To safely redeploy United States troops from Iraq.

[[Page S12481]]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 3222, which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 3222) making appropriations for the Department
of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and
for other purposes.

Pending:

Graham amendment No. 3117, to improve the security of
United States borders.
Gregg amendment No. 3119 (to amendment No. 3117), to change
the effective date.
Sanders amendment No. 3130, to increase, with an offset,
the amount appropriated for Operation and Maintenance, Army
National Guard, by $10,000,000.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Allard be recognized to call up his amendment and to speak briefly on
it, and then to set aside that amendment, to consider the Graham
amendment, debate that, and to have that disposed of by a vote.
Following that, an amendment by Senator Feingold will be in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3146

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3146 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Allard], for himself and Mr.
Salazar, proposes an amendment numbered 3146.

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

(Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation, Defense-Wide, up to $5,000,000 for the Missile Defense
Space Experimentation Center)

At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8107. Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by title IV under the heading ``Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, up to
$5,000,000 may be available for the Missile Defense Space
Experimentation Center (MDSEC) (PE #0603895C).

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, my amendment designates $5 million, the
amount requested by the Pentagon, for the Missile Defense Space
Experimentation Center, a facility within the Missile Defense
Integration Operations Center, on Schriever Air Force Base in Colorado
Springs, CO.
This amendment is sponsored by myself and Senator Salazar. This
concludes my comments to this particular point. I thank the chair and
the ranking member for allowing me to make this amendment pending
before the Senate.
Yesterday I explained in full the details of this amendment.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 30 minutes equally divided with
respect to the Graham amendment at this time.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KYL. 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. KYL. I understand that we can now begin the 30 minutes of debate
running up to the vote on the Graham-Kyl amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

Amendment No. 3117

Mr. KYL. Let me start by offering a few comments about why this
amendment is important. But, first, to put it into context, we have
made a lot of progress. We have come a long way toward securing the
border and stopping the problem of illegal entry into our country. But
we have a long way to go.
This amendment is designed to continue the progress that we have been
making with funding that is necessary for that. Just to put a little
context here, for example, in 1994 we had 4,000 Border Patrol agents
for the entire border. We now have over 15,000. But we still know there
are way too many incursions into the United States and more Border
Patrol will help to end that.
We gave the Department of Homeland Security an extra $1.2 billion to
pay for those Border Patrol agents, as well as fencing and vehicle
barriers, detention space, and the like.
Secretary Chertoff just visited my State of Arizona last week. And he
reports in addition to the Border Patrol hiring that I mentioned and
the addition of some detention space they are on track to complete 70
miles of fencing by the end of this year. With the additional money
this amendment will provide for next year, they will be able to
complete at least 371 miles of fencing along the entire Mexican border.
This is not just a fence. Some people say: Well, if you build a 10-
foot-high fence, they will come in with an 11-foot ladder. That is a
cute refrain, but the reality is, this fencing I have seen built down
on the Barry Goldwater Gunnery Range just east of Yuma is double
fencing. They have to have a very heavy pile driver to drive these
steel beams into the ground and attach steel flanges to the side. You
cannot get through there. Now lizards and critters can get through, so
from an environmental standpoint, it is actually a good thing, but
people cannot get through. And, importantly, that, combined with
vehicle barriers, which are also large railroad tie-type structures put
into the ground to prevent vehicles from coming across, is particularly
important because it is the vehicles that bring the drugs. Of course,
they can bring larger numbers of immigrants. But the reality is, where
you have vehicles, most likely you have weapons and you have drugs.
And, of course, where that is involved, you are putting in danger the
lives of our Border Patrol and other Federal officers and making it
more likely that the value of the contraband coming across is going to
be significant, thus driving these smugglers into more desperate
measures to protect it.
Violence across the entire southern border has increased
significantly. With the double fencing, there is a road in between. And
the point of fencing is to slow down those who might find a way to get
over the fence. The reality is, with additional vehicles, with
additional Border Patrol, and this kind of fencing, what you can create
is a situation where, by the time someone may have gotten over the
first fence, the sensors and the cameras will have alerted Border
Patrol, and they are stationed at close enough intervals that on the
road in between, Border Patrol can get to the site and pick up the
illegal entrants. So that is why this kind of fencing is so important.
As I said, with the money that is provided in this amendment that is
before us right now, we will be able to complete at least 370 miles of
fencing along the southern border by the end of next year.
We need additional detention space. In Del Rio, TX, in Yuma, AZ,
there are programs already that apprehend illegal immigrants. When they
have been apprehended more than once, they are put into detention
immediately. Now, about 85 percent of the illegal immigrants just want
to come here to work. The other 15 percent are criminals, and some are
very serious criminals. You need to detain them.
But it is also helpful to detain those who have come across
repeatedly to find work. Why? They cannot afford 60 days in jail where
they are not providing for their families. And it is a great incentive
for them to decide not to cross the border anymore because if they are
going to get put in jail, then they are not going to be able to provide
the money to their families that they came across here in the first
instance to provide.

So those programs have reduced the immigration in those areas
dramatically. But we need more detention spaces for this particular
kind of detention. Again, this $3 billion will help to provide that. It
can help to provide more prosecutors and public defenders and judges
because once you have detention, of course, you also may have criminal
trials and you may need to have the entire chain of the criminal
justice system funded.

[[Page S12482]]

In addition, this funding that we will be providing in this amendment
will help to improve the verification system that employers are
required to use, the so-called E-Verify system, to make sure it is
operating accurately at full capacity.
This is particularly important in my State because, frustrated by the
lack of action by the Federal Government to have a good system, our
State passed a law that will provide serious sanctions on employers who
hire illegal immigrants. But they have to rely on the Federal system to
make that determination. It is not, right now, in the best of shape. It
needs to be improved. The capacity is there, but the ability to
determine valid identity is not. So money in this bill will help to get
the Federal system into a position that States could rely on in order
to enforce their own State laws against hiring illegal immigrants.
So there is much more that this $3 billion provides. But I wanted to
thank my colleague, Senator Graham, for his work in making sure,
whether it is on the Department of Homeland Security bill or this bill,
we make sure, one way or the other, that we will have the funding to
continue to work to secure the border and to make sure that we can stop
the illegal immigration into this country that has created so many
problems for us.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Graham
amendment. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the amendment. I want to
echo what the distinguished Senator from Arizona just said about the
border in his State.
I want to talk about the importance of this from two perspectives.
One is the reality of what is now beginning to work along our border
because of the construction of walls. In the Yuma sector, at San Luis
in Arizona, where I went earlier this year, watching the construction
of the wall and watching the change of practice that is now taking
place, you know, people rise and fall to expectations. If there is no
expectation of consequence, then people are going to come across the
border easily. Quite frankly, in Yuma and San Luis that is exactly what
was going on a year ago.
But the interventions by the Border Patrol since the wall, the
construction of the fence that has taken place, have dropped
dramatically. Those interventions mean there are less people coming
across illegally and more of those people coming across legally.
The wall is a deterrent but, most importantly, it funnels those who
do want to cross our border in a legal and manageable way. I always
point out San Diego, CA as the perfect example. We have an example
right now of a wall and access to the United States that works and has
worked for decades. There is a 16-lane highway in San Diego that comes
into the United States and goes out. Through that passage, people and
commerce pass every day. There is a bridge above the passage on the
American border, and there are agents in each row of the cars as they
come through. There are detectors for radiation, for illegal drugs,
there are dogs, and arrests are made every day. The reason those cars
flow and the reason it is respected is because on both sides of San
Diego, there are two parallel walls with cameras, border security
agents, and the only way to come into the United States is the lawful
way. So if you picture for a second the high-density population areas
of the southwestern United States with borders with Mexico, such as
Yuma and San Luis, you can have the same type of thing there that
happens in San Diego--a free passage that is legal, defensible, safe,
and secure. Border Patrol agents can actually concentrate on the area
of passage rather than trying to be every place at once on a border
that is wide open and has no deterrent.
We have serious problems in enforcement. Our States are reacting to
problems of illegal immigration. Our businesses are reacting to the
problems of illegal immigration. Yet we have given them no relief. We
can't validate our documents for businesses that hire people or tell
them whether they are legal. We are within 18 months of finally
digitizing all vital records of all States which will give us a way to
end Social Security fraud. But we need to step on the accelerator. We
need to see to it that respect for the laws of the United States is
replete. We need to see to it that we have done the things as the
Federal Government to allow our State governments to function and
manage this country and manage employment and manage our aliens who
come here legally.
I commend Senator Graham on his continuing hard work on the issue of
border enforcement and enforcement of immigration laws. I urge each
Member of the Senate to adopt the Graham amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank both of my colleagues for speaking
on the amendment. Senator Kyl knows as much about this issue as anyone
I have ever met. Senator Isakson has made it a point to educate
himself. He has been to the border several times and was instrumental
in trying to find a comprehensive approach, which fell last time, to
ensure that the border would be secure before anything else happened.
We are building off his work, basically. The $3 billion we have
available in this amendment is designated as an emergency, an oft-used
term around here when it comes to spending money. But I can assure
everyone that securing our border is a national emergency, because it
is a national security problem not to be able to control who comes into
your country. The $3 billion appropriations in this amendment will
allow us to complete projects already designated and to build out
border security in a way never known before.
I hope it is a confidence builder. The goal of the amendment is prove
to the public that Congress is very serious about securing the border,
and we are putting money on the table that has never been there before.
We are sort of prepaying the cost of border security as a statement by
the Congress to the American people that we are very serious about
securing our border. This is one piece of the puzzle. Fencing is part
of it, additional border security, Border Patrol agents, more bed space
to keep people who have been caught coming across the border illegally.
It will create a deterrent. It all works together. The verifying of
employment, the magnet that draws people to our country is employment,
jobs. We are trying to find a way to verify who is here legally so our
employers will be able to tell, if someone is applying for a job, their
legal status. Right now that is difficult to do. This $3 billion is an
emergency appropriations, properly designated, that will fundamentally
change border security for the better. It will put money on the table
that is needed, help build a fence that is needed, hire more Border
Patrol guards who are needed, create more bed spaces to house people
who have broken the laws--all is needed as part of the puzzle. This by
itself will not solve the immigration problem, but it is a start. For
people who want border security first, this is a recognition that we
have listened to you. We understand what you are saying. We are putting
money aside to make sure we secure the border.
Mr. TESTER. Will the Senator from South Carolina yield for a
question?
Mr. GRAHAM. I certainly will. I want to get to the point on both
borders, but I will yield to my friend Senator Tester.
Mr. TESTER. Could the Senator clarify how these dollars will be used?
Can they be used on the northern border as far as personnel and
technological equipment?
Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator for his question. That is correct.
They can be. It is our intent that the money in this amendment is not
specifically for the southern border but should be used to improve
staffing and technology deployment on the entire border, including the
Canadian border. It can be used for those purposes. I know the Senator
has been very insistent that these funds be allocated to all of our
border security needs, including our northern border, and they will be.
I appreciate his efforts to make that a reality.
Mr. TESTER. I thank the Senator.
I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAHAM. In conclusion, this has drawn bipartisan support in the
past, 89

[[Page S12483]]

to 1. I expect it will do the same now. There is a lot of division in
the Nation over the war and many other issues, but we have come
together along the lines that for America to be secure, we have to
control who comes into our country. This amendment will provide funds
that are missing today to allow us to secure both borders and deal with
our employment problems. It is a good first step, but it is only a
first step. I appreciate all my colleagues rallying around the idea.
One last comment to the chairman. I don't know if people have been
watching a PBS show called ``The War.'' It is a documentary by Ken
Burns. I have been riveted every night watching the story of World War
II told through the eyes of those who lived it from four communities
across the country--I believe Sacramento, CA, a small town in
Minnesota, Mobile, AL, and Waterbury, CT. The documentary has been
trying to explain to my generation and others what it was like to live
and fight during World War II. One of the people showcased in that
documentary was Senator Inouye. I wanted to say for the record that I
have never been more proud to call him my friend, and I would hope
every American, particularly young Americans, will get a chance to see
this documentary about World War II and what that generation went
through to secure our freedom. There is much to be learned from his
sacrifice. I end this debate about the challenges of my time, of our
time regarding border security, to let America know that there was a
time in the past where this country rallied together, pushed the ball
up the hill, and secured victory against some very vicious enemies. I
hope we can recapture that spirit. This amendment is offered in the
spirit of trying to bring the country together to secure our Nation
from a broken immigration system.
But to Senator Inouye, he has my undying respect and gratitude for
his service to our Nation. And for all those who fought in that war and
served here at home and made the outcome possible, well done.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, as a senior member of the Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I rise today to speak in
opposition to the Graham amendment to provide an additional $3 billion
in emergency spending for the Department of Homeland Security.
I want to make clear that I agree with my colleagues that we must
secure our borders and provide the resources to do it. Let me remind my
colleagues that the Department's overall budget has grown more than 150
percent since its creation. Of that total, border security and
immigration enforcement represents approximately one-third of the
Department's annual spending.
In 2007, Congress provided $12.1 billion in funding for border
security. For 2008, the President budget requested $13.5 billion for
border security, a 12-percent increase over the amount appropriated for
fiscal year 2007. The $13.5 billion that Secretary Chertoff requested
from Congress was what he felt was needed to continue the Department's
efforts to secure our borders. The Senate Homeland Security
Appropriations Committee provided a total of $14.9 billion for border
security in its mark of the fiscal year 2008 Homeland Security
appropriations bill, a 23-percent increase over the amount appropriated
for fiscal year 2007 and a 10-percent increase over the President's
budget request for fiscal year 2008.
Earlier this year, the Senate voted in favor of a similar amendment
to the fiscal year 2008 Homeland Security appropriations bill. The
Senate provided a total of $17.9 billion in funding for border security
and immigration enforcement, a 48-percent increase over the amount
appropriated for fiscal year 2007. Because Congress failed to complete
action on any of the appropriations bills, this funding remains in
limbo.
The Federal Government continues to spend more than it brings in and
this amendment continues that practice. If we decide we absolutely need
to spend $3 billion on something--and I support adequately funding
border security--then we need to either raise more revenue or cut other
spending to pay for it.
Thus, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Graham amendment.
<bullet> Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator
Graham, along with Senators Gregg, McConnell, Vitter, Corker, Kyl,
Domenici, Chambliss, Cornyn, Sununu, Specter, Isakson and Tester, in
sponsoring this important amendment. This amendment would set aside $3
billion in emergency funding to help better secure our nation's
borders.
We are facing a crisis on our southern border. Every day, hundreds of
people sneak across our borders, many through the State of Arizona.
While the majority of these individuals are coming here to look for
work, some of these illegal border crossers are criminals and people
intending to do our Nation harm. The current situation is a national
security crisis and we must take action to address it.
The amendment Senator Graham has offered would designate $3 billion
in emergency funding to establish operational control of our
international land borders. These funds would be used to hire more
full-time border patrol agents as well as install double layer
permanent fencing and vehicle barriers. The amendment also calls for
the instillation of unmanned aerial vehicles, ground-based sensors, and
cameras. In order to deter further illegal immigration, the amendment
directs funds to be used to continue the Department of Homeland
Security's, DHS, efforts to end ``catch-and release'' programs. If an
immigrant knows he will face mandatory incarceration if caught crossing
the border, that immigrant may not choose to take that risk. Also,
through this amendment, funds would be made available to reimburse
state and localities for costs related to cooperative agreements they
have entered into with DHS that allows them to assist in the efforts to
identify and deport illegal immigrants. The funds made available by
this amendment would provide on-the-ground, real time assets that will
help DHS to secure our Nation's borders in a 21st century way.
The final piece of the Graham amendment would address the need to
improve the employment eligibility verification system by directing $60
million to be set aside to enhance the ability of employers to verify
employment eligibility. Without an effective, accurate, and accessible
employment verification system undocumented immigrants will continue to
be hired because they will never truly have to prove that they are
legally allowed to work. We need to do away with the archaic paper-
based system and utilize technology in a way that allows employers to
instantaneously know if the person standing before them is who they say
they are and whether or not that person can be hired legally. We must
improve this system to help the government to prosecute unscrupulous
employers and ensure that they are hiring and employing legal workers.
The measures outlined and funded in the Graham amendment are critical
to our border security efforts and I urge my colleagues to support its
adoption.<bullet>
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time has expired.
The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I thank Mr. Graham for his generous
remarks.
In the spirit of expediting the process before us, I yield back the
remainder of my time.

Amendment No. 3119, Withdrawn

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
Under the previous order, amendment No. 3119 is withdrawn.
Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased the Senate is
about to adopt Senator Graham's border security amendment to this bill,
and I am proud to be a cosponsor.
We got the message earlier this year: Americans want a strong and
secure border. Now we will be sending them a $3 billion down payment on
it.
The border is our first line of defense. The Graham amendment is
intended to make sure we don't lose sight of that, and our adoption of
it proves we haven't.

[[Page S12484]]

Thanks to this amendment, we'll soon have thousands more agents
patrolling the border; Three hundred miles of vehicle barriers; and 105
ground-based radar cameras.
We will finish hundreds of miles of fencing we already promised to
build, and we will have the funds to remove and detain potentially
dangerous illegal immigrants for overstaying their visas and illegally
reentering the country.
To Republicans, it is simple: There is no defense without a strong
border first. I think most Americans agree.
I yield the floor.
Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INOUYE. 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. INOUYE. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to Graham
amendment No. 3117.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter),
and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 1, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 361 Leg.]

YEAS--95

Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
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
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--1

Voinovich

NOT VOTING--4

McCain
Obama
Specter
Warner
The amendment (No. 3117) was agreed to.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Wisconsin is recognized to offer an amendment.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, without objection, I yield briefly to
the Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I say to the managers, I am going to ask to
introduce an amendment. I am not going to ask for it to be considered
now. I only want to lay it down.
I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside to
call up amendments Nos. 3167 and 3142 and ask for their immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if I could
say to the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee,
we are trying to work toward the end of this bill. I am wondering, do
you want votes on these two amendments?
Mr. BIDEN. One I think will be worked out and the other one I wish to
talk with the Chair about whether I would ask for a vote. I may ask for
a vote.
Mr. REID. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, can we do
it in the regular order?
Mr. BIDEN. My friend is accommodating my schedule. I am going to
allow us to move on rather than come back after he speaks. That is all.
It is an accommodation of my schedule; nothing beyond that.
Mr. STEVENS. The amendment will be pending, right?
Mr. BIDEN. I assume unanimous consent will be asked to move off that
amendment and back on to the business of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I might ask
what the Feingold amendment is and how long he expects to take, and
whether he expects to vote on that amendment.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the amendment is very similar to the
previous Feingold amendment relating to the Iraq war and using the
power of the purse to terminate our involvement there. I believe there
will be a unanimous consent request made to have an hour on each side
for the debate.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, further reserving, I wonder--and this is a
bit of an imposition--if I could ask unanimous consent to speak on the
SCHIP override vote 5 minutes preceding the Senator offering his
amendment.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I have no objection to deferring our
consideration of the amendment so the Senator from Montana can speak
for 5 minutes.
Mr. BAUCUS. I deeply appreciate it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the
Senator from Montana?
Mr. STEVENS. I did not hear the request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana wishes 5 minutes to
speak.
Mr. BAUCUS. Five minutes on the Children's Health Insurance Program
override--5 minutes--and then go back to the regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. I thank my colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Delaware is recognized.

Amendments Nos. 3167 and 3142

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside, and I call up amendments Nos. 3167 and 3142 and
ask for their immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments en bloc.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden] proposes an amendment
numbered 3167, for himself and Mr. Nelson of Florida, and an
amendment numbered 3142.

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

Amendment No. 3167

(Purpose: To make available from Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation, Defense-Wide, $4,000,000 for MARK V replacement research)

At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8107.  Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by title IV under the heading ``Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', up to
$4,000,000 may be available for Program Element 1160402BB for
MARK V replacement research for the pursuit by the Special
Operations Command of manufacturing research needed to
develop all-composite hulls for ships larger than 100 feet.

Amendment No. 3142

(Purpose: To provide an additional $23,600,000,000 for Other
Procurement, Army, for the procurement of Mine Resistant Ambush
Protected vehicles and to designate the amount an emergency
requirement)

At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8107.  The amount appropriated by title III under the
heading ``Other Procurement, Army'' is hereby increased by

[[Page S12485]]

$23,600,000,000, with the amount of the increase to be
available for the procurement of Mine Resistant Ambush
Protected (MRAP) vehicles: Provided, That the amount of the
increase is hereby designated as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 204 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress).

