To express the sense of the Senate that the United States should fully enforce existing sanctions, and should explore additional sanctions, with respect to North Korea and to require a review to determine whether North Korea should be re-listed as a state sponsor of terrorism.

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010--Continued

Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the National Defense
Authorization Act, S. 1390.
Mr. President, as a member of the Armed Services and Veterans Affairs
committees, I have addressed this Chamber many times about the need to
keep our Nation's commitment to the brave men and women who-fight for
this country.
It is a commitment that begins on the day they volunteer for military
service, and it extends through the day they retire and beyond.
But just as we work to uphold our obligation to servicemembers who
are in harm's way, we need to offer strong support to those who they
leave here at home.
Military families bear a burden that must not be forgotten. They,
too, deserve our utmost gratitude.
Mr. President, that is why we must increase funding for impact aid, a
program which, in part, provides assistance to school districts that
serve military families.
Throughout my career in public service, I have been a strong believer
in education as a powerful force to shape lives--to give people the
tools they need and the inspiration that will help them succeed.
But even when we see an improvement in scholastic performance at the
national level, certain groups of students continue to fall further and
further behind.
Many children of Federal employees, including military personnel,
fall into one of these groups.
Military installations--and other Federal facilities--occupy land
that might otherwise be zoned for commercial use.
Because of this, local school districts suffer from a reduced tax
base to fund their expenses.
This limits the amount that can be spent in the classroom and leaves
students at a serious disadvantage compared with children in
neighboring towns.
In North Chicago, IL--the home of the Great Lakes Naval Training
Center--only half of the 4,000 students meet or exceed State standards.
Even with some Federal assistance, North Chicago's School District
187 is able to spend just under $7,000 per student, per year.
But nearby District 125 has the resources to spend nearly twice as
much per pupil, and the school performs among the best in the State.
An increase in impact aid funding would help to level this playing
field, ensuring that the children of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and
marines are not at a disadvantage because of their parents' service.
Impact aid funds are delivered directly to the school districts in
need, so they do not incur administrative costs at the State level.
This makes it one of the most efficient--and effective--Federal
education programs.
Scott Air Force Base is located near Mascoutah, IL--a community whose
schools receive impact aid funding.
The local school district is able to spend only $6,000 per year on
each child, but 90 percent of the students meet or exceed State
standards.
If these are the results that some students can achieve with only
$6,000 per year, imagine how well Mascoutah's schools might perform
with even a small increase in available funds.
It is impressive that school districts like North Chicago and
Mascoutah are able to operate as effectively as they do, especially
when compared to the national per-pupil expenditure of $9,700 per
student.
Mr. President, it is vital that we target Federal assistance to those
who need it most.
That is why I am proud to be a member of the Senate impact aid
coalition, a group of 35 Senators devoted to protecting this important
program.
And that is why I believe that the $50 million we have set aside for
schools

[[Page S7834]]

that are heavily impacted by military students is a step in the right
direction in our commitment to military families.
It is time to make sure all children have access to a quality
education, regardless of who they are or where they are from.
I applaud Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain for their support
of this funding in the past--and for including funding in the fiscal
year 2010 Defense authorization bill.
This funding will be significant to military children across the
country.
To students in North Chicago, Mascoutah, O'Fallon, and Rockford--and
hundreds of communities in Illinois and over 260,000 students in 103
school districts across the United States.
We owe them the same support we continue to show to their parents in
uniform.
And it is time to step up our efforts to meet that commitment.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina is
recognized.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10
minutes as in morning business.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Health Care Reform

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I will return to the issue of health care
in America, the reform of our health care system, and how we help
Americans find the health insurance that is affordable to every family.
It is important, as we talk about this, that we get the facts out on
the table. I am glad to see this has become an issue that is front and
center. I know the President called for a press conference tonight to
talk about his vision of health care. I want to set the record straight
on a number of things that have been said that I think are politically
motivated and, obviously, don't represent the truth.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, including the
President, have talked about Republicans representing the status quo on
behalf of big special interests, and they have accused us of
representing the big insurance companies, when, in fact, the voting
record in the Senate has proved the exact opposite.
When the President was in the Senate, and when we, as Republicans,
proposed health care reform--which we did many times while the
President was a Senator--the President and my Democratic colleagues
voted with the big insurance companies. We had one proposal that would
allow small businesses to come together to buy health insurance for
their employees at a lower price. The big insurance companies opposed
that, but the Democrats voted with the big insurance companies and
against the reform proposals.
I put forth a proposal that would have allowed individuals in this
country to shop for their health insurance in any State in the country,
just like other products and services, to have a competitive national
market, which so many on the other side have called for. The big
insurance companies that have State-by-State monopolies opposed that
bill. Senator Barack Obama and the Democrats voted with the big
insurance companies and against Americans' ability to buy health
insurance anywhere in the country.
Republicans are not standing with special interests. Look at the
proposals that have been put on the table in the House and Senate by
the Democrats, which the President will be advocating when he speaks
tonight. Let's see what party is representing special interests.
First of all, the abortion industry, Planned Parenthood, and other
organizations that make their money performing abortions--their
interests are clearly represented in this bill. This proposal the
President is advocating would require that health insurance plans cover
elective abortions in this country, which means taxpayers who are
morally opposed to abortion will be forced to subsidize insurance plans
that pay for abortion.
I ask my colleagues, who is representing special interests? Who is
representing the abortion industry in this debate?
What about who loses their health care coverage in these new plans
that have been proposed? The independent Lewin Group has looked at
these proposed plans by my Democratic colleagues in the House and
Senate, and they concluded that 80 million Americans who have health
insurance that they now like will lose it under this current proposal.
But who is protected? Who would not lose their health insurance? It
is union members who are protected. Do we think that has anything to do
with politics--that the average American will lose their health
insurance but the unions that support the Democratic Party are
protected? Who is standing up for special interests in this health care
debate?
Let's talk about the plaintiffs' attorneys. One of the biggest
problems in health care today is what doctors call defensive medicine--
running all kinds of unnecessary tests so they avoid all these
expensive lawsuits. We have talked for years about reforming the health
care system to eliminate these wasteful, frivolous lawsuits that cost
so much money, and every doctor and hospital has to have huge liability
policies for the cost of the lawsuits that come every year. You would
think a health care reform proposal would have some lawsuit abuse
reform in it. But who is protected? What special interests are
protected in this health care proposal? The plaintiffs' attorneys.
There is absolutely no tort reform, no reform of abusive lawsuits in
this plan.

So I ask my colleagues: Who is representing the special interests
here--the big insurance companies, the abortion industry, the unions,
the plaintiff's attorney? All of those are represented and protected in
this so-called health reform legislation that does nothing to help
individuals access affordable personal policies for themselves.
When the President was in the Senate, I personally every year
proposed major health care reform. I proposed that individuals who do
not get their insurance at work at least get to deduct the cost of that
insurance from their taxes, as we let businesses do. Barack Obama voted
against that, and so did my Democratic colleagues.
I proposed that individuals be allowed to buy health insurance
anywhere in the country so that it would be more affordable, more
competitive. Barack Obama voted against that, and so did my Democratic
colleagues.
Republicans proposed small businesses come together and buy health
care less expensively so they could provide more health insurance to
their employees. Barack Obama voted against that, and so did my
Democratic colleagues.
I ask you: Which party is standing for the status quo of trying to
keep things the same? Real health care reform has been proposed in the
Senate many times by Republicans. But the truth is, the Democrats do
not want individual Americans to have access to affordable health
insurance. What they want is a government takeover of health care. The
President has made that clear by his own voting record.
As he holds his press conference tonight, I am sure the crowd will be
loaded with friendly reporters, but there are a few questions I would
like him to answer.
If the major provisions in this health care bill he is promoting do
not take effect until 2013, which they don't, why this mad rush to pass
a bill that is over 1,000 pages that no one in this body has read? Why
the mad rush to pass it before we go home for the August break?
I can answer it for him. Because if Americans find out what is in it,
they are not going to support it.
I have a second question: You said your health care bill will cut
costs and not increase the deficit. But the independent analysis of the
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office contradicts those claims,
saying it will raise costs and increase the deficit by $240 billion.
The policy does not support the promise.
A third question: The President has repeatedly said that the health
care bill will allow Americans who like their current plans to keep
them. But as I said, an independent expert group, the Lewin Group, has
analyzed this legislation and concluded that it will force over 80
million Americans to lose the health insurance they have today.
Question No. 4: The President said the other day when he was speaking
at Children's Hospital that opponents of the plan are content to
perpetuate the status quo. How does that compare

[[Page S7835]]

with your record, Mr. President, when you were in the Senate? What
health reform did you propose? Why did you vote against every health
reform proposal that could have increased access to affordable health
insurance for all Americans?
And just a yes-or-no question: Will you guarantee that pro-life
Americans under your plan will not be forced to subsidize elective
abortions?
I hope the President will answer some of these questions for the
American people because I am convinced that if Americans know the truth
about this legislation, they will conclude this is not about getting
them affordable health insurance or access to quality health care. This
is a continuation of this power grab that is going on in Washington.
This spending spree, this proposal for more and more taxes, is a
power grab for the government to take over yet another industry, the
health care industry in America. Health care is the most personal and
private service we have for ourselves and our families. Why would we
want to turn that over to government to make the decisions for us?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has used 10 minutes.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I thank you for your indulgence. I
encourage my colleagues to read any bill we vote on before the August
break.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to address the Senate as in morning
business.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the
Republicans have a chance to speak, the next Democrat be Senator
Kaufman.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Health Care Reform

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we just heard the Senator from South
Carolina urging Members to vote against the health care bill. He talks
about the truth about the health care bill. We don't have a health care
bill before the Senate because we have two committees that are working
on it. One already reported out a bill, the HELP Committee, which
stresses prevention, because we all know that if you look at the major
costs to our families, they all encompass--70 percent of them--five
major diseases. I think we know what they are. They are heart issues,
pulmonary issues, cancer issues, stroke issues. We know what they are.
Putting prevention first, which is not something we have ever done, is
going to save money, is going to make our people healthier, is going to
work. There are many other aspects of the health bill that are very
good for our people.
I have to say, when the Senator from South Carolina comes to the
floor and starts attacking Democrats, I think people have to understand
that very Senator was quoted in the press as saying that essentially we
can break Barack Obama if we destroy his push for health care. He said
it will be his Waterloo.
I support my colleagues' right to say what they want. They will be
judged by what they say. They will be judged by what is in their heart.
They will be judged on how they act. But we are here to take care of
the American people, not to bring down a President or raise up a
President. Our job is to represent the people who sent us here. It is
not to break a President. It is not to play politics with one of the
most important issues facing our country. And good for this President
for having the courage to step forward and point out that the current
status quo on health care is disastrous, and, yes, we are going to
address it and we are going to make sure that the people in this
country, if they like their health care, can keep what they have, keep
their insurance. If they don't, they have a chance to buy into other
options. That will be their choice. We will stress prevention now. We
will have healthier families.
I want to point out that there has been a recent study that says if
we do nothing, if we bring down this opportunity we have to do
something to better the health care system in this country, if we turn
away from that and do nothing, in California, by 2016, Californians
will have to spend 41.2 percent of their income on health insurance. I
want you to think about that. And that is not the worst. In
Pennsylvania, Senator Casey told me, it would be over 50 percent of
people's incomes. How are we going to sustain that? Who can sustain
spending 40 percent of their income on premiums? Fifty percent? It
isn't going to happen. People will have to walk away. People will get
sicker.
We cannot afford the status quo. That is why I have this chart here
that says: No equals the status quo. It is no, no, no. No, let's not do
this. No, let's not help our President. No, let's not address this
issue. Scare tactics, throwing around words, ``government-run health
care.''
I say to my friend from South Carolina--unfortunately, he is not
here--government-run health care, does he want to bring down the
veterans health care system? Just try that one with your veterans. That
is a government-run health care system. Veterans get free health care.
Does he want to bring down the health care that our military gets every
single day run by this government? Of course not. They are getting the
best care in the world on the battlefield, and it is done because
taxpayers pay the freight. That is a government-run health care.
Does my friend want to bring down Medicaid that helps the poor people
get some insurance? I hope not because it would be tens of thousands of
people in his State, including many children. How about SCHIP? That is
a government-run health care system that helps our poor kids. Does he
want to bring it down? Why doesn't he try to do that? See where the
votes are. And last but not least, Medicare. Medicare is a single-payer
system, government run, very low overhead costs. Our seniors love
Medicare. Does my friend want to bring down that government health care
system?
This is ridiculous. There is no plan that is moving forward that is a
government takeover. Yes, we keep veterans health care going and
military health care going. Yes, we keep SCHIP for the kids going. Yes,
Medicaid. Yes, veterans. But we don't expand that except to say as we
go out to the American people to tell them we are going to save them
from enormous premium increases, that there will be an option, a choice
they can make to buy into a public plan or a public interest plan. Some
say it could be a co-op. We don't know the details. But to have my
friend from South Carolina come to this floor and tell us: Vote no on
this health care when we don't even have a plan before us means he is
for the great big red stop sign because no equals the status quo. And
no action is in itself a hostile act.
Employer-sponsored health care premiums have more than doubled in the
last 9 years. Two-thirds of all personal bankruptcies are linked to
medical expenses. Let me say that again. Two-thirds of all personal
bankruptcies are linked to medical expenses. And how about this: The
United States spends more than twice as much on health care per person
than most industrial nations, and it ranks last in preventable
mortality. It ranks last in preventable mortality, and we spend twice
as much as any other nation. Status quo is no, no change.
Is that what we want to see continued--continued increases in
premiums for businesses, for individuals, getting to a point where it
is 40, 50 percent of a family's income? That is not sustainable. Where
do they get the money for food, for clothing, for shelter?
The other problem we have is 46 million Americans have no health
insurance, including one in five working adults. What does that mean?
It means that the people without health insurance are waiting for a
crisis to occur. They don't take any preventive steps. They don't see a
doctor until late in the process in an emergency room. It means that we
are picking up the bills because when people go to an emergency room
and they cannot pay, who is picking up the tab? Those of us who have
insurance. That is how it goes.
I am hoping that the American people weigh in on this debate, as they
have begun to do. I was told ever since I was a young person that you
need to try hard when there is a problem. Try hard. Be constructive.
Don't call other people names. You may disagree with them, respect
them. Don't try to bring them down, don't try to break them. Make your
arguments; put forward an

[[Page S7836]]

alternative. I have looked at the course of history, and history says
to people who do nothing that they haven't contributed very much. In
this case, because the status quo is unsustainable, they are hurting
our people. They are hurting our people. More than half of all
Americans live with one or more chronic conditions. The cost of caring
for an individual with a chronic disease accounts for 75 percent of the
amount we spend on health care. I have those five chronic diseases in
front of me. They are: Heart disease, cancer, stroke, chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease, and diabetes. Those five are responsible
for more than two-thirds of the deaths in the USA. That is information
that is important because, when you look at this, many of these can be
prevented and treated in a way so that they do not wind up costing so
much and hurting our families.

