastrophic miscalculation on the part of the
administration, and the amendment of the Senators is trying to give
focus and attention and priority to where we ought to give focus and
attention and priority.
I commend them for doing something.
I hope this amendment will be accepted and embraced and passed
overwhelmingly.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it has been cleared on this side by
Senator Inouye and myself.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a vote in relation
to the pending Conrad amendment at 12 noon, with no second-degree
amendments in order prior to the vote, and with the time equally
divided between the two managers or their designees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CONRAD. There is no objection on our side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am, as are the Senators from North
Dakota, quite worried about this amendment. It is my intention to ask
the Senate to vote. It is my understanding that they want a vote on
this amendment. It is my intention to ask every Senator to vote for the
amendment.
It is a political season. I understand that. I consider this
amendment to be a slam at the intelligence community.
I can tell the Senate that there is more money than this available.
If I tried to discuss the amount of money which is available, I would
be violating my oath as far as confidential and classified material.
For reasons of national security, I cannot elaborate on that.
I arranged for the two Senators from North Dakota to be briefed about
the programs which Senator Inouye and I know about. We urged them not
to offer this amendment. There are many funds dedicated in our bill for
the global war on terrorism. There are funds in our bill to continue
the search for Osama bin Laden. That has never lapsed. It does not need
this amendment.
The classified annex accompanying this bill provides details of
classified programs in this bill, and they are available to every
Senator in room 405 if they want to question my view. Those were
offered to the Senators from North Dakota. I do not know whether they
took advantage of that or not.
We cannot discuss those programs here. We would jeopardize the lives
of many people if we did so.
I know of no way to handle this amendment except, as I said, I ask
all Senators to join and vote for this amendment and to trust Senator
Inouye and myself to find a way to deal with it in conference. Maybe
the Senate will listen to us when we come back.
I remember once, years ago when I offered an amendment to provide
funds to deal with Osama bin Laden, offering a reward of dead or alive.
That was objected to by a Member on the other side of the aisle.

[[Page S9080]]

I note that this amendment says to bring Osama bin Laden to justice.
To bring him to justice--does that mean dead or alive? Must we keep him
alive if we find him?
There are a lot of things we could discuss on the floor of the Senate
about this issue.
I am going to sit down in a minute and I am not going to answer any
questions. I am not going to discuss it any more because I consider it
to be an irresponsible amendment that should never have been brought
before the Senate.
With all of these pictures, it is a campaign period. But to imply to
the American public that we have not been looking for Osama bin Laden
for years--I can tell you, I am not going to press my friend from
Hawaii, but we have spent hours and hours and hours with the
intelligence community seeing how we can better devise methods to find
this man.
I can assure the Senate that without any question the search for
Osama bin Laden has not been hampered by a lack of funds. It has not
been hampered by a lack of funds in this bill. If I tried to tell you
where the funds are, I would violate my oath.
It is time for us to come to some understanding about what led to
this amendment. It was the President's statement the other day. I was
there. The conversation on this floor misses the point. It was not
Hitler during World War II he was talking about; it was Hitler before
World War II. Let me quote what he said on September 5. I listened to
it. He said:

In the 1920's, a failed Austrian painter published a book
in which he explained his intention to build an Aryan super-
state in Germany and take revenge in Europe and eradicate the
Jews. The world ignored Hitler's words, and paid a terrible
price. His Nazi regime killed millions in gas chambers, and
set the world aflame in war, before it was finally defeated
at a terrible cost in lives.
Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their
intention as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. The
question is: Will we listen? Will we pay attention to what
these evil men say?

The world can tell I am close to losing my famous temper. I do have
one. As I said, I arranged for these Members to be briefed on
information that is in this classified annex. I don't understand this
amendment.
I intend to let the Senators have their half of the time. The balance
of the time will be spent in a quorum.
I yield to my friend from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the record should show that there are
significant amounts of money allocated in this bill to several
agencies. But to go beyond that and discuss in greater detail would be,
as the chairman indicated, a violation of the rules of classification.
I will cease at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I say to my colleague that it is a curious
conclusion to suggest that adding more resources to the intelligence
community for the purpose of bringing to justice Osama bin Laden is a
slap in the face to the intelligence community. It is no slap in the
face to the intelligence community. If anything, it is a vote of
confidence in the intelligence community.
We owe the country this debate and this discussion. I believed when
we went to Iraq we were making a mistake. I said on the floor of the
Senate right before that vote that I thought we were diverting our
attention from those who attacked us. It was al-Qaida, led by Osama bin
Laden, not Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein. The simple fact is we have not
brought them to justice.
The Senator wonders, what does it mean to bring to justice? We all
know what it means to bring someone to justice. Osama bin Laden
deserves to be brought to justice. There is no one in this Chamber who
doesn't know what that means.
The Senator says this amendment is irresponsible. I think it would be
irresponsible not to have this amendment.
The Senator indicated that he asked us to be further briefed
yesterday. We did that. There is not one thing I heard in that room
that doesn't tell me that what we are seeking to do here is not the
right thing, the responsible thing. We cannot talk about those
briefings, and we will not talk about them.
Finally, I say to my colleague, this is not political with me. I
don't need a political amendment. Anyone who has analyzed my race knows
that what I am saying is true. I don't need a political amendment. I
have a responsibility to my constituents and to the future of our
country. I believe deeply we have not done the job of protecting
America when we have failed for 5 years to get the man and the
leadership cadre of al-Qaida that organized the attack on this country.
I don't choose to make this political.
I made very clear in my statement that I don't question for one
moment the commitment of this administration to protect America. I
don't question for one moment the intention of every Member on both
sides of this aisle to protect our country. I don't question that. I
did not make this a political matter; I make this a matter of policy--
what is the right thing to do for our country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, there are areas of classified information
that are not discussed in the Senate. Senator Conrad has just described
that we both have had access to that information. It is the information
to which my colleagues allude. There is nothing--I repeat, nothing--
that we are doing here that does anything to injure anything else that
was being done anywhere, at any time. There is nothing here that does
injury to anything I know about.
Frankly, it is far too easy to jump up from a chair in the Senate and
allege that the amendment you do not like is somehow borne of politics.
Yes, there is a barrel full of politics around these days, a barrel
full of politics in this Chamber and downtown. We know it when we see
it. But I think it ill serves this discussion to talk about
irresponsibility, to talk about politics on the issue of what the role
of this country is, the determination and the resolve of this country,
to decide to provide more focus, more clarity, and more energy to
apprehending the head of al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden, the person who
masterminded the attack against this country. Again, there is never a
circumstance where anyone would find myself or my colleague, Senator
Conrad, coming to the Senate to do injury to anything else we are doing
in this country together.
I indicated when I started that I don't think the fight against
terrorism is about Democrats or Republicans. It is certainly not about
politics, or shouldn't be. However, it is almost unbelievable to me
that this amendment is described as ``political season'' campaign
period-motivated and, even more, a slam at our national security.
Nothing could be further from the truth than that. This is not slamming
anyone. This is trying to provide additional resources, additional
focus, additional energy toward a goal that I hope every
single American shares. In fact, I bet we would be hard pressed to find
an American citizen who says this is not a worthy goal for our country.

My colleague has said that there has been a continuing, unwavering
effort to apprehend the top of the terrorist groups, including the
leaders of al-Qaida. Let me read, from 2002, the President's response
when asked about Osama bin Laden:

I don't know where he is. I know I just don't spend much
time on him, to be honest. I am not truly that concerned
about him. I know he's on the run.

The fact is, there have been times when we have been diverted to
other areas. Does anyone here believe Iraq has not detracted
substantially from what is happening in Afghanistan? Does anyone here
believe that? Most of us have been over those mountains. I have flown
over those mountains and looked down at the mountains between
Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is where most believe Osama bin Laden is
hiding, among supporters. I understand how difficult it is to apprehend
someone hiding in that region. I don't diminish the difficulty and the
complexity of accomplishing that mission.
My colleague and I offered an amendment which is relatively simple
which tries to provide more focus and more clarity on the goal, which
tries to provide resources. These resources are not dramatic or
substantial resources relative to the amount of money we have been
spending, for example, in Iraq.
A Member brings an amendment to the floor and someone says: This is
political, this is campaign season. That is too easy. I don't think
that treats serious issues seriously enough. This is an

[[Page S9081]]

issue which is serious. It is an issue that deserves attention by this
Congress, deserves a statement by this Congress, which I expect we will
make unanimously, I hope we will make unanimously. It is a statement
that almost every American, I believe, would say they agree with, a
statement that says to the American people: Here is a priority, a very
substantial priority for which we will dedicate the resources and
rededicate ourselves to address these issues.
My understanding is the Senator from Alaska will seek a quorum call,
which is just fine.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. KENNEDY. I listened with great interest to both of my friends and
colleagues in their comments.
As I understand, the amount included in the Senator's amendment is
$200 million to be expended over a 2-year period?
Mr. DORGAN. The Senator is correct.
Mr. KENNEDY. And the Senator mentioned a figure, and it is my
understanding we are spending $200 million a day, virtually, in Iraq at
the present time. I think that gives some proportion as to requested
resources--$200 million a day in Iraq and $200 million over a 2-year
period for this effort.
I thank the Senator.
Mr. DORGAN. I think the Senator puts in perspective the amount of
money that is being described.
Let me finally say that I noticed yesterday--I was not in the Senate,
but I had the television on--noticed the same issue developing
yesterday on an amendment my colleague offered. There was a suggestion
that this is all political, all politics, every time someone offers an
amendment that someone disagrees with. That is total nonsense. This
issue deserves much more serious treatment and much more serious debate
than that.
I am pleased that apparently there will be a unanimous vote.
I yield the floor, and I reserve the remainder of time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I will discuss a bit more fully what led
me to this amendment. It is not the President's comments of several
days ago. That was not the genesis of this amendment. I have believed
since we went to war in Iraq--anyone can look at the record and what I
said in this Senate the night of the vote--I said then that I believed
going to Iraq was a distraction. I believe it diverted our attention
and resources from going after the al-Qaida leadership that organized
the attack on America. I said that then. I believed it then. I believe
it now.
I have a bit of a different background from many of my colleagues. I
went to high school at an American military base in Tripoli, Libya,
North Africa. I lived in the Arab culture. One of the ironies was the
Senator from Alaska suggested this is a slap in the face at the
intelligence community. My family served in the intelligence services
of our country in that part of the world. I am precluded from going
further than that because of classification issues. I have great
respect for those who serve in the clandestine and the intelligence
services of our country. I have consulted many of them in writing this
amendment.
I believe deeply this is the right approach to operationalize, to
more fully fund the efforts, not only to get Osama bin Laden--although
I believe he is at the top of the list--I also believe it is critically
important to get Zawahiri, I believe it is critically important to get
Mullah Omar. I regret deeply that resources were transferred from
Afghanistan to Iraq. that we had forces that were experts in Arab
culture and Arab language and we shifted them to Iraq.

The hard reality is, while there have been successes, which I
acknowledged in my opening remarks--I would say to the Senator from
Alaska, there have been very excellent successes. Getting Zarqawi,
thank God, we got him. Thank goodness for each of those who have been
captured and taken out of operational involvement in planning
additional attacks on the country.
But the job is not done. We know that. I believe very strongly that
we made a strategic error in going to Iraq. I said it then, I say it
now. I believe the focus and the energy and the attention ought to have
gone--the priority ought to have been al-Qaida, its leadership, and its
worldwide network.
I believe this is fundamentally different than World War II. I
believe this is a long and difficult struggle. I believe this is a
dangerous world. I believe there are people who are plotting right now
to again attack our country. And I want to be part of an effort to do
everything we can to stop them. That is why I offer this amendment, and
for no other reason.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dayton be added
as an original cosponsor of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 8 minutes 49 seconds remaining.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me read one additional piece I did not
describe in my earlier presentation. Let me read from the State
Department's latest report on terrorism because I think it is important
for all of us to understand.
This is, again, from the U.S. State Department's latest report on
terrorism:

Al-Qaida's top leaders continue to plot and direct terror
attacks worldwide. . . . Over the past four years, al-Qaida,
its affiliates and those inspired by the group were also
involved in many anti-U.S. or anti-coalition attacks in
Africa, Europe, the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and
Iraq, including suicide bombings and vehicle-borne improvised
explosive devices.

Again, the first sentence:

Al-Qaida's top leaders continue to plot and direct terror
attacks worldwide. . . .

