To provide an effective date for section 531.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to
be printed in the Record.)

COST OF PRIVATE SECURITY CONTRACTORS

<bullet> Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, the recent incident in which
Blackwater USA reportedly killed at least 11 Iraqis and wounded several
others has prompted a long overdue examination of the role that private
security contractors are playing in Iraq. An article in today's
Washington Post titled ``U.S. Pays Steep Price for Private Security in
Iraq'' helps to highlight the exorbitant mark-up that private security
contractors are reportedly charging the U.S. Government.
Last week, the Senate accepted an amendment to the Defense Department
authorization bill that I offered that will require Federal departments
to report information to Congress on the total number of contractors in
Iraq and Afghanistan, the companies awarded these contracts, and the
cost of the contracts. The provisions of the amendment are drawn from
the Transparency and Accountability in Military and Security
Contracting Act, S. 674, that I introduced in February.
The American people have a right to know how their tax dollars are
being spent in Iraq and the role that security contractors are playing
in that conflict. We need to make sure that security contractors in
Iraq are subject to adequate and transparent oversight and that their
actions do not have a negative impact on our efforts to bring the war
in Iraq to a responsible end.
I ask to have printed in the Record the text of the article from the
Washington Post.
The article follows.

[From the Washington Post, Oct. 1, 2007]

U.S. Pays Steep Price for Private Security in Iraq

(By Walter Pincus)

It costs the U.S. government a lot more to hire contract
employees as security guards in Iraq than to use American
troops.
It comes down to the simple business equation of every
transaction requiring a profit.
The contract that Blackwater Security Consulting signed in
March 2004 with Regency Hotel and Hospital of Kuwait for a
34-person security team offers a view into the private-
security business world. The contract was made public last
week by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
majority staff as part of its report on Blackwater's actions
related to an incident in Fallujah on March 31, 2004, when
four members of the company's security team were killed in an
ambush.
Understanding the contract's details requires some
background: Regency was a subcontractor to another company,
ESS Support Services Worldwide, of Cyprus, that was providing
food and catering supplies to U.S. armed forces in Fallujah
and other cities in Iraq. And ESS was a subcontractor to KBR,
a subsidiary of Halliburton, which had the prime contract
with the Defense Department.
So, Blackwater was a subcontractor to Regency, which was a
subcontractor to ESS, which was a subcontractor to
Halliburton's KBR subsidiary, the prime contractor for the
Pentagon--and each company along the way was in business to
make a profit.
Under the contract, Regency was to pay Blackwater
$11,082,326 for one year, with a second year option, to put
together a 34-person team that would provide security
services for the ``movement of ESS's staff, management and
workforce throughout Kuwait and Iraq and across country
borders including the borders of Iraq, Kuwait, Turkey and
Jordan.''
Blackwater's personnel were to do more than just convoy
security. They were also to run command centers in Kuwait and
Iraq 24 hours a day, seven days a week, that were to control
all ESS security operations; prepare risk assessments;
develop security procedures; train ESS personnel in security;
and even vet other Iraqi security forces hired by Regency.
But their main role was to provide ``tactically sound and
fully mission capable protective security details, the
minimum team size [being] six operators with a minimum of two
vehicles to support ESS movements.''
Blackwater's pricing was to be on ``a per person support
basis, not including costs for housing, subsistence, vehicles
and large equipment items,'' according to the contract. The
team would be made up of two senior managers, 12 middle
managers and 20 operators.
Regency was to provide Blackwater personnel with housing
and necessities, including meals, as well as office space and
administrative support. In addition, Regency would provide
basic equipment, including vehicles and heavy weapons, while
Blackwater was responsible for purchasing individual weapons
and ammunition.
According to data provided to the House panel, the average
per-day pay to personnel Blackwater hired was $600. According
to the schedule of rates, supplies and services attached to
the contract, Blackwater charged Regency $1,075 a day for
senior managers, $945 a day for middle managers and $815 a
day for operators.
Acording to data provided to the House panel, Regency
charged ESS an average of $1,100 a day for the same people.
How the Blackwater and Regency security charges were passed
on by ESS to Halliburton's KBR cannot easily be determined
since the catering company was paid on a per-meal basis, with
security being a percentage of that charge.
Halliburton's KBR blended its security costs into the
blanket costs passed on to the Defense Department.
How much more these costs are compared with the pay of U.S.
troops is easier to determine.

[[Page S12355]]

An unmarried sergeant given Iraq pay and relief from U.S.
taxes makes about $83 to $85 a day, given time in service. A
married sergeant with children makes about double that, $170
a day.
Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in
Baghdad overseeing more than 160,000 U.S. troops, makes
roughly $180,000 a year, or about $493 a day. That comes out
to less than half the fee charged by Blackwater for its
senior manager of a 34-man security team.<bullet>

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, when it comes to running the Federal
Government and its workforce, the Bush administration is driven too
much by ideology and not enough by common sense. In its quest to
scuttle a civil service system that has served us well during peace
time and war, the administration has embarked on an unprecedented
campaign to privatize what most would agree are ``inherently
governmental'' functions.
The Office of Management and Budget, OMB, has spearheaded
privatization, claiming it can save taxpayers money. One example:
relinquishing tax collection to private contractors. In May 2007, OMB
claimed that contracting out Internal Revenue Service, IRS, debt
collection to private contractors resulted in saving $35 million in
fiscal year 2006. OMB failed to mention that the contractor had missed
several deadlines imposed under the contract, leaving IRS employees to
perform the bulk of the work. Another concern about that particular
contract: our Government is turning over sensitive and private
financial information entrusted to it by its citizens and placing that
information in the hands of private debt collectors with grave
potential for abuse.
An article from the February 3, 2007, New York Times neatly
summarizes the situation: ``Without a public debate or formal policy
decision, contractors have become a virtual fourth branch of
government. On the rise for decades, spending on federal contracts has
soared during the Bush Administration, to about $400 billion last year
from $207 billion in 2000, fueled by the war in Iraq, domestic security
and Hurricane Katrina, but also by a philosophy that encourages
outsourcing almost everything government does.'' This unofficial branch
of Government is not subject to the same checks and balances of
accountability found in the civil service system.
The true cost of the executive branch's decision to privatize is the
countless number of dedicated and highly trained Federal workers who
will seek employment elsewhere rather than face the uncertainty of
working in an environment that is subject to the political whims of an
administration that pursues ideology over common sense and sound
business policies. Even worse, such a hostile atmosphere will deter
highly skilled candidates from ever considering public service, thereby
depriving the public sector of the best and brightest who would
otherwise seek careers in public service.
Left unchecked, this notion that the Federal Government is divisible
and its functions can be auctioned off to the lowest bidder will
ultimately deprive us of an experienced Federal workforce and the
institutional memory that are essential for the Government to function
effectively, especially in a crisis. We don't need each new contractor
to start from scratch reinventing the wheel when old problems arise.
At a minimum, Federal employees should be allowed to compete with
private contractors on an equal footing, which is where the Kennedy-
Mikulski amendment comes in.
Currently, the contracting rules as spelled out in OMB Circular A-76
are overwhelmingly weighed in favor of contractors and against Federal
employees. This amendment will correct inequities in the public-private
competitive process at the Department of Defense, DOD, to ensure that
hardworking civilian defense employees are not unfairly deprived of
their jobs. It will also provide basic protection from unfair
competition for other Federal employees at other agencies.
The amendment excludes the costs of health and retirement benefits
from bids in public-private competitions, so contractors are not
rewarded for providing bad benefits or even no benefits at all.
Contractors currently have an incentive to shortchange their employees'
benefits to gain an unfair advantage in bidding for Government work.
The amendment would eliminate this incentive.
The amendment prohibits the use of ``privatization quotas.'' It is
unlawful for OMB to set quotas for the amount of work that agencies
should outsource away from the Federal workforce, but there is
substantial evidence that the administration has a de facto quota
system. The amendment would protect agencies' independent
decisionmaking by requiring that any decision to conduct a public-
private competition be wholly independent of OMB.
The amendment allows Federal employees the same appeal rights as
contractors. When Federal employees win a privatization review,
contractors can have the agency's decision reviewed by independent
third parties, by appealing to the Government Accountability Office,
GAO, or the Court of Federal Claims. Federal employees currently have
no such appeal rights.
The amendment requires DOD to issue long overdue guidance on
outsourcing Federal jobs. These guidelines were due in January, but DOD
has failed to act. The amendment requires DOD to issue this guidance.
Finally, the amendment provides a fair opportunity to renew contracts
won by Federal employees. Currently, DOD requires managers to ``re-
compete'' contracts that are won by Federal employees at the end of
each contract term, rather than extending the contract. But the same
managers have discretion to extend contracts for jobs that are awarded
to private contractors without reopening them to competition. The
amendment gives managers discretion to extend contracts awarded to
public employees.
We can and should have a discussion about the proper role of
Government, and we should try to make the Government as efficient as
possible. What we shouldn't do is carve it up and outsource its
essential functions willy-nilly to politically favored contractors.
There is money at stake but much more too. The Kennedy-Mikulski
amendment is a proper way to proceed with regard to public-private
competitions, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments Nos. 2937, as Modified; 3028; 3099, as Modified; 3102; 2264,
as Modified; 2953, as Modified; 3005, as Modified; 2957, as Modified;
3103, as Modified; 3107; 3082, as Modified; 2325, as Modified; 2897, as
Modified; 2068, as Modified; 3112; 3032, as Modified; 2905, as
Modified; and 3027, as Modified, to Amendment No. 2011, en-bloc

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send a series of 18 amendments to the
desk which have been cleared by myself and the now acting ranking
member, Senator Warner, and ask unanimous consent that the Senate
consider those amendments en bloc, the amendments be agreed to, the
motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements
relating to any specific amendment be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. WARNER. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments were agreed to, as follows:

Amendment No. 2937, As Modified

At the end of title II, add the following:

SEC. 256. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED FUNDING REDUCTION
FOR HIGH ENERGY LASER SYSTEMS TEST FACILITY.

(a) Report Required.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to the congressional defense committees a report
containing a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed reduction
in Army research, development, test, and evaluation funding
for the High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility.
(b) Evaluation of Impact on Other Military Departments.--
The report required under subsection (a) shall include an
evaluation of the impact of the proposed reduction in funding
on each Department of Defense organization or activity that
utilizes the High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility.

Amendment No. 3028

(Purpose: To allow additional types of vehicles to be used to meet
minimum Federal fleet requirements)

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

SEC. 1070. DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVE FUELED VEHICLE.

Section 301(3) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C.
13211(3)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(3) the term'' and inserting the
following:

[[Page S12356]]

``(3) Alternative fueled vehicle.--
``(A) In general.--The term''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Inclusions.--The term `alternative fueled vehicle'
includes--
``(i) a new qualified fuel cell motor vehicle (as defined
in section 30B(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986);
``(ii) a new advanced lean burn technology motor vehicle
(as defined in section 30B(c)(3) of that Code);
``(iii) a new qualified hybrid motor vehicle (as defined in
section 30B(d)(3) of that Code); and
``(iv) any other type of vehicle that the agency
demonstrates to the Secretary would achieve a significant
reduction in petroleum consumption.''.

Amendment No. 3099, As Modified

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

SEC. 132. ADVANCED PROCUREMENT FOR VIRGINIA CLASS SUBMARINE
PROGRAM.

Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by section
102(a)(3) for shipbuilding and conversion for the Navy,
$1,172,710,000 may be available for advanced procurement for
the Virginia class submarine program, of which--
(1) $400,000,000 may be available for the procurement of a
second ship set of reactor components; and
(2) $70,000,000 may be available for advanced procurement
of non-nuclear long lead time material in order to support a
reduced construction span for the boats in the next multiyear
procurement program.

amendment no. 3102

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Energy to develop and implement a
strategy to complete the remediation at the Moab site, and the removal
of the tailings to the Crescent Junction site, in the State of Utah by
not later than January 1, 2019)

At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 81__. (a) The Secretary of Energy shall develop a
strategy to complete the remediation at the Moab site, and
the removal of the tailings to the Crescent Junction site, in
the State of Utah by not later than January 1, 2019.
(b) Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, the Committee on
Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives, and the
Committee on Appropriations of each of the Senate and the
House of Representatives a report describing the strategy
developed under subsection (a) and changes to the existing
cost, scope and schedule of the remediation and removal
activities that will be necessary to implement the strategy.

AMENDMENT NO. 2264, As Modified

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

SEC. 1422. ADMINISTRATION AND OVERSIGHT OF THE ARMED FORCES
RETIREMENT HOME.

(a) Independence and Purpose of Retirement Home.--Section
1511 of the Armed Forces Retirement Home Act of 1991 (24
U.S.C. 411) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
``However, for the purpose of entering into contracts,
agreements, or transactions regarding real property and
facilities under the control of the Board, the Retirement
Home shall be treated as a military facility of the
Department of Defense. The administration of the Retirement
Home (including administration for the provision of health
care and medical care for residents) shall remain under the
direct authority, control, and administration of the
Secretary of Defense.''; and
(2) by striking subsection (g) and inserting the following
new subsection (g):
``(g) Accreditation.--The Chief Operating Officer shall
secure and maintain accreditation by a nationally recognized
civilian accrediting organization for each aspect of each
facility of the Retirement Home, including medical and dental
care, pharmacy, independent living, and assisted living and
nursing care.''.
(b) Spectrum of Care.--Section 1513(b) of the Armed Forces
Retirement Home Act of 1991 (24 U.S.C. 413(b)) is amended by
inserting after the first sentence the following new
sentence: ``The services provided residents of the Retirement
Home shall include appropriate nonacute medical and dental
services, pharmaceutical services, and transportation of
residents, at no cost to residents, to acute medical and
dental services and after-hours routine medical care''.
(e) Chief Medical Officer.--The Armed Forces Retirement
Home Act of 1991 is further amended by inserting after
section 1515 the following new section:

``SEC. 1515A. CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER.