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators
Graham, Casey, and Sanders as cosponsors of amendment No. 3142.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their courtesy.
Mr. President amendment No. 3142 is very simple. It provides the
$23.6 billion in funding needed to replace every Army up-armored HMMWV
in Iraq with a mine resistant ambush protected, or MRAP, vehicle.
It is exactly the same thing we did on the authorization bill that
was passed Monday night.
Our commanders in the field tell us that MRAPs will reduce casualties
by 67 to 80 percent.
The lead commander on the ground in Iraq, LTG Ray Odierno told us
months ago that he wanted to replace each of the Army's approximately
18,000 up-armored HMMWVs in Iraq with an MRAP.
Instead of adjusting the requirement immediately, the Pentagon has
taken its time to study this issue. They originally agreed that the
Army should get 380 MRAPs. That was in December 2006.
Then, in March of this year, they agreed to 2,500.
In August, they added a few more and agreed to 2,726 for the Army.
This month, they have agreed that the general needs a little over
half of what he asked for--10,000. Slowly they are getting there.
We have seen this movie before with the body armor and with the up-
armored HMMWVs. Until Congress insisted that the better protection be
fielded to all those in Iraq, it was not.
So, today, we are insisting that the Army get all of the 18,000 MRAPs
the commanders in the field have asked for.
To be honest, I cannot understand why it is taking so long to agree
to replace them all. It makes no sense. We know how effective these
vehicles can be.
Just last week, General Pace, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, told the Appropriations Committee that MRAPs have been tested
at Aberdeen with 300 pounds of explosives below them and they survived.
Are we only supposed to care about the tactical advice of our
commanders in the field when it is cheap?
I don't think that is what the American people or our military men
and women expect from us.
I know some will say that it is not possible to build a total of
23,000 MRAPs in 12 to 15 months. Why not? Why not?
This is basically a modified truck. With real leadership and a
national level commitment, America can certainly make this happen. I
believe in the ``can-do'' spirit and deep patriotism of our businesses.
MRAP manufacturers want to make the 23,000 vehicles needed to save the
lives of our men and women on the front line.
But I also know that we have to do our part. In Congress, the best
thing we can do to make sure it happens is to fully fund every vehicle
needed upfront.
Contractors and subcontractors can only expand their capacity if we
are clear on what we need and that we will fully fund it.
This amendment allows us to do that.
It also ensures that any delays in dealing with the overall wartime
supplemental funding bill do not cause the production lines that are
only now getting up to speed to shut down.
Once we provide the full funding, American businesses must step up
and get it done and the Pentagon must manage the program aggressively
and attentively and the President must make it clear that this is a
national priority.
But we have no chance of making all of the needed vehicles, as
quickly as possible, if we fund the program bit by bit, in fits and
starts. We must do our part.
Once again, I ask my colleagues to weigh their options.
Do we do our best to save American lives, knowing that the only
downside is the possible need to reprogram funding at the end of the
year? Or do we care more about some unknown total wartime funding limit
than those lives?
We have an obligation to provide the best possible protection to each
and every military man and woman while they are in the line of fire. If
these vehicles can reduce American casualties by two-thirds or more,
how can we do anything else? I agree with the Commandant of the Marine
Corps, GEN James Conway when he said, ``Anything less is immoral.''
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized for 5
minutes.

Back to Work for Children

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank all of my colleagues for their
indulgence.
It was with sadness and frustration and even anger that I learned of
the President's veto of the Children's Health Insurance Program. I am
sad, because I am thinking first and foremost of the children without
health coverage today. Those children could have had health coverage
tomorrow had the President signed this bill. For now, thanks to his
veto, these children will continue to go without doctors' visits. They
will go without the medicines they need to stay healthy.
I have frustration, because we worked for months on a bipartisan
Children's Health Insurance Program agreement in the Senate. The House
wisely adopted it. It was passed by an overwhelming margin. It deserved
better consideration by the President of the United States.
Instead, the carefully crafted compromise that we sent to the White
House became the subject of a campaign of misinformation. That campaign
was designed to obscure the true help for families contained in our
bill, and that is frustrating.
There is anger as well, because that is what so many parents in my
own State of Montana and all across this country are feeling, and are
right to feel today. There is anger because working families are not
getting what they deserve. The pain of not being able to provide
reliable health care for a child has to be excruciating. The President
has the power to end that pain for millions of parents today. Congress
gave him the chance to help children get the health care they need, but
the President said no.
It has to make hard-working parents angry. They have a right to be
angry--for a minute--but then we have to get back to work for America's
children.
The President has allowed politics to obscure the good that the
Children's Health Insurance Program does for low-income, uninsured
American children. And he has allowed ideology to obscure the good that
this bill could do for millions more.
We must take a different path. We cannot allow anger to get in the
way of the work that must be done. There is too much at stake for our
children.
Regardless of the administration's objections, these are still the
facts. Our Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act
already does what the President has asked:
It focuses coverage on the lowest income children--the original
mission of CHIP. More than 9 out of 10 kids served by CHIP are in
families earning less than twice the poverty level; it keeps CHIP for
children by curbing and even eliminating adult coverage; and it takes
great pains to reach children who are without insurance--not those who
already have coverage. Our bill gives States incentives to find the
low-income kids already eligible for CHIP.
We worked hard to craft a responsible bill, because we know the good
that CHIP has done; and we will not give up on enacting it into law,
because we see how much more good CHIP can do.
After months of cooperation, Republicans and Democrats, the Senate
and the House must work together again to override this ill-considered
veto. A poll released just yesterday says that nearly out three out of
four Americans support the approach in our bill.
How can the President turn a blind eye to those who need this bill
the most? How can he deny them what they need more than anything: to be
healthy? How can he look into a mother's eye and say that he supports
CHIP, while at the same time his hand strikes it down?

[[Page S12486]]

CHIP is the right answer for thousands of children in Montana and
millions across the country. They need health coverage and care today.
So here in the Senate, we will do our part to override this veto. We
are going to make the case to more colleagues who should support this
bill. We're going to bring together those who value kids over politics.
We will vote for America's children. We will seek to end the sadness,
frustration, and anger that so many families must feel over this veto.
We will tell them that the help and hope of the Children's Health
Insurance Program is still possible for their own children.
Mr. President, we are not finished working for America's children.
Ms. STABENOW. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BAUCUS. Yes.
Ms. STABENOW. I rise with a brief question. I wish to say we would
not be at this point, we would not have this bipartisan majority
without the work of the Senator from Montana and Senators Grassley,
Hatch, and Rockefeller. The chairman has been the person who reminds us
every day that it is about the children.
Isn't it true that we do, in fact, believe we have wonderful
bipartisan support, enough to override a Presidential veto here and in
the House of Representatives?
Mr. BAUCUS. I say to my good friend from Michigan, it is strongly
bipartisan. It was enacted first in 1997 as a bipartisan program.
People love it, and it worked well. The legislation we passed in the
Senate, and that which passed the House, is an extension to help a few
more low-income uninsured kids. It is very important and very much
bipartisan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 120
minutes for debate with respect to the Feingold amendment, with the
time equally divided and controlled between Senators Feingold and
Inouye or their designees; that no amendment be in order to the
amendment prior to the vote; that upon the use or yielding back of the
time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment; that the
amendment must receive 60 votes to be agreed to, and if the amendment
doesn't achieve that threshold, then it be withdrawn; that if it
receives that threshold, then it be agreed to and the motion to
reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the Biden amendment No. 3142.

Amendment No. 3164

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside
that amendment and call up my amendment, which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold], for himself, Mr.
Reid, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Sanders, Mr.
Wyden, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Harkin,
Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Durbin, proposes an amendment numbered
3164.

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

(Purpose: To safely redeploy United States troops from Iraq)

At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8107. (a) Use of Funds.--No funds appropriated or
otherwise made available by this Act may be obligated or
expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the
United States Armed Forces after June 30, 2008.
(b) Exceptions.--The prohibition in subsection (a) shall
not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the
following, as authorized by law:
(1) To conduct operations against al Qaeda and affiliated
international terrorist organizations.
(2) To provide security for United States Government
personnel and infrastructure.
(3) To provide training to members of the Iraqi Security
Forces.
(4) To provide training, equipment, or other materiel to
members of the United States Armed Forces to ensure,
maintain, or improve their safety and security.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment with
Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Senators Leahy, Dodd, Kerry, Boxer,
Whitehouse, Kennedy, Harkin, Sanders, Wyden, Schumer, and Durbin. I
appreciate the support of the Senate Democratic leadership and so many
of my colleagues for this amendment.
The amendment we are offering is simple--it would require the
President to safely redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq by June 30, 2008,
with narrow exceptions. It is very similar to the amendment that we
offered last month, so I won't take up too much time explaining what it
does. I do, however, want to explain why the Senate should take up this
issue again, so soon after we last considered it.
Some of my colleagues like to call Iraq ``the central front in the
war on terror.'' But they don't spend as much time talking about the
other areas where al-Qaida and its affiliates are operating, nor do
they recognize that the administration's singular focus on Iraq is
depriving those other areas of the attention and resources they need.
Take Afghanistan, for example, where an already weak government is
grappling with a resurgence of the Taliban and rising instability.
Reports indicate that there has been a 20 to 25 percent increase in
Taliban attacks in recent months. Because this administration seems
blind to the threats to our national security outside of Iraq,
Afghanistan has been relegated to the back burner for far too long, at
grave cost to our national security.
Last week, President Bush met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in
New York City, on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly opening
session, but according to news reports he made no mention of the
Taliban's resurgence. That's a pretty big omission. After all, it was
the Taliban that supported bin Laden and provided him and his
associates with sanctuary in the run up to 9/11, and shortly
thereafter. President Bush was right to take us to war in Afghanistan.
That was a war focused on those who attacked us on 9/11 and on the
government that provided a safe haven to al-Qaida.
But with the 2003 invasion of Iraq we have been significantly
distracted and the war in Afghanistan, once the main show, now has a
supporting role, at best. As a result, al-Qaida has protected, rebuilt,
and strengthened its safe haven in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border
region. You only have to look at the front page of today's Washington
Post--and see the headline ``Pakistan Losing Fight Against Taliban and
Al-Qaeda''--to realize how dangerous this situation is to our national
security.
We have taken our eye off the ball, Mr. President. The war in Iraq
has shifted our focus and our resources. We are focused on al-Qaida in
Iraq--an al Qaida affiliate that didn't exist before the war--rather
than on al-Qaida's safe haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

In Afghanistan, the absence of adequate security and development has
led to increased disillusionment with the national government, which
has in turn resulted in increasing civilian support for the re-emerging
Taliban. It goes without question that the vast majority of Afghans
have no desire to return to the Taliban era, but the inability of
President Karzai to extend control outside the capital has meant that
much of the Afghan population suffers from pervasive fear and
instability. We may see Afghanistan once again engulfed by chaos,
lawlessness, and possibly extremism.
As long as Bin Laden and his reconstituted al-Qaida leadership remain
at large, Afghanistan's future can not be separated from our own
national security. But with our myopic focus on Iraq--and so many of
our brave troops stuck in the middle of that misguided war--we have
lost sight of our priorities. Mr. President, we are attempting to help
stabilize and develop Afghanistan ``on the cheap,'' and that just isn't
good enough.
Afghanistan is teetering on the edge. Pockets of insecurity across
the nation are becoming strongholds for anti-government insurgents who
are, in turn, exploiting the local population to support their anti-
western agenda. This problem is compounded by the dearth of sufficient
international ground troops, which has coincided with coalition forces
using increased air attacks

[[Page S12487]]

against insurgents. Those attacks carry a greater risk of civilian
casualties, undermining our support among the populace. Although the
majority of attacks on civilians are perpetrated by the Taliban and
other insurgent groups, the lack of ground troops is seriously
undermining our efforts in Afghanistan.
We also face instability and insurgent attacks in Iraq, of course.
But unlike in Iraq, where 165,000 U.S. troops are stuck in a civil war
that requires a political solution, in Afghanistan we are fighting with
far fewer troops to protect and advance the political progress of the
Afghan people. Our troops accomplished their mission in Iraq when they
took out Saddam Hussein--maintaining a massive troop presence in that
country just fuels anti-Americanism and serves as a recruitment tool
for terrorists. We have not accomplished our mission in Afghanistan--
denying a safe haven to those who aided and abetted the 9/11 attacks.
Instead of seeing the big picture--instead of placing Iraq in the
context of a comprehensive and global campaign against a ruthless
enemy, al Qaida--this administration persists in the tragic mistake it
made over 4 years ago when it took the country to war in Iraq. That war
has led to the deaths of more than 3,700 Americans and perhaps as many
as 1 million Iraqi civilians. It has deepened instability throughout
the Middle East, and it has undermined the international support and
cooperation we need to defeat al-Qaida.

Mr. President, the war in Iraq is not making us safer; it is making
us more vulnerable. It is stretching our military to the breaking point
and inflaming tensions and anti-American sentiment in an important and
volatile part of the world. It is playing into the hands of our
enemies, as even the State Department recognized when it said that the
war in Iraq is ``used as a rallying cry for radicalization and
extremist activity in neighboring countries.''
It would be easy to put all the blame on the administration, but
Congress is complicit, too. With the Defense appropriations bill before
us, we have another chance to end our complicity and reverse this
President's intractable policy. Finally, we can listen to the American
people, save American lives, and protect our Nation's security by
redeploying our troops from Iraq.
I understand that some Members of Congress do not want to have this
debate now, on this bill. They would rather keep the Defense
Appropriations bill ``clean'' and postpone Iraq debates until we take
up the supplemental. I respect their views, but I disagree. Like it or
not, this is, in part, an Iraq bill. It isn't possible to completely
separate war funding from regular DOD funding, Mr. President. In fact,
this bill pays for a significant part of our operations in Iraq. It is
therefore appropriate and responsible that we attach language bringing
that war to a close.
That is why I am again offering an amendment with Majority Leader
Harry Reid to effectively bring the war to an end. Our amendment is
very similar to the amendment we introduced last month to the Defense
authorization bill. It would require the President to safely redeploy
U.S. troops from Iraq by June 30, 2008. At that point, with our troops
safely out of Iraq, funding for the war would be ended, with narrow
exceptions for troops to do the following: provide security for U.S.
Government personnel and infrastructure; train the Iraqi Security
Forces, ISF, and conduct operations against al-Qaida and affiliates.
In order to make clear that our legislation will protect the troops,
we have specified that nothing in this amendment will prevent U.S.
troops from receiving the training or equipment they need ``to ensure,
maintain, or improve their safety and security.'' I hope we won't be
hearing any more phony arguments about troops on the battlefield
somehow not getting the supplies they need. It is false, phony, and it
is a red herring and should not be used on the floor of the Senate.
Passing this amendment will not deny our troops a single bullet or
meal.
It will simply result in their safe redeployment out of Iraq. When I
chaired a Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this year on Congress's
power of the purse, Walter Dellinger of Duke Law School testified about
my proposal. This is what he said:

There would not be one penny less for salary for the
troops. There would not be one penny less for benefits of the
troops. There would not be one penny less for weapons or
ammunition. There would not be one penny less for supplies or
support. Those troops would simply be redeployed to other
areas where the Armed Forces are utilized.

The Feingold-Reid amendment is a safe and responsible use of
Congress's power of the purse. It is the path we took in 1993 when, in
the aftermath of the ``Black Hawk Down'' incident, the Senate
overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the Defense appropriations bill
that set a funding deadline for U.S. troop deployments in Somalia.
Seventy-six Senators voted for that amendment, sponsored by the current
senior Senator from West Virginia. And many of these Senators are still
in this body, such as Senators Cochran, Domenici, Hutchison, Lugar,
McConnell, Specter, Stevens, and Warner. They recognized that this was
an entirely appropriate way to safely redeploy U.S. troops. With their
support, the amendment was enacted, and the troops came home from
Somalia before that deadline.
In order to avoid a rule XVI point of order, this amendment is
slightly different than the version we offered last month. The new
amendment only covers funds in the 2008 Defense appropriations bill,
and it omits the first two sections of the old Feingold-Reid amendment
which required the President to transition the mission and to begin
redeployment within 90 days. In addition, the exceptions for operations
against al-Qaida and for training the ISF are less detailed and
restrictive than they were before. But the intent is the same. After
consulting with the parliamentarians, we have made these changes to
ensure we are not blocked from getting a vote. The heart of Feingold-
Reid--the requirement that our troops be redeployed by June 30, 2008--
remains.
Some of my colleagues will oppose this amendment. That is their
right. But I hope they will not do so on the grounds that we should
keep the Defense appropriations bill clean, or that a brief debate and
vote on this amendment will somehow delay that bill. Passing a defense
spending bill without even discussing the most important national
defense and national security issue facing our country is simply
irresponsible. As long as our troops are fighting and dying for a war
that doesn't make sense, as long as the American people are calling out
for an end to this tragedy, as long as the administration and its
supporters press ahead with their misguided strategy, we have a
responsibility to debate and vote on this issue again and again and
again.
By enacting Feingold-Reid, we can refocus on our top national
security priority--waging a global campaign against al-Qaida and its
affiliates. We can refocus on developing a comprehensive strategy for
dealing with deteriorating conditions in Afghanistan that link together
the policies and programs needed to establish a viable state there, and
we can focus on the other areas around the world, from North Africa to
Southeast Asia, where al-Qaida and its affiliates are operating.
The war in Iraq is the wrong war. It is overstretching our military
and undermining our national security. It is time for the war to end. I
urge my colleagues to support the Feingold-Reid amendment.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we turn again to the Feingold-Reid
amendment. I have cosponsored this amendment in the past, and I am
happy to do so again today. This amendment is another chance for us to
show real leadership by forging a responsible and binding path out of
the quagmire in which we find ourselves in Iraq.
In just a few short months, we will be starting the sixth year of
this war. We just watched the series on television, the wonderful piece
that Ken Burns produced of that war, a terrible, difficult war. It was
long over by the time

[[Page S12488]]

we engaged in this war--a war that fought the world, the Far East,
Europe, Africa, the South Pacific. And here we are soon to start the
sixth year of this war, and we are in a war that has been fought in an
area the size of the State of California.
This amendment puts before us a binding national policy, a strategy
that Democrats and some courageous Republicans have advocated for
months. I don't agree with my friend from Nebraska, Chuck Hagel, on a
lot of issues, but I say that his leadership, leading Democrats,
Republicans, and Independents, on this war issue is one of the most
courageous political acts I have seen. I have told him so. I believe
it. So there are Republicans who have joined in this effort, and I
admire every one of them.
We are asking for a strategy that is the best path for the people of
the United States and Iraq. It is a path. This legislation changes our
fundamental mission away from policing a civil war, reduces our large
combat footprint, and focuses on those missions which are in the
national security interests of the United States.

It exercises congressional powers that we have within the
Constitution--powers to limit funding after June 1 of next year well
into the sixth year of the war--to counterterrorism, force protection,
and targeted training of Iraqi forces.
This amendment recognizes we have strong interests in Iraq and the
Middle East, but it does not permit the open-ended role of the United
States in a civil war.
Nearly all experts agree that 6 years after our country was attacked
on 9/11, the President's preoccupation with Iraq has not made America
any more secure. Afghanistan is under attack. We need more forces
there, not less. We cannot send them because we are bogged down in
Iraq. The Taliban is attacking us with drug cultivation and trafficking
at the highest level in years.
Pakistan's tribal border areas have become an increasingly alarming
safe haven where bin Laden and a new generation of al-Qaida affiliated
terrorists remain free to plot terrorist attacks.
As we all know, Iraq is mired, I repeat, in a civil war, an
intractable civil war with no political reconciliation in sight. It is
long past time for meaningless resolutions and minor policy tweaks. We
need a major change of course in Iraq, one that responsibly brings our
troops home, rebuilds the readiness of our military, and returns our
focus on fighting a real war on terror against bin Laden and his al-
Qaida network.
I urge my colleagues to support this responsible and long overdue
legislation. I think Senator Feingold and I are not aware of how votes
have been taken on this issue in the past, but we want others to step
forward and do what we believe is right. It is time to chart a course
out of Iraq and return our forces to the real and growing threats we
face throughout the world.
Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed the Tanner bill with
overwhelming bipartisan support. This legislation would require the
President to provide Congress with reports within 60 days of the
administration's plans for drawing the war to a close.
Is this a step in the right direction? Some say so. We know the
administration failed from the very beginning and repeatedly thereafter
to adequately plan for the war in Iraq. We know the President took us
to war without a plan for peace. Since then, his administration has
resisted any attempts to examine his failures or to consider broad
changes to his strategy in Iraq. The White House stubbornly refused to
take on all the detailed planning that those changes would require.
There is no sign that this shortsighted administering of the war will
end.
If Congress does not act, the administration is bound to repeat the
same mistakes--finishing the Iraq war as irresponsibly as it was
started. The administration should begin planning for the end of the
war and the redeployment of our troops, and Congress should expect this
to be made available for oversight and examination.
Some of my colleagues would like to see the Senate take up the
legislation that passed the House yesterday. It is within their rights.
It is legislating on an appropriations bill, and in a conversation I
had with one of my colleagues who indicated they might offer it, the
two managers said they will raise a point of order.
I am not one for more reports. I think we need more than reports. But
I admire those people who proffered this amendment that was adopted
overwhelmingly in a bipartisan vote. I hope we can get those who
believe the war has gone on too long, and we need a change, to support
this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I hope the Senate will complete action on
this bill today. The Senators from Hawaii and Alaska have worked in a
bipartisan manner to determine how to provide the resources necessary
to sustain the operations of the Department of Defense while providing
the capability to meet future threats. It is worth noting that this
bill was reported by the Appropriations Committee by a unanimous vote.
The bill does not attempt to force controversial policy changes that
would trigger a veto by the President. The bill fully supports our
military by providing increases in end strength for the Army and Marine
Corps. It supports military health care reforms, and it provides needed
funds to replace or repair and maintain aging and heavily used
equipment.
Our military is providing trained and equipped forces to sustain
multiple fronts on the global war on terrorism, while at the same time
transitioning the force to meet future threats. Our military leaders
need these resources in a timely manner if they are to succeed.
It is particularly critical that we complete action on the Defense
appropriations bill as soon as possible to support our men and women in
uniform and the civil servants who work with them. We need to complete
action on this Defense appropriations bill so we can go to conference
with the House and deliver a bill as soon as possible to the President.
While the continuing resolution we passed last week contains some
bridge funding to support the troops through November 16, it is not
adequate for the longer term.
The President submitted a fiscal year 2008 war supplemental request
in February. Last week, in our Appropriations Committee hearing,
Secretary of Defense Gates made clear the need for this additional
funding. We should not delay action on providing supplemental funding
until next year. It is simply unacceptable.
The fact is, we have tens of thousands of American men and women in
Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world performing the mission that our
Government has assigned to them. The new fiscal year has already begun.
We should not cause uncertainty or hardship for our Armed Forces or try
to change American policy in Iraq by starving our troops of needed
resources. Let's get on with it and provide our men and women in
uniform the resources they need to perform that mission successfully.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I withhold that
request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 40\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me say quickly, before I turn to the
Senator from Connecticut, how much I admire the Senator from
Mississippi. We have worked closely. His response to our amendment is
about the need to move on and pass the Defense appropriations bill.
Obviously, this is not getting in the way of doing that. We immediately
agreed to a 2-hour time agreement. This is perfectly reasonable in
light of the fact that this is the biggest military situation we have
had in decades in this country. So it seems like a very minor thing to
spend 2 hours on this amendment. We have a time agreement, so in no way
will this be preventing us from moving forward to passage of the
Defense appropriations bill.
I now turn to my colleague and very strong supporter on these
efforts, the Senator from Connecticut, and yield him 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from
Wisconsin. I, once again, express my gratitude to