``Direct terror attacks worldwide''--it is why I think there is no
more important goal for this country than to add additional resources,
provide additional focus to this question of bringing to justice the
head of the organization that has attacked this country and that now
organizes and expands and continues to attack around the rest of the
world.
I previously described that just in this year alone we have been the
recipients of five messages from Osama bin Laden--five just this year.
It has been dozens since 2001. I think all of us share a goal and the
view that we need to apprehend and bring to justice those who head the
organization that attacked this country.
Fighting terrorism is difficult and dangerous and complex. We
understand all that. All of us salute our troops. All of us want to
work together. As I have indicated, this is not about Republicans and
Democrats. It is about Americans sharing and aspiring to achieve a
goal. And that goal is to defeat terrorism.
I think the most effective and important way to defeat terrorism,
however, is to try to dismantle the organization, and especially
dismantle the organization by apprehending the head of that
organization and bringing the head and top officials of that
organization to justice.
That has not been done, and we are not blaming anybody. I join my
colleague, Senator Conrad, in saluting those in our intelligence
service and our military who risk their lives every day. But I believe
it is very important for us, as we put together a piece of legislation
with substantial resources, to provide greater clarity and focus on
this goal. That is why Senator Conrad and I have written this amendment
and offer it today.
I understand there are some who do not want it offered, do not want
to have this discussion. I respectfully believe they are wrong. I do
not allege that they have political motives. I just believe they are
wrong. My hope is,

[[Page S9082]]

when the Senate speaks to this, it will have accomplished something
that is productive and substantial in its comments on this issue.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, there are other Members who are on their
way who wish to speak on this matter. I do not know if they will make
it.
Senator Menendez has arrived.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). Who yields time?
Mr. CONRAD. I say to Senator Menendez, we could give you 2 minutes.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to strongly support Senator
Conrad's and Senator Dorgan's amendment and to join with them in it.
It seems to me, as someone who on the anniversary of September 11 is
reminded of the 700 New Jersey lives that were lost on that fateful
day, as well as all of those other Americans who lost their lives on
that fateful day, that the central figure, the individual who was the
mastermind of their deaths, who struck on that fateful day, is Osama
bin Laden. It is very clear to me that we must either catch or kill
Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of those attacks.
I know many Americans were as shocked as I was when they heard the
news reports that the administration had allegedly closed down or
realigned the Osama bin Laden unit at the CIA. And while there is a
very difficult process to publicly confirm these reports, I believe the
Senate must make it very clear that the United States can in no way
reduce or dilute our efforts to kill or capture Osama bin Laden.
With this amendment, we ensure that not only is that unit not
disbanded and not merged and not diluted, but, in fact, we ensure that
we increase our efforts.
To anyone who would like to argue that we do not need to focus on al-
Qaida or bin Laden, I would remind them that just because there has not
been another terrorist attack on U.S. soil that does not mean al-Qaida
has been eliminated or that bin Laden has been rendered ineffective.
So I am in incredibly strong support of Senator Conrad's amendment.
Perhaps the face of Islamic terrorism has evolved, but he still is our
central focus.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from North Dakota has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from New
York.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota.
And I thank both of my colleagues from North Dakota for offering this
outstanding amendment.
If there were ever a metaphor for what is wrong with the war on
terror, it is the fact that Osama bin Laden is alive. He continues to
taunt us on al Jazeera broadcasts that we have not found him.
Now, if we said we were doing everything we could to find him, that
would be one thing. But the unit to get him was disbanded. Many report
that the number of troops in Afghanistan is not adequate. They have
just asked for more today. And he is our No. 1 danger.
So I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support this
amendment. The fact that 5 years after 9/11 we have not yet found bin
Laden shows we can do a whole lot better in the war on terror than we
are doing.
This amendment will help bring us there. I urge full bipartisan
support of it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I announce to the Senate that the next
vote will be Senator Domenici's 13,000th vote.
I also announce to the Senate that my younger brother, from Hawaii,
Senator Inouye, has a birthday today.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I hope every Senator will vote for the
amendment. I don't know any Senator who will vote against providing
money to continue the search for Osama bin Laden. If I could disclose
to you how much money is in this bill otherwise for a classified
program, you would understand why this is a superfluous amendment.
Understanding that nobody would want to vote against something like
this, if this amendment becomes law, the freedom of information
provisions would mean all of the activities would be available to
anybody. This is not a classified $200 million to search for bin Laden.
Again, it is irresponsible, but I would not vote against the amendment.
I don't want to be known for voting against additional money to search
for Osama bin Laden.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Senator's
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 4907 offered by the
Senator from North Dakota. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Georgia (Mr.
Isakson), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr.
Lieberman) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?

[Rollcall Vote No. 235 Leg.]

YEAS--96

Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeMint
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NOT VOTING--4

Chambliss
Isakson
Lieberman
Santorum
The amendment (No. 4907) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

Congratulating Senator Pete Domenici On His 13,000th Vote

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, on this last rollcall vote, No. 235, the
distinguished Senator from New Mexico, the current chairman of the
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and the former long-serving
chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Pete Domenici, cast his
13,000th vote in this Chamber--13,000 votes. Senator Domenici now joins
a very historic and select club of Senators who can claim this
distinction. Senators now cast more votes than ever in each Congress,
so while historical records are not perfect, the Senate Librarian says
that we are safe to conclude that among all Senators who have served
since the beginning of the Republic, Senator Domenici is in a class of
only eight. Since the beginning of the Republic, only seven other
Senators have similarly cast more than 13,000 votes in their careers in
the Senate, and four of them are serving today. The club of seven now
becomes the club of eight with Senator Domenici's last vote here today.

[[Page S9083]]

Those other seven Senators are Senator Clayburn Pell, the current
President pro tempore, Senator Ted Stevens, Senator Ted Kennedy,
Senator Daniel Inouye, Senator Ernest Hollings, the late Senator Strom
Thurmond, and with over 17,733 votes, the all-time record, Senator
Robert C. Byrd.
Senator Domenici, I know I speak for all of your fellow Senators when
I say congratulations on this achievement. But more importantly, thank
you for your tremendous service over the years to New Mexico, to your
country, and importantly to the U.S. Senate.
(Applause, Senators rising.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, why would I, the Democratic leader of the
Senate, stand to offer effusive praise for my Republican colleague, the
Senator from New Mexico, Pete Domenici? The reason is, I know him. He
is my friend. Pete Domenici and I have worked on a subcommittee that is
so important to this country, Energy and Water. My entire tenure in the
Senate has been with him. The last many years Senator Domenici and I
have worked as ranking member and chair. Whoever controls the Senate,
Democrat or Republican, the person whose party is controlling becomes
the chairman, the member of the other party becomes the ranking member
of that committee. It doesn't matter to Pete Domenici or Harry Reid, as
it relates to that subcommittee, which is the party in power because we
have worked as partners on that subcommittee. We have done some
tremendously important things for this country, not only in funding
important projects but changing policy.
I like Pete Domenici for a number of reasons. I admire Pete Domenici
for a number of reasons. As a boy, I wanted more than anything else to
be a baseball player. I wanted to be a good baseball player. In my
child's mind, I figured I could be. But as I got older, I didn't run
very fast. I wasn't as strong as I thought I was, so my baseball career
was not much to write home about. Pete Domenici's is. Pete Domenici was
a pitcher. Pete Domenici pitched for a farm club of one of my favorite
baseball teams, the Dodgers, where my good, close friend, Hall of Famer
Greg Maddux, now pitches.
Pete Domenici will not make the Hall of Fame for baseball, but he
will for U.S. Senator. He is a wonderful man.
One reason he is as good as he is is because of the woman he married
in 1958 by the name of Nancy Burke. They are a wonderful team. I admire
and respect them both very much. They have a wonderful family, a large
family--two sons and six daughters.
I congratulate Pete Domenici, a U.S. Senator from New Mexico.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to add my congratulations to
Senator Domenici on this great achievement, achieving this milestone of
becoming one of eight Senators in the history of our country to have
cast this many votes.
I have had the good fortune in the 24 years I have been here in the
Senate to serve with Senator Domenici, and also, of course more
recently, to serve with him on the Energy Committee as the ranking
member. I have seen the leadership he has provided to deal with our
energy issues.
He is the longest serving Senator to have served from the State of
New Mexico. Of course, he has cast more votes on behalf of the people
of the State of New Mexico than anyone in the history of this country.
For that he deserves great recognition.
The people of the State I represent recognize his great contribution
and appreciate it greatly. I congratulate him today on reaching this
milestone.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first of all, let me say thank you to
each Senator who commented on my many years of voting, which has
yielded 13,000 today. I thank you very much and, in particular, I thank
the majority leader for doing what he has done, by setting aside these
few moments. I greatly appreciate it.
I guess it is pretty easy to get to 13,000. You just stick around
long enough and come and vote and you will get there. I don't know how
many more I will get but certainly a lot more because there are a lot
of years left to come. I don't know how many we will be celebrating,
but this is a very special one because of the special people who are
here, indicating to me in their own gracious way their appreciation for
what I do or don't do in the Senate. I thank all of them for that.
Frankly, I don't feel as if I have cast 13,000 votes, so I don't know
what that means. Maybe it means I have a lot more to come. I hope so.
Maybe it means we are voting a lot more in the Senate than we used to.
In any event, it is a proud day because you all have made it one.
Thank you very much.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, before I speak to an amendment, let me
join in the commendations to our colleague, Senator Domenici. I am
privileged to serve on the Energy Committee which Senator Domenici
chairs. I appreciate his leadership, as well as his commitment to our
country. I am pleased to join the many voices that have spoken about
his service.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending
amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 4909

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. I ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] proposes an
amendment numbered 4909.

Mr. MENENDEZ. 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: To prohibit the use of funds for a public relations program
designed to monitor news media in the United States and the Middle East
and create a database of news stories to promote positive coverage of
the war in Iraq)

At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8019. (a) Prohibition on Use of Funds for Certain
Public Relations Activities.--None of the amounts
appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be
obligated or expended for a public relations program designed
to monitor news media in the United States and the Middle
East and create a database of news stories to promote
positive coverage of the war in Iraq.
(b) Scope.--The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not
apply to programs and activities of the Department of Defense
directed at collecting or analyzing information in the news
media.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment that
would limit funds for any future public relations campaign being
commissioned by the Pentagon to promote positive coverage of the war in
Iraq. We first learned about this $20 million PR campaign to improve
the image of President Bush's Iraq policy in the Washington Post last
week. In my mind, this proposal is not just irresponsible, it is an
insult to the thousands of Iraqi citizens and coalition forces who have
died in this war. At a time when this violent insurgency continues to
expand and American troops are putting their lives on the line day in
and day out, what is the administration's focus? A better public
relations campaign? The Bush administration doesn't need a new PR
campaign in Iraq. They need a new policy in Iraq.
We must change the course in Iraq, not waste time or money for public
relations efforts. We must work to reduce the insurgency, not suppress
news reports of its existence. We must strive to improve the situation
on the ground in Iraq, not focus on changing the spin. That is why I am
offering this amendment that would prohibit funds being used for this
type of public relations campaign.
Let me be clear. This amendment prohibits the use of funds for a
public relations campaign and a database of news stories that is
designed to promote positive coverage of the war. But the amendment
specifically does not prohibit the normal work of the Department of
Defense for collecting or analyzing information in the news

[[Page S9084]]