``(a) Appointment.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall
appoint the Chief Medical Officer of the Retirement Home. The
Secretary of Defense shall make the appointment in
consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security.
``(2) The Chief Medical Officer shall serve a term of two
years, but is removable from office during such term at the
pleasure of the Secretary.
``(3) The Secretary (or the designee of the Secretary)
shall evaluate the performance of the Chief Medical Officer
not less frequently than once each year. The Secretary shall
carry out such evaluation in consultation with the Chief
Operating Officer and the Local Board for each facility of
the Retirement Home.
``(4) An officer appointed as Chief Medical Officer of the
Retirement Home shall serve as Chief Medical Officer without
vacating any other military duties and responsibilities
assigned to that officer whether at the time of appointment
or afterward.
``(b) Qualifications.--(1) To qualify for appointment as
the Chief Medical Officer, a person shall be a member of the
Medical, Dental, Nurse, or Medical Services Corps of the
Armed Forces, including the Health and Safety Directorate of
the Coast Guard, serving on active duty in the grade of
brigadier general, or in the case of the Navy or the Coast
Guard rear admiral (lower half), or higher.
``(2) In making appointments of the Chief Medical Officer,
the Secretary of Defense shall, to the extent practicable,
provide for the rotation of the appointments among the
various Armed Forces and the Health and Safety Directorate of
the Coast Guard.
``(c) Responsibilities.--(1) The Chief Medical Officer
shall be responsible to the Secretary, the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness, and the Chief Operating
Officer for the direction and oversight of the provision of
medical, mental health, and dental care at each facility of
the Retirement Home.
``(2) The Chief Medical Officer shall advise the Secretary,
the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness,
the Chief Operating Officer, and the Local Board for each
facility of the Retirement Home on all medical and medical
administrative matters of the Retirement Home.
``(d) Duties.--In carrying out the responsibilities set
forth in subsection (c), the Chief Medical Officer shall
perform the following duties:
``(1) Ensure the timely availability to residents of the
Retirement Home, at locations other than the Retirement Home,
of such acute medical, mental health, and dental care as such
resident may require that is not available at the applicable
facility of the Retirement Home.
``(2) Ensure compliance by the facilities of the Retirement
Home with accreditation standards, applicable health care
standards of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and any
other applicable health care standards and requirements
(including requirements identified in applicable reports of
the Inspector General of the Department of Defense).
``(3) Periodically visit and inspect the medical facilities
and medical operations of each facility of the Retirement
Home.
``(4) Periodically examine and audit the medical records
and administration of the Retirement Home.
``(5) Consult with the Local Board for each facility of the
Retirement Home not less frequently than once each year.
``(e) Advisory Bodies.--In carrying out the
responsibilities set forth in subsection (c) and the duties
set forth in subsection (d), the Chief Medical Officer may
establish and seek the advice of such advisory bodies as the
Chief Medical Officer considers appropriate.''.
(f) Local Boards of Trustees.--
(1) Duties.--Subsection (b) of section 1516 of the Armed
Forces Retirement Home Act of 1991 (24 U.S.C. 416) is amended
to read as follows:
``(b) Duties.--(1) The Local Board for a facility shall
serve in an advisory capacity to the Director of the facility
and to the Chief Operating Officer.
``(2) The Local Board for a facility shall provide to the
Chief Operating Officer and the Director of the facility such
guidance and recommendations on the administration of the
facility as the Local Board considers appropriate.
``(3) The Local Board for a facility shall provide to the
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness not
less often than annually an assessment of all aspects of the
facility, including the quality of care at the facility.
``(4) Not less frequently than once each year, the Local
Board for a facility shall submit to Congress a report that
includes an assessment of all aspects of the facility,
including the quality of care at the facility.''.
(2) Composition.--Subparagraph (K) of subsection (c) of
such section is amended to read as follows:
``(K) One senior representative of one of the chief
personnel officers of the Armed Forces, who shall be a member
of the Armed Forces serving on active duty in the grade of
brigadier general, or in the case of the Navy or Coast Guard,
rear admiral (lower half).''.
(h) Inspection of Retirement Home.--Section 1518 of such
Act (24 U.S.C. 418) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 1518. INSPECTION OF RETIREMENT HOME.

``(a) Inspector General of the Department of Defense.--(1)
The Inspector General of the Department of Defense shall have
the duty to inspect the Retirement Home.
``(2) The Inspector General shall advise the Secretary of
Defense and the Director of each facility of the Retirement
Home on matters relating to waste, fraud, abuse, and
mismanagement of the Retirement Home.
``(b) Inspections by Inspector General.--(1) Every two
years, the Inspector General of the Department of Defense
shall perform a comprehensive inspection of all aspects of
each facility of the Retirement Home, including independent
living, assisted living, medical and dental care, pharmacy,
financial and contracting records, and any aspect of either
facility on which the Local Board for the facility or the
resident advisory committee or council of the facility
recommends inspection.

[[Page S12357]]

``(2) The Inspector General may be assisted in inspections
under this subsection by a medical inspector general of a
military department designated for purposes of this
subsection by the Secretary of Defense.
``(3) In conducting the inspection of a facility of the
Retirement Home under this subsection, the Inspector General
shall solicit concerns, observations, and recommendations
from the Local Board for the facility, the resident advisory
committee or council of the facility, and the residents of
the facility. Any concerns, observations, and recommendations
solicited from residents shall be solicited on a not-for-
attribution basis.
``(4) The Chief Operating Officer and the Director of each
facility of the Retirement Home shall make all staff, other
personnel, and records of each facility available to the
Inspector General in a timely manner for purposes of
inspections under this subsection.
``(c) Reports on Inspections by Inspector General.--(1) Not
later than 45 days after completing an inspection of a
facility of the Retirement Home under subsection (b), the
Inspector General shall submit to the Secretary of Defense,
the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness,
the Chief Operating Officer, the Director of the facility,
and the Local Board for the facility, and to Congress, a
report describing the results of the inspection and
containing such recommendations as the Inspector General
considers appropriate in light of the inspection.
``(2) Not later than 45 days after receiving a report of
the Inspector General under paragraph (1), the Director of
the facility concerned shall submit the Secretary of Defense,
the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness,
the Chief Operating Officer, and the Local Board for the
facility, and to Congress, a plan to address the
recommendations and other matters set forth in the report.
``(d) Additional Inspections.--(1) Every two years, in a
year in which the Inspector General does not perform an
inspection under subsection (b), the Chief Operating Officer
shall request the inspection of each facility of the
Retirement Home by a nationally recognized civilian
accrediting organization in accordance with section
1422(a)(2)(g) of this amendment.
``(2) The Chief Operating Officer and the Director of a
facility being inspected under this subsection shall make all
staff, other personnel, and records of the facility available
to the civilian accrediting organization in a timely manner
for purposes of inspections under this subsection.
``(e) Reports on Additional Inspections.--(1) Not later
than 45 days after receiving a report of an inspection from
the civilian accrediting organization under subsection (d),
the Director of the facility concerned shall submit to the
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the
Chief Operating Officer, and the Local Board for the facility
a report containing--
``(A) the results of the inspection; and
``(B) a plan to address any recommendations and other
matters set forth in the report.
``(2) Not later than 45 days after receiving a report and
plan under paragraph (1), the Secretary of Defense shall
submit the report and plan to Congress.''.
(i) Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund.--Section 1519
of the Armed Forces Retirement Home Act of 1991 (24 U.S.C.
419) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(d) Reporting Requirements.--The Chief Financial Officer
of the Armed Forces Retirement Home shall comply with the
reporting requirements of subchapter II of chapter 35 of
title 31, United States Code.''.

AMENDMENT NO. 2953, As Modified

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

SEC. 565. EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE FOR LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES
ENROLLING MILITARY DEPENDENT CHILDREN.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Help
for Military Children Affected by War Act of 2007''.
(b) Assistance Authorized.--The Secretary of Defense may
provide assistance to eligible local educational agencies for
the additional education, counseling, and other needs of
military dependent children who are affected by war-related
action.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Eligible local educational agency.--The term ``eligible
local educational agency'' means a local educational agency
that--
(A) has a number of military dependent children in average
daily attendance in the schools served by the local
educational agency during the current school year, determined
in consultation with the Secretary of Education, that--
(i) equaled or exceeded 20 percent of the number of all
children in average daily attendance in the schools served by
such agency during the current school year; or
(ii) is 1,000 or more,

whichever is less; and
(B) is designated by the Secretary of Defense as impacted
by--
(i) Operation Iraqi Freedom;
(ii) Operation Enduring Freedom; or
(iii) the global rebasing plan of the Department of
Defense.
(2) Local educational agency.--The term ``local educational
agency'' has the meaning given the term in section 9101 of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
7801).
(3) Military dependent child.--The term ``military
dependent child''--
(A) means a child described in subparagraph (B) or (D)(i)
of section 8003(a)(1) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(a)(1)); and
(B) includes a child--
(i) who resided on Federal property with a parent on active
duty in the National Guard or Reserve; or
(ii) who had a parent on active duty in the National Guard
or Reserve but did not reside on Federal property.
(d) Assistance.--Assistance provided under this section may
be used for--
(1) tutoring, after-school, and dropout prevention
activities for military dependent children with a parent who
is or has been impacted by war-related action described in
clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subsection (c)(1)(B);
(2) professional development of teachers, principals, and
counselors on the needs of military dependent children with a
parent who is or has been impacted by war-related action
described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subsection
(c)(1)(B); and
(3) counseling and other comprehensive support services for
military dependent children with a parent who is or has been
impacted by war-related action described in clause (i), (ii),
or (iii) of subsection (c)(1)(B), including the subsidization
of a percentage of hiring of a military-school liaison.

AMENDMENT NO. 3005, As Modified

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. PROGRAMS FOR USE OF LEAVE BY CAREGIVERS FOR FAMILY
MEMBERS OF INDIVIDUALS PERFORMING CERTAIN
MILITARY SERVICE.

(a) Federal Employees Program.--
(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) Caregiver.--The term ``caregiver'' means an individual
who--
(i) is an employee;
(ii) is at least 21 years of age; and
(iii) is capable of self care and care of children or other
dependent family members of a qualified member of the Armed
Forces.
(B) Covered period of service.--The term ``covered period
of service'' means any period of service performed by an
employee as a caregiver while the individual who designated
the caregiver under paragraph (3) remains a qualified member
of the Armed Forces.
(C) Employee.--The term ``employee'' has the meaning given
under section 6331 of title 5, United States Code.
(D) Family member.--The term ``family member'' includes--
(i) individuals for whom the qualified member of the Armed
Forces provides medical, financial, and logistical support
(such as housing, food, clothing, or transportation); and
(ii) children under the age of 18 years, elderly adults,
persons with disabilities, and other persons with a mental or
physical disability, who are unable to care for themselves in
the absence of the qualified member of the Armed Forces.
(E) Qualified member of the armed forces.--The term
``qualified member of the Armed Forces'' means--
(i) a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces as
described under section 10101 of title 10, United States
Code, who has received notice to report to, or is serving on,
active duty in the Armed Forces in support of a contingency
operation as defined under section 101(a)(13) of title 10,
United States Code; or
(ii) a member of the Armed Forces on active duty who is
eligible for hostile fire or imminent danger special pay
under section 310 of title 37, United States Code.
(2) Establishment of program.--The Office of Personnel
Management may establish a program to authorize a caregiver
to use under paragraph (4)--
(A) any sick leave of that caregiver during a covered
period of service; and
(B) any leave available to that caregiver under subchapter
III or IV of chapter 63 of title 5, United States Code,
during a covered period of service.
(3) Designation of caregiver.--
(A) In general.--A qualified member of the Armed Forces
shall submit a written designation of the individual who is
the caregiver for any family member of that member of the
Armed Forces during a covered period of service to--
(i) the employing agency; and
(ii) the uniformed service of which the individual is a
member.
(B) Designation of spouse.--Notwithstanding paragraph
(1)(A)(ii), an individual less than 21 years of age may be
designated as a caregiver if that individual is the spouse of
the qualified member of the Armed Forces making the
designation.
(4) Use of caregiver leave.--Leave may only be used under
this subsection for purposes directly relating to, or
resulting from, the giving of care by the employee to a
family member under the designation of the employee as the
caregiver for the family member.
(5) Regulations.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Office of Personnel Management
shall prescribe regulations to carry out this subsection,
including a definition of activities that qualify as the
giving of care.
(6) Termination.--The program under this subsection shall
terminate on December 31, 2010.
(b) Voluntary Private Sector Leave Program.--
(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:

[[Page S12358]]

(A) Caregiver.--The term ``caregiver'' means an individual
who--
(i) is an employee;
(ii) is at least 21 years of age; and
(iii) is capable of self care and care of children or other
dependent family members of a qualified member of the Armed
Forces.
(B) Covered period of service.--The term ``covered period
of service'' means any period of service performed by an
employee as a caregiver while the individual who designated
the caregiver under paragraph (4) remains a qualified member
of the Armed Forces.
(C) Employee.--The term ``employee'' means an employee of a
business entity participating in the program under this
subsection.
(D) Family member.--The term ``family member'' includes--
(i) individuals for whom the qualified member of the Armed
Forces provides medical, financial, and logistical support
(such as housing, food, clothing, or transportation); and
(ii) children under the age of 18 years, elderly adults,
persons with disabilities, and other persons with a mental or
physical disability, who are unable to care for themselves in
the absence of the qualified member of the Armed Forces.
(E) Qualified member of the armed forces.--The term
``qualified member of the Armed Forces'' means--
(i) a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces as
described under section 10101 of title 10, United States
Code, who has received notice to report to, or is serving on,
active duty in the Armed Forces in support of a contingency
operation as defined under section 101(a)(13) of title 10,
United States Code; or
(ii) a member of the Armed Forces on active duty who is
eligible for hostile fire or imminent danger special pay
under section 310 of title 37, United States Code.
(2) Establishment of program.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary of Labor may establish a
program to authorize employees of business entities described
under paragraph (3) to use sick leave, or any other leave
available to an employee, during a covered period of service
for purposes relating to, or resulting from, the giving of
care by the employee to a family member under the designation
of the employee as the caregiver for the family member.
(B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to leave
made available under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
(29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.).
(3) Voluntary business participation.--The Secretary of
Labor shall solicit business entities to voluntarily
participate in the program under this subsection.
(4) Designation of caregiver.--
(A) In general.--A qualified member of the Armed Forces
shall submit a written designation of the individual who is
the caregiver for any family member of that member of the
Armed Forces during a covered period of service to--
(i) the employing business entity; and
(ii) the uniformed service of which the individual is a
member.
(B) Designation of spouse.--Notwithstanding paragraph
(1)(A)(ii), an individual less than 21 years of age may be
designated as a caregiver if that individual is the spouse of
the qualified member of the Armed Forces making the
designation.
(5) Use of caregiver leave.--Leave may only be used under
this subsection for purposes directly relating to, or
resulting from, the giving of care by the employee to a
family member under the designation of the employee as the
caregiver for the family member.
(6) Regulations.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall prescribe
regulations to carry out this subsection.
(7) Termination.--The program under this subsection shall
terminate on December 31, 2010.
(c) GAO Report.--Not later than March 31, 2010, the
Government Accountability Office shall submit a report to
Congress on the programs under subsections (a) and (b) that
includes--
(1) an evaluation of the success of each program; and
(2) recommendations for the continuance or termination of
each program.

amendment no. 2957 as modified

DIVISION     --MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

SEC. --001. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This division may be cited as the
``Maritime Administration Authorities Act of 2007''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this
division is as follows:
Sec. --001. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--GENERAL

Sec. --102. Commercial vessel chartering authority.
Sec. --103. Maritime Administration vessel chartering
authority.
Sec. --104. Chartering to state and local governmental
instrumentalities.
Sec. --105. Disposal of obsolete government vessels.
Sec. --106. Vessel transfer authority.
Sec. --107. Sea trials for ready reserve force.
Sec. --108. Review of applications for loans and
guarantees.

TITLE II--TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS

Sec. --201. Statutory construction.
Sec. --202. Personal injury to or death of seamen.
Sec. --203. Amendments to chapter 537 based on Public Law
109-163.
Sec. --204. Additional amendments based on Public Law 109-
163.
Sec. --205. Amendments based on Public Law 109-171.
Sec. --206. Amendments based on Public Law 109-241.
Sec. --207. Amendments based on Public Law 109-364.
Sec. --208. Miscellaneous amendments.
Sec. --209. Application of sunset provision to codified
provision.
Sec. --210. Additional Technical corrections.

TITLE I--GENERAL

SEC. --102. COMMERCIAL VESSEL CHARTERING AUTHORITY.

(a) In General.--Subchapter III of chapter 575 of title 46,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``Sec. 57533. Vessel chartering authority

``The Secretary of Transportation may enter into contracts
or other agreements on behalf of the United States to
purchase, charter, operate, or otherwise acquire the use of
any vessels documented under chapter 121 of this title and
any other related real or personal property. The Secretary is
authorized to use this authority as the Secretary deems
appropriate.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter
575 of such title is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``57533. Vessel chartering authority.''.