[[Page S12489]]

him for raising this issue, as he has on numerous occasions in the
past. It is no surprise whatsoever that he would do so again on this
very critical piece of legislation.
Let me say that my friend from Mississippi, for whom I have the
highest regard and respect, has a job to do to get this bill out. We
understand that as well. But I would underscore the points made by the
Senator from Wisconsin. There is no other more important issue, I would
posit, than the one which is the subject of this amendment: that is,
the continued military involvement in Iraq and the important question
of our increased safety and security, and the possibility of Iraq
reaching some reconciliation with its political and religious leaders.
Is there still a rationale for our continued presence there, as posited
by those in favor of this policy?
I would argue that there is not. This subject matter is about as
critical as it gets for this body to debate. In fact, one may make the
case that debating two hours on an amendment such as this is hardly
adequate time when you consider what is at stake, not just in terms of
contemporary issues, but the long-term security interests of our
country. Those interests are going to be affected and, I would argue,
adversely affected by a policy that raises serious questions.
Last month, I came to the floor of this body to speak in favor of a
similar amendment offered by the Senator of Wisconsin, along with
Senator Reid. It was, I am convinced, a sensible plan for ending our
disastrous policy in Iraq. The reasons for doing so are so crystal
clear to the public; they hardly need rehearsing here, but for the sake
of those who may not have followed it, let me summarize those arguments
briefly. I would ask my colleagues to forgive me for being redundant,
but I find the following exchange that occurred just a few days ago so
astounding and so telling of the folly of this conflict that it bears
repeating.
It comes from two full days of testimony before Congress by General
Petraeus. Let me say that I have tremendous admiration for General
Petraeus. I don't know him personally, but I admire his service to our
country. It has been a distinguished service. Others have had
difficulty with it. I don't. He is not the architect of policy; as a
senior military official, he is asked to execute policy. So if people
are upset about policy, their opposition should be toward those who
create the policy, not those we ask to carry it out.
There was an exchange between Senator Warner of Virginia and General
Petraeus before the Senate Armed Services Committee that I thought was
incredible in its simplicity and directness, and I admire General
Petraeus for his candor and honesty in answering the question Senator
Warner posed to him. It was maybe the most direct and serious question
raised in all those hearings, and it goes to the heart of all this
debate.
The question to the General from Senator Warner was the following:

Do you feel that the war in Iraq is making America safer?

A very simple question--not any more complicated than that. General
Petraeus said:

I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to
achieve our objectives in Iraq.

Senator Warner followed up with:

Does it make America safer?

General Petraeus's answer was:

I don't know, actually.

I don't know. I don't know, actually. To the families of the 3,808
men and women who have lost their lives, this is cold comfort indeed,
that the commanding general has not even convinced himself that this
war serves our security.
That is the fundamental issue, Mr. President. The basic question we
must ask ourselves in matters such as these, first and foremost: Does
this policy make us safer, more secure, less vulnerable, less isolated
in the world? If you don't know the answer to that--and I suspect even
the general may have some serious doubts about it or he wouldn't have
been as candidly vague in his answer here--we must reexamine whether it
is in our interest to pursue that policy. Frankly, I think there are
overwhelming numbers of us here who have, at the very least, serious
doubts about this tactic--and that is what it is; it is not a strategy
but a tactic--to achieve our greater security and safety. If your
answer to that question is no, as it is for me and I think for many
others, the evidence is overwhelming here that we are turning Iraq into
a Petri dish for jihadists and terrorists.
We have every other nation packing its bags and leaving. So this
coalition of the willing is evaporating. Every other issue we are
grappling with internationally is seen through the prism of Iraq.
Whether it is Darfur, Latin America, Asia, or whatever else the issue
is, it is all seen through that prism. So not only does it affect the
outcome in Iraq, it is affecting every other consideration in which
this Nation is involved. For anyone who believes we are safer, more
secure, less vulnerable, less isolated as a result of pursuing this
policy, I have serious reservations, as I believe General Petraeus did
in his answer to our colleague. The consensus is strong and growing, I
believe, that our current course has failed to make Iraq safe and make
America safer--that it is, in fact, making this country less safe and
so must change dramatically.
The Constitution does not give us the power to sit here and decide on
a day-to-day, hourly basis how to manage the affairs of the Pentagon,
and rightfully so. Five hundred and thirty-five Members of Congress
with disparate political views cannot sit here and dictate on a day-to-
day basis how this ought to be managed. We are given one power, one
overwhelming power: the power of the purse. That is what makes this
body unique. So I think that any other exhausting legislative language
dictating how this conflict ought to be managed, with all due respect
to its authors, is not well placed. We have one responsibility: to
decide, yes or no, this is a matter which deserves the continued
appropriation of America's money, its tax money, to finance it. That is
the question. You either believe it is or it isn't.
So the amendment being offered by Senator Feingold goes to the very
heart of the power this body has when it comes to the matter of Iraq
and whether we fund it. If you believe we should go forward, that we
are safer, more secure, then you have an obligation to fund it. If you
believe it is not doing that, then you have a commensurate obligation,
and that is to say enough is enough and to stop. That is our judgment,
our job, to make that decision. I am not suggesting that it is not a
pleasant one.
General Petraeus can be relatively agnostic on the issue. He is a
general; it is his job to be agnostic, except in the confines of
private conversation. But we don't have that luxury to be agnostic on
these questions. We were elected to do a job, to represent our
constituencies and, in a broader sense, the people at large, and we
have to decide whether the continued investment of their tax dollars is
worthy of this cause. I don't believe it is.
I believe the time has come--and long ago--for us to come up with a
different policy that would offer Iraq more hope and our own interests
in the region a far greater prospect for stability, a policy that would
reestablish our presence and our moral authority in the world when it
comes to the myriad other issues we must grapple with as a people.
What more could possibly happen to quell the violence between and
among Iraq's Sunnis and Shiites to end this civil war?
Conversely, how much more do we sacrifice in the absence of a
reconciliation which has not happened?
We all know the honest answers to those questions. And knowing them,
it seems evident the administration's last-ditch supporters here
are selling us little more than a policy of blind faith. Do the
President's supporters think this can go on forever, or are they simply
planning for it to go on until the end of the President's term and then
hand it off to someone else? Will they come to this floor and claim we
are invulnerable?

If General Petraeus does not know, actually--his honest answer to
Senator Warner's question--whether this war is making us safer, let's
ask another question: Is this war endangering our security?
So the choice we face--and I believe it is a choice--is a clear one.
It doesn't make it a painless one. In fact, I haven't been part of a
more painful debate in all my years in this body, considering the
length it has gone on. But to govern is to make such choices,

[[Page S12490]]

even--especially--when they are painful. Our choice not between victory
and defeat, which has never been the issue from the very outset, even
though the strongest advocates of this policy have always argued that.
The issue was never the victory or defeat of our military in Iraq. It
was always to create the space and opportunity for reconciliation, a
positive political conclusion in Iraq.
The choice is either trying to end Iraq's civil war through the use
of military force, or demanding that Iraq's political leaders take
responsibility through solving their civil conflict through the only
means possible--through reconciliation and compromise.
Yet we are now going into nearly the fifth year, and even with the
pleadings of an American President, the Vice President, senior military
people, and Lord knows how many Members of Congress, of both political
parties--even as recently as a few weeks ago--the political leadership
of that country has not taken advantage. It has not found compromise.
If you argue that the surge has created space, it certainly hasn't
created a reconciliation. It doesn't seem anyone is able to persuade
the political leadership of that country to do what all of us
understand they must do, and that is to decide whether they want to be
a country and work with each other, despite their differences. No one
yet has succeeded in that effort. And I don't believe it is likely to
happen if we continue the policy we are following.
So I believe the American people are far ahead of us on this issue.
They have made their choice. It now seems to be our job, our solemn
responsibility, to turn those choices into facts.
This is precisely what the Feingold amendment does, by cutting off
funds from all combat operations in Iraq after June 30 of next year,
with four exceptions: counterterrorism operations, protecting
government personnel and infrastructure, training the Iraqi security
forces, and force protection.
If all of the reasons for supporting this amendment aren't compelling
enough, I might add another as well. Almost 5 years into the occupation
of Iraq, the administration continues to ask us to fund the war through
supplemental funding bills. It is simply astonishing to me to think
that President Bush, hasn't figured out by now what this war costs on a
regular basis. He ought to fund it through the regular, long-standing
budget process and not hide its true cost from the American people by
continuing to ask for supplemental funding, sinking this Nation further
and further into a several-trillion-dollar debt.
Mr. President, let's be under no illusions as to what all Defense
authorization and appropriations bills are supporting. They are
supporting the continuation of our troop presence in Iraq. We cannot
artificially separate a Defense funding bill from an Iraq supplemental
bill. This is an Iraq bill, have no doubts about it.
This legislation is what will make our continued military occupation
of Iraq go forward for many months to come--and this amendment is our
chance to stop it. I would argue it is probably the last one until
maybe sometime next year, when another supplemental bill comes up, and
then we will be talking about 2009 and beyond. So we are already
committing ourselves into the next decade of this century.
Moments arrive, Mr. President, and this is such a moment. Moments
come and then they pass, and speeches are given later about what we
wished we had done, or what we wish we had known--statements that will
have no value whatsoever. We tolerate a mistake once, not twice, when
it comes to this policy. This is the moment, this is the hour, this is
the 2 hours we have to debate: 120 minutes is what we get to debate a
policy that is costing us billions of dollars and thousands of lives
and disrupting, I believe, very profoundly and seriously, the
leadership of our country in world affairs.
So I urge my colleagues in the remaining moments of this debate to
give Senator Feingold a chance here and that we support this particular
effort. Let us rise to this opportunity while we have it. Let us ensure
now, while we have the chance, that all of our combat troops are out of
Iraq by next summer.
Our men and women in uniform have served there with bravery,
devotion, sacrifice, and incredible distinction, but there is nothing
they can do now to bring about the political reconciliation Iraq so
desperately needs. The choice belongs to the people of Iraq and their
political and religious leaders. And no further shedding of American
blood can make that choice come faster or come out right. I urge my
colleagues to support the Feingold amendment and bring an end to this
disastrous engagement in a desperate land.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from
Connecticut for his very strong voice in support of our amendment and
in support of ending this mistaken war. I really do appreciate it, and
I thank him for his help on this and hope for a strong showing on the
floor of the Senate on this.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time, and I suggest the
absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time during the
quorum be equally charged on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up
to 4 minutes, if I may, on the manager's time on the legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I assume this will not come out of the
time we have on this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is being counted on the Republican side.
Mr. ALEXANDER. That is correct. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, over the last several days, the Nation
has watched Ken Burns' film on World War II. As I mentioned on the
floor earlier, it is likely to take its place along with the series on
``Roots,'' along with Ken Burns' own film on the Civil War, along with
Super Bowls, as a part of our collective memory.
I saw a preview of Mr. Burns' film about 2 months ago at the Library
of Congress. My wife and I went there with some others. He showed it.
We got a sense of how remarkable it was.
He said that it represented the time in our history when our country
pulled together more than at any other time. Of course, all of us have
seen how that ability to pull together, to be one as a Nation, prepared
us for so many great accomplishments over the past half century--great
universities, great military power, producing nearly a third of all the
wealth in the world for 5 percent of the world's people.
It also produced an era that is instructive to us on how well we as a
country do when we work together. I think it is fitting this bill is on
the floor at the time Ken Burns' film is on television. It is fitting
because this war has been one that has divided us. We have not been
able to unite on it, although I strongly believe we should speak with a
single voice on it, and have said so by sponsoring--along with Senator
Salazar and 15 other Senators--legislation that would give us a chance
to do that by implementing the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton
Iraq Study Group.
But I am not here today to argue the importance of what I believe the
Baker-Hamilton recommendations offer us. I simply want to note it is
appropriate that the pending bill is being managed by Senator Inouye
and Senator Stevens. Senator Inouye is pictured numerous times during
his service with the 442nd Division, which fought bravely in Europe
during World War II. His heroism in that war won him the Congressional
Medal of Honor. He was a Japanese American. Japanese Americans were, as
the film reminds us, quarantined, reviled, discriminated against, but
there he was, risking his life and limb to win the Congressional Medal
of Honor.

[[Page S12491]]

He was in the same hospital in Italy that our former Majority Leader
Bob Dole was in. They were wounded about the same time, and they served
here together in the Senate for many years.
Then, on the other side of the aisle, the bill manager on the
Republican side, is Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. He was also in that
war. He flew the first plane to land in Beijing after World War II
ended. Senator Stevens was a member of the Flying Tigers, who are
prominently mentioned in the film.
A group of us Senators were in China last year, in a delegation led
by Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens. They were received with enormous
respect because the Chinese remember Senator Stevens' contribution to
their country, and they know, of course, of Senator Inouye's heroism
and leadership.
I think it is appropriate, at a time when we are debating Defense
appropriations, when we are considering the motto ``E Pluribus Unum,''
how we take this magnificent diversity in this country and make it one
Nation, that we have the debate on this bill led on this floor by two
men of that greatest generation, Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens. It
is appropriate that they be managing this bill.
I thought it important for us to acknowledge that.
I yield the floor and 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. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we go back
to the quorum call and, when we do so, the time be evenly divided
between the sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWN. 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. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Product Safety

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, our Nation's haphazard trade policy has
done plenty of damage to Ohio's economy, to our manufacturers, to our
small businesses.
Recent news reports of tainted foods and toxic toys reveal another
hazard of ill-conceived and unenforced trade rules. They subject
American families, American children, to products that can harm them,
that, in some cases, can actually kill them.
Ohio's Ashland University Chemistry Professor Jeff Weidenhamer
recently tested 22 Halloween products for lead. Three products tested
were found to contain high lead levels.
Acceptable levels of lead, according to the Consumer Product Safety
Commission, are 600 parts per million. A Halloween Frankenstein cup,
presumably a cup that ends up in a child's hand, contained 39,000--not
600--39,000 parts per million.
Both Professor Weidenhamer and I have sent letters to the CPSC
demanding action. Exposure to lead can affect almost every organ in the
body, especially the central nervous system. Lead is especially toxic
to the brains of developing young children.
In the last century, we made gains in combating health and safety
issues. Whether it was the FDA banning red dye No. 2 or chloroform in
medicines or it was banning lead in paint, the Government created a
structure, a safety net that makes it harder for unsafe products to
reach consumers.
That safety net is unraveling before our eyes. The safety net secured
to keep our families safe from lead is being systematically dismantled
by our Nation's failed trade policies. Our trade rules encourage unsafe
imports, our gap-ridden food and product inspection system lets those
imports into the country, our lax requirements for importers let those
products stay on the shelves, and our foot dragging on requiring
country-of-origin labeling leaves consumers in the dark.
It is a lethal combination. From pet food to toothpaste, from auto
tires to kids toys, the daily news highlights the consequences of
lacksidasical import rules and ``less is less'' import oversight.
Countries such as China lack the basic protections we take for
granted. Given the well-known dangers of lead, particularly for young
children, we banned it from products such as gasoline and paint decades
ago. With the total lack of protections in our trade policy, we are
importing not just the goods from those countries, but we are importing
the lax safety standards of those countries.
If we relax basic health and safety rules to accommodate Bush-style,
NAFTA-modeled trade deals, then we should not be surprised to find lead
paint in our toys and contaminants and toxins in our toothpaste and our
dog food.
Due to trade agreements, there are now more than 230 countries and
more than 200,000 foreign manufacturers exporting FDA-regulated goods
into the United States, to our child's bedrooms and our kitchen tables.
Unfortunately, trade deals put limits on the safety standards we can
require for imports and how much we can even inspect imports. Our trade
policy should prevent these problems, not invite them.
Now the President wants new trade agreements with Peru, Panama, with
Colombia, and South Korea, all based on the same failed trade model.
FDA inspectors have rejected seafood imports from Peru and Panama,
major seafood suppliers to the United States.
Yet the current trade agreements, as written, limit food safety
standards and border inspections. Adding insult to injury, the
agreements would force the United States to rely on foreign inspectors
to ensure our safety. We have seen how well that worked with China.
More of the same in our trade policy will mean exactly that, more
contaminated imports and more recalls. We need a new approach to trade
policy and to import safety. We need to write trade laws that encourage
quality imports not dangerous ones. We need to empower consumers with
full information about the projects they are purchasing.
It is time for a new direction in our trade policy. It is time for a
trade policy that ensures the safety of food on our kitchen tables and
toys in our children's bedrooms. Everyone agrees on one thing: We want
more trade, we want more trade with countries around the world. But
first we must protect the safety of our children and the health of our
families.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the time remaining be equally
charged.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FEINGOLD. 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. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to our cosponsor on
this issue, Senator Durbin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this amendment on this Defense
appropriations bill goes to the most important single foreign policy
issue facing America: If this is a bill about spending for the
military, this may be the most important single amendment we could
consider.
Senator Feingold and Senator Harry Reid have brought this amendment
to the floor. It has been discussed before. It is an amendment which
goes to the very fundamental question: When will we start bringing
American troops home from Iraq?
The President, of course, and his administration have been reluctant
to even suggest that possibility will come. I think the President went
so far as to say that of the 160,000 troops or more in Iraq, perhaps
5,000 or so will be home by Christmas.
At that rate, of course, this President will leave office with almost
the same number as we have today, risking their