media. The fact is, we do not need more propaganda. We need a new
policy. I can certainly understand why the Bush administration would
want to sugarcoat the news coming out of Iraq. The facts and the
figures about the reality on the ground tell a somber story.
When more than 250 Iraqis were killed last week alone, and the
killings continue today; when kidnapping by those wearing Iraqi
security force uniforms becomes commonplace, and average Iraqis now
flee from Iraqis in uniform; when the U.S. Special Inspector General
for Iraq Reconstruction comes out with a report that paints a picture
of incompetence, fraud, and failure, and USAID, the agency in charge of
over $1.4 billion in reconstruction, has been hiding millions of
dollars in construction overruns and failing to report the true costs
and problems to the Congress; when some Iraqis are now too afraid to go
to the morgue to retrieve the bodies of their loved ones for fear of
being killed or kidnapped themselves; and when instead of reducing
troops, thousands of troops have been ordered to go to Baghdad, and an
Army brigade had its tours extended, it is time to change the course in
Iraq.
It is certainly easy to see why the Bush administration is afraid of
the truth, and it is no surprise that a CNN poll released on Monday
showed that 61 percent of Americans said they oppose the war as it is
in Iraq, the highest opposition shown in any CNN poll since the war
began.
For those in the Bush administration who complain that the media only
reports bad news coming out of Iraq, I invite them to look at the facts
and figures offered by the Pentagon itself last week. In its latest
report to Congress, the Pentagon found that Iraqi casualties are up by
more than 50 percent in recent months. Violence in Iraq continues to
rise, and innocent Iraqi civilians are paying the price. The casualty
rate is now almost 120 a day, compared to 30 a day 2 years ago.
The President continues to speak of progress, but the numbers tell a
different story. From the time the new Iraqi Government was established
on May 20, until August 11, the number of attacks were almost 800 per
week. That is a huge increase from the beginning of the year and almost
double from the beginning of 2004. So it is clear that the Bush policy
in Iraq simply is not working, and it is time for a new direction.
The President needs to realize that we do not need a new propaganda
campaign, we need a new policy. Frankly, I personally never believed
the administration's false arguments about why we should go to war in
Iraq, and I believe this administration never had a strategy for
success in Iraq, and that is why I voted against the war in Iraq even
when that vote was unpopular. That is why I am standing up for a new
direction in Iraq today.
The President led us into this war based on false premises and false
promises. President Bush went into the war without a plan to win the
peace.
Unfortunately, this administration still doesn't have a real plan for
success in Iraq. Our soldiers have performed bravely under the most
difficult of circumstances. But as Iraq moves closer and closer to an
all-out civil war, as even the commander, General Abizaid, admitted was
possible, it is time to change policy.
The fact is that the war in Iraq has hurt us along the way in terms
of our national security. By changing course in Iraq, we can make our
own country more secure.
I look back at Hurricane Katrina just a year ago. I see the terrible
price the people of the gulf paid when their National Guard troops were
away in Iraq and unable to protect their neighbors here at home. Our
homeland is simply less secure when our National Guard and Reserves are
being kept in permanent rotation in Iraq.
This war has also distracted us from the great international security
threats to the United States. While the administration is focused on
the war in Iraq, North Korea has only become more defiant because they
know we are bogged down in Iraq and have lost credibility with the
international community.
Under this administration, North Korea has conducted launched missile
tests and has likely increased the size of its nuclear arsenal. They
have withdrawn from the Non-proliferation Treaty. The Congressional
Research Service has estimated that the number of simple, fission-type
weapons produced by the North Koreans prior to 2001 was between zero
and two. Now this defiant regime has an estimated three to nine nuclear
weapons.
While the administration has been distracted in Iraq, Iran has also
become more defiant and has started enriching uranium, flaunting an
international package designed to help end their nuclear weapons
program, and is supporting Hezbollah's attacks against Israel.
It is in Afghanistan that we have paid one of the heaviest security
costs for the war in Iraq. The bottom line is the administration never
finished the job in Afghanistan. Afghanistan--not Iraq--was the right
place to pursue the national security of the United States. It was in
Afghanistan--not Iraq--that the murderers of September 11 were located.
Our lack of attention and resources in Afghanistan has allowed the
country to once again become a land of increased turmoil.
Many of us have been horrified as we have watched the resurgence of
Taliban and strong anti-American sentiment in Afghanistan. In the past
3 years, there have been 284 attacks by the Taliban, and the number of
suicide attacks continues to rise sharply. We have also seen poppy
cultivation more than double since 1999. That ultimately is what
emanates the opium on the streets of our cities and across the world.
I believe it is long past time for the United States to focus
attention on Afghanistan and on the current threats from Iran and North
Korea.
Let me simply say that the war in Iraq has not helped quell
terrorism. In fact, it has fueled the proliferation of terrorist
organizations and has increased instability in Iraq at the expense of
our Nation's economy and the lives of our service men and women. The
Iraq war has drained our Treasury of $320 billion. Well over 2,600 of
our bravest men and women have lost their lives, and nearly 20,000 have
been injured. That is the most fundamental issue facing our country
today.
Three and a half years into the war and the administration's
overhyped spin has become unwound. Predictions that we would be greeted
as liberators have proven false, and the President's partisan attacks
on anyone who dares criticize his failed policy have led to the hollow
truth behind both the original decision to go to war and the propaganda
he and his supporters still spew forth every day. The facts are as
clear as the day, and a majority of Americans know the decision to
invade Iraq was the wrong one.
In light of this knowledge, it is time to tell the President that we
don't need a new propaganda campaign; we need a new policy. It is time
to make clear that the Defense bill should be about flak jackets for
our troops, not PR flak for the Bush administration. That is why I have
offered this amendment which tells the administration to forget about
the spin and concentrate on the mission at hand.
I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. STEVENS. I object. What is this? I thought we would dispose of
the Menendez amendment first. Are there further speakers on the
amendment? I would like to see the amendment. Will the Senator agree to
a time agreement for a vote on the Menendez amendment? Will Senator
Menendez agree to vote at a time certain on his amendment?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Sure. I would consider such an agreement.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, will my colleague from Alaska yield?
Mr. STEVENS. I would be happy to yield.

[[Page S9085]]

Mr. SCHUMER. I don't believe my amendment will take much time. It
might be good to dispose of both of them together.
Mr. STEVENS. Very well. I hope we can get a time agreement for a
vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside.

Amendment No. 4897

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

The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an
amendment numbered 4897.

Mr. SCHUMER. 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 (No. 4897) is as follows:

(Purpose: To make available up to an additional $700,000,000 for Drug
Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities to combat the growth of
poppies in Afghanistan, to eliminate the production and trade of opium
and heroin, and to prevent terrorists from using the proceeds for
terrorist activities in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, and to
designate the additional amount as emergency spending)

At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8109. (a) Additional Amount for Drug Interdiction and
Counter-Drug Activities.--The amount appropriated by title VI
under the heading ``Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug
Activities'' is hereby increased by $700,000,000, with the
amount of the increase designated as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 402 of S. Con. Res. 83 (109th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2007,
as made applicable in the Senate by section 7035 of Public
Law 109-234.
(b) Availability.--Of the amount appropriated or otherwise
made available by title VI under the heading ``Drug
Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities'', as increased by
subsection (a), up to an additional $700,000,000 may be
available to combat the growth of poppies in Afghanistan, to
eliminate the production and trade of opium and heroin, and
to prevent terrorists from using the proceeds for terrorist
activities in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere.
(c) Supplement Not Supplant.--The amount available under
subsection (b) for the purpose set forth in that subsection
is in addition to any other amounts available in this Act for
that purpose.

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I will be brief.
I rise to offer an amendment to the DOD appropriations bill to
address what is literally a growing problem in the fight on the war on
terror. We are not really doing enough to counteract an ever-increasing
production of opium in Afghanistan, a problem that is threatening the
ever fragile Government. Not only does opium production fuel its heroin
trade around the globe, but the heroin funds terrorists who aim to
attack America and our allies around the world.
We all note the deterioration of the situation in Afghanistan. One of
the main reasons that situation is deteriorating is the opium
production is increasing dramatically. It will increase by a huge 50
percent over last year. A large portion of the opium trade is
controlled by the Taliban, the very people who provide the ``warm''
reception.
I say that with sarcasm. It is due to bin Laden and al-Qaida. And yet
the Taliban is increasing their reach, their strength, their hold on
the country, and their wealth through opium.
As I mentioned, there has been a surge by over 50 percent over the
last year's harvest, a surge in production largely in the southern part
of the country where the Taliban has reasserted control. It is in part
because we have abandoned Afghanistan and the country is steadily
descending into chaos as we have less and less to say over it. We have
abandoned large parts, and opium rules.
I hope my colleagues will listen to the fact. Afghanistan now
supplies more than 90 percent of the world's opium. In this year alone,
there were over 400,000 acres of poppies planted, compared to 250,000
acres in 2005--a 50-percent increase. Why is this happening? It is
happening in Afghanistan because the administration failed to finish
the job when we changed our focus to Iraq, and now the country is
swarming with corrupt warlords and the Taliban is once again taking
control over a large portion of the country. Our soldiers fought long
and hard to rid Afghanistan of terrorists and the Taliban; however, if
the drug trade continues to surge and consume the nation, their heroic
efforts may be undone.
The Taliban draws its strength from the drug trade, and in order to
prevent them from reclaiming the country, we need to crack down on the
drugs that fuel its regime. The Taliban generates an amazing 70 percent
of its income through the production and sale of opium. Those poppies
generate a whole lot of money. This year's opium harvest is worth
roughly $4 billion.
In addition, the Taliban is fueling the production of opium from
behind the scenes and using the profits to fund its brutal and
oppressive regime. Every night, the Taliban drops off ``night letters''
encouraging poor Afghan farmers to grow poppies in exchange for
``protection.'' Unfortunately, just like in ``The Godfather,'' that is
an offer they cannot refuse.
Now Afghanistan's narcotrade is spreading outside its borders and
funding insurgents and foreign terrorists in Iraq. Money from the sale
of Afghan-produced heroin is being used by terrorists to buy weapons
and equipment, to create improvised explosive devices, and to pay
ordinary Iraqi citizens to attack U.S. soldiers in Iraq. If foreign
terrorists are using Afghanistan's opium production to fund their
deadly activities in Iraq, what is to stop them from using the same
funds to attack the United States? On 9/11, it is estimated that the
horrible acts by al-Qaida cost only $500,000 to carry out. Can you
imagine how many more attacks they could carry out given how huge the
profits are from Afghanistan's opium?
Given the magnitude of this problem, a total of $350 million to the
Departments of State and Defense to fight opium in this part of the
world is not enough. Those funds weren't enough--it is proven fact--
when the production has doubled in a year's time. I am not saying the
funds are not being used effectively. They may well be. They are
clearly not enough. Fighting Afghanistan's drug production and trade is
elemental to our success in fighting global terrorism. It is essential
to protect our troops in Iraq, keep Afghanistan from descending into
chaos, and save American lives here at home.
My amendment will increase counternarcotics funding in Afghanistan by
$700 million. With additional funds, the Department of Defense can work
to ensure that the Taliban and other foreign terrorists don't use
Afghanistan's opium crop against the United States.
Last year, the U.S. Government spent less than $350 million fighting
the drug trade. Afghanistan produced its largest poppy crop in recorded
history and raised billions of dollars to fund terrorism.
For people who say this significant amount of money is not useful, it
sure is. On a cost-effective basis, it is. It costs a lot more to fight
terrorists who use the money from the poppy trade than to fight the
poppy trade itself.
Some may suggest the money is not useful to DOD, but I would argue
that DOD clearly doesn't have enough resources just on the basis ipso
facto that the crop doubled last year. We have to make sure the
Department of Defense and the State Department have all the available
resources to combat this threat.

Others may say this issue is not a priority to DOD and we should let
other agencies take the lead on this issue. The problem clearly is not
a priority to DOD, but it absolutely should be, and this amendment will
make clear that is our intent.
The growing insecurity in Afghanistan clearly requires that DOD take
a more active role in combating the rise in the Taliban and
corresponding rise in production of opium. To show that we are serious
about combating cultivation of poppies and the production and trade of
opium and heroin, we must put additional resources into the fight. If
we don't, Afghanistan's drug trade will come back to haunt us.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment when we have a vote on
it later today. I thank the President and my colleagues from Alaska and
Hawaii.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feinstein be added as an
original cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 4909

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the Menendez

[[Page S9086]]

amendment be put before the Senate again. I ask unanimous consent that
it be the pending business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to be as courteous as possible. It
is not a very good word to use, but it seems to me the Menendez
amendment places a gag order on the Department of Defense. It says that
the gains made by our military people and by the Iraqi forces cannot be
reported to our people or to the Iraqi people.
It is a strange amendment, if you want to look at it, because it just
says no funds may be expended for a public relations program to monitor
news media in the United States and Middle East and create a database
of news stories to promote a positive image of the war in Iraq.
The Department's press office normally reports day-to-day activities
and is doing just that--getting the stories around and making sure we
at home and the people in Iraq and our people in uniform know the
positive side of this engagement.
I can tell you that at home we see the negative side all the time. It
seems to me that answering questions with positive stories would be
considered a PR effort. I do think it would have unintended
consequences potentially impacting intelligence activities. I don't
want to go into that too much, but the world knows about this
information and the activities that have been going on for years. They
have been going on for years.

We should not allow the Senate to take the position that prevents the
Department of Defense to report on favorable news and to create a
program to do that. To me, it constitutes a gag order.
I move to table the Senator's amendment.