SEC. --103. MARITIME ADMINISTRATION VESSEL CHARTERING
AUTHORITY.

Section 50303 of title 46, United States Code, is amended
by--
(1) inserting ``vessels,'' after ``piers,''; and
(2) by striking ``control;'' in subsection (a)(1) and
inserting ``control, except that the prior consent of the
Secretary of Defense for such use shall be required with
respect to any vessel in the Ready Reserve Force or in the
National Defense Reserve Fleet which is maintained in a
retention status for the Department of Defense;''.

SEC. --104. CHARTERING TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL
INSTRUMENTALITIES.

Section 11(b) of the Merchant Ship Sales Act of 1946 (50
U.S.C. App. 1744(b)), is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' after the semicolon in paragraph
(3);
(2) by striking ``Defense.'' in paragraph (4) and inserting
``Defense; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end thereof the following:
``(5) on a reimbursable basis, for charter to the
government of any State, locality, or Territory of the United
States, except that the prior consent of the Secretary of
Defense for such use shall be required with respect to any
vessel in the Ready Reserve Force or in the National Defense
Reserve Fleet which is maintained in a retention status for
the Department of Defense.''.

SEC. --105. DISPOSAL OF OBSOLETE GOVERNMENT VESSELS.

Section 6(c)(1) of the National Maritime Heritage Act of
1994 (16 U.S.C. 5405(c)(1)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(either by sale or purchase of disposal
services)'' after ``shall dispose''; and
(2) by striking subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) and
inserting the following:
``(A) in accordance with a priority system for disposing of
vessels, as determined by the Secretary, which shall include
provisions requiring the Maritime Administration to--
``(i) dispose of all deteriorated high priority ships that
are available for disposal, within 12 months of their
designation as such; and
``(ii) give priority to the disposition of those vessels
that pose the most significant danger to the environment or
cost the most to maintain;''.

SEC. --106. VESSEL TRANSFER AUTHORITY.

Section 50304 of title 46, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end thereof the following:
``(d) Vessel Charters to Other Departments.--On a
reimbursable or nonreimbursable basis, as determined by the
Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary may charter or
otherwise make available a vessel under the jurisdiction of
the Secretary to any other department, upon the request by
the Secretary of the department that receives the vessel. The
prior consent of the Secretary of Defense for such use shall
be required with respect to any vessel in the Ready Reserve
Force or in the National Defense Reserve Fleet which is
maintained in a retention status for the Department of
Defense.''.

SEC. --107. SEA TRIALS FOR READY RESERVE FORCE.

Section 11(c)(1)(B) of the Merchant Ship Sales Act of 1946
(50 U.S.C. App. 1744(c)(1)(B)) is amended to read as follows:
``(B) activate and conduct sea trials on each vessel at
least once every 30 months;''.

SEC. --108. REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS FOR LOANS AND GUARANTEES.

(a) Plan.--Within 180 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Administrator of the Maritime Administration
shall develop a comprehensive plan for the review of
traditional applications and non-traditional applications.
(b) Inclusions.--The comprehensive plan shall include a
description of the application review process that shall not
exceed 90 days for review of traditional applications.

[[Page S12359]]

(c) Report to Congress.--The Administrator shall submit a
report describing the comprehensive plan to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the
House of Representatives Committee on Armed Forces.
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Nontraditional application.--The term ``nontraditional
application'' means an application for a loan, guarantee, or
a commitment to guarantee submitted pursuant to chapter 537
of title 46, United States Code, that is not a traditional
application, as determined by the Administrator.
(2) Traditional application.--The term ``traditional
application'' means an application for a loan, guarantee, or
a commitment to guarantee submitted pursuant to chapter 537
of title 46, United States Code, that involves a market,
technology, and financial structure of a type that has been
approved in such an application multiple times before the
date of enactment of this Act without default or unreasonable
risk to the United States, as determined by the
Administrator.

TITLE II--TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS

SEC. --201. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.

The amendments made by this title make no substantive
change in existing law and may not be construed as making a
substantive change in existing law.

SEC. --202. PERSONAL INJURY TO OR DEATH OF SEAMEN.

(a) Amendment.--Section 30104 of title 46, United States
Code, is amended by striking subsections (a) and (b) and
inserting the following:
``(a) Cause of Action.--A seaman injured in the course of
employment or, if the seaman dies from the injury, the
personal representative of the seaman may bring an action
against the employer. In such an action, the laws of the
United States regulating recovery for personal injury to, or
death of, a railway employee shall apply. Such an action may
be maintained in admiralty or, at the plaintiff's election,
as an action at law, with the right of trial by jury.
``(b) Venue.--When the plaintiff elects to maintain an
action at law, venue shall be in the judicial district in
which the employer resides or the employer's principal office
is located.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall be effective as if included in the enactment of Public
Law 109-304.

SEC. --203. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 537 BASED ON PUBLIC LAW
109-163.

(a) Amendments.--Title 46, United States Code, is amended
as follows:
(1) Section 53701 is amended by--
(A) redesignating paragraphs (2) through (13) as paragraphs
(3) through (14), respectively;
(B) inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) Administrator.--The term `Administrator' means the
Administrator of the Maritime Administration.''; and
(C) striking paragraph (13) (as redesignated) and inserting
the following:
``(13) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Commerce with respect to fishing vessels and fishery
facilities.''.
(2) Section 53706(c) is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Priorities for Certain Vessels.--
``(1) Vessels.--In guaranteeing or making a commitment to
guarantee an obligation under this chapter, the Administrator
shall give priority to--
``(A) a vessel that is otherwise eligible for a guarantee
and is constructed with assistance under subtitle D of the
Maritime Security Act of 2003 (46 U.S.C. 53101 note); and
``(B) after applying subparagraph (A), a vessel that is
otherwise eligible for a guarantee and that the Secretary of
Defense determines--
``(i) is suitable for service as a naval auxiliary in time
of war or national emergency; and
``(ii) meets a shortfall in sealift capacity or capability.
``(2) Time for determination.--The Secretary of Defense
shall determine whether a vessel satisfies paragraph (1)(B)
not later than 30 days after receipt of a request from the
Administrator for such a determination.''.
(3) Section 53707 is amended--
(A) by inserting ``or Administrator'' in subsections (a)
and (d) after ``Secretary'' each place it appears;
(B) by striking ``Secretary of Transportation'' in
subsection (b) and inserting ``Administrator'';
(C) by striking ``of Commerce'' in subsection (c); and
(D) in subsection (d)(2), by--
(i) inserting ``if the Secretary or Administrator considers
necessary,'' before ``the waiver''; and
(ii) striking ``the increased'' and inserting ``any
significant increase in''.
(4) Section 53708 is amended--
(A) by striking ``Secretary of Transportation'' in the
heading of subsection (a) and inserting ``Administrator'';
(B) by striking ``Secretary'' and ``Secretary of
Transportation'' each place they appear in subsection (a) and
inserting ``Administrator'';
(C) by striking ``of Commerce'' in the heading of
subsection (b);
(D) by striking ``of Commerce'' in subsections (b) and (c);
(E) in subsection (d), by--
(i) inserting ``or Administrator'' after ``Secretary'' the
first place it appears; and
(ii) striking ``financial structures, or other risk factors
identified by the Secretary. Any independent analysis
conducted under this subsection shall be performed by a party
chosen by the Secretary.'' and inserting ``or financial
structures. A third party independent analysis conducted
under this subsection shall be performed by a private sector
expert in assessing such risk factors who is selected by the
Secretary or Administrator.''; and
(F) in subsection (e), by--
(i) inserting ``or Administrator'' after ``Secretary'' the
first place it appears; and
(ii) striking ``financial structures, or other risk factors
identified by the Secretary'' and inserting ``or financial
structures''.
(5) Section 53710(b)(1) is amended by striking
``Secretary's'' and inserting ``Administrator's''.
(6) Section 53712(b) is amended by striking the last
sentence and inserting ``If the Secretary or Administrator
has waived a requirement under section 53707(d) of this
title, the loan agreement shall include requirements for
additional payments, collateral, or equity contributions to
meet the waived requirement upon the occurrence of verifiable
conditions indicating that the obligor's financial condition
enables the obligor to meet the waived requirement.''.
(7) Subsections (c) and (d) of section 53717 are each
amended--
(A) by striking ``of Commerce'' in the subsection heading;
and
(B) by striking ``of Commerce'' each place it appears.
(8) Section 53732(e)(2) is amended by inserting ``of
Defense'' after ``Secretary'' the second place it appears.
(9) The following provisions are amended by striking
``Secretary'' and ``Secretary of Transportation'' and
inserting ``Administrator'':
(A) Section 53710(b)(2)(A)(i).
(B) Section 53717(b) each place it appears in a heading and
in text.
(C) Section 53718.
(D) Section 53731 each place it appears, except where
``Secretary'' is followed by ``of Energy''.
(E) Section 53732 (as amended by paragraph (8)) each place
it appears, except where ``Secretary'' is followed by ``of
the Treasury'', ``of State'', or ``of Defense''.
(F) Section 53733 each place it appears.
(10) The following provisions are amended by inserting ``or
Administrator'' after ``Secretary'' each place it appears in
headings and text, except where ``Secretary'' is followed by
``of Transportation'' or ``of the Treasury'':
(A) The items relating to sections 53722 and 53723 in the
chapter analysis for chapter 537.
(B) Sections 53701(1), (4), and (9) (as redesignated by
paragraph (1)(A)), 53702(a), 53703, 53704,
53706(a)(3)(B)(iii), 53709(a)(1), (b)(1) and (2)(A), and (d),
53710(a) and (c), 53711, 53712 (except in the last sentence
of subsection (b) as amended by paragraph (6)), 53713 to
53716, 53721 to 53725, and 53734.
(11) Sections 53715(d)(1), 53716(d)(3), 53721(c),
53722(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), and 53724(b) are amended by
inserting ``or Administrator's'' after ``Secretary's''.
(b) Repeal of Superseded Amendments.--Section 3507 (except
subsection (c)(4)) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) is repealed.

SEC. --204. ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS BASED ON PUBLIC LAW 109-
163.

(a) Amendments.--Title 46, United States Code, is amended
as follows:
(1) Chapters 513 and 515 are amended by striking ``Naval
Reserve'' each place it appears in analyses, headings, and
text and inserting ``Navy Reserve''.
(2) Section 51504(f) is amended to read as follows:
``(f) Fuel Costs.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to the availability of
appropriations, the Secretary shall pay to each State
maritime academy the costs of fuel used by a vessel provided
under this section while used for training.
``(2) Maximum amounts.--The amount of the payment to a
State maritime academy under paragraph (1) may not exceed--
``(A) $100,000 for fiscal year 2006;
``(B) $200,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
``(C) $300,000 for fiscal year 2008 and each fiscal year
thereafter.''.
(3) Section 51505(b)(2)(B) is amended by striking
``$200,000'' and inserting ``$300,000 for fiscal year 2006,
$400,000 for fiscal year 2007, and $500,000 for fiscal year
2008 and each fiscal year thereafter''.
(4) Section 51701(a) is amended by striking ``of the United
States.'' and inserting ``of the United States and to perform
functions to assist the United States merchant marine, as
determined necessary by the Secretary.''.
(5)(A) Section 51907 is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 51907. Provision of decorations, medals, and
replacements

``The Secretary of Transportation may provide--
``(1) the decorations and medals authorized by this chapter
and replacements for those decorations and medals; and
``(2) replacements for decorations and medals issued under
a prior law.''.
(B) The item relating to section 51907 in the chapter
analysis for chapter 519 is amended to read as follows:
``51907. Provision of decorations, medals, and
replacements.''.
(6)(A) The following new chapter is inserted after chapter
539:

[[Page S12360]]

``CHAPTER 541--MISCELLANEOUS

``Sec.
``54101. Assistance for small shipyards and maritime communities.''.
(B) Section 3506 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2006 (46 U.S.C. 53101 note) is transferred to
and redesignated as section 54101 of title 46, United States
Code, to appear at the end of chapter 541 of title 46, as
inserted by subparagraph (A).
(C) The heading of such section, as transferred by
subparagraph (B), is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 54101. Assistance for small shipyards and maritime
communities''.

(D) Paragraph (1) of subsection (h) of such section, as
transferred by subparagraph (B), is amended by striking ``(15
U.S.C. 632);'' and inserting ``(15 U.S.C. 632));''.
(E) The table of chapters at the beginning of subtitle V is
amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 539
the following new item:

``541. Miscellaneous...........................................54101''.
(b) Repeal of Superseded Amendments.--Sections 515(g)(2),
3502, 3509, and 3510 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) are repealed.

SEC. --205. AMENDMENTS BASED ON PUBLIC LAW 109-171.

(a) Amendments.--Section 60301 of title 46, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``2 cents per ton (but not more than a
total of 10 cents per ton per year)'' in subsection (a) and
inserting ``4.5 cents per ton, not to exceed a total of 22.5
cents per ton per year, for fiscal years 2006 through 2010,
and 2 cents per ton, not to exceed a total of 10 cents per
ton per year, for each fiscal year thereafter,''; and
(2) by striking ``6 cents per ton (but not more than a
total of 30 cents per ton per year)'' in subsection (b) and
inserting ``13.5 cents per ton, not to exceed a total of 67.5
cents per ton per year, for fiscal years 2006 through 2010,
and 6 cents per ton, not to exceed a total of 30 cents per
ton per year, for each fiscal year thereafter,''.
(b) Repeal of Superseded Amendments.--Section 4001 of the
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-171) is
repealed.

SEC. --206. AMENDMENTS BASED ON PUBLIC LAW 109-241.

(a) Amendments.--Title 46, United States Code, is amended
as follows:
(1) Section 12111 is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(d) Activities Involving Mobile Offshore Drilling
Units.--
``(1) In general.--Only a vessel for which a certificate of
documentation with a registry endorsement is issued may
engage in--
``(A) the setting, relocation, or recovery of the anchors
or other mooring equipment of a mobile offshore drilling unit
that is located over the outer Continental Shelf (as defined
in section 2(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1331(a))); or
``(B) the transportation of merchandise or personnel to or
from a point in the United States from or to a mobile
offshore drilling unit located over the outer Continental
Shelf that is not attached to the seabed.
``(2) Coastwise trade not authorized.--Nothing in paragraph
(1) authorizes the employment in the coastwise trade of a
vessel that does not meet the requirements of section 12112
of this title.''.
(2) Section 12139(a) is amended by striking ``and
charterers'' and inserting ``charterers, and mortgagees''.
(3) Section 51307 is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2);
(B) by striking ``organizations.'' in paragraph (3) and
inserting ``organizations; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) on any other vessel considered by the Secretary to be
necessary or appropriate or in the national interest.''.
(4) Section 55105(b)(3) is amended by striking ``Secretary
of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating'' and
inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security''.
(5) Section 70306(a) is amended by striking ``Not later
than February 28 of each year, the Secretary shall submit a
report'' and inserting ``The Secretary shall submit an annual
report''.
(6) Section 70502(d)(2) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Response to claim of registry.--The response of a
foreign nation to a claim of registry under paragraph (1)(A)
or (C) may be made by radio, telephone, or similar oral or
electronic means, and is proved conclusively by certification
of the Secretary of State or the Secretary's designee.''.
(b) Repeal of Superseded Amendments.--Sections 303, 307,
308, 310, 901(q), and 902(o) of the Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-241) are repealed.