We have an extraordinary opportunity before us, and I think you are
going to see the parties showing who they represent. Do they represent
the forces of the status quo that are going to scare people or do they
represent the forces of change--positive change? I think history will
show that those who stepped to the plate here and were constructive are
going to be the ones about whom people say: She tried. He tried. He
fixed a lot of problems. Not all of them. but they started moving in
the right direction.
Our families deserve change here. Our families cannot sit back and
absorb the kind of increases in health care premiums they have seen in
the past. We know how to fix it. If we work together, we will be able
to fix it.
I wish to take a minute to thank the Republicans who are working so
constructively with our Democrats. You don't hear them speaking much on
the floor, as you did the Senator from South Carolina, who, as I say,
was quoted as saying he wants to make health care President Obama's
Waterloo. He wants to break him on this. The Republicans whom you don't
see on the floor talking like that are the ones who are sitting with
the Democrats, working day after day, night after night, to solve this
problem.
I hope people will remember, when you hear these scare tactics--
government-run health care--that we don't even have a bill yet, and
they are saying it is about government-run health care, not one bill
that I have seen is government-run health care, not one. But I
challenge my friends. If they do not like Medicare--it is government
run--why not try to repeal it and see how many senior citizens come to
your office. If my Republican friends don't like government-run health
care, take away the health care from the veterans because it is
government run. Take away health care from the military. Privatize
that. Take away Medicaid. Take away SCHIP from our kids.
They are not going to do that because they know these programs work.
Are they perfect? Of course, they are not perfect. Do we have to
continue to make them better? Yes, we do. But we need to come together.
We need to find that sweet spot that we look for in legislation. I wish
to, again, thank those Republicans who are meeting with the Democrats.
Be courageous. Stick with it. Don't play politics. Don't try to bring
down this young President. Try to work with him. Don't threaten that
this is going to be a Waterloo. Don't talk about government-run systems
when that is not in the bill. Don't frighten people. Because at the end
of the day, this is our moment if we work together.
I certainly reach out my hand and compliment those who are willing to
work across party lines because we cannot sustain the health care
system as it is. We can make it better, we can make it affordable, we
can keep choice in there, we can turn to prevention, and that is what I
hope we will do. We will work hard, but I think we can do it with the
help of some courageous folks on the other side of the aisle.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee is
recognized.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business and ask the Chair to please let me know when I have
finished 9 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I was listening to the Senator from
California, and with respect to her comments let me state the position
of the Republican Senators on health care reform. Our leader, Mitch
McConnell, the Senator from Kentucky, stated yesterday to the news
media: This isn't about winning or losing. This is about getting it
right.
Health care is very personal to every one of us, to every one of our
families, and to all the American people. Our goal, on the Republican
side, and I am sure for many Democrats as well, is to start with cost
and make sure we can say to the American people they can afford their
health care policy; and when we have finished fixing health care, they
can afford their government. So far, that has not been the case.
We have offered plans which we believe will reach that goal. Just to
give my own example: Last year, I joined with Senator Wyden, a
Democrat; Senator Bennett, a Republican, in endorsing their plan. It is
not perfect, but it is a very good plan, and it has a completely
different approach than the bill that came out of the Senate HELP
Committee or that is coming through the House. I believe it is a better
approach.
The point is there are 14 Senators on that plan today--8 Democrats
and 6 Republicans. Why isn't it being considered? It doesn't have a
government-run program in it. Why shouldn't we talk about not having a
government-run program? Medicaid, the largest government-run program we
have today, is used to cover low-income Americans and forces them to
take their health care in a system that 40 percent of America's doctors
won't serve because, in general, they are paid about half as much for
their services as they are if they serve the 177 million of us who have
private health insurance.
The Wyden-Bennett bill is constructed along the idea of rearranging
the subsidies we already give to the American people for health care
and gives it to everyone in a way that will permit them--all the
American people--to afford a health insurance plan that is about the
same as a plan that congressional employees have. Literally, we would
say to low-income Americans: Here, take this money and buy a private
insurance plan of your own, like the rest of us do. This is a much
better idea than dumping 20 million more people into a failed
government program called Medicaid--which is not only not serving those
low-income people but bankrupting States.
What is wrong with that idea, 14 of us think it ought to be
considered? Yet it has not been given the time of day.
Senator Coburn and Senator Burr have proposals that I have endorsed.
Senator Gregg has a proposal. Senator Hatch has a proposal. None of
them have been given the time of day.
We have had very friendly discussions, but they do not qualify as
bipartisan discussions. I give the Senate Finance Committee members
great credit for trying to work in a bipartisan way, but they are
working in a bipartisan way that is still going in the wrong direction,
which is expanding an existing government plan that has failed--
Medicaid--they are working on creating a new government plan for people
who lose their health care under the theories that have been proposed.
Don't think they are not.
I would hope the President would see what is happening and say: Whoa,
let's slow down. I have stated what I want. I have put my neck out. I
have said to the American people, if they have a health care plan they
like, they can keep it. Unfortunately, under the plans we see today,
they are going to lose their health care. They have a very good risk of
losing their health care and ending up, if they are poor, with their
only option being a failed government program that none of us would
join, if we could possibly avoid it.
Why would we stuff 20 million people into a program we don't want to
be in, when we could give them the opportunity to be in a program
similar to the one we are in? That is what we should be doing. On the
Republican side, we are saying to our Democratic colleagues: We know
you have the majority. We know you have the Presidency. But we have
some ideas we think the American people would benefit from.

We only have one chance to pass this, to change this big system we
have, and

[[Page S7837]]

we better make sure we do it right. If you don't want to take our
advice, we would say, respectfully: Why don't you listen to some
others? There is the Mayo Clinic. The Senator from California asked:
Why are they talking about government programs? Because the Mayo
Clinic--often cited by the President, by many of us, as the kind of
high-quality, good results, low-cost health care we would like to have
more of--the Iowa Clinic, the Marshfield Clinic, and other clinics say
these health care plans are headed in the wrong direction, and one
reason is because they would create a new government plan which would
eventually drive the Mayo Clinic and these other clinics out of the
market, which means they wouldn't be serving Medicare patients.
So why would we do that? I think we should take our time and get it
right. If the Mayo Clinic is saying we are heading in the wrong
direction, if the Democratic Governors are saying that, if the
Congressional Budget Office is saying we are adding to the cost and
adding to the debt, wouldn't the wise thing be to say: Well, maybe they
have a point.
Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, a Democrat from my State, knows a
lot about health care--Medicaid--and he says Congress is about to
bestow ``the mother of all unfunded mandates.'' Governor Bredesen, a
former health care executive, continued:

Medicaid is a poor vehicle for expanding coverage. It is a
45-year-old system originally designed for poor women and
children. It is not health care reform to dump more money
into Medicaid.

Here is the Governor of Washington, a Democrat.

As a governor, my concern is if we try to cost-shift to the
States we're not going to be in a position to pick up the
tab.

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, a Democratic Governor, said:

I'm personally very concerned about the cost issue,
particularly the $1 trillion figures being batted around.

Gov. Bill Ritter of Colorado, a Democrat.

There's a concern about whether they have fully figured out
a revenue stream that would cover the costs, and that if they
don't have all the dollars accounted for it will fall on the
States.

So said Gov. Jim Douglas of Vermont. And Gov. Brian Schweitzer of
Montana said:

The governors are concerned about unfunded mandates,
another situation where the Federal government says you must
do X and you must pay for it. Well, if they want to reform
health care, they should figure out what the rules are and
how they are going to pay for it.

So instead of standing on the other side and saying the Republicans
are saying no, I am saying the Republicans are saying yes. We support
the bipartisan Wyden-Bennett bill. We have offered the Burr-Coburn
bill. We have offered the Gregg bill. We have the Hatch bill. Take our
proposals and consider the ideas because they do not involve
government-run programs, they do not dump low-income people into
Medicaid, where you would not be able to see a doctor. That is akin to
giving someone a bus ticket to a route with no buses. We already do it
with 60 million people, so why should we do it with 80 million people,
which is the suggestion we have.
We want to work with the President and with our friends on the
Democratic side to come up with health care reform this year. We want
to be able to say to the American people: We want a plan you can afford
for yourself. And when we're finished fixing it, we want a government
you can afford. If the Mayo Clinic and the Democratic Governors and the
Congressional Budget Office are all saying we are headed in the wrong
direction, then why don't we start over and work together and try to
get a result we can live with for the next 30 or 40 years?
We can only do this once, and we need to do it right.
I thank the President.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has used 9 minutes.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. ALEXANDER. On the Senator's time, I will be happy to.
Mr. DURBIN. I don't know that we are in controlled time; are we, Mr.
President?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. We are not in controlled time, but
the next speaker to be recognized under the unanimous consent agreement
is the Senator from Delaware, when the time of the Senator from
Tennessee has expired.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware is
recognized.

honoring dr. deborah jin

Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I have often spoken about the need to
invest in technology and innovation. We cannot afford to fall behind in
this area after leading the world in science research and discovery for
half a century.
Since I began coming to the floor to talk about great Federal
employees, I have honored individuals who have made significant
contributions in the areas of engineering, medicine, defense, housing
assistance, land conservation, and international aid. The list of
fields benefiting from the work of our Federal employees is lengthy.
Another such area is physics. At a time when our planet faces
resource scarcity and higher energy costs, the work of physicists at
Federal research institutions remains an important investment in our
future security and prosperity.
Dr. Deborah Jin is one of these outstanding Federal employees
pioneering advances in the field of physics. She serves as a research
team-leader at the JILA-National Institute of Standards and Technology
joint institute in Boulder, CO.
Deborah's team created a new form of matter, a major discovery in the
race toward superconductivity. Superconductivity, or using extremely
low temperatures to move electrons through a magnetic field, can
potentially lead to breakthroughs in energy efficiency and computing.
Her work will likely improve the lives of hundreds of millions of
people.
This achievement was far from easy. To create a new form of matter,
Deborah and her team needed to get particles called fermions to join
together in pairs. Unfortunately, fermions have a natural tendency to
repel each other.
Deborah discovered that fermions will pair up when exposed to certain
gasses at more than 450 degrees below zero.
This exciting advance takes us one giant step closer to understanding
superconductivity. The uses of this technology could include faster
computers and cell phones, smaller microchips and more efficient home
appliances. Potentially, superconductivity could eliminate the ten
percent of energy lost in transfer from power plants to homes and
businesses.
Deborah and her colleagues exemplify the spirit of ingenuity and
determination that has always characterized Americans working in
scientific research. They had been racing against six other teams from
laboratories around the world, and they were the first to reach this
milestone.
It is unlikely that we will be able to appreciate the full extent of
this breakthrough for many years, and future generations may not
remember those who worked so hard to achieve it.
But, like all of those who work in public service, Deborah knows that
she and her team have made a difference--that the impact of their
findings will be felt in every subsequent discovery on the path to
making superconductors a reality.
I call on my fellow Senators and on all Americans to join me in
honoring the service of Dr. Deborah Jin, her colleagues at the joint
institute in Boulder, and all Federal employees working on scientific
research. They are the unsung heroes of America's global leadership in
science and technology.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). The Senator from Texas is
recognized.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about a very
important amendment, amendment No. 1725, which I think will help us
restore the franchise, the vote, to our deployed military overseas.
This is a bipartisan amendment. The lead sponsors are Senator Chuck
Schumer and Senator Bob Bennett, the chairman and ranking member of the
Rules Committee, but this builds on the work Senator Begich and I,
Senator Chambliss, and others have put into this effort to address what
can only be described as a national disgrace.
Our military service members put their lives on the line to protect
our rights and our freedoms. Yet many of them still face substantial
roadblocks

[[Page S7838]]

when it comes to something as simple as casting their ballots and
participating in our national elections. Sadly, this is not a new
problem. President Truman urged Congress to address obstacles to voting
faced by troops serving in Korea. Today, however, troops deployed in
Afghanistan and Iraq face many of the same problems.
In 2006, less than half of the military voters who requested absentee
ballots were successful in casting them, according to the U.S. Election
Assistance Commission.
In 2008, those problems continued. More than a quarter of the ballots
requested by uniformed and overseas voters went either uncollected or
uncounted, according to a recent survey of seven States with high
military voting populations.
In a soon to be released study of the 2008 cycle which looked at 20
States with large military populations, the Heritage Foundation has
concluded that as many as three-quarters of our troops and their family
members were ``disenfranchised by their inability to request an
absentee ballot'' and that as many as one-third of the ballots that
were requested never reached the appropriate election officials to be
counted.
Voting has remained a challenge for our troops and their families for
many reasons. First, our election laws are complex and multiple levels
of government are involved. Election challenges and other unforeseen
events can delay the finalization of ballots. The high tempo of
military operations often requires frequent deployments for our troops
and their families.
Let me describe what this amendment, which I hope we will adopt later
today, does.
Our legislation addresses several of the biggest roadblocks our
troops and their families face when attempting to vote. First, this
legislation will provide voter assistance services to every service
member and family member upon transfer to a new military installation.
As part of each installation's in-processing, every service member will
now be offered an opportunity to fill out a simple form the Department
of Defense will return to the appropriate election officials. That form
will update the address on file with election officials and request
absentee ballots for the next Federal election cycle. These voter
assistance services will give our military personnel some of the
support that civilians now enjoy through motor voter laws.
Second, this legislation reduces the reliance on snail male for
correspondence between troops and their election officials. Under
current election laws, many troops must mail a request for an absentee
ballot, then wait for the election officials to mail them the blank
ballot, and then to return the completed ballot in time to be counted.
This legislation requires elections officials to create electronic
blank ballots and to post them online. Election officials must also
accept faxes and e-mails to expedite correspondence with our troops.
Together, these reforms will reduce dependence on snail mail until
the service member is ready to return the completed ballot to be
counted.
Third, this legislation will expedite the return of the completed
ballot to election officials. Under current law, each servicemember is
responsible for making sure his or her ballot is postmarked and
returned on time. This legislation requires the Department of Defense
to take possession of completed ballots and ensure that they get to
election officials on time by using Express Mail, if necessary.
This legislation also requires election officials to give our troops
45 days, at least, to return their ballots.
This important amendment contains many other commonsense reforms
suggested by other Senators and will help end the effective
disenfranchisement of our troops and their families. Our goal has been
to balance responsibilities between elections officials and the
Department of Defense, and I believe this amendment accomplishes that
goal.
As I said, this amendment would not be in its current posture without
the leadership of Senator Schumer and Senator Bennett. And I appreciate
them working to include two pieces of legislation I introduced earlier
this year, something called the Military Voting Protection Act, which,
just this weekend was unanimously endorsed by the National Association
of Secretaries of State, and a second piece of legislation called the
Military Voters' Equal Access to Registration Act. These two pieces of
legislation have received broad bipartisan support from the beginning,
including Senators Begich, Inhofe, Wyden, Vitter, and Hutchison. We
have also worked closely with leaders in the House of Representatives,
especially Congressmen Kevin McCarthy and Duncan Hunter.
All of our work was not done in Washington. We relied on support and
technical assistance from the Texas Secretary of State's Office,
especially our Director of Elections, Ann McGeehan, dozens of military
support organizations and veterans service organizations, and many
other citizens and patriots who want our troops to enjoy their right to
vote--that it be protected, particularly for those who defend all of
us.
I urge all of our colleagues to support this amendment when it comes
to the Senate floor, I hope, later on today, and to give this important
amendment our unanimous consent.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Health Care Reform

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, once every 20 years we take up critical
issues like health care reform. Many of us believe this particular
moment in history is perhaps the only opportunity in our public career
to tackle an issue of this magnitude. We know overwhelmingly the people
of America want us to do this.
Many people like their health insurance policies, particularly if
they don't use them. But most people understand the health care system
we have in this country is broken. We have to fix what is broken, and
we have to preserve those things that are good about the current
system.
I have heard a lot of speeches from the other side of the aisle about
the situation we currently face, the debate that is underway. I think
what recently happened in the Senate HELP Committee is a good indicator
of a good-faith effort by the Democratic majority and Senator Dodd to
try to come up with a bipartisan Republican-Democratic approach.
Over the course of over 60 days of hearings the Senate HELP Committee
had filed over 800 amendments, considered over 400 amendments, adopted
160 Republican amendments in the course of 61 hours of straight
hearing, and at the end of the day when the rollcall was taken, not a
single Republican Senator would support the bill. I think Senator Dodd
made a good-faith effort, and I think we should continue to.
Now the Finance Committee is taking up the same bill. It will be a
lot better bill if it is a bipartisan effort and if compromises are
reached, if we try to do this together in an expeditious way. But if it
becomes a standoff where there are no Republican votes in support of it
or where they will not negotiate, where they all vote against it, then
I am afraid it will not be in the best interests of what the American
people want to see.

Yesterday on the front page of the Washington Post they had headlines
about some of the comments being made by some of my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle. The headline read, ``GOP Focuses Effort To
Kill Health Bills.'' Not to modify, not to improve, but to kill health
bills.
From a perspective of Republican leadership, that is what our health
care debate is about. Many of them just want to stop health care
reform. It has been 15 years since we made our last effort to provide
quality, affordable health care coverage to every American. The
Republican National Committee chairman, Michael Steele, today suggested
that the President should take another 8 to 10 months to formulate a
plan.
It has already been 8 months since Barack Obama won the 2008 election
on a platform of reforming health care. It has been 6 months since he
took office. Yet on the other side of the aisle, their chairman says
let's wait 8 to 10 months more.
It may fit in perfectly with a strategy to delay this debate as long
as possible, but it doesn't fit in with a strategy of solving the
problem. Tonight,

[[Page S7839]]

President Obama will be speaking to the American people, answering
questions from the press on health care. Tomorrow, in a trip to
Cleveland, he will be visiting the Cleveland Clinic and some other
facilities to talk about health care reform. We are just a couple of
weeks away from an August recess. We will come back in September and by
then I hope we can roll up our sleeves and get to work. The American
people want us to. They understand the problem.
Health care spending per person has increased rapidly over the past
10 years, rising over 40 percent. The people of the United States spend
over $2 trillion on health care each year. That is more than twice as
much per person as any other country on Earth, and our health results
do not show that money is being well spent.
Many countries, spending a lot less, get better results. We are
wasting a lot of money. It is money that is being taken out in fraud
and profit taking. It is money that does not make us feel any
healthier. It is just money that we have to pay, many times from
paychecks where it is a struggle to pay it.
The average annual premium of family coverage in Illinois during the
George W. Bush Presidency, those 8 years, went up $5,000. The average
annual premium went from $600 a month to over $1,000 a month.
The employer's share rose by 72 percent, the worker's portion rose by
78 percent. I might tell you in the same period of time, workers' wages
were not going up, just the cost of health care. People know this. They
sense it is getting out of hand.
Clearly, two-thirds of all the personal bankruptcies filed in
America, two-thirds of them, are related to medical expenses. Over 46
million Americans have no health insurance, and 14,000 Americans lose
their health insurance every single day.
If you hear about the 47, 48 million Americans without health
insurance, and say: It is a darned shame, but the poor will always be
with us, and we cannot solve every problem, Senator, sadly, some of
your neighbors, maybe some of the members of your family may find
themselves in that predicament soon if we do not address health reform.
Those of us who are lucky enough to have health insurance--for the
record, Members of Congress have the same health insurance plan as
Federal employees, 8 million of us; Federal employees and their
families, Members of Congress and staff, are in the same basic health
care plan. There is a lot of bad information out there about our health
insurance. It is a good plan, do not get me wrong, but it is the same
one Federal employees are entitled to. I think that is a fair way to
approach it.
But even those of us paying for health insurance are paying a hidden
tax. We pay up to $1,000, $1,100 per year per family to subsidize those
who are uninsured, who show up at the hospital and still get treated.
They get treated, they cannot pay for it, their expenses are shifted to
others who do pay. That includes those of us under health insurance,
about $1,100 a year.
At this point, we have 2.3 million more people losing health
insurance every year across America. It is something that should
concern us. But let's get down to specifics. Because I think if my
friends on the other side of the aisle will join us on this side of the
aisle and talk to American families about what they are going through,
we would get a better understanding of why this is so important and why
we cannot wait 8 months, 10 months, a year or more, we have to move on
this and do it decisively.
There is a fellow in my district who lives in Libertyville, IL. His
name is Rene Apack. He has been an insurance broker for 11 years. He
knows that business. He sells all kinds of insurance. He will sell
private health insurance to close friends and family members, but he
shies away from it when it comes to the general public because he says
it is too complicated to explain, there are too many underwriting
tricks and traps in those insurance policies.
Mr. Apack does not want to get into the business of trying to defend
those policies to his clients. If his clients are denied coverage for
health care based on some fine print they do not understand, even
though he had nothing to do with it, he feels bad about it. So he
discourages the sale of private health insurance to his clients.
Medicare, he said, is the opposite. We have heard people come to the
floor day after day on the other side of the aisle criticising
government health insurance. But I have yet to hear the first
Republican Senator call for eliminating Medicare. Medicare covers 45
million Americans, seniors and disabled, with affordable health
insurance. It is a government-administered program. I have yet to hear
the first Republican Senator say we should do away with it.
It is a program which saves a lot of people, some of whom retire
before they reach the age of 65 and run into medical problems and pray
they can be eligible for Medicare and not lose their life savings. It
happened to a member of my family, my brother.
Luckily for him, Medicare kicked in at the right moment, saved his
life savings. It might have saved his life. He is 77 now, so for 12
years Medicare has been helping to pay his bills. Mr. Apack says:

My mom, my mother-in-law, my uncle--they have Medicare
supplement insurance and everything works like clockwork. I
have never had one Medicare supplement claim denied.