[[Page S12492]]

lives in the heat of combat in Iraq. Many of us remember the beginning
of this war and how the American people were misled into this war. The
American people were told that weapons of mass destruction threatened
the United States, threatened our allies such as Israel, threatened the
stability in the world.
We were given chapter and verse and detailed descriptions of
biological weapons and chemical weapons and nuclear weapons. We were
told Saddam Hussein had arsenals of these weapons. He had reached a
point where he had so little credibility we would not even send in
international observers, we knew it, they were there, and it was time
to take him out.
Then obviously we were told about his reign as the leader in Iraq,
nothing short of barbaric, gassing his own people, killing innocent
people, ruling with an iron fist. All true. There was always the
suspicion and the suggestion that somehow or another Saddam Hussein of
Iraq had something to do with 9/11, that terrible tragedy we faced in
the United States.
What happened? After the invasion, our great military, in a matter of
weeks, took control of the country, searched it far and wide to find
weapons of mass destruction and found nothing. To this day, the fifth
year of this war, no evidence whatsoever of any of those weapons, one
of the real main reasons we were told we had to go to war.
Saddam Hussein eventually was arrested, executed by his own people,
still not a shred of evidence that he had anything to do with 9/11. The
American people were misled into this war. There we sit as a Nation,
not only with our reputation in the world at stake and on the line
every single day, not only at the expense of allies who stood with us
in fighting against the terrorism of 9/11, but more importantly, at the
expense of 160,000 American lives of our men and women in uniform who
are there at this very moment risking their lives for this President's
failed foreign policy.
They are loyal and courageous people. I think we all understand the
great debt we will always owe them and their families for what they
have done. But what Senator Feingold has said is it is time now for
this Senate to stand up and say, unequivocally: These troops need to
start coming home in a responsible way. Not all at once. That would be
dangerous and foolhardy. Senator Feingold does not suggest that.
What he suggests is that by June 30 of next year we will be in a
position to redeploy our troops, keeping troops in the field in Iraq
for specific reasons: to fight al-Qaida and other affiliated
international terrorist organizations, provide security for Americans
and our American Government, to provide training for Iraqi security
forces, training equipment and other materials to the members of the
U.S. Armed Forces--a much different mission. I will tell you, if you
take an honest look at our military today, we have pushed these fine
men and women and their families to the absolute limit. It is time for
us to start bringing them home.
Three thousand eight hundred and five of our best and bravest have
died; 30,000 seriously injured; 10,000 with amputations, traumatic
brain injuries, and terribly burns. That will be a burden for a
lifetime. That is the reality of this war. That is the reality of this
amendment. This is not another idle debate, this debate goes to these
men and women and their families and our Nation, a Nation misled into a
war, a Nation which will spend three-quarters of a trillion dollars on
this war, if the President has his way, a Nation which understands the
invasion was brought about by misrepresentations, misrepresentation of
reality on the ground.
We owe it to our soldiers, we owe it to our Nation, and we owe it to
future generations to start bringing an end to this war. It is time
once again for the Iraqis to accept the responsibility for their own
future, to put together a government that can govern, a defense force
that can defend, and a nation that wants to be a nation
If they cannot do that, we cannot send enough soldiers to make that
happen. It has to be led by the Iraqi people, and they will never
accept that responsibility as long as they can lean on the strength,
the military strength of the United States.
I hope my colleagues, many of whom have dismissed this kind of
amendment and said: We cannot get into this conversation until maybe
next spring, we will reflect on the reality by next spring, hundreds
more American soldiers will die by next spring, thousands of American
soldiers will be seriously injured by next spring, billions of dollars
will be spent on this war. It should be spent in America.
A strong America begins at home. This President, with his war budget,
has taken away the vital services, education, health care for our
children, medical research. Time and again, we find we cannot do the
basics for America because this President is hellbent to stay in this
war until January 20, 2009, when he walks out the door on his way back
to Crawford, TX. That is unacceptable. I thank Senator Feingold and
Senator Reid for giving us this choice today, a choice to change the
course once and for all, to change the policy and move America in the
right direction in Iraq.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the
Feingold-Reid amendment.
I strongly support our troops, but I strongly oppose the war.
Our military has served nobly in Iraq and done everything we have
asked them to do. But they are now caught in a quagmire. They are
policing a civil war and implementing a policy that is not worthy of
their enormous sacrifice.
The best way to protect our troops and our national security is to
put the Iraqis on notice that they need to take responsibility for
their future, so that we can bring our troops back home to America.
As long as our military presence in Iraq is open-ended, Iraq's
leaders are unlikely to make the essential compromises for a political
solution.
The administration's misguided policy has put our troops in an
untenable and unwinnable situation. They are being held hostage to
Iraqi politics, in which sectarian leaders are unable or unwilling to
make the difficult judgments needed to lift Iraq out of its downward
spiral. We are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a failed
policy that is making America more vulnerable and is putting our troops
at greater risk.
Our policy in Iraq continues to exact a devastating toll. Nearly
4,000 American troops have died, and 30,000 have been injured. The toll
on Iraqis is immense. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed or
injured, and more than 4 million Iraqis have been forced to flee their
homes. Nearly a half trillion dollars has been spent fighting this war.
Now the President wants to use the supplemental spending bill to pour
hundreds of billions of dollars more into the black hole that our
policy in Iraq has become. It is wrong for Congress to continue to
write a blank check to the President for the war. It is obvious that
President Bush intends to drag this process out month after month, year
after year, so that he can hand his Iraqi policy off to the next
President.
It is time to put the brakes on this madness. We have to change our
policy now. Until we do, our troops will continue shedding their blood
in the streets of Baghdad other parts of Iraq, and our national
security will remain at risk.
This amendment makes the change we so urgently need. It sets a clear
timeline for the safe and orderly withdrawal of our troops, and it
requires most of them to come home in 9 months.
It is up to us to halt the open-ended commitment of our troops that
President Bush has been making year after year. The Iraqis need to take
responsibility for their own future, resolve their political
differences, and enable our troops to come home. We need to tell the
Iraqis now that we intend to leave and leave soon. Only by doing so,
can we add the urgency that is so clearly necessary for them to end
their differences.
We can't allow the President to drag this process out any longer.
This war is his responsibility, and it is his responsibility to do all
he can to end it. It is wrong for him to pass the buck to his
successor, when he knows that thousands more of the courageous members
of our Armed Forces will be wounded or die because of it and when every
day this misguided war goes on, our service

[[Page S12493]]

men and women and their families continue to shoulder the burden and
pay the price.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. How much time remains on each side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin has 6\1/2\ minutes;
the Senator from Hawaii has 45 minutes.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous
consent that the time be equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, my colleague John McCain cannot be here
today. He has a statement with respect to the Feingold amendment that I
ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my
remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. KYL. I join my colleague Senator McCain in opposing the amendment
and wish to read three paragraphs of his statement, and then the rest
of it will be in the Record for all to see:

Mr. President, I oppose the amendment offered by my good
friend, the Senator from Wisconsin.
The pending amendment would mandate a withdrawal of U.S.
combat forces from Iraq and cut off funds for our troops
after June 30, 2008. The one exception would be for a small
force authorized only to carry out narrowly defined missions.
The Senate, once again, faces a simple choice: Do we build
on the successes of our new strategy and give General
Petraeus and the troops under his command the time and
support needed to carry out their mission, or do we ignore
the realities on the ground and legislate a premature end to
our efforts in Iraq, accepting thereby all the terrible
consequences that will ensue?
That is the choice we must make, Mr. President, and though
politics and popular opinion may be pushing us in one
direction, we have a greater responsibility, the duty to make
decisions with the security of this great and good nation
foremost in our minds. We now have the benefit of the long
anticipated testimony delivered by General Petraeus and
Ambassador Crocker, testimony that reported unambiguously
that the new strategy is succeeding in Iraq. Understanding
what we now know--that our military is making progress on the
ground, and that their commanders request from us the time
and support necessary to succeed in Iraq--it is inconceivable
that we in Congress would end this strategy just as it is
beginning to show real results.

Those are the first three paragraphs of the statement from Senator
McCain. I join him in opposing the amendment and express his regret at
not being able to be here for this debate.

Exhibit 1

Amendment No. 3164 to the DOD Appropriations Act for FY 2008: Cutoff of
Funds for Iraq

(Statement of Senator John McCain, October 3, 2007)

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment offered
by my good friend, the Senator from Wisconsin.
The pending amendment would mandate a withdrawal of U.S.
combat forces from Iraq and cut off funds for our troops
after June 30, 2008. The one exception would be for a small
force authorized only to carry out narrowly defined missions.
The Senate, once again, faces a simple choice: Do we build
on the successes of our new strategy and give General
Petraeus and the troops under his command the time and
support needed to carry out their mission, or do we ignore
the realities on the ground and legislate a premature end to
our efforts in Iraq, accepting thereby all the terrible
consequences that will ensue?
That is the choice we must make, Mr. President, and though
politics and popular opinion may be pushing us in one
direction, we have a greater responsibility, the duty to make
decisions with the security of this great and good Nation
foremost in our minds. We now have the benefit of the long
anticipated testimony delivered by General Petraeus and
Ambassador Crocker, testimony that reported unambiguously
that the new strategy is succeeding in Iraq. Understanding
what we now know--that our military is making progress on the
ground, and that their commanders request from us the time
and support necessary to succeed in Iraq--it is inconceivable
that we in Congress would end this strategy just as it is
beginning to show real results.
We see today that, after nearly 4 years of mismanaged war,
the situation on the ground in Iraq is showing demonstrable
signs of progress. The final reinforcements needed to
implement General Petraeus' new counterinsurgency plan have
been in place for over 3 months and our military, in
cooperation with the Iraqi security forces, is making
significant gains in a number of areas.
General Petraeus reported in detail on these gains during
his testimony in both houses and in countless interviews. The
number two U.S. commander in Iraq, LTG Ray Odierno, has said
that the seven-and-a-half-month-old security operation has
reduced violence in Baghdad by some 50 percent, that car
bombs and suicide attacks in Baghdad have fallen to their
lowest level in a year, and that civilian casualties have
dropped from a high of 32 per day to 12 per day. His comments
were echoed by LTG Abboud Qanbar, the Iraqi commander, who
said that before the surge began, one third of Baghdad's 507
districts were under insurgent control. Today, he said,
``only five to six districts can be called hot areas.''
None of this is to argue that Baghdad or other regions have
suddenly become safe, or that violence has come down to
acceptable levels. As General Odierno pointed out, violence
is still too high and there are many unsafe areas.
Nevertheless, such positive developments illustrate General
Petraeus' contention that American and Iraqi forces have
achieved substantial progress under their new strategy.
The road in Iraq remains, as it always has been, long and
hard. The Maliki government remains paralyzed and unwilling
to function as it must, and other difficulties abound. No one
can guarantee success or be certain about its prospects. We
can be sure, however, that should the United States Congress
succeed in terminating the strategy by legislating an abrupt
withdrawal and a transition to a new, less effective and more
dangerous course--should we do that, Mr. President, then we
will fail for certain.
Let us make no mistake about the costs of such an American
failure in Iraq. Should the Congress force a precipitous
withdrawal from Iraq, it would mark a new beginning, the
start of a new, more dangerous effort to contain the forces
unleashed by our disengagement. If we leave, we will be
back--in Iraq and elsewhere--in many more desperate fights to
protect our security and at an even greater cost in American
lives and treasure.
In his testimony before the Armed Services Committee in
September, General Petraeus referred to an August Defense
Intelligence Agency report that stated, `` * * * a rapid
withdrawal would result in the further release of strong
centrifugal forces in Iraq and produce a number of dangerous
results, including a high risk of disintegration of the Iraqi
Security Forces; a rapid deterioration of local security
initiatives; al Qaeda-Iraq regaining lost ground and freedom
of maneuver; a marked increase in violence and further
ethnosectarian displacement and refugee flows; and
exacerbation of already challenging regional dynamics,
especially with respect to Iran.''
Those are the likely consequences of a precipitous
withdrawal, and I hope that the supporters of such a move
will tell us how they intend to address the chaos and
catastrophe that would surely follow such a course of action.
Should this amendment become law, and U.S. troops begin
withdrawing, do they believe that Iraq will become more or
less stable? That the Iraqi people become more or less safe?
That genocide becomes a more remote possibility or ever
likelier? That al Qaeda will find it easier to gather, plan,
and carry out attacks from Iraqi soil, or that our withdrawal
will somehow make this less likely?
No matter where my colleagues came down in 2003 about the
centrality of Iraq to the war on terror, there can simply be
no debate that our efforts in Iraq today are critical to the
wider struggle against violent Islamic extremism. Last month,
General Jim Jones testified before the Armed Services
Committee and outlined what he believes to be the
consequences of such a course: `` . . . a precipitous
departure which results in a failed state in Iraq,'' he said,
``will have a significant boost in the numbers of extremists,
jihadists . . . in the world, who will believe that they will
have toppled the major power on Earth and that all else is
possible. And I think it will not only make us less safe; it
will make our friends and allies less safe. And the struggle
will continue. It will simply be done in different and in
other areas.''
Should we leave Iraq before there is a basic level of
stability, we invite chaos, genocide, terrorist safehavens
and regional war. We invite further Iranian influence at a
time when Iranian operatives are already moving weapons,
training fighters, providing resources, and helping plan
operations to kill American soldiers and damage our efforts
to bring stability to Iraq. If any of my colleagues remain
unsure of Iran's intentions in the region, may I direct them
to the recent remarks of

[[Page S12494]]

the Iranian president, who said: ``The political power of the
occupiers is collapsing rapidly . . . Soon, we will see a
huge power vacuum in the region. Of course, we are prepared
to fill the gap.'' If our notions of national security have
any meaning, they cannot include permitting the establishment
of an Iranian dominated Middle East that is roiled by wider
regional war and riddled with terrorist safehavens.
The supporters of this amendment respond that they do not
by any means intend to cede the battlefield to al Qaeda; on
the contrary, their legislation would allow U.S. forces,
presumably holed up in forward operating bases, to carry out
``operations against al Qaeda and affiliated international
terrorist organizations.'' But such a provision draws a false
distinction between terrorism and sectarian violence. Let us
think about the implications of ordering American soldiers to
target ``terrorists,'' but not those who foment sectarian
violence. Was the attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra a
terrorist operation or the expression of sectarian violence?
When the Madhi Army attacks government police stations, are
they acting as terrorists or as a militia? When AQI attacks a
Shia village along the Diyala River, is that terrorism or
sectarian violence? What about when an American soldier comes
across some unknown assailant burying an lED in the road?
Must he check for an al Qaeda identity card before
responding?
The obvious answer is that such acts very often constitute
terrorism in Iraq and sectarian violence in Iraq. The two are
deeply intertwined. To try and make an artificial distinction
between terrorism and sectarian violence is to fundamentally
misunderstand al Qaeda's strategy--which is to incite
sectarian violence. Our military commanders say that trying
to artificially separate counterterrorism from
counterinsurgency will not succeed, and that moving in with
search and destroy missions to kill and capture terrorists,
only to immediately cede the territory to the enemy, is the
failed strategy of the past 4 years. We should not, and must
not, return to such a disastrous course.
The strategy that General Petraeus has put into place--a
traditional counterinsurgency strategy that emphasizes
protecting the population, which gets our troops out of the
bases and into the areas they are trying to protect, and
which supplies sufficient force levels to carry out the
mission--that strategy is the correct one. It has become
clear by now that we cannot set a date for withdrawal without
setting a date for surrender.
Mr. President, this fight is about Iraq but not about Iraq
alone. It is greater than that and more important still,
about whether America still has the political courage to
fight for victory or whether we will settle for defeat, with
all of the terrible things that accompany it. We cannot walk
away gracefully from defeat in this war.
Consider just one final statement from the August National
Intelligence Estimate. It reads:
``We assess that changing the mission of the Coalition
forces from a primarily counterinsurgency and stabilization
role to a primary combat support role for Iraqi forces and
counterterrorist operations to prevent AQI from establishing
a safehaven would erode any security gains achieved thus
far.''
Should we pass this amendment, we would erode the security
gains that our brave men and women have fought so hard to
achieve and embark on the road of surrender. For the sake of
American interests, our national values, the future of Iraq
and the stability of the Middle East, we must not send our
country down this disastrous course. All of us want our
troops to come home, and to come home as soon as possible.
But we should want our soldiers to return to us with honor,
the honor of victory that is due all of those who have paid
with the ultimate sacrifice. We have many responsibilities to
the people who elected us, but one responsibility outweighs
all the others, and that is to protect this great and good
Nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. I urge my
colleagues to vote no on the Feingold amendment.

Mr. KYL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent that the remaining time I have
be reserved for further debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like 5 minutes, if that is
possible, to speak against the Feingold-Reid amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. GRAHAM. To my dear friend from Wisconsin, Russ Feingold, I
appreciate his passion. I know he is acting on his beliefs. We need
more of that. I disagree with him fairly dramatically about the
consequences of his proposal. As I understand it, it would stop funding
in many areas of military operations that are ongoing in Iraq now and,
by using funding, restrict the mission in a way that would be ill-
advised for our own national security interests.
The biggest winner of a change in mission through restricted funding
would be Iran. The Iranian regime is actively involved in trying to
kill American servicemembers to drive us out. Their biggest fear in
Iran is to have a functional democratic representative government in
Iraq on their border that would create problems for the way they run
their own country. They are not going to stand on the sideline and
watch Iraq be transformed into a representative form of government
without a fight. They have chosen to be involved in militia groups with
the goal of killing Americans. The goal is to create casualties and
break the will of the American people so we will leave Iraq.
In terms of al-Qaida, the biggest loser of the surge militarily has
been al-Qaida. They have been diminished because of a new way of
confronting this enemy where we get out behind the walls. We live with
the Iraqi Army and police forces. We are taking the fight to al-Qaida,
and we have been able to marginalize and diminish their presence.
This amendment would embolden an enemy that is literally on the mat.
It would send the wrong message to Iran at a time when they need to
hear something different than America is going to leave. They need to
hear the message that America is going to stand behind the forces in
Iraq to create a stable Iraq. The last thing this Congress should do is
create a change in mission through funding that will undercut an
operation that has produced results on the security front never known
before.
Under the rules of engagement, how do you determine who al-Qaida is
with any certainty over there?
So the idea of restricting the military mission against the advice of
General Petraeus seems to me to be ill-advised. The Congress has a
robust role in time of war. But at the end of the day, we have to make
a decision: Whose advice are we going to follow in terms of military
strategy: General Petraeus and his colleagues or are we going to try to
rewrite the mission based on what we think is best on the ground
militarily?
I think it would be a huge mistake for this Congress to adopt this
amendment because it would be welcome news in Tehran. It would be seen
by a very oppressive regime that, America is going to leave Iraq, and
they would be the big beneficiary of what would be left behind, which
would be a chaotic situation.
Does Iran want chaos in Iraq? To some extent. Does Iran want a
representative government in Iraq? Absolutely not. They are going to do
everything within their power to make sure that does not happen. It is
in our national security interest to make sure it does.
Al-Qaida has been diminished greatly from the surge. If this
amendment was adopted, it would be cheered on by al-Qaida operatives--
we are back in the fight because we know when America is going to
leave. We know when the mission is going to be changed.
So I would argue this amendment comes at the worst possible time for
American national security interests, and it is ill-advised in concept
and impossible to execute.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Carolina
for engaging in debate in the respectful and substantive way he has
done so. We agree on many issues but not on this one.
Let me, in the very brief time I have, respond to a couple things he
said. First, just an observation. He asked: How, under my amendment,
are we going to determine who al-Qaida is in Iraq?

[[Page S12495]]

Well, I guess I ask the question: How are we doing it now?
Presumably, we are identifying our enemy and attacking them. We are not
just attacking them indiscriminately.
He said: How in the world are we going to determine who al-Qaida is?
I certainly hope we have some kind of a way to do that now. I am very
puzzled by that argument.
But the broader point of this issue is this: The heart of the
argument of the Senator from South Carolina is that somehow having a
timetable and withdrawing from this mistake in Iraq is going to help
both al-Qaida and Iran. I would say it is just the opposite. The
situation in Iraq is ideal for al-Qaida. It is sapping our military
strength in Iraq and throughout the world at the same time that al-
Qaida, according to our own public National Intelligence Estimate, is
reinvigorating itself in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, and around the
world. So it is just the opposite.
Continuing this involvement in Iraq that we have right now completely
plays into the hands of those who attacked us on 9/11.
Now, the Senator from South Carolina poses the notion that somehow
Iran would be pleased to see us leave Iraq. Well, I am sure that is
true eventually. But at this point it is actually ideal for Iran. They
are expanding their influence, and we are taking the hits. We are
taking the hits in terms of casualties, we are taking the hits
financially, and they do not have to go in and invade or try to control
Iraq.
So actually it is the status quo that benefits Iran. It is perfect
for them, and they are showing it every day. So it is just the
opposite. Two of the most problematic enemies we have--Iran, in the
form of a country that is very difficult for us, and al-Qaida, in terms
of a terrorist organization--they benefit from our mistake of
indefinitely continuing this involvement in Iraq. I believe that is the
national security analysis that is most appropriate. That is why I
offer this amendment in the spirit of national security, not simply in
the spirit of trying to bring our troops out of Iraq.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and ask unanimous
consent, again, that my time be reserved.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to voice my opposition to this
measure, not because I do not agree with the goal sought by this
Feingold amendment; I agree with it. However, it was the decision of
the leadership of the committee that matters that can be appropriately
debated in the Iraq supplemental appropriations bill should be debated
there.
I believe if we open the door to the Feingold amendment, then I am in
no position to suggest we oppose other appropriate measures for the
supplemental. Therefore, reluctantly, but forcefully, I must say I hope
my colleagues will support me in opposing this measure.
I thank you, sir.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I just want to say to the Senator from
Hawaii, through the Chair, how much I respect him. I understand why he
has to take this approach on this particular attempt to offer this
amendment. The fact is, this great Senator, this war hero, has
supported us on this amendment in other contexts. He is in agreement
with us.
He has a responsibility on this bill that I respect. But what greater
statement that we are on the right track in terms of wanting to have a
reasonable withdrawal from Iraq than the fact that this great Senator
has been supportive. So I thank him. Of course, I hope people will vote
with me on this amendment, but I completely understand his reason for
taking this approach on this particular bill.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, what time do I have?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 21\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
The Senator from Wisconsin has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, many of my colleagues have expressed
serious concerns about the war in Iraq. I would say now is the time to
put those concerns into action. We have the power and the
responsibility to end a war that is hurting our troops, our fiscal
situation, and our national security.
By voting for the Feingold-Reid amendment today, we can safely
redeploy our troops from Iraq. I understand the bill's managers would
rather not address Iraq on their bill. That is their decision. But I
note this amendment has the strong support of the Democratic
leadership. So I thank Senator Reid for his support and leadership.
I urge my colleagues to support the Feingold-Reid amendment.
Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to
amendment No. 3164 offered by the Senator from Wisconsin.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter),
and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 28, nays 68, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 362 Leg.]

YEAS--28

Akaka
Biden
Boxer
Brown
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Clinton
Dodd
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Menendez
Murray
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Stabenow
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--68

Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johnson
Kyl
Landrieu
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCaskill
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Roberts
Salazar
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Webb

NOT VOTING--4

McCain
Obama
Specter
Warner
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 28, the
nays are 68. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the
adoption of the amendment, the amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware is
recognized.