SEC. --207. AMENDMENTS BASED ON PUBLIC LAW 109-364.

(a) Updating of Cross References.--Section 1017(b)(2) of
the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364, 10 U.S.C. 2631 note) is
amended by striking ``section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act,
1920 (46 U.S.C. 883), section 12106 of title 46, United
States Code, and section 2 of the Shipping Act, 1916 (46
U.S.C. App. 802)'' and inserting ``sections 12112, 50501, and
55102 of title 46, United States Code''.
(b) Section 51306(e).--
(1) In general.--Section 51306 of title 46, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Alternative Service.--
``(1) Service as commissioned officer.--An individual who,
for the 5-year period following graduation from the Academy,
serves as a commissioned officer on active duty in an armed
force of the United States or as a commissioned officer of
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the
Public Health Service shall be excused from the requirements
of paragraphs (3) through (5) of subsection (a).
``(2) Modification or waiver.--The Secretary may modify or
waive any of the terms and conditions set forth in subsection
(a) through the imposition of alternative service
requirements.''.
(2) Application.--Section 51306(e) of title 46, United
States Code, as added by paragraph (1), applies only to an
individual who enrolls as a cadet at the United States
Merchant Marine Academy, and signs an agreement under section
51306(a) of title 46, after October 17, 2006.
(c) Section 51306(f).--
(1) In general.--Section 51306 of title 46, United States
Code, is further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Service Obligation Performance Reporting
Requirement.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to any otherwise applicable
restrictions on disclosure in section 552a of title 5, the
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the department in
which the Coast Guard is operating, the Administrator of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the
Surgeon General of the Public Health Service--
``(A) shall report the status of obligated service of an
individual graduate of the Academy upon request of the
Secretary; and
``(B) may, in their discretion, notify the Secretary of any
failure of the graduate to perform the graduate's duties,
either on active duty or in the Ready Reserve component of
their respective service, or as a commissioned officer of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the Public
Health Service, respectively.
``(2) Information to be provided.--A report or notice under
paragraph (1) shall identify any graduate determined to have
failed to comply with service obligation requirements and
provide all required information as to why such graduate
failed to comply.
``(3) Considered as in default.--Upon receipt of such a
report or notice, such graduate may be considered to be in
default of the graduate's service obligations by the
Secretary, and subject to all remedies the Secretary may have
with respect to such a default.''.
(2) Application.--Section 51306(f) of title 46, United
States Code, as added by paragraph (1), does not apply with
respect to an agreement entered into under section 51306(a)
of title 46, United States Code, before October 17, 2006.
(d) Section 51509(c).--Section 51509(c) of title 46, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``Midshipman and'' in the subsection
heading and ``midshipman and'' in the text; and
(2) inserting ``or the Coast Guard Reserve'' after
``Reserve)''.
(e) Section 51908(a).--Section 51908(a) of title 46, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``under this chapter''
and inserting ``by this chapter or the Secretary of
Transportation''.
(f) Section 53105(e)(2).--Section 53105(e)(2) of title 46,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``section 2 of the
Shipping Act, 1916 (46 U.S.C. App. 802),'' and inserting
``section 50501 of this title''.
(g) Repeal of Superseded Amendments.--Sections 3505, 3506,
3508, and 3510(a) and (b) of the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364)
are repealed.

SEC. --208. MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS.

(a) Deletion of Obsolete Reference to Canton Island.--
Section 55101(b) of title 46, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``or'' after the semicolon at the end of
paragraph (2);
(2) by striking paragraph (3); and
(3) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3).
(b) Improvement of Heading.--Title 46, United States Code,
is amended as follows:
(1) The heading of section 55110 is amended by inserting
``valueless material or'' before ``dredged material''.
(2) The item for section 55110 in the analysis for chapter
551 is amended by inserting ``valueless material or'' before
``dredged material''.
(c) Oceanographic Research Vessels and Sailing School
Vessels.--
(1) Section 10101(3) of title 46, United States Code, is
amended by inserting ``on an oceanographic research vessel''
after ``scientific personnel''.
(2) Section 50503 of title 46, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``An oceanographic research vessel'' and
all that follows and inserting the following:
``(a) Definitions.--In this section, the terms
`oceanographic research vessel' and `scientific personnel'
have the meaning given those terms in section 2101 of this
title.
``(b) Not Seamen.--Scientific personnel on an oceanographic
research vessel are deemed not to be seamen under part G of
subtitle II, section 30104, or chapter 303 of this title.
``(c) Not Engaged in Trade or Commerce.--An oceanographic
research vessel is deemed not to be engaged in trade or
commerce.''.

[[Page S12361]]

(3) Section 50504(b)(1) of title 46, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``parts B, F, and G of subtitle II'' and
inserting ``part B, F, or G of subtitle II, section 30104, or
chapter 303''.

SEC. --209. APPLICATION OF SUNSET PROVISION TO CODIFIED
PROVISION.

For purposes of section 303 of the Jobs and Growth Tax
Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-27, 26
U.S.C. 1 note), the amendment made by section 301(a)(2)(E) of
that Act shall be deemed to have been made to section
53511(f)(2) of title 46, United States Code.

SEC. --210. ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

(a) Amendments to Title 46.--Title 46, United States Code,
is amended as follows:
(1) The analysis for chapter 21 is amended by striking the
item relating to section 2108.
(2) Section 12113(g) is amended by inserting ``and'' after
``Conservation''.
(3) Section 12131 is amended by striking ``commmand'' and
inserting ``command''.
(b) Amendments to Public Law 109-304.--
(1) Amendments.--Public Law 109-304 is amended as follows:
(A) Section 15(10) is amended by striking ``46 App.
U.S.C.'' and inserting ``46 U.S.C. App.''.
(B) Section 15(30) is amended by striking ``Shipping Act,
1936'' and inserting ``Shipping Act, 1916''.
(C) The schedule of Statutes at Large repealed in section
19, as it relates to the Act of June 29, 1936, is amended
by--
(i) striking the second section ``1111'' (relating to 46
U.S.C. App. 1279f) and inserting section ``1113''; and
(ii) striking the second section ``1112'' (relating to 46
U.S.C. App. 1279g) and inserting section ``1114''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1)
shall be effective as if included in the enactment of Public
Law 109-304.
(c) Repeal of Duplicative or Unexecutable Amendments.--
(1) Repeal.--Sections 9(a), 15(21) and (33)(A) through
(D)(i), and 16(c)(2) of Public Law 109-304 are repealed.
(2) Intended effect.--The provisions repealed by paragraph
(1) shall be treated as if never enacted.
(d) Large Passenger Vessel Crew Requirements.--Section
8103(k)(3)(C)(iv) of title 46, United States Code, is amended
by inserting ``and section 252 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1282)'' after ``of such section''.

AMENDMENT NO. 3103, as modified

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

SEC. 1070. PILOT PROGRAM ON COMMERCIAL FEE-FOR-SERVICE AIR
REFUELING SUPPORT FOR THE AIR FORCE.

(a) Pilot Program Required.--The Secretary of Air Force
shall, commencing as soon as practicable after the date of
the enactment of this Act, conduct a pilot program to assess
the feasability and advisability of utilizing commercial fee-
for-service air refueling tanker aircraft for Air Force
operations.
(b) Purpose.--
(1) In general.--The purpose of the pilot program required
by subsection (a) is to support, augment, or enhance the air
refueling mission of the Air Force by utilizing commercial
air refueling providers on a fee-for-service basis.
(2) Elements.--In order to achieve the purpose of the pilot
program, the pilot program shall--
(A) demonstrate and validate a comprehensive strategy for
air refueling on a fee-for-service basis by utilizing all
appropriate aircraft in mission areas including testing
support, training support to receivers, homeland defense
support, deployment support, air bridge support, aeromedical
evacuation, and emergency air refueling; and
(B) integrate fee-for-service air refueling described in
paragraph (1) into Air Mobility Command operations.
(c) Competitive Providers.--The pilot program shall include
the services of not more than three commercial air refueling
providers selected by the Secretary for the pilot program
utilizing competitive procedures.
(d) Minimum Number of Aircraft.--Each provider selected for
the pilot program shall utilize no fewer than two air
refueling aircraft in participating in the pilot program.
(e) Aircraft Utilization.--The pilot program shall provide
for a minimum of 1,200 flying hours per year per air
refueling aircraft participating in the pilot program.
(f) Duration.--The period of the pilot program shall be not
less than five years after the commencement of the pilot
program.
(g) Report.--The Secretary of the Air Force shall provide
to the congressional defense committees an annual report on
the fee-for-service air refueling program to include:
(1) missions flown;
(2) missions areas supported;
(3) aircraft number, type, model series supported;
(4) fuel dispersed;
(5) departure reliability rates; and
(6) any other data as appropriate for evaluating
performance of the commercial air refueling providers.

Amendment No. 3107

(Purpose: To modify the purposes for which the Naval Aviation Museum
Foundation at the National Museum of Naval Aviation at Naval Air
Station, Pensacola, Florida, may operate the National Flight Academy)

On page 508, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

SEC. 2854. MODIFICATION OF LEASE OF PROPERTY, NATIONAL FLIGHT
ACADEMY AT THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NAVAL
AVIATION, NAVAL AIR STATION, PENSACOLA,
FLORIDA.

Section 2850(a) of the Military Construction Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (division B of the Floyd D. Spence
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (as
enacted into law by Public Law 106-398; 114 Stat. 1654A-428))
is amended--
(1) by striking ``naval aviation and'' and inserting
``naval aviation,''; and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, and, as of January 1, 2008, to teach the
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics disciplines
that have an impact on and relate to aviation''.

amendment no. 3082, as modified

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

SEC. 214. GULF WAR ILLNESSES RESEARCH.

(a) Funding.--
(1) Additional amount.--Of the amount authorized to be
appropriated by section 201(1) for research, development,
test, and evaluation, Army $15,000,000, may be allocated to
Medical Advanced Technology (PE #0603002A) for the Army to
carry out, as part of its Congressionally Directed Medical
Research Programs, a program for Gulf War Illnesses Research.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of the program may be to develop
diagnostic markers and treatments for the complex of symptoms
commonly known as ``Gulf War Illnesses (GWI)'', including
widespread pain, cognitive impairment, and persistent fatigue
in conjunction with diverse other symptoms and abnormalities,
that are associated with service in the Southwest Asia
theater of operations in the early 1990s during the Persian
Gulf War.
(c) Program Activities.--
(1) Highest priority under the program shall be afforded to
pilot and observational studies of treatments for the complex
of symptoms described in subsection (b) and comprehensive
clinical trials of such treatments that have demonstrated
effectiveness in previous past pilot and observational
studies.
(2) Secondary priority under the program may be afforded to
studies that identify objective markers for such complex of
symptoms and biological mechanisms underlying such complex of
symptoms that can lead to the identification and development
of such markers and treatments.
(3) No study shall be funded under the program that is
based on psychiatric illness and psychological stress as the
central cause of such complex of symptoms (as is consistent
with current research findings).
(d) Competitive Selection and Peer Review.--The program
shall be conducted using competitive selection and peer
review for the identification of activities having the most
substantial scientific merit, utilizing individuals with
recognized expertise in Gulf War illnesses in the design of
the solicitation and in the scientific and programmatic
review processes.

Amendment No. 2325, as modified

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

SEC. __. PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE REMOVAL OF MISSILES FROM
THE 564TH MISSILE SQUADRON.

(a) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
Congressional Defense Committees a report on the feasibility
of establishing an association between the 120th Fighter Wing
of the Montana Air National Guard and active duty personnel
stationed at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana. In making
such assessment, the Secretary shall consider:
(1) An evaluation of the Air Force's requirement for
additional F-15 aircraft active or reserve component force
structure.
(2) An evaluation of the airspace training opportunities in
the immediate airspace around Great Falls International
Airport Air Guard Station.
(3) An evaluation of the impact of civilian operations on
military operations at the Great Falls International Airport.
(4) An evaluation of the level of civilian encroachment on
the facilities and airspace of the 120th Fighter Wing.
(5) An evaluation of the support structure available,
including active military bases nearby.
(6) Opportunities for additional association between the
Montana National Guard and the 341st Space Wing.
(b) Not more than 40 missiles may be removed from the 564th
Missile Squadron until 15 days after the report required in
subsection (a) has been submitted.

amendment no. 2897, as modified

On page 354, after line 24, add the following:

SEC. 1070. ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT PATHOLOGY CENTER.

(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Defense may, to the
extent consistent with the final recommendations of the 2005
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission as approved
by the President, establish a Joint Pathology Center located
at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland,
that shall function as the reference center in pathology for
the Department of Defense.

[[Page S12362]]

(b) Services.--The Joint Pathology Center, if established,
shall provide, at a minimum, the following services:
(1) Diagnostic pathology consultation.
(2) Pathology education, to include graduate medical
education, including residency and fellowship programs, and
continuing medical education.
(3) Diagnostic pathology research.
(4) Maintenance and continued modernization of the Tissue
Repository and, as appropriate, utilization of such
Repository in conducting the activities described in
paragraphs (1) through (3).

amendment no. 2068, as modified

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

SEC. 1517. REPORTS ON MITIGATION OF EFFECTS OF EXPLOSIVELY
FORMED PROJECTILES AND MINES.