It is not just his clients who have problems with health insurers,
his own health insurance has had a high deductible, $7,000 a year is
his deductible on his health insurance for his family coverage,
himself, his wife, and his 12-year-old son. Last year his wife was told
she needed a routine mammogram, basic preventive care. But they did not
know how much it would cost. So they did what conscientious consumers
would do since they knew they had to pay the first $7,000 deductible
before the health insurance paid anything.
They called and they said: Give us a ballpark estimate of how much it
will cost for a mammogram. Is it $200 or $2,000? No one would tell them
the price.
Mr. Apack, an insurance broker, said: It is like walking into a
restaurant and ordering a meal and hoping you can afford it. In the
end, Mrs. Apack decided it was too risky to go in for this test and not
know how much it would cost. She did not do it. That is not a good
outcome.
Preventive care could save her life and avoid more serious and
expensive medical care. A while back, after his premiums increased 38
percent over 2 years, Mr. Apack reapplied with the same insurer, wanted
to see if he could lower his premiums by switching to a higher
deductible. He answered every question on the application form.
Remember, this man is an insurance broker. Then he got a letter from
his insurer, and the letter asked him: Are you sure about all the
answers you gave us? Do you want to stand by all the answers?
Then he got a phone call from the insurer, and the caller asked: Are
you sure there is not something you failed to tell us? And he named a
date 8 years earlier. The person from the insurance company said: Is it
not true that you had a prescription in your name filled that day 8
years ago?
Well, finally he remembered. Mr. Apack remembered he had been in a
car accident that day. He was not hurt badly, but he was a little sore.
His doctor said: Here is a prescription for pain medication, take it if
you need it. He filled the prescription. Eight years later that
prescription apparently gave his insurer pause about keeping him as a
customer.
We talk about preexisting conditions. We talk about unknown costs in
the current system. To think they could go in your past and find a
prescription you filled 8 years ago and call you back and say: Are you
sure you have not failed to disclose something here?
That is what the current system is, a health insurance system full of
tricks and traps. Those on the other side of the aisle who say we do
not need to change it, one Senator from South Carolina said let the
market work, which means basically hands off. Mr. Steele, who heads the
Republican National Committee, said: Let's wait 8 to 10 more months
before we get into that.
Do they not understand what families are facing on an everyday basis?
Mr. Apack knows he is probably luckier than some who live around him.
One of his neighbors pays $15,000 a year for health coverage for
herself,

[[Page S7840]]

her husband, and child--more than they pay on their family mortgage.
He met with a client recently, a real estate company with about 50
employees. Last year, the employees all decided to switch to part time
so no one would be laid off. Their incomes are down at least 50 percent
from a year ago. Their health insurance premiums went up 5 percent.
In the professional opinion of this Illinois insurance broker, we
need a better system, health care coverage that is affordable, simple,
and fair. That is the challenge we face in the Senate. It is a
challenge we cannot ignore.
The Finance Committee now is trying to work out a reasonable way to
deal with this challenge. We know the providers have to be in on this
conversation. If we are spending more than twice as much as any nation
on Earth for health care, then we obviously need to ask if there can be
savings.
United Health Care reported their earnings, if you followed that in
the business pages of the paper, another big recordbreaking profit, far
beyond expectations. Health care insurance companies are doing very
well.

Pharmaceutical companies historically have been some of the most
profitable companies. There are providers in the health care system
that are doing extremely well. We need to bring costs down within the
system, without compromising quality. That is the challenge we face.
I know they tried in the HELP Committee adopting 161 Republican
amendments and could not find a single Republican Senator to support
the final bill. Tonight the President is going to renew the challenge,
the challenge to all of us not to miss this once-every-two-decades
opportunity to deal with health care.
I fear, if we do that, we are going to find ourselves in an
unsustainable position. The cost of health care is going to continue to
go up at expense levels we cannot handle as a nation. We have to make
sure we have basic health care reform and get it right. We have to
reduce costs for families, businesses, and the government. We have to
protect people's choice of doctors, hospitals, and insurance plans. If
you have an insurance plan you like, you ought to be able to keep it
and assure affordable high-quality health care.
We have to make sure health insurance companies are not denying
coverage for preexisting conditions, health status or medical
condition. We have to eliminate the caps on coverage so a very
expensive chronic disease does not end up blowing the top off your
health insurance policy and going right into your savings account.
We have to put a limit on out-of-pocket expenses. We have to
guarantee equal treatment for men and women, Black, White and brown,
young and old, and different geographic locations. Incidentally, I
noted the health insurance companies have now said they are going to
look into this to make sure they start billing women a little more
favorably than they have in the past--I wonder if it has anything to do
with our debate--that the basic health insurance plan in America has a
kind of coverage and protection that is adequate for every family. We
have to bring down the costs.
One of the ways we are going to do that is provide some tax
incentives and help for low-and middle-income families. We have to make
sure people are paying fair premiums. Finally, we have to make sure we
support small businesses. Of the 47 million uninsured, the vast
majority of those are people working in small businesses and their
families.
Senator Snowe, Senator Lincoln, myself, and others have introduced a
bill called the SHOP bill that would give small businesses across
America the same basic option Federal employees have in the health
benefit program.
That is a way to get small businesses into purchasing pools to lower
their costs, to make sure their employees and the small businesses have
the same benefits when it comes to health care coverage.
I encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we have to
get beyond ``no.'' You have to get to a point where you work with us to
try to change the status quo and bring about real health care reform.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding we may move ahead
shortly with debate and vote on an amendment by Senator Brownback and a
side-by-side vote on the same subject with Senator Kerry.
I believe Senator Kerry's amendment would be first. Hopefully, we can
agree with that soon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we are expecting that unanimous consent
agreement can be propounded within the next few minutes so we can
continue to press forward.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to ask the distinguished
chairman and ranking member if there is going to be a quorum call, I
ask unanimous consent that I speak until the agreement has been
reached.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Health Care Reform

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to speak as in morning business
on health care. It has been the topic of conversation while the Defense
bill has been negotiated behind the scenes. I wished to talk about
health care reform because it is the issue of the day. I think America
is focusing on this issue now, and I am so glad they are because the
more we learn about the proposals that are being made in the House and
in the committees on the Senate side, the more concerns are being
raised by the American people and by the experts who are studying the
proposals.
What I am concerned about is the proposals that have been put forward
from the Senate committee, and what is being put forward on the House
side are proposals that are going to be the beginning of a government
health care system that is modeled after Canada and Great Britain. What
we are looking at is more government, more taxes, more expensive health
care, and what we see less of is quality health care, less choice, less
reimbursement to hospitals and Medicare and Medicaid; exactly the wrong
direction.
We have hospitals all over my home State of Texas that treat indigent
patients and patients who cannot pay.
Every one of our hospitals, rural and urban, gets extra help from
Medicare and Medicaid for doing these services. The problem is that
people go into the emergency rooms for primary care, care they could
get from a doctor in a doctor's office if they had health care
coverage. But they don't, so they wait until their diseases are much
more progressed, and they go to an emergency room. What does that do?
It makes the cost of health care higher for everyone. It makes the cost
of health care continue to go up, and it raises premiums for people who
have coverage. It costs taxpayers who have to pay for the emergency
room care in the form of tax increases.
What we are looking at now is a proposal that will take money out of
the hospitals. Every one of the hospitals in Texas will have lower
reimbursements from Medicare and Medicaid, every one. That is estimated
to cost more taxpayer dollars to cover the people who are going to the
emergency room. Rural hospitals, particularly, may have to close their
doors. I am hearing from rural hospital administrators that they don't
have the money to absorb these cuts. They have a choice. They can cut
services, or they can close hospitals--neither of which is an outcome
any of us wants to see.
In addition, there are Medicaid requirements for States. Every
Governor, Democratic or Republican, is saying: What are you thinking?
More Federal mandates that are unfunded? That is why people are so
frustrated with the Federal Government right now, more unfunded
mandates. The estimate is that it would cost my home State of Texas $3
billion a year to absorb just the Medicaid unfunded mandate that is in
the proposed bill making its way through Congress.
There has been an urgency. Many of the people on the floor here, as
well as the President, are saying: We have a deadline. We have an
August deadline, and we must pass this bill by August.
We are talking about a complete overturning of our health care
system, not reform. Reform is what we all want. We need reform in our
health care system. We need lower costs and more people covered. That
is not what the bill going through Congress will do.

[[Page S7841]]

It is a complete upheaval of the health care system. It will be a
single-payer government system that will start encroaching on and
displacing the private health care people know and that provides the
quality assurance we expect.
The private health care system will start being displaced by a big
government system that will be cheaper but will also give fewer choices
and less service. That is the concern so many people are beginning to
have as more and more comes out about this health care plan.
In addition, there is an effort being made to pay for this big
government takeover of health care. What are the options on the table?
This is what is being proposed: that we will fine employers who do not
offer private health care to their employees. That is like saying: OK,
if you hire more people and you don't offer health care, your fines
will go up. So that is going to discourage the hiring of people at a
time when unemployment is at a record high. We should be encouraging
people, especially in small business, to hire people. We want to create
jobs, not cut them. Instead, we are going to increase taxes on small
business. As much as 45 percent is being proposed on small business.
That will make small business taxes higher than corporate taxes.
Corporate taxes in America are among the highest in the world. Yet we
are going to add on top of the 45 percent that the small businesses
will pay, 35 percent for corporate. And then you fine the businesses
that don't offer health care. It is almost as though we are in a self-
fulfilling death wish. In the unemployment atmosphere in which we find
ourselves, all of a sudden we are going to pass new taxes and new fines
on small businesses which are the economic engine of America. It is
small business that creates jobs, not big business, not government. Big
business does some, but mostly it is small business growing that
creates economic vitality. It is certainly not government.
When we get to bigger and bigger government, we are going to find
ourselves in a spiral where half the people are working to support the
other half of the population. It will go down from there.
It is important to read what the Mayo Clinic said about the House
bill. They said:

Although there are some positive provisions in the bill,
the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help
create higher quality, more affordable health care for
patients. In fact, it will do the opposite.

This is the Mayo Clinic, one of the premier health care providers in
the country.

In general, the proposals under discussion are not patient-
focused or results-oriented. Lawmakers have failed to use a
fundamental lever, a change in Medicare payment policy, to
help drive necessary improvements in American health care.

The Mayo Clinic goes on:

Unless legislators create payment systems that pay for good
patient results at reasonable cost, the promise of
transformation in American health care will wither. The real
losers will be the citizens of the United States.

Today 40 percent of physicians turn away Medicaid patients because
the system is poorly administered and has a weak record of
reimbursement. We know that billions of taxpayer dollars are wasted on
fraud and abuse in Medicare every year. Are we going to emulate a
program that doctors are walking away from and that is costing billions
of wasted dollars to the taxpayers?
This is not responsible governing. We need to take our time.
Republicans have come forward and will continue to come forward with
alternatives, alternatives that don't break the backs of taxpayers,
that don't break the backs of small business people, that give the
quality health care Americans have come to expect and should. We have
alternatives that are responsible. Small business health plans, for
one, would be the best approach to this, because more people being
covered means lower cost for everyone.
What does every family in this country want? They want a job to
support their families, and they want health care coverage for their
children. We can give them that by giving affordable opportunities for
small businesses to give health care coverage options to their
employees. That is what Americans want. They don't want a big
government health care system that is going to rob them of quality and
cost them more in the meantime.
I appreciate the opportunity to talk today about this important issue
and why we must take time to do this right. If we completely overturn
our health care system, we may never be able to get it back. We may
never be able to recover. We can do this right, if we take the time and
if it is truly bipartisan, if Republicans will have a seat at the
table. They didn't have a seat at the table when the Senate committee
voted its bill out taking two Republican amendments out of 45 offered.
That is not bipartisanship. That is being polite and saying no. What we
want is to have real options that will keep the quality, keep the
choice, keep the private sector employment in our system and give
families a chance to have good jobs with health care coverage. We can
do that, if we will get together on a bipartisan basis and go forward
in a positive way.
The bills coming out of the House and Senate right now, with
virtually no Republican input, are not right for America. That is why
we are saying: Let's go back to the drawing board.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

Amendment No. 1761

Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set
aside so that I may call up an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. On behalf of Senator Kerry, Senator Lugar, and myself, I
call up amendment No. 1761.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Kerry, for
himself, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Webb, proposes an
amendment numbered 1761.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the United States
should fully enforce existing sanctions, and should explore additional
sanctions, with respect to North Korea and to require a review to
determine whether North Korea should be re-listed as a state sponsor of
terrorism)

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

SEC. 1232. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON ENFORCEMENT AND IMPOSITION
OF SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO NORTH KOREA;
REVIEW TO DETERMINE WHETHER NORTH KOREA SHOULD
BE RE-LISTED AS A STATE SPONSOR OF TERRORISM.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) On April 5, 2009, the Government of North Korea tested
an intermediate range ballistic missile in violation of
United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1695 (2006) and
1718 (2006).
(2) On April 5, 2009, President Barack Obama issued a
statement on North Korea, stating that ``Preventing the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means
of delivery is a high priority for my administration'', and
adding, ``North Korea has ignored its international
obligations, rejected unequivocal calls for restraint, and
further isolated itself from the community of nations''.
(3) On April 15, 2009, the Government of North Korea
announced it was expelling international inspectors from its
Yongbyon nuclear facility and ending its participation in the
Six Party Talks for the Denuclearization of the Korean
Peninsula.
(4) On May 25, 2009, the Government of North Korea
conducted a second nuclear test, in disregard of United
Nations Security Council Resolution 1718, which was issued in
2006 following the first such test and which demanded that
North Korea not conduct any further nuclear tests or launches
of a ballistic missile.
(5) The State Department's 2008 Human Rights Report on
North Korea, issued on February 25, 2009, found that human
rights conditions inside North Korea remained poor, prison
conditions are harsh and life-threatening, and citizens were
denied basic freedoms such as freedom of speech, press,
assembly, religion, and association.
(6) Pursuant to section 102(b)(2)(E) of the Arms Export
Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2799aa-1(b)(2)(E)), President George
W. Bush, on February 7, 2007, notified Congress that the
United States Government would oppose the extension of any
loan or financial or technical assistance to North Korea by
any international financial institution and the prohibition
on support for the extension of such loans or assistance
remains in effect.
(7) On June 12, 2009, the United Nations Security Council
passed Resolution 1874, condemning North Korea's nuclear
test, imposing a sweeping embargo on all arms trade with
North Korea, and requiring member states not to provide
financial support or other financial services that could
contribute to North Korea's nuclear-related or missile-
related activities or other activities related to weapons of
mass destruction.