State Children's Health Insurance Program

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, if there is no pending business before the
Senate, I wish to be recognized to speak for a few minutes on the State
Children's Health Insurance Program, which we call affectionately
SCHIP. I was privileged to be chairman of the National Governors
Association in the late nineties, when Governors and a lot of other
folks negotiated with the Congress and the Clinton administration to
create the State Children's Health

[[Page S12496]]

Insurance Program. I am pleased--as I know a lot of people are in this
country--to see all of the good it has done.
We know that in America today we have roughly 45 million Americans
who have no health care coverage. It is like a quilt that fits over a
bed, if you will, and the quilt has different patches to it. One of the
big patches on the quilt providing health care coverage to a lot of
Americans is employer-provided coverage, another is Medicare, and then
there is Medicaid for low-income folks. Another piece of the quilt
would be the federally funded community health centers; and another
piece might be veterans health care, or DOD health care. Altogether,
they add up to provide enough to cover 85 percent of the American
populace that needs health care coverage. For the folks who are not
covered, a large part of the 15 percent who have no coverage is people
who live with families where somebody works every day, every week. The
problem for those families is they don't have employer-provided health
care coverage or enough disposable income to pay their share of that
employer-provided coverage, and they end up doing without.
Most of those people still get health care eventually. That health
care coverage comes too frequently in an emergency room of a hospital
in their community. When somebody gets sick enough, that is where they
go to get care.
My colleague in the chair and I are both familiar with the tragedy
this year where a young boy in Maryland, I think, had a problem with a
tooth that abscessed, and he ended up going into the hospital through
the emergency room and being hospitalized for an extended period of
time. The cost of the health care he received was in the hundreds of
thousands of dollars. The greater cost is that he died; he lost his
life. Another tragedy was in the case of a young man who was eligible
for SCHIP and his family didn't know it. It is almost like the old
question: If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody there to
hear it, is there a noise? If you have a benefit such as SCHIP or
Medicaid and a family doesn't know they are eligible, is there a
benefit? I am tempted to say there probably is not.
A lot of people in this country who ought to be eligible for this
program, who could be eligible for the program, would be if the
President had not vetoed the legislation we passed. I listened to
Senator Grassley talk about the President's veto. I admire him a great
deal and the way he stood up, stood tall on this issue, along with
Senator Baucus and others, to craft the expansion of this program. That
speaks volumes about Senator Grassley and his care for young people.
Among the criticism we hear of this expansion of this program is that
it is more of a government fix for our health care woes in America. The
coverage that most kids have under the SCHIP program is not provided by
the Government. They actually go to a private program and it is
provided through any one of a variety of programs. We also hear that
this is more Government spending. This is actually Government spending
where we pay for it. We have an offset here, and not everybody likes
it, but it is an increase in the tax on tobacco, cigarettes, where we
raise enough money to offset the cost of this program over the next 5
years.
Here is a chart. For the Children's Health Insurance Program, the
cost over the next 5 years is about $35 billion. We raise the money to
pay for it, and we are required to under the rules, which is a good
thing. Our pay-go procedures require that. We have to come up with an
offset to pay for that so it is deficit neutral. So this $35 billion is
paid for. It doesn't make the deficit bigger and it provides health
care coverage for about 4 million more kids. They will have a chance to
have a primary health care home. They will not have to look for health
care coverage in an emergency room of a hospital. They will not end up
spending days or weeks or longer in a hospital as an inpatient trying
to get better from something that could have been caught early on by a
primary care physician.
A good comparison here is the SCHIP program expansion is paid for--
the $35 billion is fully paid for. There will be no increase in the
deficit. Compare that to what the President is asking for an increase
in spending with respect to the war in Iraq. The President is going to
ask for additional money in the weeks ahead; he will ask us to
appropriate $197 billion to pay for our involvement in Iraq and
Afghanistan for roughly the next year. It is not paid for. It is not
offset by cuts in spending someplace else. It is not offset by
increases in revenue somewhere else. That will be $197 billion in extra
debt.
Some people think we can run up these deficits and we will print the
paper to pay for them. We don't. We borrow money from folks all over
this country--from investors, and from investors all over the world.
Some of those investors crop up in unlikely places. Our debt now to
China is in the hundreds of billions of dollars and growing. We owe a
fair amount of money to folks in South Korea. A lot of debt is held by
the Japanese. You kind of wonder sometimes when you consider our
inability to push back hard on the Chinese for currency manipulation
and other issues such as the quality of the products, their lack of
respect for patent rights and intellectual property rights, it is hard
for us to push back when these people are holding hundreds of billions
of dollars of our paper, money we owe them, because they have helped to
fund programs for which we have not had the moral courage or fiscal
discipline to raise the money to pay for ourselves.
We have a choice. The President is faced with a choice. He is asked
on the one hand to increase the debt by almost $200 billion to support
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but not to pay for it, to basically
put that burden on our kids and say, someday you will have the
opportunity to pay this debt, and to compare that with the SCHIP
program which is not cheap, but over the next 5 years, $35 billion, $7
billion a year to provide health care coverage for 4 million children
who otherwise would not have it. But the difference is, it is paid for.
We actually raise the money to pay for this program.
I said to a group of people yesterday, among the words that are most
used around here, ``reform'' is one of them. We hear a lot about reform
in almost everything about which we talk. Another thing we talk about
around here is bipartisan--bipartisan this or bipartisan that. This is
a place where sometimes bipartisan, a lot of times--the underlying
appropriations bill on the floor today is actually a bipartisan bill,
but we don't always see that.
SCHIP, the expansion of the Children's Health Insurance Program, is
about as bipartisan an effort as we can mount around here, especially
when the administration has been fighting us tooth and nail. Again, to
our Republican colleagues who stood up and joined a number of our
Democrats, including Senator Baucus, chairman of the Finance Committee,
I say: Good for you. Not just good for you because it is an example, a
tangible example of bipartisan cooperation, but good for you because
you put the concerns of our children ahead of those other issues and
you are willing to pay for something we want to have.
Mr. President, in Delaware, we believe that programs worth having,
for Government to pay for them, whether it is transportation,
education, health care, programs worth having we ought to pay for. If
we are not willing to pay for them, we shouldn't have as much of them
as we otherwise would have. We have taken this principle and embodied
this proposal under SCHIP.
I am proud of the stand we have taken and the House has taken. I am
very disappointed in the decision the President has reached.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The assistant majority leader.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we have all seen recent news reports about
security contractors in Iraq, specifically stories about Blackwater, a
private company, which is under contract with the Department of Defense
and the Department of State, perhaps other agencies, to provide
security guards for American personnel and others who are in combat
zones. There have been a lot of questions raised about questionable
conduct and lack of oversight and a lot of questions about
accountability. We need answers.
Last week, Secretary Gates of the Department of Defense, a man whom I
respect, testified before the Appropriations Committee about the needs
of the Department of Defense. I asked him a

[[Page S12497]]

series of basic questions about these security contractors: How many
contractor personnel are on the ground? Who is there? How long have
they been there? What oversight is in place? Who is in charge? I wanted
to know who has oversight of these contractors and how the people are
authorized to use deadly force, how they are held accountable for their
actions. The Secretary's response was he didn't know.
The amendment I filed and hope to offer sets aside funding for the
inspector general of the Department of Defense to find some answers.
The amendment asks for a report that documents how much we are spending
on private security contractors and how many people work for them.
The report also details the Department of Defense oversight role and
the scope of authority of military commanders over private security
contractors.
Finally, we need to know the basics. What laws govern the conduct of
these contractors? What rules of engagement govern their activities?
How is it possible we are in the fifth year of this war and still don't
have these questions answered? Six years into the war in Afghanistan,
and we still don't know for certain what the standards are.
The incident a few weeks ago in which Blackwater employees were
involved in the deaths of eight Iraqi civilians raised a lot of
questions. In response, let me recount what we have learned.
Since 2005, according to Government investigations, Blackwater has
been involved in at least 195 ``escalation of force'' incidents; that
is, situations in which Blackwater employees fired shots. That is an
average of 1.4 shooting incidents per week.
In over 80 percent of these incidents since 2005, Blackwater's own
reports document either casualties or property damage.
We have learned in one case the Iraqi casualty was shot in the head.
In another, a Blackwater employee tried to cover up a shooting that
killed an innocent bystander.
Perhaps the most disturbing incident that has come to light is the
point-blank shooting of a security guard by a Blackwater employee in an
off-duty confrontation. The Blackwater employee is reported to have
been intoxicated and was fumbling with his weapon after the shooting.
Here is how the New York Times described the company's response:

The acting ambassador at the United States Embassy in
Baghdad suggested that Blackwater apologize for the shooting
and pay the dead Iraqi man's family $250,000, lest the Iraqi
government bar Blackwater from working there, the report
said. Blackwater eventually paid the family $15,000,
according to the report, after an embassy diplomatic
security official complained that the ``crazy sums''
proposed by the ambassador could encourage Iraqis to try
to ``get killed by our guys to financially guarantee their
family's future.''

So who has oversight of these security contractors? Whom do they
answer to in Iraq and Afghanistan? What is their relationship to the
military?
The old Coalition Provisional Authority under Mr. Bremer, who
received a Gold Medal from President Bush, exempted security
contractors from Iraqi law, and whether they are liable under U.S. law
is murky at best.
If Blackwater employees are accountable under U.S. law, why hasn't
there been one investigation or prosecution? Not a single Blackwater
employee has been prosecuted. In fact, in the case of the drunken
employee who killed the bodyguard of the Vice President, he was quickly
spirited out of the country, apparently with our Government's blessing,
to protect him from the Iraqis.
Stories such as these do not make the United States look good in the
eyes of the Iraqis, in the eyes of the world, and, frankly, in the eyes
of most fairminded American citizens. The number of shootings, the
amount of Iraqis killed and wounded, the amount of property damage
done--all of it suggests there needs to be a legitimate investigation.
I am not going to castigate every private security contractor in Iraq
and Afghanistan. I have met some of them. Many of them are brave,
dedicated, professional individuals who risk their lives to protect
those whom they are charged to protect. Many are honest and dedicated.
But the purpose of the amendment is to demand accountability. Private
security contractors have to play by the rules--somebody's rules. If
they don't, we as a government have to act.
These private security contractors are part of America's face in
Iraq. This is a struggle to win the hearts and minds of those people
and to create a peaceful society. Every time there is a reckless or
illegitimate shooting of an Iraqi civilian, we take one step back from
achieving that important goal.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.

Amendment No. 3166

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be set
aside so that I may offer an amendment on behalf of Senator Boxer.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. I send an amendment to the desk.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the
amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mrs. Boxer,
proposes an amendment numbered 3166.

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

(Purpose: To make available from Operation and Maintenance, Defense-
Wide, $5,000,000 for the program of the National Military Family
Association known as Operation Purple)

At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8107.  Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by title II under the heading ``Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', up to $5,000,000 may be
available to the National Military Family Association for
purposes of the program of the Association known as
``Operation Purple''.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.

Amendments Nos. 3144 and 3145 En Bloc

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send two
amendments to the desk and lay aside the pending business.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. KYL. The first amendment is No. 3144 and the second one is No.
3145.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes amendments
numbered 3144 and 3145 en bloc.

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

Amendment No. 3144

(Purpose: To make available from within amounts already appropriated in
the Bill for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide
$10,000,000 for the Space Test Bed)

At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8107.  Of the amounts appropriated or other otherwise
made available by title IV under the heading ``Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', up to
$10,000,000 may be available for Program Element 0603895C for
the Space Test Bed.

Amendment No. 3145

(Purpose: To make available from Procurement, Defense-Wide, $7,000,000
for the Insider Threat program)

At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8107.  Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by title III under the heading ``Procurement,
Defense-Wide'', up to $7,000,000 may be available for DISA
Information Systems Security for the Insider Threat program.

Mr. KYL. These will be pending separately, not together.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, they will be
considered separately.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will be happy to speak. I believe the
Senator from Delaware was going to speak. If he wants to speak now, I
will be happy to defer to him.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

[[Page S12498]]

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Kyl amendment No. 3145.
Mr. BIDEN. May I make an inquiry to the Senator from Arizona, is his
amendment going to require a vote?
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I hope both of these amendments can be worked
out, but we haven't been able to work the first one out yet. I will not
take very long, but I understood the Senator from Delaware was here and
prepared to talk about his amendment. I am happy to defer to him and
discuss mine later.
Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator very much. I would like to take
advantage of that offer. President Talabani is in the Foreign Relations
Committee at the moment. It would accommodate nicely my schedule.

Amendment No. 3142

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Biden amendment on
MRAPs be called back up. It was the pending business until it was laid
aside.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the pending
amendment will be set aside. The amendment now pending is the Biden
amendment No. 3142.
The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I say to my good friends, Senator Inouye
and Senator Stevens, there are no two more seasoned or devoted Senators
to protecting the military and our fighting men and women. I know my
amendment with regard to so-called MRAPs, mine-resistant vehicles, is
an inconvenience, and I am not being facetious when I say that. I know
that my friend--and I don't have a closer friend in the Senate than
Senator Inouye--supports the essence of what I am proposing, but there
has been an attempt, understandably, to have all amendments that could
be related in any way to Iraq placed on the supplemental. This
amendment will be placed on the supplemental. But the truth is, we are
not likely to get to the supplemental until January.
I know one of the Democratic leaders, Senator Durbin, is in the
Chamber. He may know better than I if that is accurate, but that is my
understanding. In this place, you have to have, as they say, a horse to
ride. You have to have a vehicle to be able to attach something
important that you support so that it will get some consideration.
The amendment I am proposing today is one that calls for a
significant increase in the production of mine-resistant vehicles. I
know I sound like a broken record to many of my colleagues since I
started raising it last spring. This amendment is very simple, and it
is costly. It provides the $23.6 billion needed to replace every Army
up-armored HMMWV vehicle in Iraq with a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected
vehicle, so-called MRAPs.
It is exactly the same thing we did on the authorization bill that
passed Monday night. Our commanders in the field told us as recently as
2 weeks ago--I met with some of those commanders, Marine commanders in
Ramadi, and took a ride in a new mine-resistant vehicle. I also sat in
an up-armored HMMWVs--so the Marines, from the two-star general to the
sergeant who drove various vehicles, could make a point to me about how
different they are.
They showed me a photograph of a roadside bomb having struck one of
the new vehicles--that is a Cougar, which is one size of the up-armored
mine-resistant vehicles and it showed where on, I believe, August 28,
in that same city, a roadside bomb had exploded, 250 pounds of
explosives. And it literally blew this vehicle, which is many times the
weight of the largest SUV any American drives in this country--I don't
know the exact weight, but it is close to 38,000 pounds fully loaded--
it blew it so high up in the air that it literally brought down the
telephone wires. The wheels got caught in the telephone wires. A
standard telephone pole, I don't know, are they 20, 25 feet, maybe
more, maybe less? It blew the vehicle so high into the air it literally
brought down the telephone wires. And when it hit, the vehicle,
probably in an area the circumference of this Chamber, the pieces were
spread all around the landscape. The engine would have been over by the
Republican cloakroom, the drivetrain would have been over by the exit
door on the Democratic side back toward the marble room, the axle would
be sitting up by the Democratic cloakroom, and right in the middle of
the Senate floor would be the cabin of the vehicle.

There were seven soldiers in that vehicle. Had that been an up-
armored HMMWV, everyone would be dead. Not one of those soldiers died.
Not one. They suffered severe concussions, four of them, but that was
the worst of their injuries. And one of those young sergeants, as the
brass went through showing me this and I got into vehicles and we drove
and so on and so forth--we are now inside Ramadi--as I am getting out
and leaving, one of those young soldiers was exuberant. First, he
saluted me and said: Sir, as Senator Reed, a West Point graduate, is
accustomed to having been done to him in the old days and even now--and
then he became emotional in his thanks for that vehicle, thanking us
for insisting on building them. It is truly a lifesaving vehicle.
Now, our commanders in the field tell us these Mine Resistant Ambush
Protective vehicles are going to reduce casualties by 67 to 80 percent.
That is the range, 67 to 80 percent. Put it another way, had they been
riding around in these vehicles since we knew they were needed, we
would have over a thousand fewer dead and over 10,000 fewer seriously
wounded, literally, because over 70 percent of all the deaths and
casualties are caused by IEDs, or roadside bombs. When I found out
about how good these vehicles are last year in Iraq and then again in
testimony the beginning of this calendar year, and then when a
whistleblower came to me telling me commanders in the field had asked
for these in February of 2005, I was dumbfounded as to why we weren't
building them. With the great help of everyone on this floor, I think
the vote was 97 to 0, we accelerated production by adding $1.5 billion
to last year's wartime funding bill.
The lead commander on the ground in Iraq is Lieutenant General
Odierno, and he told us 6 months ago that he wanted to replace the
Army's approximately 18,000 up-armored HMMWVs with these new Mine
Resistant vehicles. Instead of adjusting the requirement immediately,
the Pentagon has taken time to study the issue. They originally agreed
the Army should get 380--380--of these vehicles. That was in December
of 2006. Then, in March of this year, after the Commandant of the
Marine Corps said it was his highest moral priority to get his folks in
3,700 of these vehicles, they agreed to increase the number to 2,500
for the Army. In August, they added a few more and agreed to 2,726 for
the Army. This month, they agreed that the general needs a little over
half of what he asked for--10,000 of these vehicles.
Slowly we are getting there. But we have seen this movie before, Mr.
President, with the body armor, with the up-armored HMMWVs. Until the
Congress insisted that the better protection be fielded for all of
those troops in Iraq, it was not. The catalyst came from here. We
insisted. Remember just several years ago how many kids we were sending
into battle without the proper body armor and how many National Guard
units we were sending over who were not adequately equipped and how
initially the military was threatening to discipline young women and
men who were taking sheets of metal to put on the vehicles they drove
on convoys ferrying equipment from the gulf all the way up into
Baghdad? They were putting these sheets of steel on the sides of their
doors and the bottom. They were threatened with being disciplined.
We have very short memories here. Very short memories. But in the
meantime, a lot of people die. Some would have died inevitably, but a
lot--a lot--would not have. So today we are insisting the Army get all
of the 18,000 MRAPs the commanders in the field have asked for.
Now, to be honest, I can't understand why it is taking so long to
agree to replace all these vehicles. It makes no sense. We know how
effective these vehicles are. We surely can't be making an economic
argument. Surely there is no one here who is going to say we can't
afford to protect these troops with the technology we know--we know--we
know--will protect these troops. Surely no one is going to make that
argument.

[[Page S12499]]

Last week, General Pace, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, told the Appropriations Committee that MRAPs have been tested in
Aberdeen with 300 pounds of explosives below them--300 pounds--and they
survive. Are we only supposed to care about the tactical judgement of
the commanders in the field when it is cheap? I don't think that is
what the American people think we are doing for our military. Our
military men and women have a right to expect a lot more from us.
I know some say it is not possible to build a total of 23,000 MRAPs
in 12 to 15 months. Why not? Why not? Imagine President Roosevelt, in
the middle of World War II--and this war has lasted longer than World
War II--having said: You know, we need to get X number more fighter
aircraft over in theater. We need to have more landing craft for D-Day.
But you know what. The present system just won't be able to build them
all. We just can't do it. Can you imagine that being said? Can you
fathom that being said?