Amendment No. 4897

It is my intention now to ask the Senate to make the Schumer
amendment the pending business. I ask unanimous consent that is the
pending business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Vitter). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, funding in this current year for
activities in Afghanistan is $116.5 million.
That money is being used to build border crossing points and police
headquarters and to train and equip Afghan national police and other
security forces in drug detection and eradication.
A significant portion of those funds is still being programmed to be
spent. There was a delay in getting that bill ready for expenditures
for 2006 so there will be some carryover into 2007. We don't know how
much that will be.
The President asked for an additional $18.5 million for this year in
this bill, and the committee supported that request.
In addition to the funding in the Department of Defense
appropriations bill before the Senate, the fiscal year 2007 Foreign
Operations bill as reported to the Senate has $297 million for
counterdrug activities in Afghanistan. The Commerce Science Justice
bill includes $30.5 million for counterdrug activities in Afghanistan.
This means in the current bills pending for approval, there is already
$346 million for counterdrug activities in Afghanistan for 2007,
notwithstanding the carryover money that is available. This means there
is approximately $400 million that will be available in 2007 already
and the Senator wants to add $700 million to that. That is an enormous
amount of money.
The British Government actually takes the lead in counterdrug
operations in Afghanistan. As we all know, NATO is in there now. The
United States should not offer to take the entire financial burden of
this operation. It is a multinational effort.
The Senator is right in his premise that poppy production sales are a
funding mechanism for terrorist activities in Afghanistan. We do
support poppy eradication efforts. However, we do not need to throw
money at that problem. Four-tenths of a billion dollars ought to be
enough for one year.
We have reviewed the counterdrug budgets for DOD and other agencies,
and we believe they are sufficiently budgeted not only for this current
year but for the 2007 year. If the Department needs additional funds
for 2007, we will have a supplemental in the spring. I would be the
first to support it if the Department came in and said they needed more
money. However, in view of the fact that we are working with NATO and
working with the British Government, which has the lead on this
program, I do not think doubling the amount available for this program
is prudent.
As a matter of fact, obviously from the experience in the current
year, it would not be spent.
That should not be voted upon by the Senate. I move to table Senator
Schumer's amendment.
I ask unanimous consent at 2 p.m. today the Senate proceed to a vote
in relation to the pending Menendez amendment, to be followed by a vote
in relation to the Schumer amendment--I have always made the motions to
table--that no second-degree amendments be in order prior to the vote,
and there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to the vote on each
amendment. I believe this has been cleared.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I don't wish to seem preemptory about this. I thank the
Senators for their courtesy in bringing the amendments to the Senate.
Can we make the second vote 10 minutes? I ask unanimous consent the
vote on the Menendez amendment be a 15-minute vote and the Schumer
amendment be a 10-minute vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent it be in order for me to ask for
the yeas and nays on both amendments at the same time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. 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. REED. 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. 4911

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to lay aside
the pending amendment and send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for himself and
Mr. Bayh, proposes an amendment numbered 4911.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To make available an additional $65,400,000 for additional
appropriations for Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, for the procurement
of Predators for Special Operations forces, and to designate the amount
as an emergency requirement)

At the end of title IX, add the following:
Sec. 9012. (a) Additional Amount for Aircraft Procurement,
Air Force.--The amount appropriated by chapter 3 of this
title under the heading ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force''
is hereby increased by $65,400,000, with the amount of the
increase designated as appropriations for contingency
operations directly related to the Global War on Terrorism,
and other unanticipated defense-related operations, pursuant
to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376 (109th Congress), as made
applicable to the House of Representatives by H. Con. Res.
818 (109th Congress) and designated as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 402 of S. Con. Res. 83 (109th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2007, as made applicable in the Senate by Section 7035
of Public Law 109-234.
(b) Availability for Procurement of Predators.--Of the
amount appropriated by chapter 3 of this title under the
heading ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force'', as increased by
subsection (a), up to $65,400,000 may be available for
procurement of Predators for Special Operations forces.
(c) Supplement Not Supplant.--The amount available under
subsection (b) for the purpose specified in that subsection
is in addition to any other amounts available in this Act for
that purpose.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment along with my
colleague from Indiana, Senator Evan Bayh, which would provide an
additional $65.4 million for the procurement of Predators for our
special operations forces. The Predator is an unmanned aerial vehicle--
or UAV, for

[[Page S9087]]

short--used for armed reconnaissance, airborne surveillance, and target
acquisition. It has become a critical asset in the war on terror. It is
a small, remotely piloted aircraft that brings the battlefront to the
military.
Through the use of cameras and other sensors, the Predator monitors,
in real time, buildings or people. Because it is unmanned, it is ideal
for use in areas that are inaccessible to the U.S. military such as
areas where the airspace is unsecure, the terrain is unpassable, or the
environment is contaminated by chemical or biological weapons. The
Predator system's hardware consists of a small monoplane with sensors,
a ground control station, and data communications system.
The special operations forces--the front line in our war on terror--
rely on Predator surveillance as part of their work to capture and kill
the terrorists targeting our troops and the Governments of Iraq and
Afghanistan.
There has been a lot of discussion recently about the war on terror.
This is actually one of the systems which has been most decisive in
killing the terrorists. That is why I think we have to support
additional funding for this antiterrorist system.
Right now, special operations forces depend upon Air Force assets,
which are already in high demand, for Predator support. With more
Predators, we can be more effective in going after and taking out the
terrorists. According to the Defense News article entitled ``Inside the
Zarqawi Takedown: Persistent Surveillance Helps End 3-Year Manhunt,''
the capture of the terrorist Abu Mus'Ab al-Zarqawi--the leader of al-
Qaida in Iraq, notorious for his despicable conduct--was facilitated
decisively by Predator surveillance provided to special operations
forces.
The Quadrennial Defense Review recognized that special operators need
dedicated UAV support and called for the establishment of a UAV
squadron organic to special operations forces.
The QDR reads:

To achieve the future force characteristics for SOF--
special operations forces--and to build on progress to date,
the Department will: . . . establish a SOF unmanned aerial
vehicle squadron to provide organic capabilities to locate
and target enemy capabilities in denied or contested areas.

This special operations squadron would eventually provide coverage 24
hours a day, 7 days a week, to assist the forces working to capture and
kill terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. The objective, according to
GEN Doug Brown, Commander of the Special Operations Command, SOCOM, is
to establish an ``unblinking eye,'' which would help special operators
targeting terrorists.
The President's budget request for fiscal year 2007 included funding
sufficient to begin to build the squadron, including the purchase of
eight UAVs.
On April 6, VADM Eric Olson, Deputy Commander of SOCOM, testified to
the Armed Services Committee that the command did not have sufficient
surveillance platforms. On April 27, Senator Bayh sent a letter to the
Armed Services Committee expressing his intent to address this issue
via legislation. Subsequently, the Appropriations Committee took action
in the fiscal year 2006 supplemental and accelerated funding for this
purpose. This funding would have allowed the initial operating
capability to be achieved in 2007, rather than 2008, and for the
squadron to be fully operational with 24 UAVs in 2010 instead of 2011.
I believe this acceleration would have been significantly
contributing to the capability of our Special Operations Command.
However, the acceleration was reversed by the Appropriations Committee
just a few months later when it cut the funding for the UAV procurement
for SOCOM--a cut to the Air Force aircraft procurement line.
According to the Special Operations Command, this cut ``would negate
the effect of the FY2006 Supplemental, . . . causing Full Operation
Capability to revert back to the original timeline. This delay will
adversely affect AFSOC's urgent ongoing requirement to conduct
persistent intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and targeting
missions.''
The amendment Senator Bayh and I are offering would put the
acceleration back on track by adding $65.4 million for six UAVs and
associated equipment.
Just 2 weeks ago, during a trip to Afghanistan and Iraq, the Armed
Services Committee staff was told by the special operations forces in
both countries, who are working hard to track the terrorists targeting
our troops and the Governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, that their No.
1 need is for Predator coverage. They need dedicated UAV support.
We have not captured Osama bin Laden yet, and unfortunately there are
many more targets for the special operators to conduct reconnaissance,
surveillance, and, we hope, preemption. There is no rationale for not
accelerating the establishment of the UAV squadron.
SOCOM wants this, and they have stated such. They can execute this in
the timeframe they have given the Congress. We need to increase the
pressure on al-Qaida operatives in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as
other terrorists attacking U.S. and coalition troops. These terrorists
are threatening, each day, the success of our operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan and the safety of our personnel.
If we really want to carry the fight to the terrorists, if we really
want to individually and collectively go after and take out these
terrorists, the Predator, according to our special operations forces,
is a key ingredient in this effort. Rather than rhetoric about fighting
the war on terrorism, let's give these special operators the tools to
effectively fight and destroy terrorists wherever they may be.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
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. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I was off the floor, but I was informed
of the amendment offered by Senators Reed and Bayh. It is my
understanding--the Senator from Hawaii concurs--we would be willing to
accept this amendment.
Does the Senator want a vote on it? We would be happy to take it by
voice vote if he is ready to let us accept it.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, my preference would be
for a recorded vote, if possible. I think this is an important point
about providing adequate resources to our special operators. Also, I
would like to at least confer with Senator Bayh.
Mr. STEVENS. Very well. I have no objection. This money, if nothing
else, would be available to replace some of the Predators that have
been lost. So we are willing to accept it, but if the Senator wishes a
vote, I would ask that--Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on
his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for
voting on this amendment be delayed until we can confer with the
leadership.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. 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. 4909

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the amendment
offered by my friend and colleague from New Jersey, Senator Menendez.
As has been his tradition, as has been his experience, he brings forth
an issue that I think is of special importance at this moment because
while we discussed in these last few days the honesty with which we get
information and data, we have recognized that there is often an attempt
to obscure the truth from the American people about the war we are in
at the moment.
We see it in different ways. We see it in the fact that, for
instance, flag-draped coffins are not permitted to be photographed when
the remains of our most courageous people fighting the

[[Page S9088]]

battle in Iraq are returned home. They come to a base in the State of
Delaware, and it is prohibited to take pictures of those flag-draped
coffins. That testimonial the country gives to these fallen soldiers is
denied public view, as is the fact that there is another American, or
more, lost in this quest to bring democracy to a country in which there
is considerable doubt about whether they want our form of democracy.
This amendment would make certain that no Department of Defense funds
are used for propaganda.
Last week, we learned that the Defense Department wants to pay a
company $20 million to monitor and analyze American and Middle East
media to help improve the image of the U.S. Government and the
military. I fully agree with him on the importance of limiting these
funds for a propaganda campaign. I will not support the use of these
funds in that manner.
The contractor being hired is expected to put together a database of
news stories and assess their tone to come up with ways to get more
glowing news coverage for the administration to try to convince the
American people that things are going pretty much to plan and it just
needs more time.
We don't talk about the fact that it needs, very often, more troops
to do this assignment, without regard to whether we ought to be there
at this time or whether they deserve the protections and equipment that
is often missing. But we are not just talking about the Middle East
press. This is Department of Defense money provided by U.S. taxpayers
to comb American newspapers to track and evaluate their stories.
I can't say I am surprised by this development. After all, this
administration has mastered the art of propaganda, and after I asked
for investigations of the administration's propaganda activity, the
Government Accountability Office, GAO, ruled that the administration
violated law in several cases. Propaganda efforts by the Department of
Health and Human Services and the Department of Education were ruled
illegal by GAO.
So what did the administration do? Did it agree to abide by the law?
Of course not. That is not their customary action, not this
administration. The administration announced that it would ignore the
GAO rulings. The administration sees the rule of law as kind of a speed
bump, not a roadblock. That is why Congress has to cut off these funds
for these propaganda efforts.
This isn't the Soviet Union. We promote a free press in this country.
It is essential to our democratic functioning. Learn the truth,
pleasant or unpleasant, and deal with it as we should--honestly. We
should not be manipulating the news media in our country.
I want the news about Iraq to be better, too. We all have great
respect and affection for those who are on the front line who are doing
their duty in spite of questions about what the purpose is or when the
return to their homes begins. But maybe if we made some changes in our
leadership and in our strategy we wouldn't need a PR campaign to
improve our image here or abroad. Instead of trying to make the current
situation look better, we ought to focus on actually making it better.
If we have any money to spare, let's spend it on our troops making
sure that everybody has body armor, the latest there is, to protect
them, or that the humvees and other vehicles are appropriately armored
to see if we can defend ourselves better against these roadside bombs
and these attacks on our troops, or on developing better strategies to
fight terrorism and to defend our country.
We are on the eve of the commemoration of 9/11. It was one of the
events in American history that still shocks our psyche. The fact that
in a single day almost 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil by
foreign intervention still astounds even the grimaced imagination. The
fact that these two tall towers fell--I had an office in one of those
towers when I was a commissioner of the Port Authority of New York and
New Jersey before I came to the Senate. They stood like cities, with
50,000 people going in and out, moving to their jobs, to their
assignments, to their responsibilities, to their families, not only to
their companies, not only to the services they provided. And we are
still in search of the perpetrators.
We all want to see victory come out of this war. The problem is I am
not sure we can define victory. It is too late for us to resume our
lives as we used to live them without constantly having to show an ID,
without constantly having to be in lines waiting, interfered with in
our normal routine. The last thing we need is to cover up reality. That
is what is taking place. This is an attempt to further cover up the
reality, cover up the losses we are enduring, cover up the expense it
is costing us. The financial costs are secondary to the loss of life,
but, nevertheless, that is reality.
I commend my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Menendez. He has
brought thoughtful discourse to this body, and we welcome his attempt
to clear the air, to make sure we are not spending money to color the
issues, to give it a rosy tone, but to tell the truth and to not spend
$20 million of taxpayer money on glossing over what is a very painful
reality.
I hope our colleagues will fully support this amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate equally
divided on the Menendez amendment. Who yields time? The Senator from
New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the
motion to table the amendment. With all due respect, this isn't about
any gag order. It is not about promoting whatever gains are made. We
are happy to see whatever gains are made in the Defense Department, in
the White House, and all of the Republican administration. They can
roll out all of the good news they have. But what we don't need and
what I hope the Senate will not vote for is $20 million of taxpayer
funds for the purpose of having a public relations firm ultimately
generate ``good press out of Iraq.'' That is not what we need. We need
a change in policy, not a $20 million public relations contract.
Our amendment specifically allows the Department of Defense to
continue to collect or analyze information in the news media, as they
do now, but we do not need a $20 million public relations program. If
my colleagues vote for the motion to table, they are voting to have
that $20 million public relations program that the taxpayers will fund.
We can generate whatever good news may exist, but what we need is a
change in policy. We don't need a PR program. This bill should be about
flack jackets for our soldiers, not for the administration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator
from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator's amendment will prohibit
spending monies for a program to create a database for news stories
that are positive. I do think there is an exception to that which says
it does not apply to collecting and analyzing information in the news
media. So they can spend money to analyze all the negative aspects of
our news media, but they cannot spend money to collect the data that is
necessary to provide the positive side of what our people are doing and
what the Iraqi people are doing in Iraq in this terrible situation over
there. I really think it is a gag order. I don't see why they should be
able to collect all the news stories, but they can't collect the
information that is positive and make it available.
So I move to table this, and I believe we will have a vote here
fairly soon. The 2 minutes equally divided will be after this
amendment; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Yes.
Mr. STEVENS. The yeas and nays have been ordered?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The
question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the
Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee), the Senator from Georgia (Mr.
Chambliss), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), and the Senator
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr.
Lieberman) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?