[[Page S7842]]

(8) On July 15, 2009, the Sanctions Committee of the United
Nations Security Council, pursuant to United Nations Security
Council Resolution 1874, imposed a travel ban on five North
Korean individuals and asset freezes on five more North
Korean entities for their involvement in nuclear weapons and
ballistic missile development programs, marking the first
time the United Nations has imposed a travel ban on North
Koreans.
(9) On June 10, 2008, the Government of North Korea issued
a statement, subsequently conveyed directly to the United
States Government, affirming that North Korea, ``will firmly
maintain its consistent stand of opposing all forms of
terrorism and any support to it and will fulfill its
responsibility and duty in the struggle against terrorism.''.
(10) The June 10, 2008, statement by the Government of
North Korea also pledged that North Korea would take ``active
part in the international efforts to prevent substance,
equipment and technology to be used for the production of
nukes and biochemical and radioactive weapons from finding
their ways to the terrorists and the organizations that
support them''.
(11) On June 26, 2008, President George W. Bush certified
that--
(A) the Government of North Korea had not provided any
support for international terrorism during the preceding 6-
month period; and
(B) the Government of North Korea had provided assurances
that it will not support acts of international terrorism in
the future.
(12) The President's June 26 certification concluded, based
on all available information, that there was ``no credible
evidence at this time of ongoing support by the DPRK for
international terrorism'' and that ``there is no credible or
sustained reporting at this time that supports allegations
(including as cited in recent reports by the Congressional
Research Service) that the DPRK has provided direct or
witting support for Hezbollah, Tamil Tigers, or the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard''.
(13) The State Department's Country Reports on Terrorism
2008, in a section on North Korea, state, ``The Democratic
People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) was not known to have
sponsored any terrorist acts since the bombing of a Korean
Airlines flight in 1987.''.
(14) The Country Reports on Terrorism 2008 also state, ``A
state that directs WMD resources to terrorists, or one from
which enabling resources are clandestinely diverted, poses a
grave WMD terrorism threat. Although terrorist organizations
will continue to seek a WMD capability independent of state
programs, the sophisticated WMD knowledge and resources of a
state could enable a terrorist capability. State sponsors of
terrorism and all nations that fail to live up to their
international counterterrorism and nonproliferation
obligations deserve greater scrutiny as potential
facilitators of WMD terrorism.''.
(15) On October 11, 2008, the Secretary of State, pursuant
to the President's certification, removed North Korea from
its list of state sponsors of terrorism, on which North Korea
had been placed in 1988.
(b) Report on Conduct of North Korea.--Not later than 30
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
President shall submit to Congress a detailed report
examining the conduct of the Government of North Korea since
June 26, 2008, based on all available information, to
determine whether North Korea meets the statutory criteria
for listing as a state sponsor of terrorism. The report
shall--
(1) present any credible evidence of support by the
Government of North Korea for acts of terrorism, terrorists,
or terrorist organizations;
(2) examine what steps the Government of North Korea has
taken to fulfill its June 10, 2008, pledge to prevent weapons
of mass destruction from falling into the hands of
terrorists; and
(3) assess the effectiveness of re-listing North Korea as a
state sponsor of terrorism as a tool to accomplish the
objectives of the United States with respect to North Korea,
including completely eliminating North Korea's nuclear
weapons programs, preventing North Korean proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, and encouraging North Korea to
abide by international norms with respect to human rights.
(c) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that--
(1) the United States should--
(A) vigorously enforce United Nations Security Council
Resolutions 1718 (2006) and 1874 (2009) and other sanctions
in place with respect to North Korea under United States law;
(B) urge all member states of the United Nations to fully
implement the sanctions imposed by United Nations Security
Council Resolutions 1718 and 1874; and
(C) explore the imposition of additional unilateral and
multilateral sanctions against North Korea in furtherance of
United States national security;
(2) the conduct of North Korea constitutes a threat to the
northeast Asian region and to international peace and
security;
(3) if the United States determines that the Government of
North Korea has provided assistance to terrorists or engaged
in state sponsored acts of terrorism, the Secretary of State
should immediately list North Korea as a state sponsor of
terrorism; and
(4) if the United States determines that the Government of
North Korea has failed to fulfill its June 10, 2008, pledges,
the Secretary of State should immediately list North Korea as
a state sponsor of terrorism.
(d) State Sponsor of Terrorism Defined.--For purposes of
this section, the term ``state sponsor of terrorism'' means a
country that has repeatedly provided support for acts of
international terrorism for purposes of--
(1) section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979
(50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)) (as continued in effect pursuant to
the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C.
1701 et seq.));
(2) section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2780); or
(3) section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2371).

Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that amendment Nos. 1761 and 1597
be debated concurrently for up to 30 minutes, with the time equally
divided and controlled between Senators Kerry and Brownback or their
designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate
proceed to vote in relation to amendment No. 1761, to be followed by a
vote in relation to No. 1597; that no amendment be in order to either
amendment; that prior to the second vote there be 2 minutes of debate
divided as provided above.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, in addition to Senator Lugar and Senator
Levin, I believe Senator Webb is also an original cosponsor of this
amendment. I believe this amendment is a responsible alternative to the
amendment offered by Senator Brownback. This amendment appropriately
takes note of and condemns North Korea's recent behavior as a threat to
the northeast Asian region and to international peace and security. But
in contrast to the Brownback amendment, which expresses the sense of
the Senate that North Korea should immediately be relisted as a state
sponsor of terrorism, the Kerry-Lugar-Levin-Webb amendment requires
something to happen, not just a sense of the Senate that there might be
a relisting. It mandates a report, a formal report, to be completed
within 30 days, examining North Korea's conduct since it was removed
from the terrorism list last June, including the evaluation of any
evidence that North Korea has engaged in acts of terrorism or provided
support for acts of terrorism or terrorist organizations.
One of the reasons for requiring that is that in the Brownback
amendment on page 3, section 9, line 21, it says:

There have been recent credible reports that North Korea
has provided support to the terrorist group Hezbollah,
including providing ballistic missile components and
personnel to train members of Hezbollah . . .

Let me state unequivocally to my colleagues in the Senate: The most
recent intelligence assessments of our intelligence community simply do
not sustain this charge. In fact, President Bush specifically refuted
that charge because it was an old one, and he refuted it last year. It
would be the height of irresponsibility for the Senate to pass an
amendment based on a finding that is false. It is important to have a
report to the Senate that requires us to evaluate, that would have the
administration submit to us precisely what the situation is.
The report will also assess the effectiveness of relisting North
Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism for achieving our national
security objectives; namely, completely eliminating North Korea's
nuclear weapons programs, preventing North Korean proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, and encouraging North Korea to abide by
international norms with respect to human rights.
Our amendment then expresses the sense of the Senate that if the
United States finds that North Korea has, in fact--that we would know
this within these 30 days--provided support for terrorism, then the
Secretary of State should immediately relist North Korea as a state
sponsor of terrorism.
It also expresses the sense of the Senate that the United States
should vigorously enforce all existing unilateral and multilateral
sanctions and consider the imposition of additional sanctions if
necessary to achieve the policy goals with respect to North Korea.
I believe it is an important, realistic amendment. I think it is
tougher because it mandates some things specific, and it rightly
condemns North Korea, as we have.

[[Page S7843]]

Let me emphasize, the United States, this administration, has fully
and rightly condemned North Korea's launch of ballistic missiles and
its test of a nuclear weapon on May 25, 2009. We have led a strong
international response to those provocations, and we succeeded in
winning unanimous support from the United Nations for U.N. Security
Council Resolution 1874, imposing sweeping new sanctions against North
Korea. The sanctions mandated under the U.N. Security Council
Resolution 1874 include not only a comprehensive arms embargo but also
robust new financial sanctions on North Korean trading companies, and
visa restrictions on North Korean officials engaged in the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
These sanctions have teeth. They are multilateral. And they are
having an impact. A North Korean cargo ship suspected of carrying arms
to Burma turned around after it was denied bunkering services in
Singapore. The Government of Burma joined with us, and the government
itself warned that the ship would have to be inspected on arrival in
order to ensure that it did not have munitions onboard. The sanctions
have had a bite. They are working.
As strong as those measures have been, additional measures may be
necessary, and this report will help us to evaluate that. But
additional steps, including the relisting of North Korea as a state
sponsor of terrorism, ought to be based on a careful examination of the
facts--that is how we ought to do things in the Senate--and an
assessment of whether those sanctions are going to advance our
interests. That is precisely what the Kerry-Lugar-Levin-Webb amendment
mandates, and that is why it is actually a better sanctions policy than
the alternative Brownback amendment.
Let me add one last word. We are currently deeply concerned about the
fate of two American journalists currently under detention in North
Korea. The administration is engaged right now in sensitive discussions
with the North Korean Government attempting to secure the immediate
release of these two American citizens. For the Senate to suggest--on
something we already know is factually incorrect but out of emotion and
otherwise--that North Korea ought to be returned to the list of state
sponsors of terrorism without regard to whether they have, in fact,
engaged in acts of terrorism or provided support to terrorist
organizations would be irresponsible with respect to those particular
efforts and otherwise at this time.
We ought to proceed according to facts. We ought to proceed in ways
that best advance the interests of our country.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, thank you very much. I appreciate the
chance to debate this issue with my colleague, the distinguished
Senator from Massachusetts.
I find it very interesting to hear the statement that the sanctions
are working. I am trying to think of how they are working at all. They
are working to prevent North Korea from detonating another nuclear
weapon? That did not quite work. We got another one of those. They are
working to prevent them from launching more missiles? Well, that one
did not quite work. They are working to prevent North Korea from taking
Americans hostage? Well, that one did not quite work.
I am trying to think how these sanctions are working. And if they are
so great on an international basis, why aren't we doing them on a
domestic basis, for us toward North Korea? I am having difficulty.
Maybe they are working for us to prevent North Korea from associating
with the military junta in Myanmar. Wait a minute, that was in the news
yesterday, that North Korea is working to provide the military junta in
Myanmar with weapons and possibly nuclear weapons that the Secretary of
State, Secretary Clinton, is talking about now happening. Well, maybe
it prevented--well, I guess it did not quite prevent that.
I am trying to figure out how the sanctions have worked at all. I
thought it was a mistake when the Bush administration delisted them
from the terrorist list in a negotiation of the six-party talks and
said: OK, we will do this, and they do that, and then ended up doing
nothing and, indeed, stepped up what they are doing more and more.
It seems to me very strange to suggest that the sanctions are
working. I respect my colleague from Massachusetts. He is a strong
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I do not see where they
have worked at all. I would ask my colleagues to examine: Do they
believe that the sanctions to date have worked toward North Korea from
the United States? And when you examine the factual setting here, you
have to go: I don't think so. I don't think these have happened.
Plus, I am very concerned that the administration now is taking the
tack of discussing an additional set of incentives to the North Korean
regime to try to get them from proliferating further. This is an
interesting, hot-off-the-press article from yesterday: ``Obama
Administration Preparing Incentives Package for North Korea.''
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in
the Record after my full statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. BROWNBACK. Reading from this article:

The Obama administration is consulting with allies on a new
``comprehensive package'' of incentives--

Not sanctions; incentives--

aimed at persuading North Korea to abandon its nuclear
programs, senior U.S. officials confirmed Tuesday.
The officials, who were traveling with Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton in Thailand, told reporters that the package
is only in its early stages and will not be offered to North
Korea unless and until the allies sign off on it. Pyongyang
would also have to first take specific, concrete and
``irreversible'' steps to begin destroying its arsenal of
nuclear weapons.

This is the third round of us giving incentives to North Korea not to
develop nuclear weapons. It has not worked in the past. It is not going
to work now. Why on Earth would we do something like this?
The Kerry amendment calls for a study. Studies are fine. But it
actually delays the study that the State Department has already
promised to me: that by the end of this month they will have a study
out as to whether they are proliferating further weapons, that they
should be listed as a terrorist state.
The Kerry amendment says: 30 days after the enactment of this bill.
Even if the bill gets through the floor this week, it has to go to
conference, and it has to come back in front of this body. You are
looking, probably, at October, maybe early November, that this actually
comes back--this law--and then 30 days after that the report has to be
issued. So we are looking at somewhere, maybe November, December, for
the report taking place, when the State Department has already told me
they will have their report out by the end of July. So this is actually
slowing down the process, if we adopt this amendment.
And it calls for a report. I am sure Pyongyang is very concerned
about this report. But I do not think it is going to change any of the
behavior that is taking place. If we do not have a strong answer, as a
matter of fact, it is probably going to urge them to do something even
further.
My colleagues are saying: Well, OK, you are being irresponsible in
this statement on this narrow category of whether they are doing
anything with Hezbollah. It is a bipartisan amendment that I put
forward with Senator Bayh, who wanted that provision in it.
There is a current CRS report that talks about North Korea supporting
Hezbollah, building bunkers, and supporting and helping that out. That
is a current factual setting, and my colleague on the other side of the
aisle, Senator Bayh, has asked and pushed that this be in the overall
bill.
I would ask my colleagues to look at this interesting definition of
``international terrorism,'' as shown on this chart. This is a
definition that is in U.S. statute on international terrorism. It
appears to be written for North Korea and North Korea in mind.
It defines the term under (1)(A), and then under (B)--these are in
the alternative--(B) ``appear to be intended''--the actions of
``international terrorism'' ``appear to be intended to intimidate or
coerce a civilian population''--that is what North Korea does and Kim
Jong Il's regime does--``to influence the policy of a government by

[[Page S7844]]

intimidation or coercion''--that is the flying of missiles over Japan,
that is the intimidation toward South Korea or the United States--``to
affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination,
or kidnapping''--they have done kidnappings of Japanese citizens--``to
affect the conduct of a government''--clearly trying to affect our
conduct--(C) ``occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of
the United States.'' This is what North Korea is doing.
I would further point out to my colleagues that this is a sense of
the Senate. As to the Kerry amendment, with all due respect toward
Senator Kerry, this is asking the administration to do a report and
asking and directing the administration to take some steps. Ours is a
sense of the Senate as to what the Senate thinks, and it is saying that
the Senate believes North Korea should be relisted as a state sponsor
of terrorism.
I would ask my colleagues, in a commonsense review of what North
Korea has done recently: Don't you think they qualify or, if they do
not, what country in the world would qualify as a state sponsor of
terrorism if North Korea does not, with what it has done, what it has
done personally, what it has conducted with other countries, with
Syria, with Myanmar, with these other rogue groups?
It is a sense of the Senate to state we believe North Korea is a
state sponsor of terrorism. It is bipartisan with Senator Bayh and
myself. It has a number of cosponsors on it. It actually would be
productive for us to say to North Korea, in a public way, we believe
they are acting like state sponsors of terrorism. I believe it would be
actually counterproductive if this body were to say we think it should
be studied and a report issued. That is not going to be the sort of
strong action that would be understood at all by the government in
Pyongyang at this point in time.
With that, I would urge my colleagues to look at the Brownback-Bayh
amendment, to support it on its very sensible grounds--it is a sense of
the Senate--and to vote for the amendment.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder
of our time.

Exhibit 1

[From FOXNews.com, July 21, 2009]

Obama Administration Preparing Incentives Package for North Korea

(By James Rosen)

Bangkok.--The Obama administration is consulting with
allies on a new ``comprehensive package'' of incentives aimed
at persuading North Korea to abandon its nuclear programs,
senior U.S. officials confirmed Tuesday.
The officials, who are traveling with Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton in Thailand, told reporters that the package
is only in its early stages and will not be offered to North
Korea unless and until the allies sign off on it. Pyongyang
would also have to first take specific, concrete and
``irreversible'' steps to begin destroying its arsenal of
nuclear weapons.
The aides said that the administration needs to see
concrete action. Mere assurances from North Korea that it
will take action in the future would not be enough to trigger
the presentation of the incentives package, they said.
The United States, though, has not yet conveyed to the
North Koreans what the ``irreversible'' steps might entail,
as Washington continues discussions with its allies in the
so-called Six Party Talks.
The aides, who work on North Korea policy for three
separate agencies in the U.S. government, portrayed the
development of the new package as the second track of a two-
track approach.
The first track consists of continued aggressive
enforcement, also in conjunction with other nations across
the globe, of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1874--which
gives U.N. member states increased authority to interdict the
flow of weapons and possible nuclear material in and out of
North Korea.
The aides made clear they expect the two-track approach to
remain in place for the foreseeable future.
``This is not going to be resolved in a couple of weeks,''
one official said. ``This could be a sustained, substantial
effort that could go on quite a long time.''
The package of incentives would include some elements that
are ``familiar'' from the Six-Party talks, the officials
said, as well as new ones and some that differ in their
``dimensions.''
The United States, China, Japan, South Korea and Russia are
the other participants in the long-running--and long-
stalled--Six-Party Talks aimed at persuading North Korea to
abandon its nuclear programs.
The emphasis on consultation with these other countries
derives, the officials said, from the perception among some
of them that the Bush administration did not adequately
confer with them prior to the removal of North Korea from
Washington's list of state sponsors of terrorism last year.
``The Japanese do have anxieties about engagement of North
Korea,'' one official said.
The officials also echoed the ``growing concerns'' about
reports of a military relationship between North Korea and
Burma that Clinton voiced earlier Tuesday in a news
conference with Thailand's deputy prime minister.
``It would be destabilizing for the region'' if such
reports were true, Clinton said, adding, ``It would pose a
direct threat to Burma's neighbors. And it is something, as a
treaty ally of Thailand, that we are taking very seriously.''
Briefing reporters after Clinton's news conference, the
senior officials said their concerns range from suspicions
that North Korea is supplying small arms to Burma to reports
of possible nuclear collaboration between the two countries.
Pressed on the nuclear question, the officials refused to
discuss classified intelligence data but noted North Korea's
history of proliferation with Syria. One aide said the
possibility of nuclear collaboration between Pyongyang and
Burma is ``one of those areas that we would like to know more
about.''
To that end, U.S. intelligence agencies are studying
recently published photographs purporting to show an
elaborate set of underground tunnels that North Korea has
built along Burma's border with Thailand. The officials said
they see ``some similarities'' between the tunnels in the
photographs and a network of underground tunnels in North
Korea, the existence of which the United States learned about
in the 1990s.
Both North Korea and Burma, a repressive military
dictatorship whose leaders have renamed the country Myanmar,
have been the target of broad sanctions by successive U.S.
administrations over the last decade.
Clinton said Tuesday she would like to see Washington
develop a ``more productive'' relationship with Burma,
starting with steps by the government to release political
prisoners and dissidents jailed there.
``We are very much engaged with partners such as Thailand
and others in assessing and determining not only what is
going inside of Burma but also what we can do effectively to
change the direction and behavior of the Burmese
leadership,'' Clinton said.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I will use, and
I will be very brief.
The Senator from Kansas just cited the Congressional Research Service
report in his statement about Hezbollah. I am reading from a memorandum
from the President of the United States. This is the Presidential
report, certification, when he lifted the designation of North Korea.
And he wrote--this is from the President--

Our review of intelligence community assessments indicates
there is no credible or sustained reporting at this time that
supports allegations (including as cited in recent reports by
the Congressional Research Service) that the DPRK has
provided direct or witting support for Hezbollah, Tamil
Tigers, or the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Should we obtain
credible evidence of current DPRK support for international
terrorism at any time in the future, the Secretary could
again designate the DPRK a state sponsor of terrorism.