(a) Report on Explosively Formed Projectiles.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, and every 60 days thereafter, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional
defense committees a report, in both classified and
unclassified forms, on explosively formed projectiles.
(2) Content.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1)
shall include the following:
(A) A comprehensive plan of action for improving
capabilities to mitigate the effects of explosively formed
projectiles (EFPs), including the development of
technologies, training programs, tactics, techniques, and
procedures, and an estimate of the funding required to
execute the plan.
(B) Detailed descriptions of the effectiveness of any
fielded EFP mitigation technologies, training programs,
tactics, techniques, and procedures, and ways in which they
could be improved.
(C) A description of the individual projects that comprise
the plan of action.
(D) A schedule for completing and fielding each project.
(E) The contract delivery dates, progress towards
completion, and forecast completion date for each project.
(F) A comprehensive description of any deviation from
contract terms and an explanation of any cost and schedule
variance and how such variance affects fielding deliverables,
and a plan for addressing such deviations and variances.
(G) Recommendations for additional authorities, which if
provided to the Secretary, would improve the ability of the
Department of Defense to rapidly field counter EFP
capabilities and protection against the effects of EFPs.
(H) An analysis of any industrial base issues affecting the
plan outlined under subparagraph (A).
(I) Mechanisms for sharing counter EFP capabilities with
appropriate coalition partners.
(J) The most current available data on the effects of EFPs
on United States, coalition, and allied forces in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
(b) Report on Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, and every 30 days thereafter, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional
defense committees a report on Mine Resistant Ambush
Protected (MRAP) vehicles.
(2) Content.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1)
shall include the following:
(A) The total requirement of all military services for MRAP
vehicles, including MRAP I, spiral upgrades, and MRAP II
variants.
(B) A comprehensive plan for transporting and fielding all
variants to the United States Central Command (CENTCOM) area
of operations.
(C) An assessment of completed production, transportation,
and fielding of MRAP vehicles and a forecast of future
production, transportation, and fielding functions.
(D) An explanation of any deviation between the planned and
actual numbers of vehicles fielded for the reporting period.
(E) Funding required to execute production, transportation,
and fielding, and an analysis of any industrial base issues
affecting such functions.
(F) The required delivery schedule for each contract to
procure MRAP vehicles.
(G) A comprehensive description and explanation of cost and
schedule variance, and any deviation from contract terms, how
that variance or deviation affects overall program
performance, and corrective actions planned to address such
variance and deviation.
(H) Recommendations for additional authorities, which if
provided to the Secretary, would improve the ability of the
Department of Defense to rapidly field MRAP vehicles.
(I) Plans for armor upgrades, and their impact on
automotive performance and sustainment.
(J) An explanation of any safety issues or limitations on
the vehicles.
(K) Anticipated short and long term sustainment issues,
including an explanation of the maintenance concept for
sustainment after the initial contractor logistic support
period and the projected annual funding required.
(L) A detailed description of MRAP program costs, including
research and development, procurement, maintenance,
logistics, and end to end transportation costs.
(c) Report on Tactical Wheeled Vehicles Strategy.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to the congressional defense committees a report on
the near and long term tactical wheeled vehicle fleet
modernization strategies of the Army and Marine Corps.
(2) Content.--The report required under paragraph (1) shall
include the following:
(A) A description of the impact of the Mine Resistant
Ambush Protected vehicle program on the current acquisition
strategies and procurement plans of the Army and Marine Corps
for the tactical wheeled vehicle fleet, including inventory
mix, overall sustainment cost, and logistical and industrial
base issues.
(B) Plans for the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program,
including an assessment of the continued validity of
previously adopted Key Performance Parameters.
(C) A science and technology investment strategy, including
a description of current technical barriers, near and long
term technology objectives, coordination of activities of the
various military departments, Defense Agencies, and
commercial industry entities, and technology demonstration
and transition plans to support the Long Term Armoring
Strategy (LTAS).
(D) A strategy to fund and execute sufficient developmental
and operational test and evaluation to ensure that deployed
systems are operationally effective, including a description
of the role of the Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation in the development and execution of the Long Term
Armoring Strategy.
(E) Plans to utilize the Army reset and recapitalization
process to maintain the legacy tactical wheeled vehicle
fleet.
(d) Report on Long Term Armoring Strategy.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to the congressional defense committees a report, in
classified and unclassified forms, on the Long Term Armoring
Strategy of the Army and Marine Corps.
(2) Content.--The report required under paragraph (1) shall
include the following:
(A) An estimate of the funding required to execute the
strategy.
(B) Specific plans for balancing force protection, payload,
performance, and deployability requirements across the range
of wheeled vehicle variants.
(C) A science and technology investment strategy, including
a description of current technical barriers, near and long
term technology objectives, coordination of activities of the
various military departments, Defense Agencies, and
commercial industry entities, and technology demonstration
and transition plans.
(D) A test and evaluation master plan, including a
description of the role of the Director of Operational Test
and Evaluation in the development and execution of LTAS.
(E) An analysis of industrial base or manufacturing issues
related to achieving sufficient and sustainable production
rates.

amendment no. 3112

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on the Air Force Logistics
Center)

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

SEC. 342. SENSE OF SENATE ON THE AIR FORCE LOGISTICS CENTERS.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) Air Force Air Logistics Centers have served as a model
of efficiency and effectiveness in providing integrated
sustainment (depot maintenance, supply management, and
product support) for fielded weapon systems within the
Department of Defense. This success has been founded in the
integration of these dependent processes.
(2) Air Force Air Logistics Centers have embraced best
practices, technology changes, and process improvements, and
have successfully managed increased workload while at the
same time reducing personnel.
(3) Air Force Air Logistics Centers continue to
successfully sustain an aging aircraft fleet that is
performing more flying hours, with less aircraft, than at any
point in the last thirty years.
(4) The purpose of the Global Logistics Support Center is
to apply an enterprise approach to supply chain management to
eliminate redundancies and improve efficiencies across the
Air Force in order to best provide capable aircraft to the
warfighter.
(5) The Air Force is working diligently to identify means
to create further efficiencies in the Air Force logistics
network.
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that
the Air Force should work closely with Congress as the Air
Force continues to develop and implement the Global Logistics
Support Center concept.

amendment no. 3032, as modified

On page 91, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
(c) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
take effect on a date elected by the Secretary of Defense,
which date may not be earlier than the date that is one year
after the date of the enactment of this Act. The Secretary
shall publish in the Federal Register notice of the effective
date of the amendments made by this section, as so elected.
(2) Report.--Not later than the effective date elected
under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives a report setting forth the recommendations of
the Secretary regarding the following:

[[Page S12363]]

(A) The appropriate role and mission of the Reserve Forces
Policy Board.
(B) The appropriate membership of the Reserve Forces Policy
Board.
(C) The appropriate procedures to be utilized by the
Reserve Forces Policy Board in its interaction with the
Department of Defense.

amendment no. 2905, as modified

On page 114, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:

SEC. 583. PILOT PROGRAM ON MILITARY FAMILY READINESS AND
SERVICEMEMBER REINTEGRATION.

(a) Pilot Program.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense shall carry out a
pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of
providing assistance and support to the Adjutant General of a
State or territory of the U.S. to create comprehensive
soldier and family preparedness and reintegration outreach
programs for members of the Armed Forces and their families
to further the purposes described in section 1781b(b) of
title 10, United States Code, as added by section 582(a) of
this Act.
(2) Coordination.--In carrying out the pilot program, the
Secretary shall--
(A) coordinate with the Department of Defense Military
Family Readiness Council (established under section 1781a of
title, United States Code, as added by section 581 of this
Act); and
(B) consult with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
(3) Designation.--The pilot program established pursuant to
paragraph (1) shall be known as the ``National Military
Family Readiness and Servicemember Reintegration Outreach
Program'' (in this section referred to as ``the pilot
program'').
(b) Assistance Provided.--The Secretary shall carry out the
pilot program through assistance and support.
The Adjutant General of a State or territory of the United
States.
(d) Purpose of Assistance and Support.--
(1) The pilot program may develop programs of outreach to
members of the Armed Forces and their family members to
educate such members and their family members about the
assistance and services available to them that meet the
purposes of section 1781b(b) of title 10, United States Code,
as added by section 582(a) of this Act, and to assist such
members and their family members in obtaining such assistance
and services. Such assistance and services may include the
following:
(A) Marriage counseling.
(B) Services for children.
(C) Suicide prevention.
(D) Substance abuse awareness and treatment.
(E) Mental health awareness and treatment.
(F) Financial counseling.
(G) Anger management counseling.
(H) Domestic violence awareness and prevention.
(I) Employment assistance.
(J) Development of strategies for living with a member of
the Armed Forces with post traumatic stress disorder or
traumatic brain injury.
(K) Other services that may be appropriate to address the
unique needs of members of the Armed Forces and their
families who live in rural or remote areas with respect to
family readiness and servicemember reintegration.
(L) Assisting members of the Armed Forces and their
families find and receive assistance with military family
readiness and servicemember reintegration, including referral
services.
(M) Development of strategies and programs that recognize
the need for long-term follow-up services for reintegrating
members of the Armed Forces and their families for extended
periods following deployments, including between deployments.
(N) Assisting members of the Armed Forces and their
families in receiving services and assistance from the
Department of Veterans Affairs, including referral services.
(2) Provision of outreach services.--A recipient of a grant
under this section shall carry out programs of outreach in
accordance with paragraph (1) to members of the Armed Forces
and their families before, during, between, and after
deployment of such members of the Armed Forces.
(e) Selection of Grant Recipients.--
(1) Application.--An eligible entity seeking a grant under
the pilot program shall submit to the Secretary an
application therefor in such form and in such manner as the
Secretary considers appropriate.
(2) Elements.--An application submitted under subparagraph
(A) shall include such elements as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
(3) Priority.--In selecting eligible entities to receive
grants under the pilot program, the Secretary shall give
priority to eligible entities that propose programs with a
focus on personal outreach to members of the Armed Forces and
their families by trained staff (with preference given to
veterans and, in particular, veterans of combat) conducted in
person.

Amendment No. 3027, as modified

At the end of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1070. REPORT ON FEASIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DOMESTIC
MILITARY AVIATION NATIONAL TRAINING CENTER.

(a) In General.--Not later than March 31, 2008, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional
defense committees a report to determine the feasibility of
establishing a Border State Aviation Training Center (BSATC)
to support the current and future requirements of the
existing RC-26 training site for counterdrug activities,
located at the Fixed Wing Army National Guard Aviation
Training Site (FWAATS), including the domestic reconnaissance
and surveillance missions of the National Guard in support of
local State, and Federal law enforcement agencies, provided
that the activities to be conducted at the BSATC shall not
duplicate or displace any activity or program at the C-26
training site or the FWAATS.
(b) Content.--The report required under subsection (a)
shall--
(1) examine the current and past requirements of RC-26
aircraft in support of local, State, and Federal law
enforcement and determine the number of additional aircraft
required to provide such support for each State that borders
Canada, Mexico, or the Gulf of Mexico;
(2) determine the number of military and civilian personnel
required to run a RC-26 domestic training center meeting the
requirements identified under paragraph (1); and
(3) determine the requirements and cost of locating such a
training center at a military installation for the purpose of
preempting and responding to security threats and responding
to crises; and
(4) include a comprehensive review of the number of
intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance platforms
needed for the National Guard to effectively provide domestic
operations and civil support (including homeland defense and
counterdrug) to local, State, and Federal law enforcement and
first responder entities.
(c) Consultation.--In preparing the report required under
subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense shall consult with
the Adjutant General of each State that borders Canada,
Mexico, or the Gulf of Mexico, the Adjutant General of the
State of West Virginia, and the National Guard Bureau.

Amendment No. 2905

Mr. SUNUNU. Madam President, I rise today in favor of the Sanders
amendment, No. 2905, to the Department of Defense authorization bill,
which would establish a pilot program aimed at providing essential care
and services to National Guard soldiers returning home from duty.
Back in the fall of 2004, the New Hampshire National Guard was one of
the first Guard units to recognize the unique difficulties encountered
by guardsmen and women returning from combat operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. In response, the Guard led the way in addressing these
concerns by establishing its own reunion and reentry program, which
employs innovative solutions to cope with the difficult transition to
life at home.
Under the reentry program, soldiers and their families receive
multiple counseling sessions and an introduction to the array of
services available to them within the first 36 hours of returning home.
The program works to ensure that servicemembers and their families
recognize that they are not alone and that the Guard is committed to
providing the care and assistance they need after returning from
deployment.
This program has proven to be enormously successful, and has become a
model for other States, due in part because it removes the burden of
seeking and requesting care from the individual soldier. I am proud of
the leadership role New Hampshire's National Guard has taken in
combating this very serious problem.
I am pleased the Senate adopted the Sanders amendment to provide
support that will allow other States to establish programs similar to
New Hampshire's.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at this juncture, I think the Senator from
Michigan and I might commend our staffs for doing a lot of diligent
work through a good part of the weekend to achieve this package of
amendments. I think this adds up to about 180 amendments we have done
now. So much of that work is done by our magnificent professional
staff, many of whom have been on the Armed Services Committee for
numbers of years.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank my good friend, Senator Warner, for
that suggestion. This is a good moment to do that before we have a vote
later on the bill. Our staffs, as always, put in an amazing amount of
time--in the evenings, mornings, over weekends--in order for us to get
through hundreds of amendments.
Actually, the Senator is right. I think there were 180 cleared
amendments and about 35 amendments that

[[Page S12364]]

have been disposed of separately one way or another.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, over 180 amendments.
Mr. LEVIN. So I do not know if we set a record because my good friend
from Virginia probably is the record-holder--and probably more than
once. But, I say to the Senator, we are going to try to get to where
you have been. We are going to try harder.
Mr. WARNER. Well, where have you been?
Mr. LEVIN. With you every time. But when you were chairman and you--
Mr. WARNER. We have both been chairman of this committee, Mr.
President, three times.
Mr. LEVIN. One time each, I think, for 18 days.
But, in any event, I thank our staffs.
I thank my friend for raising this issue.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the indulgence of our
distinguished Presiding Officer and suggest the absence of a quorum.
I withhold the request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I, too, join in thanking our chairman and
ranking member, Senator Levin and Senator Warner, for all of their
cooperation during the consideration of a number of amendments we have
offered these past days. It is typical of their service and their
thoughtfulness. They are serious legislators. We are fortunate to have
them dealing with these issues of such importance and consequence for
our national security. I am grateful to them both.
I wish to take a few moments.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Massachusetts yield?
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts has been on
this committee for more than two decades, and there is no one who works
harder and more diligently. I wish there were more programs on which we
had a concurrence of philosophy and policy, but nevertheless I say to
the Senator, you are a very prodigious worker.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if I could add one word on that subject,
the Senator from Massachusetts is not only about as diligent a Senator
as one can imagine, but he has had great success on this particular
bill. I do not know how he manages to keep all the balls in the air
that he does, including the CHIP program, immigration, and so many
other issues. But he has had an extraordinary success on this
particular bill, and it is a real tribute to him--this bill--for many
reasons.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, as was described earlier on the floor with the
chairman of the committee, on last Friday, there are important
provisions dealing with refugees, particularly the select refugees who
have been the ones who have been so associated with the American effort
in Iraq.
We have differences in this body on the overall policy in Iraq, but I
think all of us admire those extraordinary individuals who worked, in
many instances, as translators for the American servicemen and risked
their lives. Many of them lost their lives in this effort. A number of
others who had worked with American forces now have their lives
threatened, for which there is a sense of urgency. The amendment was
accepted by both Senator Levin and Senator Warner. We are hopeful it
will result in saving lives. Also, there are individuals who, by their
religious beliefs, were being persecuted as well.
So this was a small amendment, but it will make a big difference. I
thank them for their help and assistance on that amendment and a number
of other items on our hate crimes legislation, and others.

Amendment No. 3058

Mr. President, one of the pending amendments is the amendment offered
by Senator Mikulski and myself, and that is an amendment that affects
workers. In this case, we are talking about Defense Department workers.
Of those 640,000 Defense Department workers, we are talking about a
third of those workers who have proudly served in the Armed Forces of
our country. They have worn the uniform of our country, acquired
various skills, and then have come back and now are serving in the
Defense Department in a wide variety of areas--in information and
information technologies, in supplies, in technology and safety
equipment--a wide variety of areas. They are using their skills--which
they had--their patriotism, their dedication to service to this country
and are doing so with great skill and determination.
It means a lot to those who are in the Armed Forces to know they have
a backup, first of all by their families, but secondly by skilled men
and women who are going to make sure they have the best in technology,
the best in terms of equipment, and that they are going to be able to
do their job in the way they were trained. Those are the Defense
Department employees.
Now, we have found in recent times as to those employees that their
futures have been put at risk. They have been put at risk because of a
change in the rules and regulations for what they call outsourcing, the
bidding for various contracts. These workers are highly skilled, highly
professional, and they are prepared to compete on a level playing field
with any group of workers--public or private sector--and do so, and do
so well, do it skillfully, and also do it in a way that is going to
save the American taxpayer resources. But what is added to the bid in
various contracts is the fact that these Federal employees have health
insurance and also have some retirement benefits.
In this country now we are facing a health care crisis. We hear
Democratic candidates for President talk about it, Republican
candidates talk about it, business leaders, leaders of the trade union
movement talk about it. We were spending $1.3 trillion 6 years ago; we
are now spending $2.3 trillion. We have increased the spending by $1
trillion, and 8 million Americans have lost their health insurance--8
million. It would be more than that if we didn't have the SCHIP
program. That is another issue for another time, when it will be more
than that.
So we are in real danger of seeing middle-class families lose both
their retirement in terms of their pensions, as well as their health
insurance. Now we have the regulations of the Department of Defense
that are accelerating that. Effectively, what they are saying is, if we
have good competition between the government bid and the private bid,
the fact that we have health insurance and retirement, it is going to
make the total cost somewhat higher and therefore the award will go to
the private bid. This is sending a powerful message to these private
contractors: Don't even think of providing any services, health care,
for the families of your workers. Don't think about retirement. Don't
think about anything because you can win contracts against those who
are working in the Defense Department who are providing those benefits.
That is basically unfair.
This competition ought to be for the cost of providing the services.
Who can do that more efficiently? We don't want to rush to the bottom--
a race to the bottom--and that is what we are having at this time, and
that is wrong. That is wrong, and it is unfair. If we continue that, we
are going to find out we are going to have not tens of thousands, but
we are going to have hundreds of thousands of people who are going to
see that their insurance is lost.
This isn't just the employees. If we look at the private contractor,
one private contractor was going for a bid, another was bidding for it,
and at the present time, if that were the circumstance today, the
responsible contractor who is looking out for their employees with
health insurance for the families and with a retirement program, they
would be somewhat higher than the cost of providing service by the
irresponsible contractor, and they would lose out. So it isn't only the
workers who are working in the Defense Department but also responsible
contractors who are providing services for their employees and who
respect their employees.
If we don't accept this amendment, we are going to see a continuing
rush to the bottom where it is going to be virtually impossible to get
these independent contractors to provide any of the kinds of services
to these families who are working in this country. That isn't what we
ought to have in terms of the Defense Department rules.