[[Page S9089]]

The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 44, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 236 Leg.]

YEAS--51

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner

NAYS--44

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Conrad
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wyden

NOT VOTING--5

Chafee
Chambliss
Isakson
Lieberman
Santorum
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. 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.

Amendment No. 4897

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes evenly divided prior to
the vote on the motion to table the Schumer amendment. The Senator from
New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. The
Taliban is gaining huge parts of Afghanistan, southern Afghanistan. The
Taliban is all over the place. How do they fund themselves? How do they
spread their hegemony? It is through opium. Opium production has
doubled in a year. While we are making some efforts to fight it, we are
not doing close to enough. If we want to stop the Taliban from going
back to where they were before 9/11, we must stop the way they prosper,
survive, and fund themselves. It is opium production. They make 90
percent of the world's heroin.
This amendment, very simply, adds money to the DOD budget so we can
fight the scourge of opium and the scourge of terrorism to which it is
interlinked in Afghanistan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, NATO is in charge, now, of Afghanistan.
The British Government is the lead agency in counterdrug operations.
Notwithstanding that, in this budget we have $346 million for
counterdrug efforts in Afghanistan. In addition to that, there is a
carryover available from 2007. It will be almost $400 million already,
and the Senator wishes to add another $700 million. It is not our
function. The lead agency is NATO, now, in Afghanistan.
I have made a motion to table. I urge the Senators to vote to table
this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The
yeas and nays were ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the
Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee), the Senator from Georgia (Mr.
Chambliss), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr.
Lieberman) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 237 Leg.]

YEAS--45

Alexander
Allard
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Coburn
Cochran
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich

NAYS--51

Akaka
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Stabenow
Talent
Warner
Wyden

NOT VOTING--4

Chafee
Chambliss
Isakson
Lieberman
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment remains pending. If there is no
further debate on the amendment, the question is on agreeing to the
amendment.
The amendment (No. 4897) was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. SMITH. 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. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 4857

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I had filed an amendment on behalf of
myself and the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, amendment No. 4857, and I
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are
set aside.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for himself
and Mr. Hatch, proposes an amendment numbered 4857.

Mr. KENNEDY. 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 provide that none of the funds appropriated by this Act
may be available for the conversion to contractor performance of
certain activities or functions of the Department of Defense in cases
where the contractor receives a competitive advantage by offering
inferior retirement benefits to workers who are going to be employed in
the performance of such activities or functions than those offered by
the Department to comparable civilian employees)

On page 160, line 7, strike ``; or'' and insert a
semicolon.
On page 160, line 14, strike the period at the end and
insert the following: ``; or
(C) offering to such workers a retirement benefit that in
any year costs less than the annual retirement cost factor
applicable to Department of Defense civilian employees under
chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we know that vast numbers of Americans
are increasingly concerned about their economic future. More than half
of all workers describe themselves as ``worried'' or ``stressed'' about
the state of the economy, and growing numbers of workers fear they will
not be able to meet, much less surpass, the standard of living of their
parents.
One of the primary factors contributing to these fears is the
worsening crisis in the Nation's retirement system. The cornerstones of
retirement security--private pensions, private savings, and Social
Security--are increasingly at risk. Far too many working Americans will
face retirement with little in their pocket--and with nothing to show
for their long years of loyal service and hard work.
The pension reform legislation enacted this year will help companies
keep the pension promises they have already made to workers, but we
need to do much more to encourage employers to provide adequate
retirement benefits to their hardworking employees.

[[Page S9090]]

Today, less than half of all private-sector employees have any
retirement plan at all at work, and the number of workers with a secure
defined-benefit pension plan has been cut in half since 1980.
Employer-provided retirement plans are essential for retirement
security for working families. Workers are far more likely to save
money for retirement through an employer-offered pension than if they
are left to save on their own.
Unfortunately, instead of encouraging more companies to provide good
retirement benefits to their employees, current Federal contracting
rules actually discourage many private companies from helping their
employees save for retirement. The competitive bidding process for
contracts favors private employers who shortchange their workers on
retirement benefits. Firms that provide no retirement benefits or only
meager benefits often win bid to perform Government work even when the
cost savings from their bid are attributable solely to the lack of
retirement benefits they provide.
This unfair policy creates a dangerous race to the bottom in which
private sector companies compete against each other to see who can
provide the fewest benefits to their workers. As a result, the bidding
process is actually increasing the number of Americans whose retirement
security is in jeopardy. That is both illogical and unconscionable.
In addition, this skewed privatization policy is fundamentally unfair
to Federal workers who lose contracts simply because they receive
decent benefits. Valued Federal employees are losing their jobs because
they cannot compete on an unfair playing field with employers who are
shortchanging their workers.
Defense workers are particularly at risk. Now, this year alone, the
Department of Defense is putting more than 10,000 civilian employees at
risk of unfair termination--more than any other Federal agency--and it
has announced plans to increase this number in the future.
Thirty-five percent--35 percent--of civilian Defense employees are
veterans. Hundreds more are active reservists currently serving in the
Iraq war. The least we can do for these dedicated and patriotic
Americans is to let them compete on a level playing field to save the
jobs they come home to after their service to their country.
The amendment Senator Hatch and I are offering will protect these
workers by preventing contractors from winning bids for Government work
solely because they provide inadequate retirement benefits to their
employees or no retirement benefits at all. Our goal is obvious: to
protect hard-working Federal employees from unfair competition. They
should not lose their jobs because they cannot compete with private
contractors on an unlevel playing field.
The amendment does not dictate the retirement benefits that employers
must provide or require contractors to change their existing benefits.
It simply levels the playing field for Federal employees and contract
employees by excluding costs related to retirement from a privatization
review. All the amendment does is prevent contractors from winning bids
solely because they offer inferior retirement benefits.
The underlying bill already includes provisions to level the playing
field for health care benefits. We need to do the same for retirement
benefits.
Our bipartisan amendment is an issue of basic fairness. It is fair to
private sector workers who will otherwise lose their retirement
benefits in a ``race to the bottom.'' And it is fair to Federal
employees who will otherwise lose their jobs to unfair competition.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support our amendment.
Mr. President, just a few additional comments. The question that is
raised is, is this going to add complicated accounting procedures? The
answer is, quite clearly, no. We have seen, for example, that when we
eliminated the current health issues out of the contracting, that
worked out very easily and worked out in a way to ensure a greater
fairness. As I mentioned, a great percentage of these workers are both
men and women who have been in the military; a great percentage of them
are both in the Reserve and the Guard. It is an unusually high
percentage of them because we know that preference is given, and
legitimately so, when there is an opening in the contracting for
veterans.
So there is a particularly and disproportionately high number of
these workers who have served their country in the service, in the
Reserves, and in the National Guard.
This is really what we are doing. I have the good opportunity to be
with my chairman, Senator Enzi, chairman of our conference on pensions.
We worked very closely with the members of the Finance Committee,
Senators Grassley and Baucus, in an often tedious conference. We spent
a great deal of the time on retirement benefits and on what is
happening to those benefits for workers. We have seen the results.
Savings are way down. We are going to have to give focus and attention
to the issues on Social Security. Pensions are the third part of that
stool, which is absolutely essential in terms of a secure retirement.
In so many instances, those pension rights, as we read in the
newspapers every day, are increasingly threatened, and increasingly at
risk, and increasingly lost. I agree with Senator Hatch and others that
it would be poor policy for us to have as a matter of Federal
preference competitions. These Federal employees have certain kinds of
retirement benefits, and that is being held against them in a
competition in which they otherwise would be successful. That will
obviously result in companies that want to do business with the Federal
Government getting rid of their pension plans, and it will disadvantage
those who are working in the Federal employment system.
Mr. President, I commended our colleagues previously for taking into
consideration the current health issues and comparisons. We are talking
about retirement benefits. I think the case is strong and, hopefully,
we can take this to conference and have the opportunity to explore it.
I have talked to both the chairman and the ranking minority member over
the last few days. I believe the staffs are familiar with the issue.
Hopefully, we can accept this and take it to conference. Senator Hatch
and I would be glad to respond to additional questions.
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.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 4913, as Modified

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4913 and ask
unanimous consent to send a modification of the amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an
amendment numbered 4913, as modified.

Mrs. BOXER. 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, as modified, is as follows:

(Purpose: To require a report on procedures and guidelines in the event
of further sectarian violence)

At the end of title IX, add the following:
Sec. 9012. (a) Not later than 30 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit
to the appropriate committees of Congress a report setting
forth procedures and guidelines of the Department of Defense
to protect United States military and civilian personnel
(should sectarian violence further increase in Iraq.)
(b) Form.--The report required by subsection (a) may be
submitted in classified form.
(c) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined. In this
section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress''
means--
(1) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on
Foreign Relations, the Select Committee on Intelligence, and
the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and
(2) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on
International Relations, the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, and the Committee on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives.

[[Page S9091]]

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, my amendment simply requires the Secretary
of Defense to submit a report on the procedures and guidelines
necessary to protect U.S. military and civilian personnel in the event
of a further increase in sectarian violence in Iraq.
Right off the top, I thank Senator Stevens and his staff and Senator
Inouye and his staff. They really helped me in getting this amendment
accepted. It means a lot to me because I worry deeply about this
situation.
The reason I worry is, as we look at this war, we just have not seen
plans. We have not seen that we have been ready for the contingencies
we face. We never seem to plan for the worst-case scenario. Frankly, I
think we need to do that in this case because we have not been right in
predicting what would happen. We have seen, over time, that we have not
had enough body armor, we have not had enough up-armored HMMWVs or
countermeasures against roadside bombs.
Frankly, the American people are losing confidence that we are
prepared to protect our troops in the case of a full-scale sectarian
conflict.
There was a quote in the paper recently from the commander of day-to-
day operations in Iraq. This is the quote:

Quite frankly, in 33 years in the United States Army, I
never trained to stop a sectarian fight.

Let me repeat that. This is from the commander on the ground in Iraq:

Quite frankly, in 33 years in the United States Army, I
never trained to stop a sectarian fight.

Now, for 6 months I have been asking Secretary Rumsfeld for a plan
for our troops in the event there is a full-blown civil war in Iraq.
And I have not received any kind of answer on it. After I sent my first
letter to the Secretary asking for such a plan, I got a letter back
from Under Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman. And he said:

Recent acts of violence intended to spark civil war have
failed.

That is the answer to my letter. When I asked: What is your plan in
case civil war breaks out, he said: Well, there isn't a civil war.
Obviously, that is not good enough.
My second letter to Secretary Rumsfeld was answered by Deputy
Secretary Gordon England. He told me:

Iraq's enemies are intent on provoking widespread
intercommunal conflict but they are not succeeding.

So, again, a lot of reassurances but no plan.
So, once again, I did not receive any type of answer that gave me any
solace that there is some planning to protect our troops and our
civilian personnel if things get worse over there.
Now, we know the number of monthly incidents of sectarian violence
increased from 5 per month in 2003 to 250 per month in 2006. Let me say
that again. Monthly incidents of sectarian violence increased from 5
per month in 2003 to 250 per month in 2006.
Well, why do we need a plan now? I think the facts speak for
themselves. The Pentagon's latest report that we received on conditions
in Iraq, which was dated August 2006, said:

Concern about civil war within the Iraqi civilian
population and among some defense analysts has increased in
recent months.

And this is what they said:

Conditions that could lead to civil war exist in Iraq.