We have not received that evidence. We specifically request it. And
contrary to what the Senator just said, this does not delay the report.
It says: not later than 30 days after the passage. The report can come
next week. The report can come in answer to the Senator's request. We
would ask for that.
Let's be accurate in this designation. The President of the United
States said there is no credible evidence. And there is none to this
date. Our report asks for whether any currently exists. That is the way
the Senate ought to behave with respect to serious matters such as
this.
Mr. President, I yield the remainder of the time to the distinguished
chairman of the committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the language in the Kerry amendment does
one other thing relative to this report. It says if the United States
determines that the Government of North Korea has indeed engaged in
terrorist activities, then the Secretary of State shall ``immediately
list North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism.'' So it requires a
report in not more than 30 days. That could come at any time. But it
also requires action if the Secretary of State makes the finding.
The last administration, the Bush administration, delisted North
Korea. They found there was no credible evidence of state-supported
terrorism. We are a government of laws. Our laws

[[Page S7845]]

provide for a listing of countries that engage in terrorist activities
or support terrorist activities. It does not provide for a listing of
countries that, no matter all of the other things they do which are so
wrong, so bad, so objectionable to the international community, so
justifiably producing sanctions and other kinds of diplomatic actions
against them--regardless of those activities, unless they are a
supporter of terrorist acts, our laws do not provide that they be put
on the terrorist list. That is our law. That is what the Bush
administration was applying when they delisted North Korea.

North Korea is a country which engages in horrendous activities. That
is not the issue. I don't know of anybody in this Senate who does not
believe North Korea engages in repressive, authoritarian activities. I
don't know of anybody in this Senate who does not believe the North
Korean leadership is reprehensible in the way it treats its citizens.
There is a long list of actions on the part of North Korea in terms of
its pursuit of ballistic missiles, provocative actions it has taken of
the testing of nuclear devices, firing a series of missiles. It has
clearly solidified its status as a pariah of the region and of the
international community at large.
So the question isn't whether strong action should be taken. We
should take strong action which will be effective against the
government--not the people but the government--of North Korea. The
Kerry amendment lays out a course of action, exploring additional
sanctions so that we can put additional power and leverage against the
Government of North Korea, as well as requiring our administration to
consider whether the Government of North Korea should be listed again.
And if so, if they find that under our law there is reason to put it
back on the terrorist list, then they must, under the Kerry amendment,
take that step.
What the Kerry amendment avoids doing is what the Brownback amendment
does in one part of the Brownback amendment, which is saying that the
Government of North Korea should be on a list of terrorist states when
the last thing we have heard from an American administration was from
the Bush administration taking the North Korean Government off the list
because they could not find credible evidence that the government took
actions which would require it being placed on the list of terrorist
states.
So again, it seems to me that clearly our goals here are similar. I
had hoped we might be able to reach a consensus on common language, but
so long as this body expresses itself very strongly, as the Kerry and
Lugar amendment does, it seems to me we will then have made an
important statement to the Government of North Korea and at the same
time avoided taking a step which our laws do not provide for.
One of our arguments with North Korea is that they are lawless, they
are a totalitarian government. Our government is a government of laws.
We have a law that provides for the listing of countries that support
terrorist acts. The administration, after a long assessment, concluded
there was no credible evidence that North Korea engaged in the
activities which appropriately required it or appropriately permitted
it to be listed on the terrorist state list and therefore removed it
from that list. That is the last action by the administration.
By the way, being on that terrorist list did not change the actions
or the activities of the Government of North Korea, in any event. I
very much support that terrorist list. I very much support it being
kept up to date and being used appropriately. But I don't think we
should in any way kid ourselves as to whether being on that list is
going to change the activities of North Korea.
We need other countries to support us in putting maximum pressure on
North Korea. When we act lawfully--when we put sanctions on North
Korea, working with other countries, we are acting lawfully. If we do
not abide by our own law which defines when a country will go on a
terrorist list, we are setting the wrong example for the world, and it
makes it more difficult for us to obtain the kind of support from other
countries which we deserve in going after the abominable activities of
the Government of North Korea.
I don't know whether our side has any time left, but if we do, I
reserve the remainder of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). The time has expired.
The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to ask several
questions of the Senator from Kansas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, has the Senator from Kansas detected any
change in North Korean behavior since the imposition of sanctions by
the United Nations?
Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes. They have taken more provocative actions rather
than less provocative actions since the imposition of the U.S.
sanctions, if not more.
Mr. McCAIN. Including launching missiles on the Fourth of July.
Mr. BROWNBACK. It is a strange day they would pick, the Fourth of
July, but they did.
Mr. McCAIN. Isn't it true that there is evidence that North Koreans
were involved in the construction of a nuclear facility in Syria which
the Israelis felt was enough of a threat to their national security
that they destroyed it?
Mr. BROWNBACK. Absolutely, abundant evidence, and it was amazing how
quiet the world community was for a long period of time, because I
guess they didn't want it known that the North Koreans did built that
facility or that it was in Syria.
Mr. McCAIN. Isn't it true that there is a published news report that
North Korea and Iran have worked together in the development of nuclear
weapons and nuclear technology, and if Iran acquires that capability,
it certainly ratchets up the tensions between Iran and Israel?
Mr. BROWNBACK. Published reports, and the missile technology the
Iranians use is built off of the No-dong system of the North Koreans.
Mr. McCAIN. The latest information in the last few days is that there
is cooperation between North Korea and Myanmar, better known to some of
us as Burma, one of the real rogue nations of the world.
Mr. BROWNBACK. There is.
Mr. McCAIN. So if that North Korean ship, which was shadowed for a
period of time by the U.S. Navy, had gone into port in Myanmar, do you
think there is any likelihood the Government of Myanmar would have
complied with the U.N. resolution that required that ship to be
inspected by ``port authorities''?
Mr. BROWNBACK. Myanmar has not cooperated with anything the United
Nations has directed to date. I don't know why they would cooperate
with anything such as that.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator. Of course, maybe North Korea, when
we look at it with a very fine definition of terrorism--from the recent
Washington Post article about 200,000 people in the most horrible
prison conditions in the world perhaps would argue that we should do
whatever we can--short, obviously, of any military action--to try to
see that the North Korean regime acts at least in some civilized
fashion.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I think they should.
Mr. President, I would point out, if I could, to my colleagues as
well--if I could have the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I am frustrated on this topic. I would presume the
chairman--I know the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee is
frustrated, along with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. I
have worked too long with the refugees and the people in the gulag and
people trying to get out of North Korea for us to now back up and say:
OK, we want a report. These folks are dying. They are in a gulag the
likes of which was in the Soviet era. This has been published and it is
all available to us and we want a report. I understand people don't
want to go this far, but this is very frustrating. If you were in one
of those situations--and people track what comes out of the Senate,
just as in the Soviet gulag they tracked what came out of here then--it
would be like saying to them: Well, we are not that concerned about
you; whereas, if we take strong action such as what I am saying, it
does give them hope. That is what I am

[[Page S7846]]

asking us to do. I think it is very responsible, and it is a sense of
the Senate, what we are asking them to do. That is what is at the root
of this.

The chairman of the Armed Services Committee says: Well, they were
delisted by the last administration. And they certainly were, but they
were not removed from that list because they stopped sponsoring
terrorism. The regime was delisted in order to entice them to dismantle
their weapons of mass destruction program. It was a six-party talk
negotiation, and that didn't work, just as the prior negotiations on
weapons of mass destruction didn't work. Why should we continue the
problem if that is the case?
Mr. KERRY. Would the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BROWNBACK. I am happy to yield for a question.
Mr. KERRY. Is the Senator suggesting that the President of the United
States in his letter of certification misinformed the American people
and the Senate?
Mr. BROWNBACK. What I am suggesting is that this was part of a
negotiation and that they have wide latitude. In fact, if I may
continue my answer for my colleague who has asked a very pertinent
question on this issue and who is very familiar with the six-party
talks, as I am partially, somewhat familiar with the six-party talks,
these have been talks going on for a long period of time. The North
Koreans hate being listed as a state sponsor of terrorism. Their big
push was to be delisted. The administration has broad authority. It has
broad abilities to be able to interpret this, and they said: OK, we are
going to be able to do this, and we will find some room in here to
interpret it this way, in exchange for you guys stopping your weapons
of mass destruction, which did not happen.
I am saying that what we should do now is not continue with that
mistake. What I am saying we should do now is, let's call a spade a
spade in this situation. This is a terrorist nation. The Senator from
Massachusetts knows that. He knows what is taking place and what they
are doing. They are one of the lead sponsors of terrorist activities in
arming, bad, rogue regimes around the world, and the Senator knows
that. What we should do is call that what it is in this Senate and not
call for just a report.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, if the Senator will further yield, does the
Senator from Kansas believe this language:

Our review of intelligence community assessments indicates
there is no credible or sustained reporting at this time that
supports allegations they have provided direct support--

Et cetera--

and should we have credible evidence of international
terrorism at any time in the future--

The President clearly----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
All time has expired.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment
No. 1761.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry, if I
could. Have the yeas and nays been ordered on both amendments?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered on
amendment No. 1761.
The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on both
amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be.
The yeas and nays are ordered on both amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
1761.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Byrd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator
from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 31, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 238 Leg.]

YEAS--66

Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Grassley
Gregg
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--31

Barrasso
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Vitter
Wicker

NOT VOTING--3

Byrd
Kennedy
Mikulski
The amendment (No. 1761) was agreed to.
Mr. KERRY. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1597

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to
amendment No. 1597, offered by the Senator from Kansas. Who yields
time?
The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask for an ``aye'' vote on this
amendment even if people voted for the Kerry amendment. It was
critically important during the Soviet gulag days that the people in
the gulags knew we cared and that we were focused on them. If we vote
to say we are going to issue a report, that is fine. But it doesn't say
much to people in a gulag. If we vote to say it is the sense of the
Senate that North Korea is a state sponsor of terrorism, it is a strong
message. It gives hope to people who don't have hope today.
Who in this body doubts that North Korea is a state sponsor of
terrorism? With nuclear weapons, missiles being launched, a connection
with Myanmar--with all these things taking place today, who can doubt
that they are a terrorist country?
I urge my colleagues, even those who supported the Kerry amendment,
to also vote for this one to send the message that North Korea is a
state sponsor of terrorism and to send a message of hope to those in
the North Korean gulags.
I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it would be both inconsistent and
inappropriate to vote aye on both amendments for a couple of reasons.
First of all, the amendment we just passed with 66 votes mandates that
no later than 30 days after this is passed--it could happen next week,
in 3 weeks--we are mandating the report from the administration with
respect to whether there is evidence at this time of North Korea
actually aiding or abetting or being a terrorist state.
The most recent finding of the intelligence community says no. The
President of the United States, George Bush, certified to us when he
decertified them as a terrorist state that they were not engaged in any
activities of aiding and abetting terrorism at that time in the world.
There is no evidence within the intelligence community at this moment
in time that says so.
The Brownback amendment states that there is. So it is wrong, and it
would be inappropriate for the Senate to base designating North Korea
as a terrorist state on findings that do not exist, as well as doing so
at a time when we are negotiating to get the release of two young
journalists. This would be a completely inappropriate measure by the
Senate at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
1597. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.

[[Page S7847]]

Mr. LEVIN. Parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, after the conclusion of this vote, is there
any pending amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will not be.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, to let folks know, I intend to ask for a
quorum call immediately following this vote to try to work out an
orderly way to proceed on amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Byrd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator
from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 54, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 239 Leg.]

YEAS--43

Alexander
Barrasso
Bayh
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
Lieberman
Lincoln
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Wicker

NAYS--54

Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Corker
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lugar
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Murray
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--3

Byrd
Kennedy
Mikulski
The amendment (No. 1597) was rejected.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. 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. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, first, there
be a period of morning business of 5 minutes, so Senator Brown can
speak as in morning business. Then we proceed to consideration of the
amendment of Senator Cardin, amendment No. 1763. After the disposition
of that amendment, that the Senator Kyl amendment, No. 1760, be in
order. There may or may not be a second-degree amendment to that of
Senator Kyl--that it be in order if there is a second-degree amendment.
After the disposition of the amendment of Senator Kyl and the second-
degree amendment thereto, we then proceed--presumably it would be in
the morning--to an amendment by Senator Lieberman, No. 1744, with a 1-
hour time agreement and a side-by-side amendment or a second-degree
amendment of Senator Bayh relative to the--relevant to the Lieberman
amendment, which would also have a 1-hour time agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SESSIONS. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object and I will
not object, I say in the case of the amendment of Senator Cardin, there
is no objection on this side. We would be glad to agree to a 15-minute
time agreement, if that is agreeable.
Mr. LEVIN. That presumably might be adopted without a rollcall as
well.
Mr. President, let me revise my unanimous consent request for Senator
Cardin's amendment having a 15-minute time agreement, that there not be
a time agreement set yet on the Lieberman amendment No. 1744 and the
Bayh second-degree amendment or side-by-side amendment to it because
apparently we could not get that, for some reason I don't understand or
know. I don't understand the reason or the objection.
One other correction. The Cardin amendment is No. 1475, not No. 1763.
Mr. SESSIONS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. I wonder, I know the bill managers have many
challenges, but I wonder if they contemplate that I would have the
opportunity to call up Sessions amendments Nos. 1657 and 1533 before we
go too far in this process.
Mr. LEVIN. There are a number of people who have asked to be put in
line at this point. We have been unable to go beyond where we are. That
took enough time. We thought, if we went any further, it would be
impossible to get this unanimous consent done because there are many
people who are in the same position as our friend from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. I am not delaying, of course. We want to see this bill
move forward. But I do have two amendments I care about. Maybe I can
talk to the chairman in a little bit. I thank him for his courtesy. I
will not object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCAIN. In response to the Senator from Alabama, I will do
everything I can to get his amendment in order. Senator Isakson and
Senator Burr and Senator Bond and others have all come up and said they
want their amendments in line. I think we have to have some kind of
consultation on our side to establish a priority.
I also would like to point out, the amendment of Senator Sessions, I
believe, is on missile defense, a very important amendment.
I also think, in full disclosure, the majority leader, I am told,
will file cloture tonight, which will then, at some point, rule out
nongermane amendments. But I will do everything I can to get Senator
Sessions' amendment up, in order. But we have been following a process,
as I am sure the Senator from Alabama knows, of one side's amendment
and then the other side's amendment, going back and forth.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. The missile defense amendment is one that is a sense-
of-the-Senate amendment that Senator Lieberman is offering now. That
was not the two I referred to. I agree with Senator McCain that sense
of the Senate definitely needs a vote. It is an important issue.
The other two amendments I have I hope also can be considered. I will
be pleased to talk with the Senator and his staff about it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to the request? Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Presiding Officer and thank Senator Sessions
as well. As I understand it, the amendments Senator Sessions was
referring to were amendments relating to al-Qaida; am I correct?
Mr. SESSIONS. That is correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.

Health Care Reform

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the progress of this country does not and
has not come easily. Passage of the Civil Rights Act was not easy.
Passage of the Voting Rights Act was not easy. Passage of the Social
Security Act was not easy. The Fair Housing Act, that was not easy.
Passage of Medicare and Medicaid was not easy.
This year, passage of health care reform will not be easy. Time and
time again, decade after decade, special interests--the drug companies,
the insurance companies, medical interests--have delayed and denied and
destroyed meaningful health care reform.
In recent weeks and months, opponents have ramped up their efforts to
derail health care reform, saying you have to slow down but, as with
other historic legislative victories, we must find a path forward.