[[Page S12365]]

Finally, as I pointed out earlier, but it is worth mentioning again,
some of the other provisions that basically work for the unfairness of
those who are working in the Defense Department. If there is an unfair
decision, the private contractors can appeal that, but the workers over
here cannot. That isn't fair. This amendment is about fairness,
treating people fairly.
Renew a contract without recompetition, they can do that. Private
contractors can do it, but if the Federal workers have that contract,
they can't do it. We find out for the most competitive bid, there are
administrative rules and regulations that prohibit Federal employees
from getting the lowest competitive bid. They know how to do it, they
want to do it; nonetheless, they are denied the opportunity to do it.
Then we have these quotas that are set by OMB, which is not right.
They establish so many contractors and so much is virtually prohibited,
but it has grown into a practice at the present time.
So this amendment is very much about fairness. It is about how we are
going to treat people who are part of the whole Defense establishment.
And they are these workers, and they are indispensable. A great
percentage of them have been a part of the military and have served
with great distinction for many years. They want to continue that sense
of patriotism, continue that sense of service, continue that sense of
giving. The men and women who are in the Armed Forces know they can
rely on the quality of the work that the individuals do because these
individuals are highly motivated, highly trained, have been in the
service, many of them have served for many years, come out of the
service, have skills, and say: What I would like to do for the rest of
my career is to be able to continue to give support to those who are on
the front lines, and they do it. They do it with great distinction, and
they do it with great expertise and with extraordinary patriotism.
All they are asking for is to have a fair system, to give them a fair
shake. Give them some respect. Give them the respect they deserve, that
they should have. Give some respect for their families as well.
So I hope very much we will have good support for this amendment. As
I mentioned earlier in those particular provisions that we put up about
disparities between the private contractors and the employees, we have
had strong bipartisan support for just about every one of those
provisions, but they have been put on appropriations in the past, and
therefore at the time the appropriation expires, these provisions
expire. Now we are back to try to revisit this once again. So there is
a strong and compelling reason for this amendment.
I thank Senator Lieberman and so many of our cosponsors, including
Senator Mikulski who has spoken so well and who has been such a strong
advocate, and so many of our colleagues who have supported the
different provisions on both sides of the aisle. Hopefully, we will
have a strong vote in an hour from now for those workers.
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.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I rise to support the Kennedy
amendment because, frankly, it makes fiscal sense. There has been in
this administration a rush to contract. They never saw any function of
government that somehow they didn't believe would be better off in the
private sector. I am not opposed to privatization just for the sake of
being opposed to privatization. I have no problem with contracting, if
it is going to save taxpayers' money and we are still going to get
quality work on behalf of taxpayers from those contractors working in
government. But if we have learned anything over the last 6 years, we
have learned that you don't always get a good deal when you contract.
I know we have spent a lot of time talking over the last few weeks
about the contracting that went on in Iraq, and I will not dwell on
that here, but it is exhibit A of how badly government sometimes does
in the name of saving money when it enters into private contracts.
So what this amendment says is pretty simple, and it is kind of what
auditors say over and over again until people want us to be quiet; that
is, compete, compete, compete. Not only should these contracts be
competitive among potential contractors, they must be competitive with
the government workers who are currently doing the work. There have
been many examples of where, in the name of saving money, someone was
hired to do the job, and it ended up costing us more than had the
government employees remained on the job. That is just the basics of
this amendment.
This is nothing new. This has been in a number of Defense
appropriations bills, and it is in effect for the Department of
Defense. The A-76 rule, which this is called, is now currently the law
within the Department of Defense. This will extend it, codify it, make
it uniform across the Federal Government. If you are going to contract
out, then the employees have a right to participate in that
competition. And if the employees of government can show they can do
the job, as they have been doing, and they can do it for less money
than the private contractor, then they should get the award in that
particular competition.
This is a way to not only make sure we are not getting rid of the
expertise we have in government, it is also a way to reinforce how
important competition is. We have had competitions that have
masqueraded as real competitions in this administration a number of
times. This will make sure we are getting the best value for that very
precious taxpayer dollar. They are going to have to demonstrate that
the contract is going to save money in order for the contract to be put
out to a private entity as opposed to government employees.
I think it is a very solid amendment in terms of watching out for
taxpayer money. I know it is characterized that this is to protect
government employees. It is not. It is called protecting taxpayers'
money. That is why I think this amendment is so important. That is why
I hope my colleagues will join together to strike another blow on
behalf of fiscal accountability and making sure we treat taxpayers'
money with respect and deference and making sure we are spending it
very wisely.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wish to rise in support of the pending
amendment by Senator Kennedy on public-private competition. Sometimes
this amendment is described as the Kennedy-Mikulski or the Mikulski-
Kennedy amendment. Both Senators deserve a great deal of credit for
their support.
The Department of Defense has allowed its workforce of civilian
employees to atrophy to the point of a human capital crisis. Since
fiscal year 2000, the number of contractor employees under DOD service
contracts has roughly doubled, while the number of DOD civilian
employees has remained virtually unchanged. As a result, the Department
of Defense has found in area after area--acquisition management,
financial management, even security and intelligence--it must now rely
upon contractors to perform functions that were formerly performed by
Federal employees.
These adverse trends have been exacerbated by an administration that
has consistently pushed to have more Federal work performed in the
private sector. In 2001, the Office of Management and Budget
established a goal of subjecting half of the work performed by Federal
employees to private sector competition within 4 years. While the
administration subsequently backed off of this Government-wide goal,
OMB continues to establish agency-specific goals, and to grade agencies
on their performance in converting work to private sector performance.
The Kennedy-Mikulski amendment would end this artificial effort to
drive contracts to the private sector by codifying a commonsense set of
rules that govern competition between Federal employees and private
contractors.
Some of these rules have already been enacted through appropriations
acts in previous Congresses. The Kennedy-Mikulski amendment would make
these rules permanent law. Others have

[[Page S12366]]

already been enacted for the DOD. The Kennedy-Mikulski amendment would
make these provisions Government-wide.
I wish to focus on one provision of the amendment which addresses a
fundamental element of fairness in competition between the private and
public sectors. OMB circular A-76, which governs public-private
competitions, establishes rules for what happens after one side or the
other wins a competition. If the private sector wins a competition, the
work stays in the private sector forever. If the public sector wins,
however, the work must be subject to a new competition within 5 years.
Attachment B to OMB circular A-76 specifically states that if the
public sector competitor wins a competition, ``an agency shall complete
another . . . competition of the activity by the end of the last
performance period'' in the performance agreement.
This rule is fundamentally unfair. It also undermines the morale of
Federal civilian employees by contributing to the view of civil
servants as second-class citizens. At a time when the Department of
Defense should be recruiting thousands of new civilian employees to
address a human capital crisis, the rule is clearly contrary to the
Department's own interests.
The Kennedy-Mikulski amendment would address this problem by stating
that OMB may not require the Department of Defense to conduct a new
public-private competition within any specified period of time after
the public sector wins a competition. That is the right answer. DOD's
human capital policies should be driven by the Department's human
capital needs--not by arbitrary policies established by the Office of
Management and Budget. So I hope our colleagues will support the
Kennedy-Mikulski amendment.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, last week, the Senate adopted a historic
amendment offered by Senators Webb, McCaskill, and others, to establish
an independent commission to review the many problems with fraud,
waste, and abuse that have arisen in Iraq relative to contracting and
to give us recommendations on how we can avoid similar problems in the
future. I wish to commend the Senators that were involved in this
effort for the leadership they showed in drafting this amendment and
getting it adopted by the Senate.
The Department of Defense faces huge problems in its acquisition
system today. Over the last few years, we have seen an alarming lack of
acquisition planning across the Department; the excessive use of
contracts that make open-ended commitments of DOD funds; and a
pervasive failure to perform contract oversight and management
functions necessary to protect taxpayers' interest. These problems have
been particularly acute in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they are in no way
limited to Iraq and Afghanistan.
The contracting commission established pursuant to the Webb-McCaskill
amendment should help us identify the sources of these problems and
provide us with constructive recommendations to avoid similar problems
in the future.
In addition to the commission language adopted last week, there are
significant acquisition reform measures already in this bill, as it
came to the floor, that will make improvements in the DOD acquisition
system and to wartime contracting. Taken together, these provisions
will make the bill that is now before the Senate, by far, the most
significant acquisition reform measure to be considered by Congress
since the enactment of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act and the
Federal Acquisition Reform Act more than 10 years ago.
For example, section 821 of the bill would require increased
competition in large ``umbrella contracts'' awarded by the Department
of Defense. The Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing in April
on the Department of Defense management of the $20 billion so-called
LOGCAP contract, under which a company called KBR--until recently, a
subsidiary of Halliburton--has provided services to U.S. troops in the
field.
Here are some of the things we learned in our hearing:
The company was given work that appears to have far exceeded the
scope of the contract; all of this added work was provided to the
contractor without competition; the contractor resisted providing us
with information that we needed to monitor and control costs; there
were almost $2 billion of overcharges on the contract; and the
contractor received highly favorable settlements on these overcharges.
When asked why the Army had waited 5 years to split the massive
LOGCAP contract among multiple contractors, allowing for greater
competition of the work to be performed under the contract, the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics gave the following answer: ``I don't have a good answer for
you.''
The provision in our bill would avoid the kind of abuses we get in
sole-source contracts by ensuring that future contracts of this type
provide for the competition of task and delivery orders unless there is
a compelling reason not to do so. If our language stays intact, we
should never again see the kind of abuses which existed with the
Halliburton-KBR umbrella contracts.
Similarly, section 871 of the bill would require tighter regulation
and control over private security contractors operating in areas of
combat operations. Over the last 4 years, there has been a number of
reports of abuses by private security contractors operating in Iraq.
There have been allegations, even films, of contractors shooting
recklessly at civilians as they drive down the streets of Baghdad and
other Iraqi cities. Some of these contractors work for the Department
of Defense, but many others work for other Federal agencies or for
contractors of other Federal agencies.
Most recently, the Iraqi Government has complained about an incident
in which employees of Blackwater allegedly opened fire on innocent
Iraqis in downtown Baghdad. According to published reports, Blackwater
employees shot into a crush of cars, killing at least 11 Iraqis and
wounding 12. Blackwater officials insist their guards were ambushed,
but witnesses described this shooting as unprovoked, and Iraq's
Interior Ministry has concluded that Blackwater was at fault.
Last week, the Washington Post reported that senior military
officials are deeply concerned about this shootout and other similar
incidents which could undermine our efforts to combat terrorists and
insurgents in Iraq. This is what the Washington Post article reported:

``The military is very sensitive to its relationship that
they've built with the Iraqis being altered or even severely
degraded by actions such as this event''. . . .
``This is a nightmare,'' said a senior U.S. military
official. ``We had guys who saw the aftermath, and it was
very bad. This is going to hurt us badly. It may be worse
than Abu Ghraib, and it comes at a time when we're trying to
have an impact for the long term''. . . .
In interviews involving a dozen U.S. military and
government officials, many expressed . . . concern over the
shootings. . . .
``This is a big mess that I don't think anyone has their
hands around yet,'' said another U.S. military official.
``It's not necessarily a bad thing these guys are being held
accountable. Iraqis hate them, the troops don't particularly
care for them, and they tend to have a know-it-all attitude,
which means they rarely listen to anyone--even the folks that
patrol the ground on a daily basis.''
``Their tendency is shoot first and ask questions later,''
said an Army lieutenant colonel serving in Iraq. Referring to
the September 16 shootings, the officer added, ``None of us
believe they were engaged, but we are all carrying their
black eyes.''
``Many of my peers think Blackwater is oftentimes out of
control,'' said a senior U.S. commander serving in Iraq.
``They often act like cowboys over here . . . not seeming to
play by the same rules everybody else tries to play by.''

The provision in our bill would address this problem by ensuring that
the Department of Defense and its combatant commanders are in a
position to regulate the conduct of all armed contractors in the battle
space, regardless of whether they are employed under contracts of the
Department of Defense or other Federal agencies. Under the provision in
our bill, private security contractors employed by any Federal agency
or any contractor or subcontractor for a Federal agency would be

[[Page S12367]]

required for the first time to comply with DOD rules on the use of
force and with orders, directions, and instructions issued by combatant
commanders relating to force protection, security, health, safety, or
relations and interaction with local nationals.
Other provisions in our bill would provide added protection for
contractor employees who blow the whistle on fraud, waste, and abuse.
They would require the DOD to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the
billions of dollars it spends every year to purchase contract services.
Our bill will tighten rules for the acquisition of major weapons
systems; ensure that we get fair prices when we purchase spare parts
for those weapons systems; enhance competition requirements for
products purchased from Federal prison industries; and address abuses
of undefinitized contract actions.
The root cause of these and all the other problems that we read and
hear so much about, or at least most of the other problems, in the
defense acquisition system is our failure to maintain an acquisition
workforce with the resources and skills that are needed to manage the
Department's acquisition system.
Earlier this year, the Acquisition Advisory Panel, chartered pursuant
to the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004,
reported that ``curtailed investments in human capital have produced an
acquisition workforce that often lacks the training and resources to
function effectively.'' And they went on:

The Federal Government does not have the capacity in its
current acquisition workforce necessary to meet the demands
that have been placed on it.