So if the Pentagon is telling us conditions that could lead to civil
war exist in Iraq, the least we can expect from our Pentagon leadership
is for them to provide some kind of contingency plan to protect our
troops and civilian workers we have over there.
July saw the highest level of weekly attacks since military
operations in Iraq began. Since last spring, the number of daily
casualties, both military and civilian, reached nearly 120 per day, up
from approximately 80 per day.
According to the United Nations--and I believe this is also quoted in
this report, so this is the Pentagon quoting the United Nations--an
estimated 22,977 families--or 137,862 individuals--have been displaced
in Iraq due to sectarian strife since the February 22, 2006, Samarra
Mosque bombing.
So for those people who put their head in the sand and say, this
sectarian strife, it is going to go away, the people really do not want
it, the facts belie that. I would say to my colleagues, think of one of
your towns. And 137,862 would be one of your very large towns. If
everyone in that town left that town, that is how many people have been
displaced in Iraq due to sectarian strife.
General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, acknowledged to one
of our committees there is a possibility of the situation in Iraq
evolving into civil war. And he did not anticipate such a situation a
year ago.
So when I heard about that, I sent a third letter--a third letter--to
Secretary Rumsfeld asking: What is the plan in case of civil war? That
letter remains unanswered.
Now, there is no reason the Secretary of Defense cannot provide the
relevant committees in the House and the Senate a plan in case of civil
war. My amendment will allow for this plan to be submitted in a
classified form. I think that is very important because we certainly do
not want that published. But we want to know that it exists and that
there is a plan to protect our troops and civilians. Congress has the
responsibility to provide oversight of the executive branch. Congress
failed to ensure that the administration had a plan to win the peace in
Iraq. We all know that. I saw Senator Biden just briefly on the Senate
floor, and he was one of those voices, along with Senator Lugar--
bipartisan--way early asking: Where is the plan? Where is the plan?
Where is the plan? We never had it.
Now the President says: We will be in Iraq. As long as I am
President, we will stay in Iraq.
That is not a plan. That is an admission of no plan, no exit
strategy. So at least let us have a plan, a contingency plan, that if
the sectarian violence escalates, we know that our people will be
protected.
I again thank Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens, and their staffs
because I have to say without their help--this was a bit contentious,
but we worked on it until we got it so that it could be accepted on
both sides. I am very grateful.
At this time, I yield the floor and ask, at the appropriate time, we
have a voice vote on this amendment.
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. BURNS. 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. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dorgan
and I be added as cosponsors to amendment No. 4914.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, the pending business is the Boxer
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the adoption of the Boxer amendment at this
time with a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
4193, as modified.
The amendment (No. 4193), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Kennedy
amendment No. 4857 be agreed to, with the motion to reconsider laid
upon the table. I further ask unanimous consent that the Rockefeller
amendment No. 4906 be withdrawn, and further, that the managers'
amendment, which has been cleared by both managers, which is at the
desk, be considered and agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid
upon the table. I ask unanimous consent that following this action, the
Senate proceed to vote in relation to

[[Page S9092]]

the Reed amendment No. 4911, with no second-degree amendment in order
to the amendment prior to the vote and that there be 4 minutes for
debate equally divided prior to that vote. I ask unanimous consent that
following disposition of that amendment, the only other amendment in
order to the bill be the Bingaman-Domenici-Burns-Dorgan amendment
relating to firefighters, and that following disposition of that
amendment, the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to vote
on final passage of the bill, the Senate then insist on its amendments,
request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to
appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 4857) was agreed to.
The amendment (No. 4906) was withdrawn.
The amendments were agreed to, as follows:

amendment no. 4900

(Purpose: To make available up to $2,000,000 for infrastructure for the
Afghanistan military legal system)

At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8109. Of the amounts appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act, up to $2,000,000 may be available for
infrastructure for the Afghanistan military legal system.

amendment no. 4894

(Purpose: To make available from Other Procurement, Army, up to
$1,500,000 for a Convoy Training Simulator for the Montana Army
National Guard)

At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8109. Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by title III under the heading ``Other Procurement,
Army'', up to $1,500,000 may be available for a Convoy
Training Simulator for the Montana Army National Guard.

amendment no. 4916

(Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Navy, up to $300,000 for independent testing of the Joint
Improvised Explosive Device Neutralizer III)

At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8109. Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by the title IV under the heading ``Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy'', up to $300,000 may
be available for independent testing of the Joint Improvised
Explosive Device Neutralizer III, with such test to be
designed and conducted by the Marine Corps Warfighting
Laboratory.

amendment no. 4901

(Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Defense-Wide, up to $1,500,000 for the development of a
field-deployable hydrogen fueling station)

At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8109. Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by title IV under the heading ``Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', up to
$1,500,000 may be available for the development of a field-
deployable hydrogen fueling station.

amendment no. 4903

(Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Defense-Wide, up to $6,000,000 for research and development
on bioterrorism threats to troops)

At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8109. Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by title IV under the heading ``Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', up to
$6,000,000 may be available for bioterrorism protection
research (PE #0601384BP).

amendment no. 4917

(Purpose: To provide the Secretary of the Army the ability to reimburse
servicemembers and their families for financial hardships due to
extended deployment overseas)

At the end of title VIII, add the following:
SEC. 8109. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of the Army may reimburse a member for expenses
incurred by the member or family member when such expenses
are otherwise not reimbursable under law:
Provided, That such expenses must have been incurred in
good faith as a direct consequence of reasonable preparation
for, or execution of, military orders:
Provided further, That reimbursement under this section
shall be allowed only in situations wherein other authorities
are insufficient to remedy a hardship determined by the
Secretary, and only when the Secretary determines that
reimbursement of the expense is in the best interest of the
member and the United States:
Provided further, That this provision shall only apply to
soldiers assigned to the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team.

amendment no. 4912

(Purpose: To increase by $20,000,000 the amount made available by
chapter 2 of title IX for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide for
the purpose of assisting the African Union force in Sudan)

At the end of title IX, add the following:
Sec. 9012. (a) Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Despite the signing of the Darfur Peace Agreement on
May 5, 2006, the violence in Darfur, Sudan, continues to
escalate and threatens to spread to other areas of Sudan and
throughout the region.
(2) The African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) currently
serves as the primary security force in Sudan, but is
undermanned and under-equipped.
(3) Although the United Nations has approved sending a
peacekeeping force to Darfur, the African Union Mission in
Sudan (AMIS) will need to expand its manpower and capability
in order to assist or serve as a bridge force until the
United Nations peacekeeping force can be deployed.
(b) The amount appropriated or otherwise made available by
chapter 2 of this title under the heading ``Operation and
Maintenance Defense-Wide'' is hereby increased by
$20,000,000.
(c) Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made available
by chapter 2 of this title under the heading ``Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', as increased by subsection (b),
$20,000,000 may be available--
(1) to assist in the training, support, and equipping of
the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) to bolster its
efforts to protect the civilian population in Darfur;
(2) to facilitate the air-lifting of AMIS forces into the
Darfur region as quickly as possible; and
(3) to assist and expand the logistics capability of the
African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS).
(d) The amount made available by subsection (b) is
designated as appropriations for contingency operations
directly related to the global war on terrorism, and other
unanticipated defense-related operations, pursuant to section
4502 of H. Con. Res. 376 (109th Congress), as made applicable
to the House of Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th
Congress) and is designated as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 402 of S. Con. Res. 83 (109th Congress),
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2007,
as made applicable in the Senate by section 7035 of Public
Law 109-234.
(e) The Secretary of Defense may transfer funds made
available by subsection (b) to other appropriations to
accomplish the purposes of this section. This transfer
authority is in addition to any other transfer authority
available to the Department of Defense. The Secretary shall,
not fewer than five days prior to making transfers from this
appropriation account, notify the congressional defense
committees in writing of the details of any such transfer.

amendment no. 4918

(Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Defense-Wide, up to $1,000,000 for research and development
on the heavy fuel diesel engine)

At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8109. Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by title IV under the heading ``Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'' for DARPA
Management Headquarters, up to $1,000,000 may be available
for the Heavy Fuel Diesel Engine (PE #0603286E).

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, that now means the floor is open for
consideration of the Bingaman-Domenici-Burns-Dorgan amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.

Amendment No. 4915

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself,
Mr. Domenici, Mr. Burns, Mr. Dorgan, and Ms. Cantwell,
proposes an amendment numbered 4915.

Mr. BINGAMAN. 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 appropriate funds for emergency wildlfire suppression)

On page 230, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

For an additional amount for ``Wildland Fire Management''
under the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR'' of title I
of the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-54),
$100,000,000 for the conduct of emergency wildfire
suppression activities of the Secretary of the Interior,
Provided, That the amount provided under this heading is
designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
402 of S. Con. Res. 83 (109th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2007, as made
applicable in the Senate by section 7035 of Public Law 109-
234.

[[Page S9093]]

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

For an additional amount for ``Wildland Fire Management''
under the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE'' of title III
of the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-54),
$175,000,000 for the conduct of emergency wildfire
suppression activities of the Secretary of Agriculture,
acting through the Chief of the Forest Service, Provided,
That the amount provided under this heading is designated as
an emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of S. Con.
Res. 83 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2007, as made applicable in the Senate
by section 7035 of Public Law 109-234.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment is the one that the floor
manager, the chairman, indicated was to be considered now. It relates
to wildfire management and is one that has strong support on both sides
of the aisle. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
I know Senator Burns wishes to speak as well.
I yield the floor.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my understanding this is a modified
amendment, modified from the original form. I ask the Senator from New
Mexico if that is the case.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, that is correct. This is in modified
form from what was earlier filed as an amendment. I believe the
concerns earlier raised have been resolved.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator and ask for adoption
of the amendment.
Does Senator Burns wish to comment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska. I thank
Senator Bingaman for his work on this amendment. We heartily approve
the amendment. It has strong support on this side of the aisle.
Ms. CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. President. Before I make my statement, I
want to take a moment to thank Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye for
their leadership in getting this vitally important defense
appropriations bill to the Senate floor. I know that that the chairman
and ranking member believe, as I do, that ensuring sufficient funding
for our brave fighting men and women during this incredibly challenging
Iraq war is an urgent national priority. I appreciate their hard work
and look forward to making sure we complete work on this legislation
before the end of the fiscal year.
Today, I am here to speak on another issue critical to Washington
State, and many States throughout the Nation: the threat of wildfires.
To date, we are in the midst of the most active fire year of the
decade. That may surprise many of my colleagues who remember the
devastating fires a few years ago. But as of today, more than 8.4
million acres have burned as a result of 84,000 fires across the Nation
this year. To put this year into perspective--compared to the 10-year
national average, this year 73 percent more acres have already burned.
Already, this is the third worst fire year since 1960.
As we speak, our brave wildland firefighters across the Nation are
fighting 62 wildfires that have burned more than 1 million acres and
continue to burn in 11 States. Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and
Wyoming all have active fires that have burned at least 25,000 acres.
In my State, Washington, an area nearly half the size of Rhode Island
is ablaze. More than 309,000 acres have burned in Washington State as a
result of 13 active fires. The largest fire in Washington, the Tripod
Complex Fire, has burned 163,000 thousand acres. In Southeastern
Washington, residents and farmers alike have been dealing with and
fighting the Columbia Complex Fire. That fire has burned more than
90,000 acres--including some homes and valuable wheat crops--forcing
the evacuation of hundreds of Columbia County residents in and around
the city of Dayton during the last month.
Fighting these fires has truly been a national priority and I want to
thank all of the firefighters, soldiers, local and State officials, and
many others who have worked so hard to protect our citizens and
property. Last week, when my office called the Incident Command Center
for the Columbia Complex Fire in Waitsburg, Washington, a firefighter
from Louisiana picked up the phone. Louisiana joined firefighting
personnel from the State of Washington, Oregon, Arizona and New Mexico,
the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Australia,
Canada, and New Zealand.
This year the Department of Defense has been involved for the first
time since 2003. ``Task Force Blaze,'' a 550-soldier battalion was
mobilized from Fort Lewis to assist with firefighting activities on the
Tripod Fire last month. Air National Guard Units in Wyoming, Colorado,
Oregon, and California have been mobilized as part of the firefighting
effort.
This situation is all too familiar to this part of the Pacific
Northwest. Citizens in Columbia County were forced to deal with the
School Fire last year that raged for 13 days, burning 52,000 acres and
destroying 215 homes and other structures. Unfortunately, we are facing
another all too familiar situation, running out of money to fight these
fires.
While Congress is aware of this perennial problem, and has wisely
boosted wildland fire fighting money the last few years, this season's
unusually high fire activity in Washington State and across the Nation
has strained us further still. In Washington State for example, more
than 3,300 firefighting personnel are bravely fighting these stubborn
blazes. That is why I am a cosponsor of Mr. Bingaman's critical
amendment.
Any day now, the Federal Government will have spent all of its
available funding for wildland firefighting for this fiscal year. This
will leave our primary firefighting agencies--the Forest Service and
the Department of Interior--stuck with the choice of either cutting
back firefighting efforts from the more than 1 million acres burning
today, or cutting back from other necessary activities. Without these
emergency funds, national forests throughout the country would likely
have to cut back on vital maintenance or services to the public. And if
we are forced to tap into the land and water conservation fund, we
might have to forgo preserving pristine or unique lands.
In these extraordinary circumstances with thousands of people
affected by wildfires from Montana to Washington to Wyoming--I believe
that providing Federal wildland firefighting agencies with the adequate
resources should be a top priority. That's why I support the Bingaman
amendment to provide an additional $275 million in emergency funding
for wildfire suppression activities. Specifically, based on the
resource projections provided to us by the administration, $175 million
would be made available for the Forest Service and $100 million to the
Department of Interior. These funds will help assure the thousands of
our citizens in communities across the Nation that the Federal
Government will have the adequate resources to continue fire
suppression activities without borrowing from other important programs.
When we run out of funding, we will have depleted available
appropriations for fire suppression and a nearly $500 million reserve
fund to deal with these emergencies. I recognize that we will probably
need to do a lot more for firefighting and I look forward to supporting
those efforts. However, based on available projections from the Federal
Government providing $275 million now will help provide some immediate
relief.
While this is an extraordinary fire year, this is not a new issue for
Congress to deal with. Over the last few years, Congress has added
emergency appropriations and reserve accounts in response to wildfire
suppression activities and other fire-related activities. As recently
as 2004, we added $500 million in emergency funding to the fiscal year
2005 Defense appropriations bill for wildfire suppression activities.
With a million acres burning across the Nation in 11 States--American
citizens deserve to know that the Federal Government is doing
everything it can to protect them, their property, and their
communities. I think it is critical to provide these additional funds
and I urge adoption of the Bingaman amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
No. 4915.
The amendment (No. 4915) was agreed to.