[[Page S7848]]

Last week, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Committee found a path forward that works for American families and
businesses.
The HELP health reform legislation is designed to lower costs,
provide more coverage choices, and ensure that Americans have insurance
they can count on.
This legislation would give every American access to quality,
affordable, and flexible health insurance.
This legislation would reduce costs by decreasing fraud, abuse, and
medical errors while promoting best practices and prevention and
wellness initiatives.
It would provide insurance security for people who lose their job,
their coverage, or maybe their patience with an insurer who has let
them down.
And, this legislation gives Americans more health care choices.
The public option in our legislation--the Community Health Insurance
Option--is a national insurance program modeled after coverage offered
to Members of Congress.
A strong public option would ensure Americans in every State have
insurance choices they can trust.
It would increase price competition in the health insurance market to
drive premiums down.
And a strong public option would set a standard for quality coverage
that gives private insurers a benchmark and Americans new options.
Let's face it. There is nothing like good old fashioned competition
to keep insurers honest.
Under our bill, no longer would insurers be able to hide behind
preexisting conditions, health history, age, gender, or race to deny
coverage and delay care for patients.
Done right, health reform represents a real opportunity to expand
access to quality, affordable coverage for all Americans, like Robert
and Carol of Bryan, OH, in Williams County, northwest Ohio.
Carol is a social worker who works for a nonprofit drug, alcohol, and
mental health agency. Her husband Robert, a self employed barber, had
his first bout with cancer in 2003 and is facing, just days from now,
another cancer surgery.
Robert and Carol wrote to me that they depleted their life savings to
cover cancer treatments and maintain coverage to monitor cancer
remission.
Carol wants Members in this Body to let her husband fight for his
life, not fight with insurance companies.
Joseph, in Summit County, operates a small land surveying business
that is struggling to pay health insurance premiums.
After being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 2004, Joseph wrote
to me that it is impossible for his business to shop around for more
affordable health coverage because of his preexisting condition.
The HELP Committee's Affordable Health Choices Act represents a
victory for the millions of American families and business owners, like
Joseph, whose health care costs have soared out of control.
It is a victory for the 46 million uninsured Americans and millions
more underinsured, those whose financial security is at risk day in and
day out because of health care costs.
And it is a victory for U.S. taxpayers.
If we are going to get a grip on health spending, we have got to
squeeze out waste, needless redtape, and costly medical errors.
We have to give private insurers a reason to charge reasonable
premiums, not grossly inflated ones.
I am proud that the President is touring the Cleveland Clinic
tomorrow.
Cutting edge health systems like the Cleveland Clinic University
Hospitals, and the Metro Health System all in Cleveland, have helped to
give Ohio its reputation as a leader in high quality health care.
Our work will not be done until Ohioans like 73-year-old Bert from
Allen County can afford the retirement he deserves.
Bert wrote to me that he cannot afford to retire, despite suffering a
heart attack last year.
He described how exorbitant prescription drug costs leave the
unacceptable choice between his medication or his wife's medication.
But not both.
Bert wrote to me, ``God help us should anything happen to my wife
medically. We will, no doubt, lose everything we have worked all of our
lives for.''
Our work cannot be done until Bert, Joseph, Robert, and Carol, and
every American live in a Nation with an affordable, effective, and
inclusive health care system.
Our work will not be done until crucial national priorities are no
longer crowded out by health care spending.
Our work will not be done until exploding health care costs no longer
cut into family budgets, no longer weigh down businesses, and no longer
drain tax dollars from local, State, and Federal budgets.
It will not be easy, but as history demonstrates the important
changes rarely are.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the unanimous consent request indicated
that there would be 15 minutes on the Cardin amendment, No. 1475. I am
wondering if my friend from Arizona might listen to this as well. On
Senator Cardin's amendment, we did not say ``equally divided.'' We are
not sure whether there is opposition to it. If there is, we should now
say ``equally divided.'' If not, Senator Cardin only needs about 5 to
10 minutes.
Mr. McCAIN. I am not sure anyone wants to challenge Senator Cardin's
eloquence.
Mr. LEVIN. In that case, I ask unanimous consent we say ``equally
divided'' in case anyone changes their mind.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Maryland is recognized.

Amendment No. 1475

Mr. CARDIN. I call up amendment No. 1475 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] proposes an
amendment numbered 1475.

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

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to report on the numbers
and percentages of troops that have served or are serving in Iraq and
Afghanistan who have been prescribed antidepressants or drugs to treat
anxiety)

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

SEC. 724. PRESCRIPTION OF ANTIDEPRESSANTS FOR TROOPS SERVING
IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.

(a) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than June 30, 2010, and annually
thereafter until June 30, 2015, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to Congress a report on the prescription of
antidepressants and drugs to treat anxiety for troops serving
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
(2) Content.--The report required under paragraph (1) shall
include--
(A) the numbers and percentages of troops that have served
or are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan since January 1, 2005,
who have been prescribed antidepressants or drugs to treat
anxiety, including psychotropic drugs such as Selective
Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs); and
(B) the policies and patient management practices of the
Department of Defense with respect to the prescription of
such drugs.
(b) National Institute of Mental Health Study.--
(1) Study.--The National Institute of Mental Health shall
conduct a study on the potential relationship between the
increased number of suicides and attempted suicides by
members of the Armed Forces and the increased number of
antidepressants, drugs to treat anxiety, other psychotropics,
and other behavior modifying prescription medications being
prescribed, including any combination or interactions of such
prescriptions. The Department of Defense shall immediately
make available to the National Institute of Mental Health all
data necessary to complete the study.
(2) Report on findings.--Not later than two years after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to Congress a report on the findings of the
study conducted pursuant to paragraph (1).
Mr. CARDIN. I want to thank Senators Levin and McCain for their help
in allowing me to bring forward this amendment. This amendment is an
important amendment which deals with the increasing numbers of suicides
and attempted suicides by the young men and women serving in the U.S.
military.
We have not only seen each month an increased number of suicides and
attempted suicides, but recently we saw

[[Page S7849]]

the killing of five of our servicemembers when a fellow soldier
allegedly opened fire inside a mental health clinic at Camp Liberty in
Iraq.
The purpose of this amendment is for the Department of Defense to
give us information on the type of medications that are being
prescribed so we can get a better handle on whether there is more that
we can do in order to protect our young men and women who are serving
our Nation.
Yesterday, we did something to help in approving the Lieberman
amendment. The Lieberman amendment increased our force levels, our
authorized force levels. One of the suspected reasons suicides and
attempted suicides are increasing is the number of deployments, the
length of deployments, and the fact that we do not have enough
personnel in order to do the normal military responsibilities so that
we have to continue to call up again our young people for renewed
deployments. That will certainly help.
This Congress has passed significant increases in funds for mental
health services for our service personnel. That will clearly help. But
one thing we should all be concerned about is that there are more and
more of our soldiers who are using prescription antidepressant drugs,
SSRIs, and we are not clear as to whether they are under appropriate
medical supervision. I say that because these SSRIs take several weeks
before they reach their full potential as far as blocking depression or
dealing with the causes of depression. During that period of time,
particularly if they are in the age group of 18 to 24--many are in that
age group--they are susceptible to increased thoughts of suicide.
Many of our service people are changing from location to location.
They may very well be in the theater of battle. They may not be able to
get the proper type of supervision. So we are concerned about whether
the use of these drugs is being appropriately administered, but we do
not have the facts; we do not have the information. We need to get that
information.
There have been surveys which have shown that as many as 12 percent
of those who are serving in Iraq and 17 percent of those who are
serving in Afghanistan are using some form of prescribed antidepressant
or sleeping pills in order to deal with their needs. That would equal
20,000 of our service personnel using prescription medicines or
antidepressants or sleep medicines. We need to get the information.
My amendment is simple. My amendment says starting in June of 2010
and through 2015, the Department of Defense will make available to
Congress the information on the number of personnel receiving these
antidepressant drugs. It is done in a generic sense; therefore, there
is no individual information about any service personnel. We protect
their individual privacy as we have under HIPAA. This is absolutely
protected. There is no stigma attached at all to this survey.
I think we have tried to deal with the legitimate concerns that have
been raised. I hope my colleagues would agree that this is an important
matter that should be included in our DOD authorization. I talked about
it yesterday. I am glad now that I had the opportunity to, in fact,
offer this amendment.
With that, if there is no one interested in speaking in opposition, I
am prepared to yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion upon the table.
The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. 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. KYL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1760

Mr. KYL. What I am going to do now is seek to get an amendment which
is filed pending. The other side will want to offer a side-by-side
amendment. I understand there may be an opportunity to debate some of
this tonight. Some of the other debate may have to be tomorrow, and
that is fine. But at this point, is there an amendment pending?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not an amendment pending.
Mr. KYL. I call up amendment No. 1760 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], for himself, Mr.
McConnell, Mr. McCain, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Graham,
Mr. Vitter, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Risch, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Barrasso,
Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Wicker, proposes an amendment numbered
1760.

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

(Purpose: To pursue United States objectives in bilateral arms control
with the Russian Federation)

At the end of title XII, add the following:

SEC. 1232. LIMITATION ON FUNDS TO IMPLEMENT REDUCTIONS IN THE
STRATEGIC NUCLEAR FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES
PURSUANT TO ANY TREATY OR OTHER AGREEMENT WITH
THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) In the Joint Statement by President Dmitriy Medvedev of
the Russian Federation and President Barack Obama of the
United States of America after their meeting in London,
England on April 1, 2009, the two Presidents agreed ``to
pursue new and verifiable reductions in our strategic
offensive arsenals in a step-by-step process, beginning by
replacing the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with a new,
legally-binding treaty''.
(2) At that meeting, the two Presidents instructed their
negotiators to reach an agreement that ``will mutually
enhance the security of the Parties and predictability and
stability in strategic offensive forces, and will include
effective verification measures drawn from the experience of
the Parties in implementing the START Treaty''.
(3) Subsequently, on April 5, 2009, in a speech in Prague,
the Czech Republic, President Obama proclaimed, ``Iran's
nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat,
not just to the United States, but to Iran's neighbors and
our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been
courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these
missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will
go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-
effective and proven.''
(4) President Obama also said, ``As long as these [nuclear]
weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure
and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee
that defense to our allies, including the Czech Republic. But
we will begin the work of reducing our arsenal.''
(b) Limitation.--Funds authorized to be appropriated by
this Act or otherwise made available to the Department of
Defense for fiscal year 2010 may not be obligated or expended
to implement reductions in the strategic nuclear forces of
the United States pursuant to any treaty or other agreement
entered into between the United States and the Russian
Federation on strategic nuclear forces after the date of
enactment of this Act unless the President certifies to
Congress that--
(1) the treaty or other agreement provides for sufficient
mechanisms to verify compliance with the treaty or agreement;
(2) the treaty or other agreement does not place
limitations on the ballistic missile defense systems, space
capabilities, or advanced conventional weapons of the United
States; and
(3) the fiscal year 2011 budget request for programs of the
Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security
Administration will be sufficiently funded--
(A) to maintain the reliability, safety, and security of
the remaining strategic nuclear forces of the United States;
and
(B) to modernize and refurbish the nuclear weapons complex.
(c) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the President shall transmit to the
appropriate congressional committees a report on the
stockpiles of strategic and nonstrategic weapons of the
United States and the Russian Federation.
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Advanced conventional weapons.--The term ``advanced
conventional weapons'' means any advanced weapons system that
has been specifically designed not to carry a nuclear
payload.
(2) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
``appropriate congressional committees'' means the following
committees:
(A) The Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives.
(B) The Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate.

[[Page S7850]]

Mr. KYL. If there are others who wish the floor, I would be happy to
accede to their wishes so that I can come back tomorrow and discuss it
further.
This is identical to an amendment that was unanimously adopted by the
House of Representatives in their version of the Defense authorization
bill. So I would hope that on both sides of the aisle this should not
be particularly controversial.
It has to do with the START negotiations, the negotiation the
administration is engaged in with the Russians right now on the number
of warheads and delivery vehicles that both Russia and the United
States will field in the next many years.
Whatever those numbers are, whatever the agreement is, that treaty
will be presented to the Senate later this year. Presumably we will act
on it either late this year or early next year.
All this amendment does is say that during the 7 years when the START
Treaty is implemented, the United States needs to do certain things. We
want to make sure the treaty is verifiable. That is something we all
agree with. We need to ensure that our missile defenses are protected;
that our conventional strike capability is protected, that is, our
submarines and bombers that deliver conventional weapons, for example,
and, very importantly, we want to make sure the modernization program
for our nuclear weapons complex and the weapons themselves, the
modernization program that was recommended by the bipartisan Perry-
Schlesinger Commission begins to be implemented.
In fact, this amendment does not identify exactly what that program
is. It does not say it has to be a particular amount of money or
describe the details of it. But it does say we need to get a
modernization program underway.
The point of this is to simply acknowledge the obvious; which is, as
we begin to reduce the number of warheads and delivery vehicles in our
strategic nuclear deterrent, we need to make more and more sure what we
have works and works well.
It is an aging stockpile. The Perry-Schlesinger Commission noted that
there is a lot of work that needs to be done to bring these weapons up
to modern conditions to maintain them appropriately to ensure they are
safe and reliable. The work that has to be done on that is going to
take some time and cost some money.
So it makes sense to put Congress on record with the administration
as insisting that we begin this process right away. The amendment does
not say this, but my strong recommendation to the administration is,
since they are going to begin putting the budget for fiscal year 2011
together starting in another month or two, that they need to be working
now on what their budget recommendations for 2011 are for the
modernization of our nuclear complex and stockpile.
So what this amendment would do is to say, as the START Treaty is
implemented, whatever that treaty is, it does not bind the
administration in terms of what it negotiates, whatever it is, that
that money cannot be spent on that until these other conditions are met
as well.
I hope that since this received a unanimous endorsement in the House,
it would not be particularly controversial on this side. I would just
reiterate one final time, this does not bind our negotiators at all. It
does not tell the negotiators what they can and cannot negotiate with
the Russians.
What it says is, once they have negotiated whatever they have, then
we need to start a process of modernizing our nuclear weapons program
and stockpile. I think that is something, since it was the unanimous
recommendation of the Perry-Schlesinger Commission, that we ought to be
able to agree upon.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, under the existing unanimous consent
agreement, the Lieberman amendment that would be in order after the
disposition of the Kyl amendment was listed as being amendment 1744.
The correct number is 1627. I ask unanimous consent that the consent
agreement be so modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. 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. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks in support
of the Kyl amendment. This amendment relates to the possible follow-on
agreement to the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, so-called START.
The Joint Understanding issued at the recent Moscow summit suggests the
United States and Russian Federation are well on their way toward
completing a new agreement, perhaps even before the end of this year.
Rather than wait until the agreement is signed and submitted to the
Senate for the Senate's consent, this amendment provides an opportunity
for the Senate to give its advice before the treaty's provisions are
agreed to. It reflects this Senator's desire to see a follow-on treaty
that does not weaken our nuclear deterrent or place in doubt our
nuclear guarantee to our allies and partners who depend on it.
It also reflects a caveat that any future agreement should not limit
U.S. missile defense capabilities or U.S. capabilities for long-range
conventional strike. Finally, this amendment makes clear that any
reductions in our nuclear stockpile should be supported by long-range
plans to modernize our aging nuclear deterrent and supporting
infrastructure. This is important. We have had testimony in the Armed
Services Committee on a number of occasions from our top military
commanders who deal with this issue. They say continued reductions of
nuclear weapons must be accompanied by a modernization of the limited
number we have left. When we do that, we can make them safer and far
more difficult for anyone who were to nefariously obtain them to
utilize and protect them and make them more reliable.
Most, if not all, would agree that it is important to ensure that the
verification and monitoring provisions of the START Treaty of 1991 not
be allowed to lapse come December 6.
While there are a number of ways to handle this, either by extending
the current agreement or drafting a new agreement dealing specifically
with these matters, the United States and Russia have chosen the more
ambitious goal of a new treaty that would make further reductions in
the current nuclear stockpiles which are today at the lowest levels
since the Cold War. We have about 2,200 warheads today. We had 6,000
not too many years ago. We have reduced those numbers. I support that.
The rush to complete an agreement before START expires in December
has led the United States to agree to provisions in the Joint
Understanding that potentially may not be in our best interest. It is
not a critical thing that we reach a firm agreement by the end of
December. We should not allow the Russians to put us in a position
where we are so desperate to reach an agreement by the end of the year
that we would reach a bad agreement. At the very least, it can be said
that these matters have not sufficiently been analyzed to know whether
they are in our interest.
First, with respect to the central limits to be enshrined in a new
agreement, the two sides agreed to warhead limits of between 1,500 and
1,675 warheads, and limits on the number of strategic nuclear delivery
vehicles to somewhere between 500 and 1,100. That is quite a wide
range. The final number is to be negotiated by the parties. The Senate
has yet to see the analytical basis for the levels agreed to in the
Joint Understanding which means we are not off to a good start in the
advice and consent process.
Today the United States deploys approximately 2,200 operational
nuclear warheads on some 900 delivery vehicles.