I don't get it. I don't get it. Are we saying that we cannot
mobilize, through the President of the United States and the weight of
the United States Congress, the construction of vehicles that we know
will save lives; that we know will reduce critical injuries? You are as
dead in Baghdad as you were on Normandy Beach. You are as dead in
Baghdad as you were on Normandy Beach. And the pain of the family of
that fallen angel is not one bit different than the heroism we
celebrate today in the Ken Burns documentary series on the Greatest
Generation from World War II. There is no difference. There is no
distinction. The pain is as searing. So I ask you all a question: Can
you imagine during that war the Congress and the President saying: I
don't think we can get this done?
Mr. President, this is basically a modified truck. With real
leadership and a national level commitment, America can certainly make
this happen. I believe that the can-do spirit and deep patriotism of
our business men and women is as profound as it was back in the year
1942 or 1945. MRAP manufacturers want to make the 23,000 vehicles
needed to save the lives of our men and women on the frontline. But we
have to do our part.
In Congress, the best thing we can do to make sure it happens is to
fully fund every vehicle needed up front. Contractors and
subcontractors can only expand their capacity if we are clear on what
we need and what we are prepared to fund. This amendment allows us to
do that. It also ensures that any delays in dealing with the overall
wartime supplemental funding bill do not cause the production lines
that are only now getting up to speed to shut down. Said another way,
we are finally getting these production lines up and running. There are
five companies, some relatively small, that, based on contracts, have
gone out and hired 200, 500, 1,000 more people. They have expanded
their facilities to build these vehicles alone. But they can only
expand to the degree to which they know they have a contract.
We funded these MRAPs in the last supplemental and the Continuing
Resolution to the point that we are not going to be able to build any
more of them by the time March comes along if we do not have money in
this bill. We are not going to be able to build any more. If we wait
until the supplemental to let these contracts, we will have a hiatus of
2 to 4 to 6 months where they shut down these lines. These are not mom-
and-pop operations, but they are also not General Motors, Chrysler,
Ford, Toyota, or any other major automobile manufacturer. So this is
about how many more months in delay getting these vehicles are we going
to cause by not putting all of the funding in this appropriations bill.
My amendment provides all of the funding needed. That is what my
amendment will do.
It also ensures that any delays in dealing with the overall wartime
supplemental funding bill will not cause production to shut down. Once
we provide the full funding, American business must step up and get the
job done, the Pentagon must manage the program aggressively and
attentively, and the President is going to have to make it clear this
is a national priority. But we have no chance of making all these
needed vehicles as quickly as possible if we fund that program bit by
bit, in fits and starts.
Once again, I ask my colleagues to weigh their options. Do we do our
best to save American lives, knowing the only downside is the possible
need to reprogram funding at the end of the year; or do we care more
about the unknown total wartime funding limit than we care about these
lives? I know every one of my colleagues would do anything in their
power to increase the possibility that we reduce casualties. Well, here
is the way to do it.
It seems to me that certain things are a matter of sacred honor and
exceed anything having to do with budgets. We can argue the national
interest is better protected and our physical security is better
protected by building X, Y, or Z weapon system, and we can argue
whether our failing to build it is going to affect the lives of the
American people. That is a very fundamentally different issue than
knowing you have something, that if you physically place an American
soldier in that vehicle, you will increase by 60 to 80 percent the
chance of that man or woman living, and yet not doing it. That is a
different deal. This is not your ordinary appropriations program. It is
a little bit like the ultimate body armor.
Would anybody here, if we knew that by spending X dollars more we
could increase the life expectancy of every soldier by providing the
right body armor in the theater, would we not do it, no matter what it
cost? Well, this is a form of body armor, a form of body armor that we
know, if it is possessed, is going to reduce the cause of over 70
percent of the casualties in theater. If these vehicles can reduce
American casualties by two-thirds or more, I don't know how we can do
anything else.
I agree with the Commandant of the Marine Corps, GEN James Conway,
when he said: ``Anything less is immoral.'' Let me say it again:
``Anything less is immoral.''
So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I ask for the
yeas and nays on this vote when the appropriate time comes. I ask for
them now, so that we know when the amendment is called up we get a
vote.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second? There
appears to be.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, there is no question that these vehicles,
the MRAPs, save lives. The committee is well aware of that, and we
concur with that. That is why, Mr. President, to date, Congress has
provided nearly $11 billion for the rapid production and fielding of
8,000 MRAP vehicles.
As a result, there are now 435 MRAPs fielded in the theater, and by
Memorial Day 2008 we will have fielded 8,000 MRAPs.
Believe me, we are doing everything possible to ensure the Department
has sufficient funds to continue this production of MRAPs. On Monday,
this week, in the short-term continuing resolution, we provided another
additional $5.2 billion exclusively for MRAPs. Providing a specific
appropriation in a continuing resolution is extremely unusual and
demonstrates the commitment of the Congress, and in particular the
Appropriations Committee, to ensure that all the funding that is
necessary for MRAPs will be provided to the Department of Defense.
The vehicles manufactured with these funds will be produced in March
and April of 2008 and fielded in the theater by Memorial Day 2008.
We are aware there is a remaining fiscal year 2008 requirement for
$11.5 billion for MRAPs, even though the administration has not yet
requested any funding. The additional $11.5 billion would fully fund
the new increased program requirement of 15,274 vehicles, including
10,000 MRAPs for the Army.
The Department of Defense is seeking this $11.5 billion by November
15 in order to avoid a break in production. This is very important. We
anticipate addressing this in the upcoming supplemental. But if it is
not completed by November 15, it will be in the next continuing
resolution.
The vehicles produced and procured with these funds would be produced
by May through September 2008, approximately at a rate of 1,200
vehicles a month. This additional $11.5 billion for

[[Page S12500]]

MRAP fully funds the program requirement in fiscal year 2008 and
saturates the industrial base through the end of 2008--September 2008.
Any funding provided in addition to the requirement of $11.5 billion,
would be for vehicles that would not be produced--and I repeat--would
not be produced until fiscal year 2009, and many vehicles would not be
fielded in the theater until that spring, summer, and fall of 2009.
I believe many of us believe our troop presence in Iraq will be
significantly reduced by then.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? I may be able to
step away from this if--I think I heard my friend correctly. Did I hear
him say that if in fact it is not clear that we are going to be able to
prevent this gap in the shutdown of the line, that by November the
Senator is saying the committee would have a continuing resolution that
included the specific money?
Mr. INOUYE. That is $11.5 billion.
Mr. BIDEN. Then, if I understand this correctly, I think my friend
and the Senator from Alaska are doing exactly what I asked for. My only
worry is that, A, we make a commitment to the total of 23,000 in the
supplemental, a commitment that would get us to 23,000; and, B, we do
not have to wait until January. Because if that is the case, these
small operations will have needed a 3- to 6-month lead time, once they
get a contract, to keep the line going. But what I hear my friend
saying is that we would, in November, if it didn't look like the
supplemental was going to happen, we in November would fill that gap so
there would not be a shutdown in these lines. Is that what my friend is
saying?
Mr. INOUYE. I will give you my word, sir.
Mr. BIDEN. That is good enough for me. I am happy to withdraw the
amendment. I have never known the Senator from Hawaii or the Senator
from Alaska, when they gave their word, to do anything--do anything but
that. The supplemental we are going to revisit in January, that has the
additional money to get us to 23,000. What my friend is saying here is
that $11.48 billion would be in any continuing resolution if we did not
get to that?
Mr. INOUYE. That is $11.5 billion.
Mr. BIDEN. It is $11.5 billion.

Amendment No. 3142 Withdrawn

Mr. President, I would obviously prefer that it be put here. But I
tell you, if there has ever been appropriate use of the expression
someone's word is ``as good as gold,'' it is about my friend from
Hawaii. I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. INOUYE. You are very kind, sir. Thank you very much.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Is there objection?
Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.

Amendment No. 3129

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have been notified by both sides that my
Amendment No. 3129, the Troops to Nurse Teachers Program to enhance the
nurse recruitment goals for the military and civilian side, has been
accepted, and unless there is some objection, I ask this amendment now
be called up and by voice vote accepted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the
pending amendment?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I thought
we were going to have a package of these amendments.
I will not object, but I do think it should have been in a package. I
hope we get a package here so we do not do them one by one. I do not
object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no objection. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for himself and Ms. Mikulski,
proposes an amendment numbered 3129.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To make available from Military Personnel $3,000,000 for a
pilot program on troops to nurse teachers)

At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8107. (a) Amount for Troops to Nurse Teachers Program
From Military Personnel, Army.--Of the amount appropriated or
otherwise made available by title I under the heading
``Military Personnel, Army'', up to $1,000,000 may be
available for a pilot program on troops to nurse teachers.
(b) Amount for Troops to Nurse Teachers Program From
Military Personnel, Navy.--Of the amount appropriated or
otherwise made available by title I under the heading
``Military Personnel, Navy'', up to $1,000,000 may be
available for a pilot program on troops to nurse teachers.
(c) Amount for Troops to Nurse Teachers Program From
Military Personnel, Air Force.--Of the amount appropriated or
otherwise made available by title I under the heading
``Military Personnel, Air Force'', up to $1,000,000 may be
available for a pilot program on troops to nurse teachers.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we are engaged in one of the longest
conflicts in American history, and the need for qualified nurses in
military medical facilities is increasing.
Unfortunately, the military faces the same difficulty recruiting and
retaining nurses that civilian medical facilities are facing.
Neither the Army nor the Air Force has met nurse recruitment goals
since the 1990s. In 2004, the Navy Nurse Corps fell 32 percent below
its recruitment target, while the Air Force missed its nurse
recruitment target by 30 percent.
The Army, Navy and Air Force each have a 10 percent shortage of
nurses, with shortages reaching nearly 40 percent in some critical
specialties.
Civilian hospitals face similar challenges. According to the American
College of Healthcare Executives, 72 percent of hospitals experienced a
nursing shortage in 2004.
In 2000, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, HHS, found
that this country was 110,000 nurses short of the number necessary to
adequately provide quality health care for both the civilian and
military sector. By 2005, the shortage had doubled to 219,000. By 2020,
we will be more than 1 million nurses short of what we need for quality
health care--a grave problem for military health care as well as the
nation at large.
One of the major factors contributing to the nursing shortage is the
shortage of teachers at schools of nursing. According to the American
Association of Colleges of Nursing, last year nursing schools across
the nation denied admission to over 40,000 qualified applicants
primarily because there were not enough faculty members to teach the
students. Just in Illinois, 2,000 qualified student applicants were
turned away from schools of nursing because there were not enough
teachers.
The American Association of Colleges of Nursing surveyed more than
400 schools of nursing last year.
Mr. President, 71 percent of the schools reported vacancies on their
faculty. An additional 15 percent said they were fully staffed, but
still needed more faculty to handle the number of students who want to
be trained.
The military recruits nurses from the same source as doctors and
hospitals: civilian nursing schools. Unless we address the lack of
faculty, the shortage of nurses will only worsen.
My amendment to the Defense appropriations bill provides $3 million
to begin a Troops to Nurse Teachers program that will help develop
nurse faculty to address this national shortage.
My proposal is based on a successful Department of Defense program
called ``Troops to Teachers,'' which helps address the shortages of
math, science and special education teachers in high-poverty schools,
and helps military personnel transition to second careers in teaching.
Today, Troops to Teachers is operating in 30 States and has supplied
more than 8,000 new educators since the program's inception in 1995.
The Troops to Nurse Teachers Program seeks to address the nursing
shortage in the different branches of the military while tapping into
the existing knowledge and expertise of military nurses.
The goals of the Troops to Nurse Teachers program are twofold. First,
the program will increase the number of nurse faculty members so
nursing schools can expand enrollment and ease the ongoing shortage.
both in the civilian and military sectors. Second, the Troops to Nurse
Teachers program will help military personnel make successful
transitions to second careers in teaching, similar to Troops to
Teachers.
The program offers incentives to nurses transitioning from the
military to become full-time nurse faculty members, while providing the
military a new recruitment tool and advertising agent.

[[Page S12501]]

For service members who already hold a master's or Ph.D. in nursing
or a related field, the military will provide career placement
ass1stance, transitional stipends, and educational training from
accredited schools of nursing to expedite their transition.
Officers who have been involved in nursing during their military
service are eligible for scholarships to become nurse educators. In
exchange, recipients of scholarships agree to teach at a school of
nursing for 3 years.
Active military nurses can complete a 2-year tour of duty at a
civilian using school to train the next generation of nurses. In
exchange, the nurse officer can agree to serve longer in the military
or the College of Nursing can offer scholarships to nursing students
who commit to enlisting in the military.
Retired nurse officers can accept appointments as full-time faculty
at accredited school of nursing, without giving up their full retired
pay.
This amendment is supported by 20 nursing organizations, including:
American Association of Colleges of Nursing, American Organization of
Nurse Executives, American Nurses Association, National League for
Nursing, American College of Nurse Practitioners, and the American
Association of Nurse Anesthetists.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense, both Personnel and
Recruitment and Health Affairs, support the program, as do the Nurse
Corps of the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force.
With the aging of the baby boom generation and the long-term needs of
our growing number of wounded veterans, the military and civilian
health care systems will need qualified nurses more than ever.
The Troops to Nurse Teacher program will help to alleviate the
shortage of nurse faculty and ultimately help make more nurses
available for both civilian and military medical facilities.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3129) was agreed to.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska and Hawaii
for their cooperation.
I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that motion on the
table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I talked with the managers. I ask unanimous
consent to speak for 3 minutes as in morning business and then at the
conclusion of my remarks that my colleague, Senator Whitehouse, be
recognized immediately after me so we can pay tribute to a State
legislator and friend who passed away in Rhode Island.
Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object, and I do not object, will
the Senators tell us some timeframe?
Mr. REED. I anticipate it will not be more than 5 minutes for myself
and Mr. Whitehouse. That will be more than enough.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Reed and Mr. Whitehouse are printed in today's
Record under ``Morning Business.'')
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

Amendment No. 3144

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I take the floor to speak in opposition to
an amendment that is now pending, amendment No. 3144, offered by my
colleagues, Senator Kyl, Senator Sessions, and Senator Thune.
This amendment will add $10 million to be available for a program
called the Space Test Bed. The space test bed is not a particularly
great description of what it does, but that is the description of the
program. I want to describe why I believe it would be a huge mistake
for us to approve the amendment.
First, let me say it deals with missile defense. There is about $8\1/
2\ billion in the bill, the underlying bill, for missile defense
programs, $8\1/2\ billion.
We are, even now, buying and deploying national missile defense
interceptors that have never been tested against realistic targets,
such as targets with decoys and multiple warheads. We will, I think,
continue to see, as we have seen before, dramatic cost overruns and
test failures.
I recognize the newspaper today, the New York Times, I believe, has a
story that says: Missile defense system is up and running.
That is because they apparently had a successful test last week. It
hit a target. But it is not the kind of target that would be expected
in a real missile attack, were we to have a missile attack. And despite
the fact that we are rushing headlong to deploy this missile defense
system to essentially create a catcher's mitt for intercontinental
ballistic warheads, you find a catcher's mitt, except it is not as
simple as a catcher's mitt. This is about hitting a bullet with a
bullet.
Now, we have spent a massive amount of money on this, over $100
billion so far. Contrast that with the needs that go unmet here at
home.
But to go to the amendment that has been offered, on the space test
bed. It is a program to investigate the utility and the feasibility of
space-based missile defense systems to complement the ground-based
ballistic missile defense system.
In other words, the program would begin to weaponize space. The idea
is you can destroy a missile from a system orbiting in space. This
program is designed to develop a space-based kill vehicle and to
develop command, control, and battle management, communications
structures for space-based missile defense.
I am not talking about ground interceptors, I am talking about space-
based missile defense, and about eventually launching a number of
interceptors from space to test them against the ballistics missiles.
Let me describe what has happened to this proposal. Both the
authorizing committee in the House and the Senate have rejected it.
Neither Appropriations Committee has accepted this proposal to spend
$10 million. In fact, both Appropriations Committees, as I understand
it, have explicitly rejected spending this $10 million.
There is no authorization for this program. Does anybody here recall
having a debate about an authorization to proceed with a space-based
missile program? It has not been authorized.
The disappointing thing about this debate--and we have had this
before in the Senate--is this: If you take a threat meter, and look at
what are the greatest threats to our country--and, yes, there is such a
thing as a threat meter. Our intelligence folks have it. They have it
over in the Department of Defense. If you evaluate what are the
greatest threats to our country--well, let's think of some threats. An
intercontinental ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead. Is that a
threat? Yes, sure could be. They exist. Russia has a lot, China has
some, a few countries have them.
But we are told the most likely threat to this country comes from
rogue nations and terrorist groups. Does anybody think they are going
to launch an attack against this country with an intercontinental
ballistic missile? Not likely at all.
Yes, the threat meter would show that the lowest possible threat to
our country at this point is an intercontinental ballistic missile
aimed at our country. A much greater threat than the threat of an
intercontinental ballistic missile at 14,000 miles an hour aimed at an
American city, a much greater potential threat that almost everyone
will admit is a greater threat, is a ship pulling up to the dock of a
major American port at 3 miles an hour--not 14,000 miles an hour, 3
miles an hour--with a container on it that might include a nuclear
weapon or weapons of mass destruction sent here by a terrorist set to
detonate in a major American city.
Contrast, if you will, what we spend to defend against that
proposition, that much greater threat, as opposed to the billions and
billions, well over $100 billion we have now spent for one of the least
likely threats. I am not suggesting missile defense is irrelevant; it
is not. We should work on missile defense. But once we put in place a
star-spangled, gold-plated ballistic missile defense system, then we
will understand that a much greater threat than a ballistic missile is
going to be a cruise missile traveling low to the ground at a lower
speed, and then we will decide: Well, I guess this catcher mitt we have
developed for over $100 billion cannot defend against that, and yet
that is a much greater likely threat to our country.

[[Page S12502]]

My only point is this: We are spending a lot of money on missile
defense. It is money that well could be used in other areas to protect
against much greater threats on the threat meter against this country.
But as much as we are spending, it is not enough for some. My colleague
comes to the floor and says: We need $10 million more, because we need
to begin this process of weaponizing space, believing, apparently, that
space belongs to us exclusively. It does not.

My hope would be that in a world in which we have thousands, yes,
thousands of nuclear weapons--the best guess is perhaps 20,000, perhaps
30,000 theater and strategic nuclear weapons, the loss of one of which
to a terror organization will be a catastrophe for the world. In a
world in which we have thousands of these weapons, it seems to me that
part of our responsibility as a country is to provide international
leadership, moving to try to, No. 1, prevent the spread of nuclear
weapons to others, and, No. 2, to reduce the number of nuclear weapons
that exist in this world. Only then will we feel that perhaps at some
point we will eliminate the capability of someone to detonate another
nuclear weapon. You know it has been many decades since a nuclear
weapon has been detonated against humans. We hope it never happens
again. We used nuclear weapons in Japan. There were many casualties who
were not soldiers. But, it ended the war. There was great debate about
that. But we have, as a country, tried in every way possible to make
sure that nuclear weapons have not been used again.
So rather than have an amendment saying, let's spend $10 million to
see if we can ramp up some kind of a space-based test module so we can
weaponize space, would it not be much nicer if we could actually bring
to the floor of the Senate and debate once again the issue of this
Senate ratifying the comprehensive test ban treaty. Do you realize that
has never been ratified by this country? One of our leadership
responsibilities, I think, ought to be to ratify that treaty. We tried
some years ago. Guess what. It lost because of people who apparently
did not think we have the responsibility to lead the world away from
the use of nuclear weapons, away from the testing of nuclear weapons,
to lead in a way that prevents others from achieving nuclear weapons,
and to begin to reduce the number of nuclear weapons we have in this
country.
This issue, this amendment, is not about all of that. It is about one
additional piece of the nuclear weapon puzzle and the defense systems
that some want to create.
All of us want defense against those kinds of things that would
attack this country or do harm to this country, and that includes
defenses against missiles. But, as I said, we have spent over $100
billion. We now have a system that, while we are told it has been
deployed, has not ever been tested against a realistic threat. And it
is a defense against the least likely threat against this country.
But to go one step further and decide that what we want to do is
create a space test bed to eventually develop a space kill vehicle, and
to about $300 million between now and 2013 on the program, makes no
sense to me at all. It has not been authorized. It has been explicitly
rejected by the Appropriations Committees for both the House and the
Senate. In my judgment, it would be a giant step in the wrong
direction, sending a signal to the world that this country is going to
embark unilaterally on something that is, in my judgment, very
dangerous to our efforts at nonproliferation and stopping the spread of
nuclear weapons and finally beginning to end that arms race.
Those are the reasons I strongly oppose the amendment that has been
filed, amendment No. 3144. I hope if there is, in fact, a vote on it,
the Senate will express itself similarly.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the Senator was correct in noting that
this amendment was not authorized in the authorizing committees.
Accordingly, it was not considered or debated in the Appropriations
Committee. Unfortunately, we are not here to fully explain what it all
entails. However, we have been advised that this proposal may be the
first step toward a program that was rejected many years ago, the so-
called Star Wars program of the late President Reagan.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

Amendment No. 3144

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to speak on an amendment I offered a
little bit earlier this afternoon, No. 3144. This amendment has been
mischaracterized and, unfortunately, is obviously misunderstood. It
happens to be in the missile defense part of the budget. I would be
happy to have it included in a different part of the budget if it would
make it clearer to people that it is not solely a missile defense
program. In fact, in my view, the key value of a space-based test bed
is not its ability to enhance missile defense but its unique ability to
protect our satellites against a very significant threat posed to them
at this time.
My colleague from North Dakota talked about a threatometer--
hypothetical, perhaps, but a rational way to examine prioritization for
defense spending. If there is a relatively low-level threat, we might
want to set a lower priority in funding to protect against it than a
threat that is of higher possibility. By the same token, if almost
everything you do in military activity is dependent on one thing and
that one thing is vulnerable, you obviously want to protect that one
thing. That is the priority we are not attaching to the defense of our
satellites in space, which are critical, vital, of immeasurable
importance, not just to everything our military does but a great deal
of our economic activity as well. It is the ability to defend our space
assets from attacks either on the ground or in space that the space-
based test bed is significantly designed to do research work on.
Let us understand, the space-based test bed is merely a research tool
to understand concepts that are first developed terrestrially on the
ground and, if proof of concept is suggested as potentially valuable,
lift it into space to see whether it works there as well, to see
whether maybe a defensive system can be devised to protect our
satellites in space or to provide protection against intercontinental
ballistic missile attack and, if so, to have a program developed and
designed and then researched and ultimately perhaps produced and
finally deployed, all of which is years down the road.
All we are talking about is a proof of concepts basic research
program of only $10 million in cost. To have it zeroed out because of
some belief that we don't need to spend any more on missile defense
misses the point.
Let me go back to what I was talking about. I received a briefing 2
days ago, a highly classified briefing that, frankly, scares me to
death. But there is enough we can talk about that is unclassified to
make the point. As I said, almost everything we do in military fighting
these days in one way or another depends upon our satellites. Our
troops communicating with each other, the Air Force dropping a bomb on
a precise location, doing intelligence surveillance, the GPS system
which is installed in virtually everything we do now--all of these
things are reliant on satellites. That is not to mention all the
communications and financial transactions and all of the other things
we depend upon every day, every communication device--almost every. I
shouldn't say ``every,'' but most of the communications devices we
have, whether they are used in the military or in our private lives,
the means of sending signals to do things back and forth, the airplanes
that fly through the sky--we could go on and on about our society's
dependence today on communication from satellites. We have to protect
those satellites.
There are a lot of ways of attacking them. They are all relatively
cheap. It is called asymmetrical warfare because a country that may not
be able to beat us on the battlefield with tanks and planes and
submarines and so on knows all it has to do is literally pick up the
sand and throw it in our eyes and then we can't fight, no matter how
big and strong we are. That is what they do if they knock out our
satellite system.
How do you do that? There are a lot of different ways. The Chinese
recently demonstrated to us a brute force way. They simply sent a
missile up and blew up a satellite. They did that to one of

[[Page S12503]]

their old weather satellites. It left a lot of debris in the sky. There
are laser technologies to lase the satellite, which can be done from
the ground but more effectively, if you can, from space because there
you don't have the air disruptions to divert the laser beam. You have
directed energy. You have radio kinds of jamming or electronic jamming.
This can be done either from the Earth or in the sky or, frankly, from
space. Doesn't it make sense for us to have the capability to stop the
destruction of our satellite system on the first day of a war where we
rely upon all of that to do what we need to do?
Let me take a hypothetical. I don't mean to disparage any particular
nation by engaging in a little bit of hypothetical war-gaming here, but
it has been no secret that the Chinese Government would like to see
Taiwan reunited, in their view--in any event, brought within the
Chinese Government sphere. Both the Chinese military and the American
military, as well as the Japanese and Taiwanese and others, have
developed weaponry that would be useful in any kind of conflict that
might evolve in that situation. But it is very clear that the Chinese
have thought about how to keep the United States out of such a war for
at least 2 or 3 days, giving them the time they would need to actually
take over Taiwan. How do you do that? Well, we won't discuss all the
ways it could be done, but the Chinese have developed certain weapons
that would be problematic for the United States to deal with, one of
which is an ability to attack our electronics and our satellites. Right
now, we have very little in the way of defense against that. What the
space-based test bed concept would do is begin to give us an
understanding of what might be possible for part of that defense.