[[Page S9094]]

Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, are there any other pending amendments
not taken care of by the unanimous consent agreement? It is my
understanding from the unanimous consent agreement that the only other
amendment to be considered on this bill was the Bingaman amendment, and
we now have a vote on the Reed amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Reed amendment is
the only remaining amendment under the unanimous consent agreement.
Mr. STEVENS. There is 4 minutes equally divided. I suggest the
absence of a quorum, awaiting the arrival of the Senator from Rhode
Island.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. 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. 4911

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I understand the pending business is the
Reed amendment with 4 minutes equally divided; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Conrad
be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, this amendment that is offered by myself and
Senator Bayh would add $64.7 million to continue an accelerated
acquisition of Predator. These are unmanned aerial vehicles that are
critical to our war on terror. They were instrumental in the detection
and the ultimate destruction of Zarqawi and other terrorists. They are
the chief tool of our special operations forces in terms of going
after, seeking, finding, and destroying terrorists and terrorist
networks.
There was a plan to accelerate the deployment of these UAVs. That
plan was disrupted, if you will, because of decisions previously made.
But I think today we can send a uniform and unanimous message that we
need to acquire these six additional UAVs to create ultimately a
squadron of UAVs for our special operations command. With these weapons
systems, we can continue to deal effective and decisive blows against
terrorists. I urge unanimous passage of this legislation adding $64.5
million. I commend Senator Bayh because he really was a leader in this
effort in terms of drawing the attention of the committee to this
shortfall in funding and requesting that it be added with this
amendment.
I reserve the balance of any time remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we were willing to accept this amendment
when the Senator first brought the Predator to the attention of this
Congress. I am delighted to see more Predators being bought. This is
sort of a premature type of advance. These monies would have been
requested anyway for 2007, but we checked with the Department and they
are willing to proceed with it now.
I urge the adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the remainder
of my time.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
4911.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the
Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr.
Lieberman) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 238 Leg.]

YEAS--98

Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chambliss
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeMint
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Chafee
Lieberman
The amendment (No. 4911) was agreed to.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Funding Traumatic Brain Injury

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, as the Senate prepares for final
passage of H.R. 5631, the fiscal year 2007 Defense appropriations bill,
I would like to thank my colleagues for accepting an amendment that I
cosponsored which addresses the growing concern of a number of veterans
returning from combat operations overseas that may have traumatic brain
injury, TBI.
According to reports, preliminary research by the center shows that
about 10 percent of all service personnel, and up to 20 percent of
frontline personnel, suffer concussions during combat tours. Like any
medical condition, early diagnosis is the key to successful
intervention and treatment.
Unfortunately, many are not being properly screened for this serious
and debilitating condition. TBI clinically presents many of the same
signs and symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder, PTSD. These two
serious but very different medical conditions require separate and
distinct treatment programs.
Because it is so important that our veteran care facilities have the
proper training to distinguish between these two illnesses, I included
language in the fiscal year 2007 Military Construction and Veterans
Affairs appropriations bill requesting the Department of Veterans
Affairs to establish a separate education program to better diagnose
TBI.
With final passage of this bill, we have another opportunity to
further strengthen our efforts to better understand and treat TBI. I am
proud to cosponsor this amendment which will add an additional $12
million in funding for the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center,
DVBIC. The DVBIC is a collaboration between the Defense Department and
the VA to deliver care to patients with TBI.
During testimony earlier this year, leaders of the DVBIC testified
that the center needed $19 million in funding for fiscal year 2007.
This amendment brings the total funding from the $7 million requested
to a total of $19 million. This funding level is important because it
will ensure our combat veterans receive the quality care they deserve.
Mr. ALLEN. I thank my good friend from Texas for her support by
cosponsoring my amendment. I have enjoyed a wonderful working
relationship with Senator Hutchison on a number of issues, especially
veterans issues. We have worked together to increase veterans health
care funding as well as veterans research funding. We just recently
worked together on an amendment to provide credit monitoring services
to Veterans and active duty servicemembers at no cost in response to
the theft of a Veterans Administration laptop computer.
Senator Hutchison and I, as well as other Senators from both sides of
the aisle, are here today in an effort to give our veterans the health
care they

[[Page S9095]]

so rightfully deserve. Those returning servicemembers who suffered a
traumatic brain injury need the best quality care available and this
amendment is a long step in that direction. I thank the Senior Senator
from Texas for her support and her leadership as chairman of the
Veterans Affairs Appropriations Committee on this issue.

Operation and Maintenance

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to ask the chairman and ranking
member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee for clarification of
language that appears in title IX, on page 238 of the committee's
report. Under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance'' there is a
writeup entitled ``Pre-Deployment and Post-Deployment Training.'' The
committee states in part ``The Committee believes that costs accrued at
home station for the aforementioned activities are allowable costs for
the use of title IX funding. To the extent that such training,
maintenance and reset activities displace normal peacetime training
events, the amounts provided to the Department in title IX operation
and maintenance accounts should be used to ensure full support of pre-
deployment and post-deployment operations, as well as for continuing
combat and security operations in support of the global war on
terror.''
Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens, is it the committee's intent that
funds provided in this title for national and field level reset repair
be available for the reset of equipment used for pre-deployment and
post training but not otherwise deployed?
Mr. STEVENS. Yes, that is the committee's intent.
Mr. INOUYE. I concur with the Senator from Alaska in regards to the
committee's intended purpose of funds provided for Army reset programs.
Mr. KOHL. Given this interpretation, I urge the committee to work
with the Army to ensure that funds provided in this title and elsewhere
in this bill should be used for upgrading equipment to current
production type, model, and series, where determined by the Army
Acquisition Executive to be required and cost effective, to include
equipment used for predeployment training but not otherwise deployed.
Mr. STEVENS. The committee will encourage the Army to do so and
thanks the Gentleman from Wisconsin for raising this important issue.
Mr. INOUYE. Yes, thank you.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, next week we will be commemorating an
event that none of us can forget and none of us wants to relive.
We mark September 11, 2001, as a day of national tragedy. But out of
the ashes rose a determination to bring the sponsors of this terrorism
to justice and to reform the intelligence system that that we depend on
to prevent such predatory attacks in the future.
In those first weeks and months after the attacks, we were united as
a nation and enjoyed the sympathy and support of the world. We went
after Osama bin Ladin and the government that hosted him, with some of
America's best and bravest. We assembled some of our wisest and most
experienced leaders to investigate the events leading up to the attack
and to recommend a path of reform.
Since 2001 when I joined the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have
worked to bring about intelligence reform. The Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 was an important milestone on this
journey. Important structural changes were made to our intelligence
community and barriers removed to information sharing between agencies.
But where are we now?
The operational failure of 9/11 was followed by an analytical failure
in Iraq. The hidden agenda of the White House and the President's lack
of interest in objective analysis compounded the consequences of flawed
intelligence. The President did not level with the public before the
war. He did not keep his eye on hunting down al-Qaida. Instead, he led
us into an unnecessary and disastrous war in Iraq.
Instead of providing oversight of the executive branch, congressional
leadership has provided a rubberstamp. Instead of providing an
independent voice, it has offered an echo chamber. Instead of helping
the Senate Intelligence Committee investigate the Iraq intelligence
failure, it has helped the White House push roadblocks in our path. And
instead of taking care to safeguard liberty as we enhance security, it
has closed its eyes on violations of the law and betrayal of our
values.
In spite of some strong disagreements on specific issues, the Senate
Intelligence Committee has come together on a bipartisan basis to
implement the reforms already adopted and advance additional reform
measures.
But last year, the leadership in the Senate did not allow the
committee's authorization bill to be debated and voted on by the full
Senate. For the first time in 28 years, the committee was blocked from
carrying out its most basic function--the authorization of U.S.
intelligence programs.
This month, we have learned that the majority leader does not intend
to bring the fiscal year 2007 intelligence authorization bill to the
floor before the Senate's fall recess. Again we face the prospect of
the leadership preventing the Intelligence Committee from doing its
job.
This is irresponsible and unacceptable. The authorizing committee
should be the congressional vehicle for intelligence reform. The
members of the committee spend the time needed to understand the
issues. And we operate under special rules to keep our Nation's most
sensitive secrets.
As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I will do my best
to make sure the intelligence community is adequately and appropriately
funded. But providing direction and guidance for intelligence
activities is the job of the Intelligence Committee.
Senator Rockefeller, the distinguished vice chairman of the
Intelligence Committee, elaborated from the floor this week about what
is at stake. The fiscal year 2007 intelligence authorization bill,
passed unanimously by the committee, included provisions: to enhance or
clarify the authority of the Director of National Intelligence; to
encourage information sharing and access; to establish a statutory
inspector general of the intelligence community; to elevate the heads
of the technical intelligence agencies by requiring them to be
appointed by the President with Senate advice and consent; to improve
the timeliness and completeness of information provided to the
committee, and; to streamline the security clearance process for
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency employees and contractors.
These measures are not trivial. If enacted, they will save lives and
they will save money. They will help restore congressional oversight
where it is lacking. They will help prevent abuses in intelligence
operations, which bring dishonor to our nation.
In short, these measures are critical to our national security. They
should not be casually discarded.
Senator Rockefeller has repeatedly raised his concerns with the lack
of congressional oversight of the warrantless surveillance program
conducted by the National Security Agency. I join him in expressing
those concerns from the perspective of a member whose state proudly
hosts the headquarters of that invaluable agency.
After a long struggle against White House foot-dragging, members of
congressional intelligence committees are finally being briefed on this
5-year-old program.
But as Senator Rockefeller points out, we have still not received the
information necessary to adequately understand and evaluate the
program. Nor have we been allowed to use the Intelligence Committee's
specialized staff--such as the minority counsel and the NSA monitor--
who are best qualified to help us with this task.
Under these conditions, the Senate cannot evaluate the need for the
warrantless surveillance program and cannot propose legislative
remedies for the alleged deficiencies of the current law. These
circumstances must change.
Mr. President, intelligence is at the forefront in our fight against
terrorism, just as it was in our long Cold War struggle against
communism. Congress has a duty under the Constitution to be a critical
and coequal partner in this fight. I join Senator Rockefeller in urging
the leadership of the Senate to let us get on with it.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to discuss the Defense
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2007, which is one of the most
important of the appropriations measures that we consider annually.
This legislation will provide critical funding for the men and women in

[[Page S9096]]