[[Page S7851]]

These are our ICBM missiles, our SLBMs, and bombers. Whether it is
prudent to go below these numbers depends on some important
considerations. To take that down to 500 would be a dramatic reduction
of our delivery systems. Whether it is prudent to go below these
numbers that we currently have depends on some important
considerations, not the least of which is the impact on the size and
shape of the U.S. nuclear TRIAD, the ICBMs, the submarine-launched
missiles, and our bomber fleet; our ability to extend credible nuclear
guarantees to our allies; and whether lower levels provide an incentive
to other nuclear powers to build up their forces so they can be a peer
competitor with the United States and Russia.
I will have more to say on this in the future. Suffice it to say that
I have yet to hear a convincing strategic rationale that would justify
going this low. Indeed, I believe the burden of proof will be on those
who think it is necessary to continue to reduce U.S. nuclear force
levels that are today but a fraction of what they used to be. My major
concern, however, is language in the Joint Understanding which seems to
suggest the two sides may establish limitations on U.S. missile defense
and long-range conventional strategic strike capabilities. In other
words, an agreement could well involve a limitation, either in part of
the treaty or a corollary agreement, to limit our national missile
defense capabilities. That is a dangerous and unwise linkage.
For example, the Joint Understanding states there will be a provision
``on the interrelationship of strategic offensive and strategic
defensive arms.'' I find this troubling because we have made it clear
to the Russians that our missile defense capabilities are not directed
at, nor are they capable of being an effective defense against, massive
Russian capabilities. We only have a plan to put in 44 missiles in the
United States and 10 in Europe. That is a fraction of the capacity that
the Russians have today. Instead we build missile defenses to address a
threat to the United States and its allies posed by rogue nations such
as North Korea and Iran. That is what 40 missiles in Alaska and
California can do. That is what 10 in Europe could do. It can't defend
against massive Russian delivery systems. It has no capability of doing
that. They know it. So why do they object?
What do we mean, as we carry out this discussion, by the term
``strategic defensive arms''? How does one distinguish between a
strategic and nonstrategic missile defense system? Is the United States
SM-3 missile, which has some capability against long-range North Korean
missiles, considered a strategic missile defense system? It is best not
to get into negotiations that could eventually constrain our ability to
build missile defenses against countries such as Iran and North Korea.
To be sure, any such limitations would make a START follow-on agreement
dead on arrival in the Senate. I don't believe the Senate would pass
such an agreement.
The Joint Understanding also contains--between the Obama
administration and Russia--a provision addressing the impact on
strategic stability of strategic missiles in a nonnuclear
configuration. This apparently is an attempt by Russia to constrain the
ability of the United States to field long-range strike systems armed
with conventional warheads, nonnuclear warheads.
Conventionally armed long-range strike systems, also known as
``prompt global strike,'' are consistent with a move by both countries
to place less reliance on nuclear weapons for deterrence. Prompt global
strike would allow the United States to launch a missile without a
nuclear weapon that could take out a dangerous threat anywhere around
the world in a very prompt fashion. We have debated that over the years
in the Senate.
Finally, the amendment by Senator Kyl would send a strong message to
the administration that a START follow-on agreement must be supported
at the same time it is submitted to the Senate for ratification by a
long-term program to modernize the remaining nuclear forces of the
United States, including warheads, delivery systems, and infrastructure
needed to support both. Such a modernization is called for by the
Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States
and by the Secretary of Defense, Secretary Gates, who last October
said:

There is absolutely no way we can maintain a credible
deterrent and reduce the number of weapons in our stockpile
without resorting to testing our stockpile or pursuing a
modernization program.

Our colleagues don't want us to test. They think this would be a bad
example to Iran and North Korea. If we did that, somehow they might be
more likely to want to test. I don't think it will have any impact on
those rogue nations. The Secretary of Defense is saying that if we
don't continue testing, we need to modernize the weapons system we
have. If we continue to draw down the number, these 40, 50-year-old
weapons need to be modernized. They need to be reliable. This Senator
will condition his support for a START follow-on agreement upon a
serious commitment by the administration to modernize our nuclear
deterrent which remains necessary to protect the United States and our
allies against threats to our vital interests.
I wish to note a similar version of this amendment was adopted
unanimously by the House on their version of the national Defense
authorization bill. I commend Senator Kyl for offering it and note the
importance of sending a clear message to the administration and to our
allies and to Russia regarding our views on the ongoing START follow-up
negotiations.
I wish to say what is obvious to all of us who have been here a long
time. Senator Kyl is a real patriot who has maintained a deep interest
in these issues throughout his career. This is a well-thought-out,
well-conceived amendment that is wise for our Senate to pass. I believe
we will. I think if my colleagues will find the time to review it and
think it through, they will be convinced this is a wise step for us to
take at this time so we don't end up with misunderstanding later on
when a treaty plops down in the Senate that has a lot of problems for a
host of Senators.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments Nos. 1472, 1518, 1569, 1553, 1471, 1512, 1473, 1561, 1520,
1600, 1555, 1488, 1476, 1612, 1560, 1500, 1535, 1536, 1510, 1492, 1495,
1599, 1636, 1619, 1638, 1642, 1499, 1634, 1676, and 1677

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send a series of 30 amendments to the
desk, which have been cleared by myself and Senator McCain, and I ask
for their immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). Is there objection?
Without objection, the amendments will be considered en bloc.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the amendments, I understand, have been
cleared by the Republican side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the
amendments be agreed to en bloc and that the motions to reconsider be
laid upon the table en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments were agreed to en bloc, as follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 1472

(Purpose: To modify the reporting requirement for the defense
nanotechnology research and development program)

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

SEC. 252. MODIFICATION OF REPORTING REQUIREMENT FOR DEFENSE
NANOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM.

Section 246 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314; 10 U.S.C. 2358
note) is amended by striking subsection (e) and inserting the
following new subsection (e):
``(e) Reports.--The Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics shall submit to the
National Science and Technology Council information on the
program that covers the information described in paragraphs
(1) through (5) of section 2(d) of the 21st Century
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (15 U.S.C.
7501(d)) to be included in the annual report submitted by the
Council under that section.''.

[[Page S7852]]

AMENDMENT NO. 1518

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of the Army to expand the First
Sergeants Barracks Initiative (FSBI) throughout the Army in order to
improve the quality of life and living environments for single
soldiers)

On page 565, after line 20, add the following:

Subtitle D--Other Matters

SEC. 2841. EXPANSION OF FIRST SERGEANTS BARRACKS INITIATIVE.

(a) Expansion of Initiative.--Not later than September 30,
2011, the Secretary of the Army shall expand the First
Sergeants Barracks Initiative (FSBI) to include all Army
installations in order to improve the quality of life and
living environments for single soldiers.
(b) Progress Reports.--Not later than February 15, 2010,
and February 15, 2011, the Secretary of the Army shall submit
to Congress a report describing the progress made in
expanding the First Sergeants Barracks Initiative to all Army
installations, including whether the Secretary anticipates
meeting the deadline imposed by subsection (a).

AMENDMENT NO. 1569

(Purpose: To require a plan to manage vegetative encroachment at
training ranges)

On page 92, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:

SEC. 342. PLAN FOR MANAGING VEGETATIVE ENCROACHMENT AT
TRAINING RANGES.

Section 366(a)(5) of the Bob Stump National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314;
10 U.S.C. 113 note) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(5) At the same time'' and inserting
``(5)(A) At the same time''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) Beginning with the report submitted to Congress at
the same time as the President submits the budget for fiscal
year 2011, the report required under this subsection shall
include the following:
``(i) An assessment of the extent to which vegetation and
overgrowth limits the use of military lands available for
training of the Armed Forces in the United States and
overseas.
``(ii) Identification of the particular installations and
training areas at which vegetation and overgrowth negatively
impact the use of training space.
``(iii)(I) As part of the first such report submitted, a
plan to address training constraints caused by vegetation and
overgrowth.
``(II) As part of each subsequent report, any necessary
updates to such plan.''.

amendment no. 1553

(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct a
previously authorized Armed Forces Reserve Center in vicinity of
specified location at Pease Air National Guard Base, New Hampshire)

On page 553, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:

SEC. 2707. AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED ARMED
FORCES RESERVE CENTER IN VICINITY OF SPECIFIED
LOCATION AT PEASE AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASE, NEW
HAMPSHIRE.

The Secretary of the Army may use funds appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2703 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417; 122 Stat. 4715) for
the purpose of constructing an Armed Forces Reserve Center at
Pease Air National Guard Base, New Hampshire, to construct
instead an Armed Forces Reserve Center in the vicinity of
Pease Air National Guard Base at a location determined by the
Secretary to be in the best interest of national security and
in the public interest.

amendment no. 1471

(Purpose: To release to the State of Arkansas a reversionary interest
in Camp Joseph T. Robinson)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. RELEASE OF REVERSIONARY INTEREST.

The United States releases to the State of Arkansas the
reversionary interest described in sections 2 and 3 of the
Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the transfer of part of
Camp Joseph T. Robinson to the State of Arkansas'', approved
June 30, 1950 (64 Stat. 311, chapter 429), in and to the
surface estate of the land constituting Camp Joseph T.
Robinson, Arkansas, which is comprised of 40.515 acres of
land to be acquired by the United States of America and
40.513 acres to be acquired by the City of North Little Rock,
Arkansas, and lies in sections 6, 8, and 9 of township 2
North, Range 12 West, Pulaski County, Arkansas.

amendment no. 1512

(Purpose: To require additional disclosure of poor performance in the
contractor performance database)

On page 259, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:

SEC. 824. MODIFICATIONS TO DATABASE FOR FEDERAL AGENCY
CONTRACT AND GRANT OFFICERS AND SUSPENSION AND
DEBARMENT OFFICIALS.

Subsection (c) of section 872 of the Duncan Hunter National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law
110-417; 122 Stat. 4556) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs
(8) and (9), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following new
paragraphs:
``(6) Each audit report that, as determined by an Inspector
General or the head of an audit agency responsible for the
report, contains significant adverse information about a
contractor that should be included in the database.
``(7) Each contract action that, as determined by the head
of the contracting activity responsible for the contract
action, reflects information about contractor performance or
integrity that should be included in the database.''.

amendment no. 1473

(Purpose: To modify the provision requiring the inclusion of pension
obligations for certain Department of Energy facilities in the budget
request of the President to include pension obligations for all
Department of Energy facilities)

On page 590, lines 7 through 9, strike ``for the National
Nuclear Security Administration or for defense environmental
cleanup''.

amendment no. 1561

(Purpose: To expand the authority of the Ombudsman under the Energy
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000)

At the end of subtitle C of title XXXI, insert the
following:

SEC. 3136. EXPANSION OF AUTHORITY OF OMBUDSMAN OF ENERGY
EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION
PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Section 3686 of the Energy Employees
Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (42
U.S.C. 7385s-15) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c), by inserting ``and subtitle B''
after ``this subtitle'' each place it appears;
(2) in subsection (d), by inserting ``and subtitle B''
after ``this subtitle'';
(3) in subsection (e), by inserting ``and subtitle B''
after ``this subtitle'' each place it appears;
(4) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h); and
(5) by inserting after subsection (f) the following new
subsection:
``(g) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Ombudsman.--In carrying out the duties of the Ombudsman under
this section, the Ombudsman shall work with the individual
employed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health to serve as an ombudsman to individuals making
claims under subtitle B.''.
(b) Construction.--Except as specifically provided in
subsection (g) of section 3686 of the Energy Employees
Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as
amended by subsection (a) of this section, nothing in the
amendments made by such subsection (a) shall be construed to
alter or affect the duties and functions of the individual
employed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health to serve as an ombudsman to individuals making
claims under subtitle B of the Energy Employees Occupational
Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 7384l et
seq.).

amendment no. 1520

(Purpose: To require a report on the re-determination process of the
Department of Defense used to determine the eligibility of permanently
incapacitated dependents of retired and deceased members of the Armed
Forces for benefits provided under laws administered by the Secretary
of Defense)

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

SEC. 1073. REPORT ON RE-DETERMINATION PROCESS FOR PERMANENTLY
INCAPACITATED DEPENDENTS OF RETIRED AND
DECEASED MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.

Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a
report on the re-determination process of the Department of
Defense used to determine the eligibility of permanently
incapacitated dependents of retired and deceased members of
the Armed Forces for benefits provided under laws
administered by the Secretary. The report shall include the
following:
(1) An assessment of the re-determination process,
including the following:
(A) The rationale for requiring a quadrennial
recertification of financial support after issuance of a
permanent identification card to a permanently incapacitated
dependent.
(B) The administrative and other burdens the quadrennial
recertification imposes on the affected sponsor and
dependents, especially after the sponsor becomes ill,
incapacitated, or deceased.
(C) The extent to which the quadrennial recertification
undermines the utility of issuing a permanent identification
card.
(D) The extent of the consequences entailed in eliminating
the requirement for quadrennial recertification.
(2) Specific recommendations for the following:
(A) Improving the efficiency of the recertification
process.
(B) Minimizing the burden of such process on the sponsors
of such dependents.
(C) Eliminating the requirement for quadrennial
recertification.

[[Page S7853]]

amendment no. 1600

(Purpose: To require the Comptroller General of the United States to
conduct an audit of assistance to local educational agencies for the
education of dependent children of members of the Armed Forces)

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

SEC. 537. COMPTROLLER GENERAL AUDIT OF ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL
EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES FOR DEPENDENT CHILDREN OF
MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.

(a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct an audit of the utilization by local
educational agencies of the assistance specified in
subsection (b) provided to such agencies for fiscal years
2001 through 2009 for the education of dependent children of
members of the Armed Forces. The audit shall include--
(1) an evaluation of the utilization of such assistance by
such agencies; and
(2) an assessment of the effectiveness of such assistance
in improving the quality of education provided to dependent
children of members of the Armed Forces.
(b) Assistance Specified.--The assistance specified in this
subsection is--
(1) assistance provided under--
(A) section 572 the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163; 119 Stat. 3271; 20
U.S.C. 7703b);
(B) section 559 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375;
118 Stat. 1917);
(C) section 536 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136; 117 Stat. 1474);
(D) section 341 of the Bob Stump National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314;
116 Stat. 2514);
(E) section 351 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 1063); or
(F) section 362 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (as enacted into law
by Public Law 106-398; 114 Stat. 1654A-76); and
(2) payments made under section 363 of the Floyd D. Spence
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (as
enacted into law by Public Law 106-398; 114 Stat. 1654A-77;
20 U.S.C. 7703a).
(c) Report.--Not later than March 1, 2010, the Comptroller
General shall submit to the congressional defense committees
a report containing the results of the audit required by
subsection (a).

amendment no. 1555

(Purpose: To permit the extension of eligibility for enrollment in
Department of Defense elementary and secondary schools to certain
additional categories of dependents)

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

SEC. 537. AUTHORITY TO EXTEND ELIGIBILITY FOR ENROLLMENT IN
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY
SCHOOLS TO CERTAIN ADDITIONAL CATEGORIES OF
DEPENDENTS.

Section 2164 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(j) Tuition-Free Enrollment of Dependents of Foreign
Military Personnel Residing on Domestic Military
Installations and Dependents of Certain Deceased Members of
the Armed Forces.--(1) The Secretary may authorize the
enrollment in an education program provided by the Secretary
pursuant to subsection (a) of a dependent not otherwise
eligible for such enrollment who is the dependent of an
individual described in paragraph (2). Enrollment of such a
dependent shall be on a tuition-free basis.
``(2) An individual referred to in paragraph (1) is any of
the following:
``(A) A member of a foreign armed force residing on a
military installation in the United States (including
territories, commonwealths, and possessions of the United
States).
``(B) A deceased member of the armed forces who died in the
line of duty in a combat-related operation, as designated by
the Secretary.''.

amendment no. 1488

(To include in the study on options for educational opportunities for
dependent children of members of the Armed Forces consideration of the
impact of such options on students with special needs)

On page 125, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
(H) The extent to which the options referred to in
paragraph (2) would improve the quality of education
available for students with special needs, including students
with learning disabilities and gifted students.

amendment no. 1476

(Purpose: To permit the Secretary of the Air Force to convey to certain
Indian tribes certain relocatable military housing units)

At the end of title XXIII, add the following:

SEC. 23__. CONVEYANCE TO INDIAN TRIBES OF CERTAIN HOUSING
UNITS.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Executive director.--The term ``Executive Director''
means the Executive Director of Walking Shield, Inc.
(2) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' means any
Indian tribe included on the list published by the Secretary
of the Interior under section 104 of the Federally Recognized
Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C.479a-1).
(b) Requests for Conveyance.--
(1) In general.--The Executive Director may submit to the
Secretary of the Air Force, on behalf of any Indian tribe
located in the State of Idaho, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon,
South Dakota, Montana, or Minnesota, a request for conveyance
of any relocatable military housing unit located at Grand
Forks Air Force Base, Minot Air Force Base, Malmstrom Air
Force Base, Ellsworth Air Force Base, or Mountain Home Air
Force Base.
(2) Conflicts.--The Executive Director shall resolve any
conflict among requests of Indian tribes for housing units
described in paragraph (1) before submitting a request to the
Secretary of the Air Force under this subsection.
(c) Conveyance by Secretary.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, on receipt of a request under subsection
(c)(1), the Secretary of the Air Force may convey to the
Indian tribe that is the subject of the request, at no cost
to the Air Force and without consideration, any relocatable
military housing unit described in subsection (c)(1) that, as
determined by the Secretary, is in excess of the needs of the
military.

amendment no. 1612

(Purpose: To modify the provision clarifying responsibility for
preparation of the biennial global positioning system report)

Beginning on page 419, strike line 10 and all that follows
through page 420, line 2, and insert the following:
(a) In General.--Section 2281(d) of title 10, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``the Secretary of Defense'' and inserting
``the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of
Transportation, in their capacity as co-chairs of the
National Executive Committee for Space-Based Positioning,
Navigation, and Timing,''; and
(B) by striking ``the Committee on Armed Services of the
Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives'' and inserting ``the Committees on Armed
Services and Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate and the Committees on Armed Services, Energy and
Commerce, and Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following
new paragraph (2):
``(2) In preparing each report required under paragraph
(1), the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary
of Transportation, in their capacity as co-chairs of the
National Executive Committee for Space-Based Positioning,
Navigation, and Timing, shall consult with the Secretary of
Defense, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of
Transportation, and the Secretary of Homeland Security.''.

amendment no. 1560

(Purpose: To make technical corrections regarding certain military
construction projects at Cannon Air Force Base and Holloman Air Force
Base, New Mexico)

On page 508, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:

SEC. 2005. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN MILITARY
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS, NEW MEXICO.