That is not the end of it. We still would have to protect against
something like a jammer from the Earth or perhaps a laser from the
Earth. But to the extent that a missile launched from the Earth against
one of our satellites would pose a threat, space-based test bed
research might be able to find a way to stop that. To the extent that
it is a Chinese satellite in space, for example, we might be able to
find a way to stop it.
It seems to me to make no sense to say that on a threat which may not
be the most likely threat in the case of everyday happening but which
would be absolutely devastatingly destructive if it ever happened--and
it is not hard to postulate a situation in which it could happen--to
say we are not going to spend any money on defending our satellites
makes no sense to me.
I have heard that one of the reasons some groups are opposed to this
is their fear that somehow or other we are going to weaponize space.
Let's deal with that right now. First, an intercontinental ballistic
missile against the United States or against one of our satellites is a
weapon in space. We are not weaponizing space if we try to defend
against that. That is a ludicrous argument. We wait until somebody else
fires an ICBM against us and then we decide we better defend against
that, and if we can somehow get something up into the atmosphere, well,
that is a weapon in space, but it is probably a pretty good idea to
stop their weapon in space. If we send up an interceptor missile, that
is a weapon in space.
Suppose the Chinese decide, instead of destroying one of their
weather satellites, they are going to destroy some of our satellites
that provide the means of communication and the means of directing
weapons and the means of identifying the battlefield and of surveilling
it, they are going to destroy some of our satellites by sending up a
missile that has already destroyed one of theirs, so it is clearly
capable of doing so. Let's say we have found that we can, by using this
test bed, provide maneuverability of our satellite so it can move out
of the way, or we have found that we can actually add to it a defensive
kind of laser or a defensive kind of jamming device that prevents the
Chinese missile from actually hitting or destroying the satellite. Why
wouldn't we want to do that even if it has some kind of a little steel
ball in it that--because of the vacuum in space, it doesn't take a lot
of force to get something moving at a very high rate of speed. You
could eject that steel ball and have it intercept a missile that is
coming up toward the satellite in order to destroy the missile before
it can destroy our satellite. What is wrong with thinking about solving
the problem?
We are not talking about developing anything. We are not talking
about deploying anything. In fact, before you even do more research in
space, it would have to be confirmed in concept on the ground. Is there
such a fear of defending ourselves that we don't even want to think
about how to do it in a situation where it would be critical to an
attack against us? I don't understand the argument against this.
Let me make a couple other points. The deputy commander of STRATCOM
said in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee last year:

Space capabilities have revolutionized the way we fight
today.

He went on to describe a variety of ways in which this is true. I
have talked about some of them. I have noted that in the civil sphere,
satellites enable our ATMs, the financial markets, our truck fleet
management. I just met with the CEO of the largest trucking company in
the United States, Swift Trucking. He said they have GPS satellite on
every one of their trucks. They can tell exactly where every one of
their trucks is at any given time, and this enables them to manage
their fuel mileage so they are environmentally good. They don't exceed
the speed limit. They can get them to the destination by the shortest
route. All of this is done by satellite, as are credit card
validations. Our first responders rely significantly on this. The next
generation of air traffic control, I mentioned before. I could go on
and on.
The general's point is that it is not just in military activity but
our civilian life as well. But he makes the point that with regard to
the military, loss of our space capabilities would be devastating to
our military.
I mentioned China, but countries such as Iran and Libya have also
attacked satellites in recent years, as have other countries. I
mentioned jamming, direct descent antisatellite weapons, directed
energy, laser weapons--all of these have been proven, at least
conceptually. Over 20 nations now have ballistic missiles, and under
the right circumstances, these can destroy satellites. They can also
come through the atmosphere carrying a weapon and blow it up over
American soil or they can create an electromagnetic pulse explosion in
the atmosphere which would also explode electronics. Since the year
2002, there have been an average of 90 foreign ballistic missile
launches per year. Last year, there were 100. This is not a theoretical
concept; this is a capability many countries have and have tested.
Obviously, if we are trying to defend against a ballistic missile
threat, having some capability in space could be very helpful. We would
have to have the debate about weaponizing space at a future time, if a
proof of concept through the space-based test bed were ever developed.
That is a fight we could have. I would be happy at that point to engage
my colleague, who has talked a little bit about that political issue,
but it is very premature to talk about that in the context of what we
are trying to do here today.
I mentioned the Iranians. They have a Shahab-3 missile with a range
of 1,300 kilometers and another one with a range of 1,900 kilometers.
According to our intelligence community, they could have long-range
capability in just a few more years. This could evolve into any of the
kinds of threats I just mentioned a little bit ago.

So what this space bed does is explore the survivability,
affordability, the deployability, and the operability of the different
types of capabilities that could be based in space. As I said, it
begins with the terrestrial proof-of-concept stage that would take
several years to complete. It would be years before orbital testing
would even be considered, and the Congress will have all of that time
to debate whether we want to move forward with any of these things. But
at least we would be doing so with knowledge, with facts, with data,
and not merely speculation.
Some fear that in one way or another the program might morph into
something we do not want it to morph into. We cannot engage in that
informed debate today. What this program would do is enable us to
engage in that informed debate.

[[Page S12504]]

After one more comment, I will ask unanimous consent to have a letter
printed in the Record dated July 6 of this year by GEN Henry Obering
that talks about the need for the space test bed and describes at least
what its capabilities would be, at least in the context of missile
defense.
The last thing I want to do is I want to go back to the Chinese
because they are among the countries that have demonstrated the most
interest in taking out our satellites.
A Chinese military analyst recently wrote that space is ``the U.S.
Military's `Soft Ribs', A Strategic Weakness'' and that ``for countries
that can never win a war with the U.S. by using the method of tanks and
planes, attacking the U.S. space system may be an irresistible and most
tempting choice.''
We already cut significant parts of our space program. The space
tracking and surveillance satellites were cut $55 million under the
SASC bill and $59 million by the Armed Services Committee bill. There
is a classified program that exists that was further cut, and the
Defense Department's Space Radar Program was cut significantly. The
defense committee cut $200 million from the TSAT Program, which is a
communications satellite for military communications traffic.
But General Obering has said the space test bed ``is a proving ground
for concepts and integrated technologies. . . . Exploration of
alternative implementation architectures is a critical part of the
Space Test Bed. . . . Ultimately, policymakers will decide to deploy or
not. However, the policy debate would be greatly improved if informed
by a quantitative understanding of the issues. The Space Test Bed will
provide essential decision support.''
So that is why we should not zero out this program. A very modest $10
million investment could help us begin a process of deciding whether
concepts are worth pursuing. Given the fact that our satellites are
almost absolutely vulnerable to a variety of different kinds of
attacks, I ask whether my colleagues are willing to vote against a mere
$10 million to begin the basic research to see whether there are not
some ways we might want to eventually pursue to protect those
satellites.
I hope my colleagues will seriously consider this amendment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter I referred to
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Department of Defense,

Missile Defense Agency,

Washington, DC, July 6, 2007.
Hon. Jon Kyl,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kyl: Thank you for your June 28, 2007, letter
requesting my thoughts on the decision by the Senate Armed
Services Committee to zero out funding for the Space Test
Bed. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your
concerns.
Space-based missile defenses--as one tier in an
architecture of mutually reinforcing layers--could provide
on-demand, near global access to ballistic missile threats,
free from the obstacles of geography, strategic warning time,
or the politics of international basing. Space-based defenses
would apply early pressure on launches from land or sea,
depriving adversaries of free rides into midcourse with
increasingly advanced countermeasures.
The Space Test Bed is not an acquisition program for space-
based missile defenses. It is a proving ground for concepts
and integrated technologies that might someday enable a
space-based layer in the BMDS should the data indicate
feasibility (survivable, affordable, deployable, operable)
and if future policy decisions permit. Exploration of
alternative implementation architectures is a critical part
of the Space Test Bed.
The Missile Defense Agency can determine technical and
operational feasibility in the Space Test Bed. Ultimately,
policymakers will decide to deploy or not. However, the
policy debate would be greatly improved if informed by a
quantitative understanding of the issues. The Space Test Bed
will provide essential decision support.
Network Centric Operations, combined with in-hand
lightweight Kill Vehicle components and high performance
liquid propulsion, are at the heart of high speed, low mass,
highly maneuverable access to targets in their boost and post
boost phases of flight. This reference concept exploits an
infrastructure of communications, sensors and fire control
utilities that are already in place or under development to
support global terrestrial engagement. Space Test Bed efforts
will use this concept as the point of departure.
The centerpiece of the Space Test Bed is a terrestrial
Proof of Concept phase. Proof of Concept does not validate a
specific design, but is instead a functional proof of
feasibility. In the Space Test Bed, critical operational and
technical issues are resolved on the ground to the maximum
extent possible. Orbital testing--conducted only after
notification to Congress as required--would occur in the
years beyond the terrestrial Proof of Concept to resolve the
limited subset of space basing issues that would otherwise be
irresolvable.
Fiscal Year 2008 Space Test Bed funding of $10 million is
intended to identify alternative architectural options for a
space-based missile defense layer and to set the stage for
subsequent experimentation and demonstrations. Fiscal Year
2008 activities address the following questions:
What are the essential components and interfaces of a
space-based missile defense layer and how does the space
layer fit into the BMDS? What is the concept of operations
and what are the detection-to-intercept functional timelines?
What is the payoff to the BMDS of a global, on-demand, early
intercept layer?
How much would a space-based missile defense layer cost,
including lift, ground segment support, and period
replenishment of the constellation?
How susceptible would a space layer be to countermeasures?
In particular, can a space-based layer survive against a
determined effort to suppress the defense, to include direct
ascent or co-orbital ASATs and nuclear detonations in space?
What are the critical technical and operational issues that
must be resolved by analysis, experimentation, demonstration,
and fundamental engineering data collection in the Space Test
Bed? Beyond Fiscal Year 2008, what activities would be most
appropriate to the resolution of each issue? What components
and subassemblies would have to be procured? What
instrumentation would be required? What facilities and range
support might be needed?
The Space Test Bed is designed to assess the feasibility of
a space-based missile defense layer against the day when one
might actually be needed. It is not a crash effort designed
to produce answers by an arbitrary date and will be purposely
designed to support the policy debate with real data and
concrete assessments of capability.
Please contact Mr. Timothy Coy, Director for Legislative
Affairs, if you have any additional questions.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Obering III,
Lieutenant General, USAF, Director.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I want to speak in favor of the Kyl
amendment, but I do not want to step in front of the speaking order. I
wonder what the speaking order might be?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no order.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I think the Senator from North Dakota was
here before me.
I ask the Senator, does he want to speak?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I did speak prior to Senator Kyl. I would
like to speak for about 5 minutes in response, but I will be happy to
wait.
Mr. ALLARD. No. I say to the Senator, go ahead and speak. Then I will
follow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, will my friend from North Dakota yield?
I am just trying to get some order here in terms of the sequencing. I
understand the Senator from North Dakota wants to go for about 5
minutes. I was wondering how long my friend from Colorado might want to
speak.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I request 10 minutes.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
be, then, that following Senator Dorgan and his comments and Senator
Allard and his comments, Senator Menendez be recognized to offer an
amendment, and following that, I be allowed to speak for up to 5
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I just ask
if folks would be willing to amend that unanimous consent request
slightly to allow me to offer an amendment following all of that and to
speak for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modified request?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, first of all, I certainly respect the
views of my colleague from Arizona. He and I have had these discussions
before. I do not come to the floor suggesting there are not a wide
range of threats against our country. I recognize there must be a
general who would support this program. You show me any program in the

[[Page S12505]]

Pentagon, and I will show you four or five generals who are involved in
it and whose careers are attached to it in many ways. It is why many
programs continue long after they perhaps should.
But with respect to this issue of the use of space, my colleague,
when he began his statement, said this: The space test bed program is
not solely--``not solely''--for the purpose of developing a space-based
kill vehicle for missile defense. I respect that. But most people
understand this space-based test bed is, in the longer term, being
developed for a space-based kill vehicle and for space-based missile
defense.
Yes, it would have satellite capability and antisatellite capability,
for that matter, which will cause some real consternation around the
world, in my judgment. But I wonder what would happen if today on the
floor of the Senate we were here and we read in the newspaper that the
Chinese or the Russians--either--have just passed legislation embarking
on a project to develop a space test bed which can be used for the
purposes of ballistic missile defense or, perhaps, antisatellite
operations? We would have people on the floor of the Senate having an
apoplectic seizure: The Chinese or the Russians are trying to weaponize
space. How dare they?
Yet we are being told we need to proceed with a program that is not
authorized, a program that is not appropriated in either the House or
the Senate, because it is just research. The problem is, I have seen
this ``just research'' sort of thing go on with all of these programs
and projects. We know where this ``just research'' is leading to. The
``just research'' is the desire of some to develop a space-based
antimissile program. It is not enough to have a ground-based system;
they want to put it in space.
I am just telling you this: Do you think the rest of the world is
going to sit by and say: OK, that is all right. Just stick a test bed
up there. Do a little research. Then put a kill vehicle up there. That
will be all right. It won't bother us very much.
Look, we have thousands of nuclear weapons. We have nuclear delivery
vehicles all around the world. I am, frankly, at this moment much less
concerned about a delivery vehicle that is traveling 14,000 miles an
hour than I am a rusty Yugo car sitting at a dock in New York City with
a smuggled small-yield nuclear weapon from the Russian arsenal in it.
That is what I am concerned about.
Look at the threat meter against this country--and, yes, there is
really a threat meter. People have evaluated: What are the greatest
threats and what are the lesser threats? Look at the threat meter and
evaluate what the greatest threats are against this country. Those are
the threats we are spending the least amount of money defending America
against. Yet we spend over $100 billion for ground-based interceptors
in the national missile defense program as it has morphed into other
programs to protect against an intercontinental ballistic missile.
We are told the great threat against our country comes now from rogue
nations and from terrorist organizations. Does anybody really think a
rogue nation or a terrorist group is going to attack us with an ICBM?
Isn't it more likely, isn't it increasingly likely the threat will come
in other ways? And isn't it true we are responding to that with much
less money? We are responding to the lesser threat with more money, the
greatest threat with less money. I do not understand that.
My colleague indicated that laser technology, for example, is more
effective against a satellite if it is space-based laser technology.
So we put up a test bed, do a little research, put some technology up
there with laser capability, and so do the Chinese and so do the
Russians. Now you have two other systems up there much more effectively
able to knock down a satellite. Wouldn't it be much smarter for all
three of us to decide we are not going to weaponize space, we are not
going to take an arms race to space?
That is why I say we have responsibilities in the world as a leader,
the preeminent nuclear power in the world. We have responsibilities to
decide this has to be an international discussion. I believe our
greatest responsibility right now as a country is to lead in the
direction of deciding we are going to try to reduce the number of
nuclear weapons, prevent other countries from getting nuclear weapons,
and try to shut down this potential to move weapons into space. That
ought to be our responsibility. That is what will make this a safer
world.
So my hope is we will defeat this amendment. I think this is a
program which has justifiably been ignored by the authorizing
committees and the money for which has been deleted by the
appropriations committees. I appreciate very much the work of the
appropriations committees to delete the $10 million that has been
requested for the space test bed. I think that is the right choice for
our country.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment of my
good friend from Arizona to restore funding to the Missile Defense
Agency's space test bed program.
The committee currently provides no funding to the program in this
bill. Cutting this program will eliminate the ability to identify
alternative architectural options for the space-based missile defense
layer that sets the stage for any and all subsequent experimentations
and demonstrations.
I do not think this issue is as simple as my colleague from North
Dakota mentioned. I think that no matter what we do, our adversaries
will continue to try to figure out ways to disable our space
capabilities. If we do not watch it, we are going to find ourselves on
the short end. I do not think it speaks well for the future of this
country.
Think of the assets we have in space. It is not all related to
missile defense. Think of our telecommunications systems, our telephone
systems. Think of our systems where we are doing mapping from out in
space, for example. The fact is, this country is building more and more
of its infrastructure on the concept of some sort of interaction with
assets in space. We need to be prepared to defend those assets.
This is not something we can deal with at the last minute. We need to
be thinking: Where are our vulnerabilities going to be 15, 20 years
down the road? Because you just cannot click your fingers and decide
you are going to have all the technology there and the assets you need.
We need to prepare today to begin to think about our vulnerabilities
and prepare for those potential risks we may be faced with in the
future. I do not think we can ignore the fact that China set up a
missile and destroyed a satellite in space. What do you think the
message is there? That is happening no matter what we do. We have a lot
of assets in space, some of it is defense related, some of it is not.
But it is this test bed that will help us develop the technology that
will allow us to protect those vital assets we have.
Essentially, by rejecting this amendment, we would be choosing to cut
the legs out from underneath the program of missile defense and
delaying the possibilities of reaching future missile defense
superiority. But I think it is more than that. Cutting off funding to
the space test bed now is the first step of a new direction for MDA
that moves away from exploring the future interceptions in space.
Supporting Senator Kyl's amendment to restore the program at $10
million is not an unending commitment to achieving a space-based
missile defense system, but it allows a study of concepts and
integrated technologies that will someday, perhaps, enable a greater
space-based layer in the ballistic missile defense system. But it is
more than just that; it is protecting our other space systems and
continuing to refine and develop those capabilities. Without funding
our space programs, I think we are limiting our future national
security options and we are putting our assets in space at risk.
On a broader scale, I am concerned that the rejection of this
amendment would serve as a precedent in future years to provide further
cuts to missile defense programs. Obviously, we are no longer involved
in the Cold War, which prompted the creation of our missile defense
programs, but we now face new threats from enemies who are anxious for
our demise.

[[Page S12506]]

As we all know, last July, I will reiterate, North Korea tested an
intercontinental ballistic missile that they had hoped could reach the
United States. Iran is also testing ICBMs and is projected to have the
ability to reach continental Europe and potentially the United States
by 2015. Certainly, I do not need to reiterate the comments Iran's
President directed at our Nation and Israel.
The Space Test Bed is a study for technology that could protect us in
the future, and a space-based system that protects our satellites and
our space assets, and it enables us to have that protection. Cutting
off funding for this study and ignoring this future threat is simply
irresponsible, in my mind.
General Obering, regarding last week's missile test, asked the
question:

Does the system work? The answer is yes to that.

General Obering also said:

Is it going to work against more complex threats in the
future? We believe it will.

That is his opinion. I think we have more to be concerned about than
just missile defense. Obviously, I am a strong proponent of that and
everybody knows where I come from and how essential I think that is to
protecting this country and assuring the security of this country in
future years. But even more important, we have to be working on this
technology to protect our other space assets that we have flying around
up in the sky that are helping us with telecommunications, helping us
with the GPS, which we have become more and more reliant on, and other
infrastructure that we have been developing.
So I hope the rest of the Senators will join me in supporting the Kyl
amendment. I don't think we can continue to ignore the threat to our
assets in outer space, and that is why I rise to support the Kyl
amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from Hawaii is
recognized.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, after discussing this matter with the
Senator from Arizona, I have had my staff do some research. The
following may be of interest to the Senate: This bill has fully funded
the President's budget request for space-based and space-surveilling
satellite systems; for example, in the Air Force research and
development alone, in excess of $585 million. We have funded above the
President's request in the Air Force research and development; for
example, $15 million for space situational awareness programs, $5
million for space control test capabilities, and $7 million for the
RAIDRS program, a total of $27 million.
I cite this so we will not get the impression that we are not funding
anything for space and satellite defense, et cetera.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
pending amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3198

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up
amendment No. 3198.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez], for himself and
Mr. Salazar, proposes an amendment numbered 3198.