The failure of Department of Defense and other Federal agencies to
adequately fund the acquisition workforce, the panel concluded, is ``
`penny-wise and pound-foolish,' as it seriously undermines the pursuit
of the good value for the expenditure of public resources.''
Senior DOD officials have recognized the deficiencies in the defense
acquisition workforce, but they have been unable to obtain significant
funds that are needed to remedy the problem. Section 844 of our bill
will address this issue by establishing an acquisition workforce
development fund to enable the Department of Defense to increase the
size and quality of its acquisition workforce. In the first year, we
will provide roughly $500 million for this purpose. It is a large sum
of money, but it is a small investment to ensure the proper expenditure
of more than $200 billion of taxpayers' money every year.
We look forward to working with the House conferees after we pass our
bill, hopefully this evening, to make these important provisions on
acquisition reform and the acquisition workforce the law of the land.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I want to speak on final
passage of the bill. We are going to have that vote shortly. What is
the parliamentary procedure we are in?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is currently considering the
Kennedy amendment to the bill.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, if I may be recognized, I
will use these remarks to tell the Senate that it has been a pleasure
to work with the chairman of the full committee, Senator Levin, who has
consistently given this Senator free rein as the chairman of the
Strategic Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee.
What it looked like last winter was that all the thorny issues of
nuclear weapons and the follow-on nuclear weapons and the question of
national missile defense, the strategic posture of the United States,
would get us all wound up around the axle. But it didn't turn out that
way, and I want to give credit to my colleague, Senator Sessions, the
ranking member of our subcommittee, for working with me and the members
of the committee in resolving these issues. What we worked out in
subcommittee, basically, is what is in the bill.
Although the administration would like to go ahead and start building
national missile defense sites in Eastern Europe, the fact is, they
haven't even worked it out with the countries involved in Eastern
Europe. So what we did was we put a fence around any funding other than
the acquisition and the preparation of the land for such a site.
At the end of the day, there is going to have to be continued
research and development should the need arise for locating those
missiles in Eastern Europe because they are not the same version that
is in the silos in Alaska. That is a three-stage version; this is a
two-stage version. And it is not the same missile or rocket; therefore,
it has to go through all of its subsequent testing.
Now, General Obering just had a successful test a couple of days ago,
and for that we want to congratulate him, but if the threat is the
Shahab missile from Iran shooting into Europe or into the United States
with a nuclear weapon on top of the rocket, if that is the reason to
have national missile defense in Eastern Europe, well, we just simply
don't know that Iran is going to have that capability. And as we
continue to look at this on down the road, that is going to be an
evaluation as to whether at the end of the day we are going to need
that national missile defense in Eastern Europe. But since we don't
know all those answers, we have provided in this bill that if they
concluded the agreement with those Eastern European countries, they can
go about the process of acquiring the land, the site, and the
preparation of the site.
We also noted in our committee that they have not had tremendous
success with the airborne laser, and of the approximately $.5 billion
that they wanted to continue that program, we cut that program by $200
billion and used that money elsewhere, in kinetic energy intercepts on
the boost phase of an intercontinental ballistic missile.
So those are just some of the things in here, and I want to thank all
the parties who worked with us to get a bipartisan resolution, which is
the way a Defense bill ought to be managed and ought to be passed, and
we have that this year, and I am very grateful.
Now, there is another part in here that Senator Levin and the ranking
member of the full committee approved, and I want to thank him for
that. That is the question of widows and orphans. Current law is that a
servicemember pays for survivors benefits. They pay once they retire,
and they pay for that benefit. It is like an insurance policy. On the
other hand, there is another body of law in the Veterans'
Administration where there are survivors benefits for widows and
orphans. When the servicemember passes away, those two eligibilities,
under current law, cancel out each other, and that is not the way we
ought to be treating widows and orphans.
It was no less than President Lincoln who said, in his second
inaugural address, that the mark of a country is how it treats the
victims of war, the widows and orphans. And taking care of the widows
and orphans, in fact, is a cost of defense. It is a cost of doing
business in defense. Just like you buy tanks and airplanes and guns and
materiel, and so forth, taking care of not only the veterans is a cost
of war, but taking care of their survivors is a cost of war too. This
Nation has long canceled out those two eligibilities, and it is time
for us to change this.
Because we were down at the end of our discussion of this bill last
week, I did not ask for a rollcall vote, as I had last year. Of course,
the rollcall was something like 95 to 3 in favor of the widows and
orphans, and we would have gotten some kind of a vote like that again.
I was trying to accommodate my chairman and the ranking member in the
crush of business, and they were kind enough to put it into the
managers' package. So this will become a conference item, where it is
always a question about money. A few years ago it was estimated that it
would cost an additional $9 billion over 10 years. That is now down to
somewhere in the range of about $7 billion or $8 billion over 10 years.
So when we get into the conference committee, this Senator is going to
try to find how

[[Page S12368]]

we can get conferees to accept this provision.
So I come to the floor of the Senate to congratulate Senator Levin
and Senator Warner, acting in the stead of Senator McCain as the
ranking member. What a pleasure it has been to deal with these
gentlemen for the last 7 years as a member of this committee.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, first, let me commend the Senator from
Florida. As chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee, with his ranking
member, the members of that subcommittee have worked through some of
the most difficult and thorny issues we faced on this bill this year,
and he identified a few of them. He very modestly gives credit to
others, but, truly, Senator Nelson deserves most of the credit for
working out those very difficult issues on a bipartisan basis.
As a passionate defender of what we should do as a country for the
survivors of those men and women we lose in war, I can only assure him
we are going to do everything we can possibly do in conference because
I assume that had that been brought to a rollcall vote, it would have
been unanimous or nearly unanimous on the floor of the Senate. We
appreciated his willingness to have that go as part of the managers'
package, but for the purpose of that conference, I can assure my dear
friend from Florida that there is an assumption on our part that would
have been a unanimous or near unanimous vote by the Senate and so,
obviously, it is the right thing to do.
I also have a longer statement later--because 5:30 has arrived--about
our work as a committee, the subcommittee chairs, the ranking members,
and the staff. I will save that statement for after our vote on final
passage, which will come immediately after the vote on the Kennedy-
Mikulski amendment, but I wanted to add that quick comment.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I wish to associate myself with the
remarks of our colleague and Senator Sessions, the ranking member. I
can remember the days on the authorization bill when we would spend a
week or more on the one issue, missile defense. I think both sides have
pretty well reconciled that the present posture of the program is about
where it should be.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator for that. The hour of 5:30 has
arrived. I ask unanimous consent that the Kennedy-Mikulski amendment,
No. 3109 be withdrawn and that there be 2 minutes of debate at this
time prior to a vote in relation to the Kennedy-Mikulski amendment, No.
3058; that no amendment be in order to the amendment; that no further
amendments be in order; that the debate time be equally divided and
controlled in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of
time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to amendment No. 3058;
that upon disposition of that amendment, the substitute amendment, as
amended, be agreed to and that the Senate then vote on the passage of
H.R. 1585; that all other provisions of the previous order relating to
H.R. 1585 remain in effect and that on Tuesday, October 2, following a
period of morning business, the Senate proceed to the consideration of
Calendar No. 353, H.R. 3222, the Defense Department Appropriations Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. WARNER. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3109 is withdrawn.

Amendment No. 3058

There are now 2 minutes of debate on the Kennedy amendment.
The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I seek recognition in these 2 minutes
seeking support on this amendment, joined by my colleagues, Kennedy and
Akaka, who spoke Friday about why this amendment is important. It is
important that this amendment be on this bill because we all remember
the Walter Reed scandal. Remember the Walter Reed scandal, mold in the
hotel and all that? I spoke on this floor more than a year and a half
ago, with Paul Sarbanes, for an amendment that tried to deal with the
contracting out at Walter Reed. I lost that amendment on the floor by
two votes.
We went from 300 employees to 50 employees, and we only saved money
after they had 6 different attempts to make sure they had contracting
out. Let me tell you, if you want no more Walter Reeds, you want the
Kennedy-Mikulski-Akaka amendment. This amendment saves taxpayers money.
It says that any attempt at contracting out must save $10 million or 10
percent, so we meet the taxpayer mandate. It eliminates privatization
quotas. If you are against quotas and OMB bounty hunters, this
amendment is for you. If you want to make sure our contractors have
healthy retirement benefits as part of the contract, this amendment is
for you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Who
yields time?
The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, the Kennedy-Mikulski amendment is
intended to cause the A-76 process to become so cumbersome and
expensive it would effectively eliminate the ability of the Federal
Government to conduct any future A-76 competitions. What it
specifically does is it mandates private contractors match Government
health and retirement benefits.
DOD alone has saved taxpayers over $5 billion as a result of
competitions completed between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2006.
DOD expects these savings to grow to over $9 billion after the
completion of all planned competitions initiated in fiscal year 2007
are completed.
Right now the Government bidders win over 80 percent of the
competitions. This can hardly be characterized as an unfair process, as
supporters of this amendment portray it. It is designed to save
taxpayer dollars. It has--$5 billion over the past 5 years.
This amendment makes it so cumbersome, by mandating the private
contractors match Government health and retirement benefits, that the
A-76 process will be completely undermined.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mr. LEVIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, is a request for a quorum call in order
at this time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is in order. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. Dodd), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 44, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 358 Leg.]

YEAS--51

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--44

Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Bennett
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole

[[Page S12369]]

Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Stevens
Sununu
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich

NOT VOTING--5

Biden
Clinton
Dodd
McCain
Obama
The amendment (No. 3058) was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I move to lay that motion on the
table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I rise today to thank my colleagues for
their robust debate about this important piece of legislation.
I would also like to highlight a provision included in this bill
based on the Stop Arming Iran Act, which I introduced in January of
this year. The provision seeks to end the Iranian Government's
acquisition of sensitive military equipment by blocking the Pentagon's
sale of F-14 fighter jet parts.
It is the sensitive job of the Department of Defense to demilitarize
and auction off surplus military equipment. However, recent
investigations and reports have uncovered a frightening trend regarding
the sale of F-14 Tomcat aircraft parts. U.S. customs agents have
discovered F-14 parts being illegally shipped to Iran by brokers who
bought F-14 surplus equipment from Department of Defense auctions.
Other than the United States, Iran is the only nation to fly the F-
14. The United States allowed Iran to buy 79 F-14s before its
revolution in 1979. Fortunately, most of Iran's F-14s are currently
grounded for lack of parts. As the F-14 is retired from active service
in the United States, a slew of parts are about to be processed by the
Pentagon.
We know that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. We know
that the Department of State has identified Iran as the most active
state sponsor of terrorism. We know that the sale of spare parts for F-
14s could make it more difficult to confront the nuclear weapons
capability of Iran. And yet F-14 parts are still being sold by the DOD.
Iran's F-14s, especially with the parts to get more of them airborne,
greatly strengthen its ground war potential, harming our national and
global security. Our country should be doing everything possible to
deny the brutal regime in Tehran access to spare parts for their F-14
fleet.
The Department of Defense will tell you that it is already taking
action to control the sale of F-14 parts. They now say that every F-14
part is frozen and cannot be sold. However, they will not commit to
keeping this freeze in place and admit that the Pentagon can choose to
rescind or make exceptions to this policy at any time. I have
identified three large-scale changes to the Pentagon's policy on F-14
parts in just the last year. And history has shown us that these rules
are not enough.
The Department has been caught still selling F-14 parts, even when
its rules forbid it. It has sold F-14 parts to companies that have
turned out to be fronts for the Iranians. More recently, the DOD sold
sensitive technology, including classified F-14 parts, to undercover
GAO investigators.
This provision will make it crystal clear to the Department of
Defense that it may not sell any F-14 parts to anyone for any reason.
There should be no chance for the parts to make their way to the
Iranians.
I am very encouraged that both the Senate and House Armed Services
Committees have included the Stop Arming Iran provision in both
versions of the Defense authorization bill. I commend my colleagues for
allowing this important legislation into today's bill.
The provision fixes a very specific but very important problem: the
sale of F-14 components to a state sponsor of terrorism. We cannot--and
with the passage of this bill, we will not--allow that to happen.
(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to
be printed in the Record.)
<bullet> Mr. DODD. Madam President, I wish to explain my vote against
ending debate on the Defense authorization bill. I voted this way for
two simple reasons--first, this bill does not do anything to end the
war, and second, it does not provide adequate support for the families
of our returning wounded warriors.
A few weeks ago, I filed an amendment based on a key recommendation
of the Dole-Shalala Wounded Warriors Commission--to expand the Family
and Medical Leave Act to allow the families of wounded military
personnel to take up to 6 months of unpaid leave to care for their
loved ones. Now, because the Senate voted to shut off debate, this
critically important amendment will not be considered. Such an
expansion of the FMLA is of the utmost importance to our wounded
warriors, and I will ask at the end of my statement to have a letter
from Senator Bob Dole to Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain,
detailing the tremendous importance of this provision, be printed in
the Record.
On September 11, 2007, I announced that I would not support
legislation dealing with Iraq unless it included a firm and enforceable
deadline for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq--one linked to an
explicit cut off of funds after a date certain. Sadly, Republican
stalling tactics made it impossible for such a provision to receive an
up-or-down vote under regular Senate procedures. Therefore, I could
not, in good conscience, call for an end to debate on a bill that has
not addressed that issue or the hardships our soldiers and their
families face both at home and abroad, and the very security of our
Nation.
That said, I commend Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain for
their hard work in making sure this legislation does include many
beneficial and important provisions, such as a 3.5-percent pay raise
for our men and women in uniform and additional funding to purchase
Mine Resistant Armor Protected vehicles. These are important steps in
making sure our Armed Forces are appropriately compensated and equipped
to defend our Nation. But as long as another year passes without an
effective plan to end the war and support our military families, I am
afraid that this Congress's work will be incomplete.
Madam President, I ask to have the letter to which I referred printed
in the Record.
The letter follows.

Hon. Carl Levin,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John McCain,
Ranking Member, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain, I would like
to thank you, once again, for your continued efforts to
improve the treatment of our returning combat troops,
exemplified by your shepherding of the Wounded Warrior
Assistance Act of 2007 through the Senate in July. This
important measure provided a good first step; but as you
know, much more remains to be done and I appreciate your
willingness to consider the recommendations made by the
President's Commission on Care for America's Returning
Wounded Warriors.
As you know, I, along with former Secretary of Health and
Human Services Donna Shalala, recently released the findings
of the Commission. One specific finding of this report is
currently pending as an amendment to the National Defense
Authorization Act currently being debated on the Senate
floor. Notably, the Dodd-Clinton-Dole-Graham amendment (S.
Amdt #2647) increases Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) job
protection benefits to the families of our injured soldiers
from the current 12 weeks to 6 months. These families are
facing significant challenges to help their loved ones heal,
and the last thing they need to worry about is losing their
jobs in the process.
There are two very critical points to be made with respect
to this recommendation by the Commission. First, the use of
already existing FMLA authority is vital to minimizing the
delay in implementation of this needed benefit. The FMLA has
existed for 14 years and has a proven track record of
success. It is understood by those using the benefits, those
charged with its oversight, and the employers working within
its framework. Second, the length of the benefit has been
carefully crafted to best balance the impact on employers on
one side and the average time it takes for most injured
personnel to regain self-sufficiency. While other pending
amendments have either sought to depart from the existing
FMLA structure by using other legislative vehicles not
intended to extend to families of service members such as the
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
(USERRA), or extended job protection benefits beyond six
months, neither are supported by the Commission's findings
and may actually hinder the efforts to implement the
Commission's work.