our armed forces who, at this very moment, are in harm's way. We must
support them, and, for that reason, I will vote in favor of its
passage. But I have serious concerns over the earmarks contained in the
committee report accompanying this bill.
The bill reported out of committee appropriates over $453 billion.
This is more than $9 billion below the President's request and I am
discouraged that it required a $13 billion amendment designated as
emergency funding to get back to the President's requested funding
level. Also, as is the case with so many of the appropriations bills
that come to the floor, the report accompanying it contains hundreds of
earmarks that were neither requested nor authorized--to the tune of
over $4 billion. During a time of war we should be making every effort
to support the President's budget request instead of slashing it and
then adding earmarks for favored projects.
Every day we ask the brave men and women who fight for freedom on
behalf of our great nation to make sacrifices. They sacrifice in Iraq
and Afghanistan as well as several other places around the globe. Our
soldiers have sacrificed and their families have sacrificed. And so, we
in the Congress should exercise some degree of self-restraint and
sacrifice as well.
Let me mention a few of the add-ons that were included in the bill's
accompanying report that were not requested in the President's budget
and were not on any of the armed services unfunded priority lists--some
of which have next to nothing to do with the Department of Defense or
its mission:
$2 million for automotive research;
$2 million for Precision Polishing of Large Objects;
$3 million for improved shelf-life for Vegetables;
$2 million for Brown Tree Snakes;
$117 million for an Oceanographic Survey Ship;
$75 million for the Allegany Ballistics Lab in West Virginia;
$18.5 million for a Air Force C-17 Maintenance Training System in
Hawaii;
$8 million for the Allen Army Airfield in Alaska;
$1.5 million for Fort Detrick in Maryland;
$4 million for disposable dental masks; and
$3.5 million for Hibernation Genomics.
Once again, there are also many earmarks that may be for worthy
causes, such as ovarian cancer research, but there is no compelling
national defense reason for these items to be funded through this
legislation. These earmarks include:
$115 million for Breast Cancer Research;
$80 million for Prostate Cancer Research;
$6 million for Integrated Trans- lational Prostate Disease Research;
$34 million for the Hawaii Federal Health Care Network; and
$15 million for Ovarian Cancer Research.
Mr. President, as we are engaged fully in the global war on terror,
it is imperative that we get the most of each and every defense dollar.
The money that is being diverted to projects like the ones I have
mentioned could instead be used for body armor or other critical needs
to protect our troops and help win the war on terror. The earmarks I
have mentioned are just a small sampling of the many, unrequested
earmarks that fill the accompanying report. These earmarks are draining
our precious resources and are not vital to our long term national
security. I strongly encourage the Federal agencies affected to use
their judgement to ensure they are not allocating resources to projects
that are not legislatively mandated or authorized, but rather, are
merely the wish lists of the committee.
Beyond the earmarks contained in the Senate report, this bill
contains numerous authorizing provisions, some of which are outside of
the scope of defense policy. Some of these provisions include:
Authorizing medical services at Army medical facilities located in
Hawaii for civilian patients;
Authorizing the use of up to $50 million for operational ranges
managed by the Air Force in Alaska; and
A provision that protects jobs in Hawaii and Alaska.
Mr. President, I have no doubt that some of these provisions may be
important while others are questionable at best. What is important is
that we follow the authorization process and restrain ourselves from
using appropriations bills to authorize projects on this bill that have
not been requested by the Department of Defense, nor approved by the
authorizing committee.
I would also like to discuss the Buy America restrictions that cost
the Department of Defense and the American taxpayers. Like in previous
appropriations bills, this year's bill imposes a number of Buy America
restrictions.
For example, the bill would prevent the purchase of ball bearings
unless domestically produced. It requires that welded shipboard anchor
and mooring chain be manufactured in the United States. Another section
prohibits the Department of Defense from purchasing supercomputers from
a foreign source.
I continue to be very concerned about the potential impact on
readiness of our restrictive trade policies with our allies. From a
philosophical point of view, I oppose these types of protectionist
policies. I believe free trade is an important element in improving
relations among all nations and essential to economic growth. From a
practical standpoint, ``Buy America'' restrictions could seriously
impair our ability to compete freely in international markets and also
could result in the loss of existing business from long-standing trade
partners.
Some legislative enactments over the past several years have had the
effect of establishing a monopoly for a domestic supplier in certain
product lines. This not only adds to the pressure for our allies to
``Buy European'' but it also raises the costs of procurement for DOD
and cuts off access to potential state-of-the-art technologies. DOD
should have the ability to make purchases from a second source in an
allied country covered by a defense cooperation memorandum of
understanding when only one domestic source exists. This would ensure
both price and product competition.
Defense exports improve interoperability with friendly forces with
which we are increasingly likely to operate in coalition warfare or
peacekeeping missions. They increase our influence over recipient
country actions, and in a worse case scenario, allow the U.S. to
terminate support for equipment. Exports lower the unit costs of
systems to the U.S. military. In recent years they have kept mature
lines open while the U.S. has developed new systems that will go into
production around the turn of the century. Finally, these exports
provide the same economic benefits to the U.S. as all other exports--
well paying jobs, improved balance of trade, and increased tax revenue.
These are really issues of acquisition policy, not appropriations
matters.
Mr. President, I would prefer not to criticize this legislation. It
is very important to the ultimate success of our ongoing war on terror.
Yet I believe it is important to point out to the American taxpayer
where some of their money is going. And some of it is not going to
projects that have anything to do with our defense.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as the Senate prepares to vote on the
Department of Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007, I want
to thank all of our brave soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines for
their hard work in the ongoing fight against terrorism, in Iraq, in
response to natural disasters here at home, and in the many other
missions to which they have been assigned around the world. These
dedicated men and women, along with their families, are making great
sacrifices in service to our country. We owe a tremendous debt of
gratitude to the members of the United States Armed Forces for their
selfless service.
I am pleased that the Senate is about to pass the Defense Department
appropriations bill. While I continue to have grave concerns about the
misguided strategy this administration is pursuing in Iraq, the Senate
bill includes funds for many important programs and priorities for our
servicemen and women. In particular, the bill includes a well-deserved,
although modest, 2.2 percent across-the-board pay raise for our
military personnel. It also increases funding for vital equipment for
those in uniform facing daily dangers in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am
also pleased to support a number of good

[[Page S9097]]

provisions in this bill that seek to ensure that our troops have the
equipment they need to perform their duties on the ground, including
increased funding for body armor and personal protection equipment, as
well as additional funding for up-armored humvees.
I am also pleased to support increased funds for the National Guard
and Reserve, including an additional $340 million for force protection
equipment. This bill includes critical funding that will help the
National Guard repair its equipment and reinstate a superior readiness
level so that it is capable of defending our country and responding to
natural disasters within the continental United States.
While I strongly support increased funding for the National Guard,
and for border security, I opposed Senator Sessions' amendment to
appropriate nearly $2 billion to the Army National Guard solely to
build hundreds of miles of fencing along the southern border. I did so
because it is difficult to justify pouring massive Federal dollars into
efforts that have not been shown to be effective. We must improve
border security but we simply do not have the data to show that border
fences are an effective deterrent to illegal immigration. For that
reason, I opposed the authorization of this fencing when it was
proposed as an amendment to S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration
Reform Act of 2006, and I opposed appropriating the funds for it in
this appropriations bill.
The better approach would be to first implement another provision of
S. 2611 that directs the Attorney General, in cooperation with other
executive branch officials, to conduct a study on this question. The
study would analyze the construction of a system of physical barriers
along the southern international land and maritime border, including
the necessity, feasibility, and impact of such barriers on the
surrounding area. It is estimated that construction costs for these
border fences is more than $1 million per mile. And that doesn't
include the cost of maintaining these structures. Furthermore, there
are very serious concerns about the environmental impact this type of
massive construction project would have. Before we commit to pouring
precious Federal dollars into a massive fencing system, at the very
least we should do a thorough analysis of the most effective and
fiscally responsible means of securing our borders against illegal
transit.
While I support much of the funding for intelligence activities
contained in the bill, I am deeply concerned at the failure of this
Congress to pass an intelligence authorization bill. Congressional
oversight of intelligence has never been more important. Strengthening
our Nation's intelligence capabilities after the attacks of September
11 requires the involvement of Congress, which is why the 9/11
Commission described strengthened oversight as one of its most
important recommendations. The disastrous failures of intelligence
related to Iraq, both by the intelligence community and by the
administration, further highlight the importance of thorough
congressional scrutiny. Recently revealed programs such as the NSA's
illegal warrantless wiretapping and secret CIA detention facilities,
are among the intelligence activities that the congressional
intelligence committees must examine. Thirty years after the Senate
Intelligence Committee was created in the aftermath of well-documented
abuses, we need to ensure that Congress does not abdicate its important
oversight responsibilities.
While I do support many of the provisions in this bill, I am deeply
disappointed that the bill fails to put our Iraq policy on a better
footing. My vote for this bill in no way signals support for that
policy, which is hurting our national security. The war in Iraq is
having a negative--and dramatic--effect on our military's capability
and readiness levels. Because of the heavy usage of military equipment
in Iraq, the Army National Guard's 34 brigades are not combat-ready,
and it will be no easy task getting our physical capacity back up to
full strength. The costs we are incurring in Iraq are devastating and
they are not advancing our national interests particularly when they
are undermining our military's capacity to defeat the terrorist
networks that attacked us on 9/11. I will continue to call for the
redeployment of our forces from Iraq so that our military remains
strong and so that our country can refocus on fighting the terrorist
networks that attacked us on 9/11.
Unfortunately this spending bill contains many unnecessary items. The
administration continues to request large amounts for Iraq and
Afghanistan through ``additional'' or ``emergency supplemental''
appropriations not subject to limits on total discretionary Federal
spending and not subject to the full congressional authorization and
appropriations review process. I continue to be deeply concerned about
this administration's priorities and about the process by which we
consider the Department of Defense authorization and appropriations
bills, a concern I voice every year at this time. However, on balance,
this legislation contains many good provisions for our men and women in
uniform who serve our country selflessly around the world. That is why
I support it.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, in the course of attending a funeral
today, I missed two votes. On the Conrad amendment No. 4907, I ask that
the record reflect that, had I been here, I would have voted ``aye.''
And on the motion to table the Menendez amendment No. 4909 I ask that
the record reflect that I would have voted ``aye.''
Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for Department of
Defense funding for the National Drug Intelligence Center in Johnstown,
PA.
The National Drug Intelligence Center, NDIC, established in 1993, is
a component of the U.S. Department of Justice and a member of the
intelligence community. The General Counterdrug Intelligence Plan,
implemented in February 2000, designated NDIC as the Nation's principal
center for strategic domestic counterdrug intelligence. NDIC's mission
is to provide strategic drug-related intelligence and assistance to the
drug control, public health, and national security authorities of the
United States in order to reduce the adverse impact of drug
trafficking, drug abuse, and related harms in this country.
Since September 11, 2001, we have become gravely aware of the
importance of intelligence to all aspects of our national defense. This
lesson is certainly applicable when assessing the resources generated
by drug trafficking among terrorist groups and their sympathizers. I
have been told that, since January 2005, NDIC has provided support to
the Department of Treasury's Office of Terrorism and Financial
Intelligence to produce the Nation's first National Money Laundering
Threat Assessment. For this effort, NDIC received a letter of
commendation from the Treasury Department for its ``extraordinary
contribution'' to this effort. This is but one example of the fine work
that is provided by those who serve this country at NDIC. The center is
also actively contributing to the Department of Homeland Security's
Office of Counter Narcotics Enforcement on an ongoing drug/terror nexus
project. Further, NDIC personnel support the Drug Enforcement
Administration's Special Operations Division which targets the
convergence of terrorism and traditional drug trafficking networks.
These contributions go along with the center's Document Exploitation
Division which, I am told, is second to none in extracting useful
information from lawfully-seized evidence.
NDIC is providing a valuable service to this country. It is the only
agency with the independence to provide the National Drug Threat
Assessment while still maintaining the versatility to assist in the
ongoing operations and assessments conducted by the organizations that
I have mentioned. The people of Johnstown who staff this facility are
of the highest professional capabilities. It is important that we
maintain these capabilities as we fight the war on Islamic fascism on
many different fronts.
The House Defense appropriations bill provides $39 million for the
center. I look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member
to ensure that this funding is included in the final conference report
with the House. I firmly believe that the National Drug Intelligence
Center is an important instrument in providing for our Nation's
security. I believe that the administration should include it in its
budget in future fiscal years. I will be writing President Bush in the
coming days to make this case. At a time

[[Page S9098]]

when the nexus between drug traffic and terrorist groups is becoming
more acute, we need to make funding for our intelligence capabilities
one of our highest priorities.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the next vote will be on passage of the
Defense appropriations bill. I congratulate the managers. It has been a
job well done.
We are going to be on the port security bill tomorrow and on Monday.
The managers are here, and they are ready to debate and take up
amendments. We will not be voting tomorrow.
I remind my colleagues that we have scheduled an event on Monday at 6
o'clock to commemorate the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. We
invite all Members to participate.
There will be no more votes tonight. We will not be voting tomorrow.
We want to have all opening statements tonight and tomorrow on the port
security bill.
We will have announcements tomorrow morning as to whether we will be
voting on Monday. The Democratic leader and I will make that
announcement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the
amendments and third reading of the bill.
The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read a third time.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The bill having been read for the third time, the question is, Shall
the bill pass? On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered,
and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the
Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr.
Lieberman) is necessarily absent.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 239 Leg.]

YEAS--98

Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chambliss
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeMint
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Chafee
Lieberman

The bill (H.R. 5631), as amended, was passed.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate insists on its amendments, requests a conference with the House,
and the Chair appoints the following conferees: Mr. Stevens, Mr.
Cochran, Mr. Specter, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Bond, Mr. McConnell, Mr.
Shelby, Mr. Gregg, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Burns, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Byrd, Mr.
Leahy, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Reid, Mrs. Feinstein,
and Ms. Mikulski.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to thank my staff
for all their hard work on this bill, especially my clerk, Sid
Ashworth. As always, she has done the work on this bill and a multitude
of amendments, along with the staff. And Charlie Houy, on Senator
Inouye's staff, has given good advice and leadership.
I also thank my colleague and partner, Senator Inouye. It is a nice
birthday present to pass a bill of this size, I say to the Senator.
As I said, Charlie Houy, Betsy Schmid, Nicole Di Resta, and Kate
Fitzpatrick for their support on this bill.
There is a large staff that works on this bill. We do not often name
them all, but I will do it this time. This was a tough bill. I give
credit to Kate Kaufer, Brian Wilson, Brian Potts, Alycia Farrell, Mark
Haaland, Ellen Maldonado, Michael Pollock, Alison Garfield, Bridget
Zarate, Jennifer Chartrand, and Janelle Treon. Miss Treon is not with
us. She recently left the committee, but she was a vital partner in the
creation of the bill. We wish her good luck in her new life in North
Carolina. She can learn to dodge the hurricanes.
Thank you very much.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.

____________________