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

Amendment No. 3198

(Purpose: To authorize the expenditure of funds appropriated under
subsection (b) of the Border Security First Act of 2007 to address any
border security issue, including security at the northern border)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
amounts appropriated under subsection (b) of the Border
Security First Act of 2007 may be used to address northern
border fencing as well, wherever the greatest security needs
are.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I offer this amendment with my
colleague, Senator Salazar from Colorado, because we both feel
passionately about the security of our country.
Earlier this afternoon the Senate voted on an amendment to provide
funding to create greater security along the border between the United
States and Mexico. I voted for that amendment because I recognize we
certainly have to do more to protect our borders and, more importantly,
because it had monies for employer verification efforts as well. At the
same time, I recognize it is simply not enough. It was not enough
because it made no mention--no mention--of our northern border or the
significant security threat that it presents. That is why Senator
Salazar and I are offering this amendment--to ensure that the northern
border receives the same care and attention as does the southern
border.
Last week, the Government Accountability Office released a report
detailing the serious vulnerabilities of the northern border between
Canada and the United States. Shortly thereafter, I came before this
body to talk about those vulnerabilities, and I had hoped to raise
awareness about this largely ignored problem. What I may not have
accomplished last week I hope to accomplish today by offering this
amendment.
With all due respect, I question this body's almost single-minded
focus on the southern border. Personally, I am sick and tired of voting
on amendment after amendment to build a fence between us and Mexico,
amendment after amendment sending more Border Patrol agents to the
south, amendment after amendment focusing on the gaps in our southern
border, without--without--the same attention and the same concern
directed toward our northern border.
Last week, the Government Accountability Office reported that given
the current state of the northern border, almost anyone could enter our
country undetected carrying radioactive material or any other illegal
and dangerous substance. Almost anyone could bring chemical or
biological weapons into our country across the northern border. That is
simply unacceptable. But what is more unacceptable and what is more
shocking to me is that this body continues to ignore these findings and
instead focuses, as it did today, almost unilaterally on building a
fence to separate us from our southern neighbors.
Now, what did the previous amendment have to say about the northern
border with Canada? What did it have to say about the current gaps that
could allow a terrorist to waltz right in and detonate chemical or
biological weapons? Absolutely nothing. That is why we are here today.
We are here today to make sure we take care of our northern border, and
that we make it just as safe and as secure as our border to the south.
We either protect the Nation as a whole or we have not protected the
Nation at all.
The problems of the northern border, by the way, are not new. In
fact, the
9/11 Commission noted that in 1999, there was one single agent on the
northern border for every 13.25 miles. They compared this to the
southern border which had one agent every quarter of a mile. So in one
case, we have an agent for every 13.25 miles, and in the other case we
have an agent for every quarter of a mile. Sadly, however, not much has
improved since the 9/11 Commission pointed that out. In fact, currently
only 965 agents out of a total of 13,488 agents are stationed in the
north--only 7 percent. Such numbers are ludicrous when we consider that
our northern border spans over 5,525 miles and is almost three times as
large as the 1,993-mile southern border, 3 to 1 odds. That is exactly
why the 9/11 Commission specifically recommended that the border
between Canada and the United States be strengthened and that
immigration controls be tightened.
Now, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you put
13,000, or a little less than 13,000, border agents in one part of the
country and you put 965 in another part of the country, and I want to
do damage to the country, where am I going to come through? Where I
have to face almost 13,000 agents in a third of the space or where I
have to face 965 agents in three times the space? Of course, those
agents work on a rotational system, so it is not that they are all out
there at the same time. So it is a third of those

[[Page S12507]]

people who are out there at any given time. It doesn't take a rocket
scientist to figure how you do harm.
Even before the 9/11 Commission issued its report, the Office of the
Inspector General found serious problems with the security of the
northern border. In 2000, the Office of the Inspector General found
that Border Patrol agents in northern border sectors experienced more--
more--organized criminal activity than agents in the southwest--more
organized criminal activity than agents in the southwest. It found that
illegal activity in the north was facilitated by the open nature of the
border, the unpatrolled waterways, and the vast stretches of wilderness
with little enforcement present. It noted that a severe lack of
resources prevented the Border Patrol from truly knowing even the
extent of the problem.
Sound familiar? It should, because nothing has really changed. Last
week, MSNBC had video clips of people crossing the northern border of
Canada with bags in their hands, with impunity, totally unobstructed,
unprotected.
Make no mistake about it. Northern border security is a serious
problem. It has been a serious problem in the past, and it continues to
be a serious problem. Just over the last several years, nearly 69,000
individuals have been apprehended crossing over the northern border.
That doesn't include the thousands and thousands who cross without
apprehension.
Let me remind my colleagues about the millennium bomber. In 1999, the
millennium bomber, Ahmed Ressam, crossed the northern border with
Canada intending to kill as many American citizens in cold blood as
possible. While we eventually stopped Ahmed Ressam from carrying out
his plans, we have not addressed the problem that allowed him to enter
the United States in the first place.
We simply cannot afford to ignore the problem of our northern border.
And we will not, if we pass our amendment; we will be able to address
that serious concern. Our amendment ensures that the $3 billion
appropriated under Senator Graham's amendment is also available for use
on the northern border, wherever the greatest security needs are.
So we urge our colleagues to support this amendment. Trying to secure
our Nation by focusing on only one of two borders is a recipe for
disaster. We either protect the entire country, or we end up protecting
none of it. This amendment guarantees we protect the entire country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I rise today to speak on behalf of
amendment No. 3198 offered by my good friend and colleague, Senator
Menendez and myself. It is a very simple amendment that addresses one
of the largest national security issues of our time. It is an amendment
which in its simplicity says a lot, but it is, nonetheless, short. It
says that amounts appropriated under this section of the bill, for the
Border Security First Act of 2007, may be used to address northern
border fencing as well, wherever the greatest security needs are.
Let me say that again. It says: May be used to address northern
border fencing as well, wherever the greatest security needs are. It is
a simple amendment and one which I hope colleagues on both sides of the
aisle join in and support its inclusion in this Defense appropriations
bill.
I want to step back just for one second and refresh our recollections
on debates we have had on the issue of the overhaul of our immigration
laws in our country. I think there was broad agreement that we needed
to do three things in that particular overhaul. We needed, first of
all, to secure the borders of America, to secure the borders of this
country. Secondly, we needed to move forward and be serious about being
a Nation of laws and making sure we were enforcing our laws in America,
that we honor the rule of law in this country. Thirdly, we needed to
deal with the realistic solution to the economic and moral issues which
are a part of the issue of immigration which still so affects our
country.
We were not able to get that done, so the reality of it is that today
we have a system which is still in chaos, a system which is in
disorder, and we continue to have our national security compromised. We
have broken borders in this country which must be fixed. So the
amendment offered earlier today, which I proudly supported, offered by
my friend, Senator Graham, was an important amendment because what it
does is it invests in one of the issues that we need to address with
respect to immigration, and that is border security.
It is border security. I supported that amendment in the same way we
supported that concept as we moved forward in our debate over
immigration reform. What is unfair, frankly, about what we are doing
today is focusing only on one border--only on the southern border.
There is a great disparity in terms of the kinds of resources we are
putting into the protection of the southern border and almost nothing
in the northern border. That disparity makes no sense whatsoever when
one considers the challenge we face from a national security point of
view.
When one considers the fact that the border between Canada and the
United States is almost 12,000 miles long--11,986 miles--and there are
only 972 Border Patrol agents, and when you consider that number in
comparison to what we now have on the border with Mexico, where we have
a 1,900-mile border, with almost 12,000 Border Patrol officers, and we
have a border that is much longer in the North, for every Border Patrol
officer we have in the North, we have 12 in the South to guard a much
smaller border.
So the question for us has to be: Are we deploying our resources to
where the greatest vulnerabilities are? The GAO, at the request of
Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus, reported to the Finance Committee
in the last several weeks about the vulnerabilities they found on the
northern border. They have found, through the investigators at the GAO,
that there were people who could come across from Canada into the
United States without ever being stopped, with radioactive materials
being a part of what could be placed in those duffle bags the agents
were carrying across the border. They were able to come across time and
time again without anybody ever catching them.
One of the questions I asked the Border Patrol agent was: What is it
that the Border Patrol office does in terms of using its resources? He
said: We put them where the greatest vulnerabilities are. I would say
when we look at the issue of national security, we ought to be putting
the resources where the greatest vulnerabilities are. There are
resources, yes, we ought to be putting on the southern border, and we
have done that. But we cannot ignore the reality of the northern
border--the reality that there are 12,000 miles, most of which is now
unguarded, where people can come across the border into the United
States with impunity and bring with them weapons that would do harm to
Americans on American soil.
So this amendment goes a long way toward addressing that issue by
saying that the money allocated here for border security should, in
fact, be used where those greatest vulnerabilities are.
I will end by simply stating that even in the days after 9/11, when
people were looking at the issue of terrorism in the United States, it
was the Canadian intelligence service that made the finding that there
were international terrorist organizations active in Canada; in making
that finding, they were recognizing that one of the things they needed
to do for national security was to be much more vigilant with respect
to terrorism in Canada. We know that since that time, we have been
infiltrated in this country by a terrorist who attempted to come across
the border, Ahmed Rasam, an Algerian terrorist, who came into the
United States, going into Washington, with approximately 100 pounds of
explosives in his trunk. With 100 pounds of explosives in his trunk, he
was headed to Los Angeles International Airport. That came from the
northern border.
I urge my colleagues to support the Menendez amendment No. 3198 in
the interest of making sure we are securing our borders and that we are
moving forward with national security that makes sense.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment.

[[Page S12508]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.

Amendment No. 3141

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 3141.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter], for Mr. Sessions,
for himself and Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Kyl, Mr.
Lieberman, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska,
Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Lautenberg, proposes an amendment numbered
3141.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To enhance United States sea-based missile defense
capabilities)

At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8107.  Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by title IV under the heading ``Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', up to
$75,000,000 may be available for Program Element 063892C for
the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System, of which--
(1) $20,000,000 may be for an increase in the production
rate of the SM-3 interceptor to four interceptors per month;
(2) $45,000,000 may be for long-lead production of an
additional 15 SM-3 interceptors; and
(3) $10,000,000 may be for an acceleration in the
development of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Signal
Processor and Open Architecture software for the Aegis
Ballistic Missile Defense system.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators
Bayh and Lincoln be added as cosponsors to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I present this amendment on behalf of
Senator Sessions, the lead author, as well as many coauthors, including
myself, from both sides of the aisle. Senator Nelson of Florida will
speak, and Senator Kyl, and Senators Lieberman, Inhofe, Pryor,
Lautenberg, Bayh, and Lincoln.
Clearly, this is a very bipartisan initiative and, I believe, a very
important one. This amendment would make available an additional $75
million for the Aegis ballistic missile defense system. That is a very
important sea-based component of what will hopefully be a multilayered
approach to missile defense--to defend our country, as well as our
interests and allies around the world.
That money would come from an existing larger pot of funds already in
the legislation, already available, for missile defense more generally.
Specifically, $20 million of that money could be used to increase the
production rate of the SM-3 interceptor; $45 million could be used for
long-lead production of an additional 15 SM-3 missiles; and $10 million
can be used to accelerate the development of the Aegis BMD Signal
Processor and Open Architecture software for the Aegis BMD system. They
are all very important components to the overall Aegis system and
moving forward with this sea-based component of our missile defense.
This amount that would be made available under the amendment is
precisely tied to the amount and the activity authorized in our
National Defense Authorization Act--the chairman's mark of that--which
passed the Senate on Monday. Similar increases for this proven
capability were also included in the House Defense authorization and
appropriations bill--a clear indication that this is a broad,
bipartisan priority, a very important priority in terms of our overall
missile defense network.
The additional funding that could be made available by this amendment
would increase the production rate of the SM-3 missile interceptor,
which is carried aboard Aegis destroyers and cruisers. There are about
two dozen of these missiles in the inventory today, and this number is
expected to rise to 132 by the end of 2013, which is not nearly enough
to keep pace with the threat. That threat is very real and it is
growing. That has been identified and documented by our military
leaders.
In fact, they said there is a need to nearly double the number of
planned interceptors. To be sure, North Korea alone deploys 600 short-
range ballistic missiles and 200 medium-range ballistic missiles that
can reach U.S. forces in Japan, South Korea, Okinawa, and Guam.
Similarly, Iran deploys scores of short- and medium-range ballistic
missiles and, of course, both entities are developing longer range
systems that could target Europe or even the United States.
I believe this is very important. We need a multilayered approach to
missile defense. We need to accelerate the development of that, and
this Aegis system, which is sea-based, is a very important part of
that. It is important to do it; it is important to send the message
loud and clear to our allies and enemies around the world that we are
doing it.
In closing, I thank Senator Sessions for his leadership and also
Senator Nelson of Florida, who will speak very soon, and all the other
bipartisan cosponsors of this important amendment.
I ask unanimous consent, first--because he approached me first--for
Senator Kyl to have up to 5 minutes to respond to other debate on the
Senate floor and then, immediately after that, Senator Nelson of
Florida to speak for an appropriate time on this Sessions-Nelson
amendment No. 3141.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Arizona is recognized.

Amendment No. 3144

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I wish to respond to four quick points made
in reference to my amendment, which is amendment No. 3144. First, the
chairman of the committee, the Senator from Hawaii, said we have funded
many space programs, and he mentioned the Space Tracking and
Surveillance System and Space Situational Awareness Programs. That is
true, except that they cut $55 million out of the STSS Program. The key
point is that those are situational awareness and tracking programs,
not defensive programs. There is zero in here for the defense space
test research program. That is what I am talking about--not situational
awareness and tracking but an actual Defense research program.
Secondly, the Senator from North Dakota first responded to my
argument and the fact that I had quoted General Obering's support by
saying he is not surprised that the Kyl amendment is supported by a
general, that they usually are because their careers depend upon
programs. Frankly, I am astounded by this ad hominem attack. Let's
attack the substance of the program, not the general who supports it.
We cannot trust our generals? Is that what is being said? We ask them
to devise ways of protecting us from attack, and that is the thanks
they get.
Let's turn to the substance of the argument. Two primary points were
made by the Senator from North Dakota. First of all, because the space-
based test bed program could evolve into a space-based missile defense,
regardless of its other benefits for satellite protection, we should
not fund the program. Well, my first reaction is, God forbid that we
would develop a program to defend us from intercontinental ballistic
missiles. We would not want to do that. Of course, the point is there
are years of decisionmaking between the time that a space-based test
bed program evolves into concepts and potential programs and the
research evolves into specific proposals and the time that the Senate
would ever vote on them.
Does the Senator have such a lack of confidence in his ability to
stop such a horrible thing--space-based defenses--that he is not even
willing to allow a program to be funded to develop conceptual programs
to defend our satellites in space, which presumably we all favor?
Finally, the last argument was, well, the nations of the world would
be better to get together and have an agreement not to develop weapons
in space. There are two answers to that. First of all, what is a
Chinese missile flying through space to hit a satellite called? That is
what they did. As the Senator from Florida and I discussed the other
day, that they left a lot of space debris is a problem in the wake of
that attack. What is a missile flying through space to hit another
country's satellite called? Is that a weapon in space? Are we so afraid
of defending our satellite assets that we don't want to defend against
a satellite killer missile from a country coming up from the ground
into space that hits our satellite? Would we not want to defend it from
space?
That is a ludicrous argument. I don't believe we are going to get the
countries of the world together to join in a treaty to have them forget
programs

[[Page S12509]]

that they have already been developing--the Chinese in this particular
case--because they want to have an asymmetric way of destroying our
satellites.
The bottom line is this: The United States better get serious about
defending our eyes and ears in space and now the satellites that direct
so much of our military activity. Other countries have the ability to
turn off the light. They know where the switch is. In times of war, we
cannot be blind and deaf and be denied our space assets. And yet
virtually by turning off the switch, other countries have that
capability. Isn't it about time we begin the first steps of developing
a capability against that?

I note, by the way, that the $10 million program out of a budget for
missile defense of over $8 billion is hardly enough to color general
Obering's claims that this would be a good program for us to begin
research on.
I hope my colleagues, when this amendment is voted on, will think
about the future, will think about the fact that they have plenty of
opportunities to stop a program should it ever evolve into a space-
based missile defense program. If they want to stop that, stop that,
but don't use that as an argument to stop research on a satellite
protection program.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I wish to respond to the
Senator from Arizona. Yes, the Chinese ASAT test is a threat and is
particularly a threat because it could knock out our satellites, and it
has left a lot of debris up there that can destroy everybody's
satellites if there is a collision.
If I could get the attention of the Senator from Arizona, I say to
him if what he wants to do is to protect our space assets, there are
other parts of the defense budget to which it should be addressed
instead of the national missile defense part of the budget. There is a
part that is handled under the strategic command called space
situational awareness that would be more appropriate to address the
issue of protecting our space assets. Most of that is highly classified
and cannot be discussed here.
By the Senator from Arizona wanting to put this amendment into the
part about national missile defense, it takes us back to the old idea
of star wars and the starting of weaponization of space.
I suggest to the Senator that we can work this out, but it is not
going to be able to be done right here in a few minutes on the floor,
given the classified nature of a number of these programs.
I urge the Senator, if his intention truly is the protection of space
assets, for us to consider those other programs that are now in
development and not to take his amendment to a vote, which this Senator
would then have to oppose.
I yield to the Senator for his response and any questions without
yielding the floor.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, I was going to suggest that, and I
appreciate the Senator's comments. I am aware of the situational
awareness programs. The point I was trying to make earlier in response
to the distinguished chairman of the committee is this is not a
situational awareness program. This is a program that could actually
result in the development of defenses for our satellites, a lot of
different potential concepts.
The concepts that would protect the satellites from space, of course,
are different potentially from the concepts that would protect them
from the ground.
I am happy to have a different line in the budget, if that is going
to solve the problem. But what I don't want to do is to have the money
allocated simply for tracking or surveillance or situational awareness
as opposed to researching development of potential defenses.
I wonder if my colleague will respond.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, by the Senator from Arizona
wanting to put this as a part of a proposed space test bed, that is
clearly understood, and that is why all four of the Armed Services and
Appropriations Committee bills eliminated this $10 million for the
proposed space test bed because that is the initial step toward
deploying space-based interceptors for missile defense. So everybody
understands what that means, the space test bed is intended to deploy
weapons in space. If that is not the Senator's intention, then we ought
to look to this space situational awareness which is the question of us
protecting assets in space.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, if I may respond to the Senator, part of
defending a satellite against an attack is being aware the attack is
pending, is about to happen, or is happening. But if all you know is
that I am being attacked and you are not capable of defending yourself,
the knowledge you are being attacked is of little use. So this is not a
matter of surveillance or situational awareness; it is a matter of
developing defenses.
I guess I would put this question to my colleague: As an abstract
principle, would my colleague favor or oppose the concept of a space-
based defense of satellites of the United States that have military
uses, in other words, a defense that would be perhaps based on the
satellite itself to jam signals as some weapon homes in or that would
create some kind of effective shield of electromagnetic pulse or other
kind of electronic defense or even a kinetic kind of defense for the
satellite if it is under attack, perhaps some kind of shielding against
a laser attack? In other words, all different kinds of attacks that
might come.
As a hypothetical matter, would my colleague not agree that it would
be very useful and appropriate, even if those defensive capabilities
are located in space, for us to be able to protect our satellites in
that way or would my colleague consider those to be space-based weapons
that are impermissible?
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I want to be careful in what
I say because under some highly classified programs, this Senator
simply cannot discuss these matters. If the Senator wants to press his
amendment to a vote, this Senator suggests he is not going to have the
votes, and if what he is saying is he wants to protect space assets,
there are programs that are being developed in this country to do
exactly that. And that is all this Senator can say.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, let me say, first, I am aware of what is
being done to protect our assets, and we don't, as has been said before
on the floor of this Chamber, have defenses for our satellites in space
today by an attack by another country. We have to work in this area.
The space-based test bed is one of the places in which we could develop
proof of concept that could be effective both for our satellites and,
yes, also for an attack by a hostile missile because that is where this
program started, it is in the missile defense budget. But that doesn't
mean if I drop this amendment, for example, as the Senator is
suggesting I do, that, therefore, we can forget about the need to
protect our satellites because everything is taken care of. We have a
need to develop concepts which include the ability to test, first,
terrestrially and then in space, proof of concept that would provide
for defenses, that would both protect satellites and protect against a
hostile missile attack.
For the life of me, I don't see why my colleague can so confidently
predict that my amendment will not have the votes to be adopted simply
because on down the road many years from now it is theoretically
possible that a concept would be developed to protect against a hostile
missile attack with some kind of a space-based program.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I wish to say--and all I am
allowed to say--and let me tell the Senator I don't think he has read
into all of the programs--if he would so like to be, then he ought to
pursue this discussion not in this open forum.
I will further say the proposed space test bed in a missile defense
program is a missile defense program, not a space asset protection
program that the Senator from Arizona is saying it is. Therein lies the
difference.
If he is going to insist on pressing his question--somewhere out here
we have to have some mutual trust and understanding. I cannot satisfy
the Senator by virtue of me being limited in what I can tell him in
this open session. So I will leave it up to the Senator as to whether
he wants to press his amendment.

[[Page S12510]]

Madam President, I need to speak on the other amendment, on Senator
Vitter's and my amendment.
I yield the floor for the purpose of the Senator from Hawaii.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, the debate suggests very strongly that
there is much uncertainty in this amendment. Therefore, I move to table
the amendment.
Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3144 Withdrawn

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment
No. 3144 be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I appreciate that very much. As when I
announced this bill, I indicated we had two of our most senior Members
managing it, with great experience, and here is an indication of what I
was talking about. This is a time when these two men understand this
bill more than anyone else, because they have managed it for so many
years. I appreciate their management on this, and we hope to be drawing
this bill to a close.

____________________