[[Page S12370]]

The Administration will have a different approach, but it
will be some time before the Administration's comprehensive
proposal will be acted on.
Thank you for your consideration of this important
legislation. I know that you share my belief that it is
essential that we supply all necessary and prudent tools to
our military families to deal with the hardships of helping
their wounded warriors regain self-sufficiency following a
severe injury. The Dodd-Clinton-Dole-Graham amendment passes
this test. If I may be of any further assistance, please feel
free to contact me.
God Bless America,
Bob Dole.<bullet>

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I will vote against H.R. 1585, the
National Defense Authorization Act. I support many of the provisions in
this bill, which authorizes the activities of the Department of
Defense, including important research, development and procurement
funding to improve our Armed Forces and the operations and maintenance
funding necessary to ensure the smooth running of the military services
over the coming year. I support these activities, which not only
benefit those servicemembers currently serving overseas in Afghanistan
and Iraq, but also help build a strong and effective military for the
future. I applaud the fine work of Senator Levin and the Committee on
Armed Services for their efforts in putting together a bill that is, in
most ways, a good piece of legislation.
However, H.R. 1585 also includes title XV, which provides
authorization for the funding of continued operations in Iraq for the
coming year. In my view, this provision constitutes a ``poison pill.''
I have stated before that the Congress should not continue to write
blank checks for the prosecution of this apparently endless war in
Iraq. That is what title XV does. In effect, it provides a
congressional authorization to fund the continuation of President
Bush's policy in Iraq for another year, without any strings attached. I
offered an amendment to clarify that nothing in the bill constitutes a
specific authorization for U.S. troops to remain in Iraq, but the
committee was unable to clear the amendment. Other amendments offered
to the bill that would have placed limits on the number of troops or
otherwise limited the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq were defeated
during the floor debate on H.R. 1585. This is regrettable.
Continuing to prosecute this war at the current rate is straining our
military to the breaking point. Many units and individuals are enduring
their third and fourth rotation to Iraq, and because no limits have
been placed on the mission or force levels, there is no end in sight.
More and more military analysts are warning that the U.S. Armed Forces
are at risk for becoming a `hollow force,' as happened after the
Vietnam conflict. That is irresponsible, and it puts our Nation at
risk.
There are no provisions in this bill to require the U.S. President or
the Iraqi government to meet any benchmarks or withdraw any troops, or
even to put limits on sending still more troops to Iraq, if any could
be found. It is time for Congress to start reining in this runaway
horse, before our military is completely exhausted and our nation made
vulnerable.
I support our troops. I do not want them to lack for anything needed
to do their job or to keep them safe. But I cannot and will not agree
to leave them in Iraq forever, with no limits placed on their mission,
no provision to ensure that they at least get as much time at home as
they do on the battlefield, with no benchmarks or goals set for the
Iraqi Government that might trigger a return of our troops, and no
assurances by our commander in Iraq that this war is making the United
States any safer. That is a bitter poison pill I cannot swallow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the substitute
amendment, as amended, is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 2011), as amended, was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on engrossment of the
amendment and third reading of the bill.
The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill, as amended, pass?
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. Dodd), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 92, nays 3, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 359 Leg.]

YEAS--92

Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--3

Byrd
Coburn
Feingold

NOT VOTING--5

Biden
Clinton
Dodd
McCain
Obama
The bill (H.R. 1585), as amended, was passed.
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I voted against the fiscal year 2008
defense authorization bill because it does nothing to bring to a close
the open-ended military mission in Iraq, which has overburdened our
military, weakened our national security, and cost the lives of
thousands of American soldiers.
There were provisions in the bill which I strongly supported,
including language I proposed that will make it easier for family
members and other trusted adults to take leave to care for children and
dependents when their loved ones are deployed. I am also pleased that
the Senate approved two amendments I cosponsored. One was an amendment
by Senator Webb creating a Commission on Wartime Contracting to examine
waste, fraud and abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the misuse of
force by private security contractors. The other was an amendment by
Senator Sanders to ensure that money allocated for research on gulf war
illnesses is spent wisely.
But on balance, I could not vote for a bill that defies the will of
so many Wisconsinites and so many Americans by allowing the President
to continue one of the greatest and most tragic foreign policy blunders
in the history of our Nation.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I was pleased today to vote, along with my
Senate colleagues, for the passage of H.R.1585, the Defense
Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2008. I thank the managers of this
bill, Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain, for working so
diligently and in such a collegial manner toward passage of a bill that
addressed so many complicated and potentially divisive issues. It is to
their credit that we have been able to move this bill along which is so
vital to the support of our brave men and women in our armed services.
This bill was passed out of committee with a number of provisions to
improve

[[Page S12371]]

the lives of our military members and the effectiveness and readiness
of our armed services which I, as a senior member of the Senate Armed
Services Committee and chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness,
worked to ensure were a part of the bill language. They include
important acquisition reforms such as a series of provisions that would
help the DOD manage its oversight of contract services and the creation
of a Chief Management Officer for the Department of Defense. I also was
able to work with my colleagues to incorporate language that
establishes a Director of Corrosion and Control Policy and Oversight in
addition to other provisions that further my efforts to establish
effective corrosion control in all branches of our services. H.R. 1585
also contained my legislation to establish a National Language Council
to develop and implement a long-term and comprehensive language
strategy.
In addition to the provisions that I initiated and supported in the
underlying language, I was able to successfully introduce and cosponsor
a number of amendments during the Senate's consideration of the Defense
Authorization Act. As chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I
was particularly pleased to see that language from the Dignified
Treatment of Wounded Warrior Act which addresses shortfalls in the
quality of health care provided to our servicemembers was included as
an amendment to this bill. Similarly, I was pleased that my amendment
related to the Wounded Warrior Act was passed by the Senate. This
legislation will enhance the quality of care that members of our Armed
Forces receive once they transition to veteran status, improve the
capability of the Department of Veterans Affairs to care for veterans
with traumatic brain injuries, and improve access to VA mental health
and dental care. In addition, my amendment addresses the issue of
homelessness among newly discharged servicemembers and recognizes the
importance of the National Guard and Reserve in the VA's outreach
programs.
This bill also includes an amendment I offered to end the disparate
treatment of employees who accepted discontinuation of service
retirement following a reduction in force. My amendment ensures that
these Federal employees would be able to return to work at DOD and
continue to earn toward retirement. It is vital that this Nation have a
viable plan to produce individuals who are capable of effective
communication in today's global environment. I also applaud the
inclusion of the fair competition amendment, introduced by Senator
Kennedy which I cosponsored, which will minimize the harmful effects of
the current A-76 process for outsourcing Federal jobs to private
contractors by removing several unfair advantages that contractors
currently have in the contract competition process.
I was disappointed, however, that the Webb amendment which I was
proud to cosponsor was not agreed to by the Senate. The Webb amendment
would have lessened the burden placed on our soldiers and their
families by setting a minimum time between deployments in order to
ensure that members of our Armed Forces have as much time at home with
their loved ones as they fight overseas for this Nation.
I was also disappointed that the Levin-Reed amendment which would
have set a clear and definitive deadline for the withdrawal of forces
from Iraq was not passed. One of the key elements of stabilizing the
ongoing chaos in Iraq is for the Iraqi Government to begin to take more
responsibility for ensuring their own nation's security and assume
primary combat role in protecting and defending their nation. This will
not occur without the development and implementation of a coherent exit
strategy. The Levin-Reed amendment offered just such a plan.
As a senior member of the Senate Armed Services and chairman of the
Subcommittee on Readiness and Management, I will continue to work with
my Senate colleagues to change the course of this war by insisting that
the administration provide to this Congress and the people of our
nation with a comprehensive exit strategy.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1327

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 172, S. 1327, a
bill to create temporary district court judgeships, that the bill be
read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon
the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SESSIONS. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 535

Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 211, S. 535, the Emmett Till
Unsolved Civil Rights Act; that the substitute amendment be agreed to;
the bill, as amended, be read a third time, passed; the title amendment
be agreed to; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. COBURN. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the bill we have just adopted is the 46th
consecutive annual Defense authorization bill that has come out of our
committee and been brought to the Senate for debate and passage. It has
been no secret that this is one of the largest and most complex and
important pieces of legislation that comes before the Senate every
year. Every year since 1961, it has been a challenge to get it passed.
Thankfully, because of its vital importance to our Nation, we have
always found a way to do so. This year was particularly difficult, as
we continue to debate the war in Iraq. Today is the 19th and final day
of debate on this bill. Only two other annual Defense authorization
bills have required longer to pass. In 1969, the Senate debated the
bill for 37 days. In 1970, it was debated for 28 days. History shows
that in time of war, the Senate acts as it should and takes the
necessary time to carefully consider this bill and its impact on our
Nation.

We had over 400 amendments that were filed to this bill. We were able
to work with all Senators and pass several large packages of managers'
amendments while we were wrestling with Iraq-related amendments. All
told, we acted on a total of 214 amendments during the bill's
consideration.
Whenever we reach the point of final passage of legislation, we take
a moment to thank Members and staff. To some this may seem to be a
routine matter. It is not. All of us who make up the Senate should
honor its customs and traditions. They are really the foundation of
this Senate.
With that as my motivation, I want to take a moment to express my
thanks to those who worked so hard and cooperated so well to bring us
to final passage of this bill.
First, my thanks go to Senator McCain who is serving as our ranking
member for the first time this year. Senator McCain's leadership and
determination helped forge this bill through the committee and on to
final passage.
Next, I thank and acknowledge our former chairman, Senator Warner.
Senator Warner has made innumerable contributions to this bill. This
bill would not be here but for the work of Senator Warner. Working
within arm's reach of Senator Warner each year for the past 28 years
has been truly one of the highlights of my Senate career.
He is a good friend of mine. More importantly, he is a good friend to
national defense and to the people who depend upon it and who work for
it in this country.
To our majority leader, Senator Reid, and his floor staff, a special
word of thanks for giving us the time and the tools to get this bill
through the Senate.
To all of our committee members who, again, worked on a bipartisan
basis, we appreciate their work. We do not often take the time to
express it. I am afraid this will kind of have to be that moment.
People do not realize our committee has one quarter of the Senate as
its members. We work together in the committee. Our differences on the
bill did not divide us. We reported the bill by a unanimous vote.
To Charlie Armstrong in the Office of Senate Legislative Counsel, he
did his work skillfully. He proved over 400 times, with those 400
amendments, that he knows how to draft amendments.
To our committee staff members, they truly earned the thanks and
recognition of the entire Senate for their

[[Page S12372]]

time and their efforts on this legislation.
I want to mention two of the members of our staff who lead our staff
and one woman who has served on our committee staff for the past 19
years.
To Rick DeBobes, our committee staff director, he serves us so
brilliantly and well and so unselfishly 24/7. He is within earshot, so
I will not embarrass him and have him blush other than to say he is so
totally indispensable not just to me but to the Senate and all of the
staff that work so well with him. Our gratitude.
To Senator McCain's new Republican staff director, Mike Kostiw, his
leadership is so effective that it is quite difficult to believe this
is Mike's first year.
To Cindy Pearson, our assistant chief clerk and security manager, a
special word of thanks and encouragement. Cindy has been serving the
committee for the last 19 years. She is the consummate professional in
every aspect of her work. She is away from us right now as she
undergoes treatment for breast cancer. We want her to know she is ever
present in our thoughts and in our prayers. We all look forward to
welcoming Cindy Pearson back to the committee family soon.
So Rick's and Mike's and all the other committee staff members' long
and hard work and personal sacrifices, day in and day out, to get this
bill enacted again this year paid off. They are the backbone of the
Senate. They and other people who work for us in this Senate make it
possible to turn our ideas into policies and into legislation.
I thank them all. I know I thank them for their expertise and their
dedication on behalf of all the members of the committee. They brought
us again through to the point of conference with the House. We are
hopeful to bring back promptly a conference report. But in the
meantime, thanks to them, their professionalism, and their hard work.
We are where we are at.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of the entire
Armed Services Committee staff be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Armed Services Committee Staff

Richard D. DeBobes, Staff Director; Michael V. Kostiw,
Republican Staff Director; June M. Borawski, Printing and
Documents Clerk; Leah C. Brewer, Nominations and Hearings
Clerk; Joseph M. Bryan, Professional Staff Member; William M.
Caniano, Professional Staff Member; Pablo E. Carrillo,
Minority Investigative Counsel; Jonathan D. Clark, Counsel;
Ilona R. Cohen, Counsel; David G. Collins, Research
Assistant; Fletcher L. Cork, Staff Assistant; Christine E.
Cowart, Chief Clerk; Daniel J. Cox, Jr., Professional Staff
Member; Madelyn R. Creedon, Counsel; Kevin A. Cronin, Staff
Assistant; Marie F. Dickinson, Administrative Assistant for
the Minority; Gabriella Eisen, Counsel; Evelyn N. Farkas,
Professional Staff Member; Richard W. Fieldhouse,
Professional Staff Member; Creighton Greene, Professional
Staff Member.
Gary J. Howard, Systems Administrator; Paul C. Hutton, IV,
Research Assistant; Mark R. Jacobson, Professional Staff
Member; Gregory T. Kiley, Professional Staff Member; Jessica
L. Kingston, Staff Assistant; Michael J. Kuiken, Professional
Staff Member; Gerald J. Leeling, Counsel; Peter K. Levine,
General Counsel; Derek J. Maurer, Minority Counsel; Thomas K.
McConnell, Professional Staff Member; Michael J. McCord,
Professional Staff Member; William G.P. Monahan, Counsel;
David M. Morriss, Minority Counsel; Lucian L. Niemeyer,
Professional Staff Member; Michael J. Noblet, Research
Assistant; Bryan D. Parker, Minority Investigative Counsel;
Christopher J. Paul, Professional Staff Member; Cindy
Pearson, Assistant Chief Clerk and Security Manager; John H.
Quirk V, Security Clerk; Benjamin L. Rubin, Staff Assistant.
Lynn F. Rusten, Professional Staff Member; Brian F. Sebold,
Staff Assistant; Arun A. Seraphin, Professional Staff Member;
Travis E. Smith, Special Assistant; Robert M. Soofer,
Professional Staff Member; Sean G. Stackley, Professional
Staff Member; William K. Sutey, Professional Staff Member;
Kristine L. Svinicki, Professional Staff Member; Diana G.
Tabler, Professional Staff Member; Mary Louise Wagner,
Professional Staff Member; Richard F. Walsh, Minority
Counsel; Breon N. Wells, Receptionist; Dana W. White,
Professional Staff Member.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I see my dear friend
Senator Warner is here. Again, I cannot say too often what it means to
have as a partner John Warner of Virginia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I very much value the friendship and the
working relationship we have had together. It would be interesting if
somebody wanted to try to look at records. I suppose since this is our
29th bill we have worked on, that might be a bit of a record. But I
think also both of us have been chairman three times. That might be a
bit of a record too.
But I say to the Senator from Michigan, I give you a most sincere and
warm congratulations for your achieving this bill. This is the 19th day
the bill was on the floor, and our good friend, the ranking member, was
on the floor many of those days. He has called in each day to our
distinguished chief of staff, Mike Kostiw, and has talked with me and
other members of the staff. So he is very much hands on.
But I think we probably got through with a little less contention
this time than in years past. I think that reflects a lot of credit on
the distinguished chairman and the distinguished ranking member and the
wonderful staff and very active membership by each and every one of
the, as you say, 25 members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
We work well together as a team. People are very proud to be on this
committee. They believe they are serving a most noble cause; that is,
the men and women of the Armed Forces, and their families, who tonight
are on two battlefronts and, indeed, in many other places of personal
danger throughout the world, for the sole purpose of guarding freedom
and, most importantly, the freedom we have here at home.
So I thank the chairman. I thank all who made it possible, and say,
also, how well our two staffs worked together in a bipartisan way to
achieve, as you say, a consensus on almost 200 of those amendments. So
I think we have done our job, I say to the Senator. It is at a critical
time in the course of our country. Again, I wish the men and women of
the Armed Forces and their families only the best.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists
on its amendment and requests a conference with the House on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my chairman has overlooked a minor item.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

____________________