Notwithstanding the table in section 4501, the amounts
available for the following projects at the following
installations shall be as follows:

[[Page S7854]]

Air Force: Inside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate
State               Installation  Project Title   Authorized
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico...................  Holloman Air   Fire-Crash              $0
Force Base..   Rescue
Station.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Special Operations Command
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate
State               Installation  Project Title   Authorized
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico...................  Cannon Air     SOF AC 130      $6,000,000
Force Base..   Loadout
Apron Phase
1...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

On page 523, in the table preceding line 1, in the item
relating to Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico, strike
``$15,900,000'' in the amount column and insert
``$5,500,000''.
On page 525, line 2, strike ``$1,746,821,000'' and insert
``$1,736,421,000''.
On page 525, line 5, strike ``$822,515,000'' and insert
``$812,115,000''.
On page 529, in the table preceding line 1 entitled
``Special Operations Command'', in the item relating to
Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico, strike ``$52,864,000'' in
the amount column and insert ``$58,864,000''.
On page 531, line 16, strike ``$3,284,025,000'' and insert
``$3,290,025,000''.
On page 531, line 19, strike ``$963,373,000'' and insert
``$969,373,000''.

amendment no. 1500

(Purpose: To include analysis of military whistleblower reprisal
appeals in the assessment by the Comptroller General of the United
States of military whistleblower protections)

On page 428, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
(3) A sample of military whistleblower reprisal appeals (as
selected by the Comptroller General for the purposes of this
section) heard by the Boards for the Correction of Military
Records referred to in section 1552 of title 10, United
States Code, of each military department.

amendment no. 1535

(Purpose: To require the Director of National Intelligence to report on
Cuba and Cuba's relations with other countries)

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

SEC. 1222. REPORT ON CUBA AND CUBA'S RELATIONS WITH OTHER
COUNTRIES.

Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Director of National Intelligence shall provide
to the defense and intelligence committees of the Congress a
report addressing the following:
(1) The cooperative agreements and relationships that Cuba
has with Iran, North Korea, and other states suspected of
nuclear proliferation.
(2) A detailed account of the economic support provided by
Venezuela to Cuba and the intelligence and other support that
Cuba provides to the government of Hugo Chavez.
(3) A review of the evidence of relationships between the
Cuban government or any of its components with drug cartels
or involvement in other drug trafficking activities.
(4) The status and extent of Cuba's clandestine activities
in the United States.
(5) The extent and activities of Cuban support for
governments in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Central America,
and the Caribbean.
(6) The status and extent of Cuba's research and
development program for biological weapons production.
(7) The status and extent of Cuba's cyberwarfare program.

amendment no. 1536

(Purpose: To require the Director of National Intelligence to report on
political and other support provided by Venezuelan officials to
terrorist and other groups)

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

SEC. 1222. REPORT ON VENEZUELA.

Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Director of National Intelligence shall provide
to the defense and intelligence committees of the Congress a
report addressing the following:
(1) An inventory of all weapons purchases by, and transfers
to, the government of Venezuela and Venezuela's transfers to
other countries since 1998, particularly purchases and
transfers of missiles, ships, submarines, and any other
advanced systems. The report shall include an assessment of
whether there is accountability of the purchases and
transfers with respect to the end-use and diversion of such
materiel to popular militias, other governments, or irregular
armed forces.
(2) The mining and shipping of Venezuelan uranium to Iran,
North Korea, and other states suspected of nuclear
proliferation.
(3) The extent to which Hugo Chavez and other Venezuelan
officials and supporters of the Venezuelan government provide
political counsel, collaboration, financial ties, refuge, and
other forms of support, including military materiel, to the
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).
(4) The extent to which Hugo Chavez and other Venezuelan
officials provide funding, logistical and political support
to the Islamist terrorist organization Hezbollah.
(5) Deployment of Venezuelan security or intelligence
personnel to Bolivia, including any role such personnel have
in suppressing opponents of the government of Bolivia.
(6) Venezuela's clandestine material support for political
movements and individuals throughout the Western Hemisphere
with the objective of influencing the internal affairs of
nations in the Western Hemisphere.
(7) Efforts by Hugo Chavez and other officials or
supporters of the Venezuelan government to convert or launder
funds that are the property of Venezuelan government
agencies, instrumentalities, parastatals, including Petroleos
de Venezuela, SA (PDVSA).
(8) Covert payments by Hugo Chavez or officials or
supporters of the Venezuelan government to foreign political
candidates, government officials, or officials of
international organizations for the purpose of influencing
the performance of their official duties.

amendment no. 1510

(Purpose: To provide technical changes to land conveyance matters
regarding Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota)

On page 565, after line 20, add the following:

SEC. 2832. LAND CONVEYANCE, ELLSWORTH AIR FORCE BASE, SOUTH
DAKOTA.

(a) Change in Recipient Under Existing Authority.--
(1) In general.--Section 2863(a) of the Military
Construction Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (division B of Public
Law 105-85; 111 Stat. 2010), as amended by section 2865(a) of
the Military Construction Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (as
enacted into law by Public Law 106-398; 114 Stat. 1654A-435),
is further amended by striking ``West River Foundation for
Economic and Community Development, Sturgis, South Dakota (in
this section referred to as the `Foundation')'' and inserting
``South Dakota Ellsworth Development Authority, Pierre, South
Dakota (in this section referred to as the `Authority')''.
(2) Technical and conforming amendments.--Section 2863 of
the Military Construction Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (division
B of Public Law 105-85; 111 Stat. 2010), as amended by
section 2865(b) of the Military Construction Act for Fiscal
Year 2001 (as enacted into law by Public Law 106-398; 114
Stat. 1654A-435), is further amended--

[[Page S7855]]

(A) by striking ``Foundation'' each place it appears in
subsections (c) and (e) and inserting ``Authority'';
(B) in subsection (b)(1)--
(i) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``137.56 acres'' and
inserting ``120.70 acres''; and
(ii) by striking subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E).
(b) New Conveyance Authority.--
(1) Conveyance authorized.--The Secretary of the Air Force
may convey, without consideration, to the South Dakota
Ellsworth Development Authority, Pierre, South Dakota (in
this subsection referred to as the ``Authority''), all right,
title, and interest of the United States in and to the
parcels of real property located at Ellsworth Air Force Base,
South Dakota, referred to in paragraph (2).
(2) Covered property.--The real property referred to in
paragraph (1) is the following:
(A) A parcel of real property, together with any
improvements thereon, consisting of approximately 2.37 acres
and comprising the 11000 West Communications Annex.
(B) A parcel of real property, together with any
improvements thereon, consisting of approximately 6.643 acres
and comprising the South Nike Education Annex.
(3) Condition.--As a condition of the conveyance under this
subsection, the Authority, and any person or entity to which
the Authority transfers the property, shall comply in the use
of the property with the applicable provisions of the
Ellsworth Air Force Base Air Installation Compatible Use Zone
Study.
(4) Reversionary interest.--If the Secretary determines at
any time that the real property conveyed under paragraph (1)
is not being used in compliance with the applicable
provisions of the Ellsworth Air Force Base Air Installation
Compatible Use Zone Study, all right, title, and interest in
and to such real property, including any improvements and
appurtenant easements thereto, shall, at the option of the
Secretary, revert to and become the property of the United
States, and the United States shall have the right of
immediate entry onto such real property. A determination by
the Secretary under this paragraph shall be made on the
record after an opportunity for a hearing.
(5) Description of property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under this
subsection shall be determined by a survey satisfactory to
the Secretary.
(6) Additional terms and conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under this subsection as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.

amendment no. 1492

(Purpose: To authorize a land conveyance at F.E. Warren Air Force Base,
Cheyenne, Wyoming)

On page 565, after line 20, add the following:

SEC. 2832. LAND CONVEYANCE, F.E. WARREN AIR FORCE BASE,
CHEYENNE, WYOMING.

(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Air Force
may convey to the County of Laramie, Wyoming (in this section
referred to as the ``County'') all right, title, and interest
of the United States in and to a parcel of real property,
including any improvements thereon and appurtenant easements
thereto, consisting of approximately 73 acres along the
southeastern boundary of F.E. Warren Air Force Base,
Cheyenne, Wyoming, for the purpose of removing the property
from the boundaries of the installation and permitting the
County to preserve the entire property for healthcare
facilities.
(b) Consideration.--
(1) In general.--As consideration for the conveyance under
subsection (a), the County shall provide the United States
consideration, whether by cash payment, in-kind consideration
as described under paragraph (2), or a combination thereof,
in an amount that is not less than the fair market value of
the conveyed real property, as determined by the Secretary.
(2) In-kind consideration.--In-kind consideration provided
by the County under paragraph (1) may include the
acquisition, construction, provision, improvement,
maintenance, repair, or restoration (including environmental
restoration), or combination thereof, of any facilities or
infrastructure relating to the security of F.E. Warren Air
Force Base, that the Secretary considers acceptable.
(3) Relation to other laws.--Sections 2662 and 2802 of
title 10, United States Code, shall not apply to any new
facilities or infrastructure received by the United States as
in-kind consideration under paragraph (2).
(4) Notice to congress.--The Secretary shall provide
written notification to the congressional defense committees
of the types and value of consideration provided the United
States under paragraph (1).
(5) Treatment of cash consideration received.--Any cash
payment received by the United States under paragraph (1)
shall be deposited in the special account in the Treasury
established under subsection (b) of section 572 of title 40,
United States Code, and shall be available in accordance with
paragraph (5)(B)(ii) of such subsection.
(c) Reversionary Interest.--
(1) In general.--If the Secretary determines at any time
that the County is not using the property conveyed under
subsection (a) in accordance with the purpose of the
conveyance specified in such subsection, all right, title,
and interest in and to the property, including any
improvements thereon, shall revert, at the option of the
Secretary, to the United States, and the United States shall
have the right of immediate entry onto the property. Any
determination of the Secretary under this subsection shall be
made on the record after an opportunity for a hearing.
(2) Release of reversionary interest.--The Secretary shall
release, without consideration, the reversionary interest
retained by the United States under paragraph (1) if--
(A) F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Cheyenne Wyoming, is no
longer being used for Department of Defense activities; or
(B) the Secretary determines that the reversionary interest
is otherwise unnecessary to protect the interests of the
United States.
(d) Payment of Costs of Conveyance.--
(1) Payment required.--The Secretary shall require the
County to cover costs to be incurred by the Secretary, or to
reimburse the Secretary for costs incurred by the Secretary,
to carry out the conveyance under subsection (a) and
implement the receipt of in-kind consideration under
paragraph (b), including survey costs, appraisal costs, costs
related to environmental documentation, and other
administrative costs related to the conveyance and receipt of
in-kind consideration. If amounts are received from the
County in advance of the Secretary incurring the actual
costs, and the amount received exceeds the costs actually
incurred by the Secretary under this section, the Secretary
shall refund the excess amount to the County.
(2) Treatment of amounts received.--Amounts received as
reimbursements under paragraph (1) shall be credited to the
fund or account that was used to cover the costs incurred by
the Secretary in carrying out the conveyance and implementing
the receipt of in-kind consideration. Amounts so credited
shall be merged with amounts in such fund or account and
shall be available for the same purposes, and subject to the
same conditions and limitations, as amounts in such fund or
account.
(e) Description of Real Property.--The exact acreage and
legal description of the real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory
to the Secretary.
(f) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.

amendment no. 1495

(Purpose: To authorize a land conveyance at Lackland Air Force Base,
Texas)

On page 565, after line 20, insert the following:

SEC. 2832. LAND CONVEYANCE, LACKLAND AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS.

(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Air Force
may convey to an eligible entity, all right, title, and
interest of the United States to not more than 250 acres of
real property and associated easements and improvements on
Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, in exchange for real property
adjacent to or near the installation for the purpose of
relocating and consolidating Air Force tenants located on the
former Kelly Air Force Base, Texas, onto the main portion of
Lackland Air Force Base.
(b) Condition of Conveyance.--The conveyance under
subsection (a) shall be subject to the condition that the
eligible entity accept the real property in its condition at
the time of the conveyance, commonly known as conveyance ``as
is'' and not subject to the requirements for covenants in
deed under section 120(h)(3) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (42 U.S.C. 9620(h)(3)).
(c) Eligible Entities.--A conveyance under this section may
be made to the City of San Antonio, Texas, or an organization
or agency chartered or sponsored by the local or State
government.
(d) Consideration.--As consideration for the conveyance
under subsection (a), the eligible entity shall provide the
Air Force with real property or real property improvements,
or a combination of both, of equal value, as determined by
the Secretary. If the fair market value of the real property
or real property improvements, or combination thereof, is
less than the fair market value of the real property to be
conveyed by the Air Force, the eligible entity shall provide
cash payment to the Air Force, or provide Lackland Air Force
Base with in-kind consideration of an amount equal to the
difference in the fair market values. Any cash payment
received by the Air Force for the conveyance authorized by
subsection (a) shall be deposited in the special account
described in section 2667(e) of title 10, United States Code,
and shall be available to the Secretary for the same uses and
subject to the same limitations as provided in that section.
(e) Payment of Costs of Conveyance.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may require the eligible
entity to cover costs to be incurred by the Secretary, or to
reimburse the Secretary for costs incurred by the Secretary,
to carry out the conveyances under this section, including
survey costs, costs related to environmental documentation,
and other administrative costs related to the conveyances. If
amounts are collected from the eligible entity in advance of
the Secretary incurring the actual costs, and the amount
collected exceeds the costs actually incurred by the
Secretary to carry out the conveyance, the Secretary shall
refund the excess amount to the eligible entity.

[[Page S7856]]

(2) Treatment of amounts received.--Amounts received as
reimbursement under paragraph (1) shall be credited to the
fund or account that was used to cover the costs incurred by
the Secretary in carrying out the conveyances. Amounts so
credited shall be merged with amounts in such fund or
account, and shall be available for the same purposes, and
subject to the same conditions and limitations, as amounts in
such fund or account.
(f) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory
to the Secretary.
(g) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyances under this section as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.

amendment no. 1599

(Purpose: To authorize a land conveyance at Haines Tank Farm, Haines,
Alaska)

On page 565, after line 20, insert the following:

SEC. 2832. LAND CONVEYANCE, HAINES TANK FARM, HAINES, ALASKA.

(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may
convey to the Chilkoot Indian Association (in this section
referred to as the ``Association'') all right, title, and
interest of the United States in and to a parcel of real
property, including improvements thereon, consisting of
approximately 201 acres located at the former Haines Fuel
Terminal (also known as the Haines Tank Farm) in Haines,
Alaska, for the purpose of permitting the Association to
develop a Deep Sea Port and for other industrial and
commercial development purposes. To the extent practicable,
the Secretary is encouraged to complete the conveyance by
September 30, 2013, but not prior to the date of completion
of all obligations referenced in subsection (e).
(b) Consideration.--As consideration for the conveyance
under subsection (a), the Association shall pay to the
Secretary an amount equal to the fair market value of the
property, as determined by the Secretary. The determination
of the Secretary shall be final.
(c) Reversionary Interest.--If the Secretary determines at
any time that the real property conveyed under subsection (a)
is not being used in accordance with the purpose of the
conveyance, all right, title, and interest in and to such
real property, including any improvements and appurtenant
easements thereto, shall, at the option of the Secretary,
revert to and become the property of the United States, and
the United States shall have the right of immediate entry
onto such real property. A determination by the Secretary
under this subsection shall be made on the record after an
opportunity for a hearing.
(d) Payment of Costs of Conveyances.--
(1) Payment required.--The Secretary shall require the
Association to cover costs to be incurred by the Secretary,
or to reimburse the Secretary for costs incurred by the
Secretary, to carry out the conveyance under subsection (a),
including survey costs, costs related to environmental
documentation, and other administrative costs related to the
conveyance. If amounts are collected from the Association in
advance of the Secretary incurring the actual costs, and the
amount collected exceeds the costs actually incurred by the
Secretary to carry out the conveyance, the Secretary shall
refund the excess amount to the Association.
(2) Treatment of amounts received.--Amounts received as
reimbursements under paragraph (1) shall be credited to the
fund or account that was used to cover the costs incurred by
the Secretary in carrying out the conveyance. Amounts so
credited shall be merged with amounts in such fund or account
and shall be available for the same purposes, and subject to
the same conditions and limitations, as amounts in such fund
or account.
(e) Savings Provision.--The Haines Tank Farm is currently
under a remedial investigation (RI) for petroleum, oil and
lubricants contamination. Nothing in this section shall be
construed to affect or limit the application of, or any
obligation to comply with, any environmental law, including
the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.), the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et
seq.) and the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et
seq.).
(f) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under this
section shall be determined by a survey satisfactory to the
Secretary.
(g) Additional Term and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under this section as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.

amendment no. 1636

(Purpose: To authorize land conveyances of certain parcels in the Camp
Catlin and Ohana Nui areas, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii)

On page 565, after line 20, add the following:

SEC. 2832. LAND CONVEYANCES OF CERTAIN PARCELS IN THE CAMP
CATLIN AND OHANA NUI AREAS, PEARL HARBOR,
HAWAII.

(a) Conveyances Authorized.--The Secretary of the Navy
(``the Secretary'') may convey to any person or entity
leasing or licensing real property located at Camp Catlin and
Ohana Nui areas, Hawaii, as of the date of the enactment of
this Act (``the lessee'') all right, title, and interest of
the United States in and to the portion of such property that
is respectively leased or licensed by such person or entity
for the purpose of continuing the same functions as are being
conducted on the property as of the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(b) Consideration.--As consideration for a conveyance under
subsection (a), the lessee shall provide the United States,
whether by cash payment, in-kind consideration, or a
combination thereof, an amount that is not less than the fair
market of the conveyed property, as determined pursuant to an
appraisal acceptable to the Secretary.
(c) Exercise of Right To Purchase Property.--
(1) Acceptance of offer.--For a period of 180 days
beginning on the date the Secretary makes a written offer to
convey the property or any portion thereof under subsection
(a), the lessee shall have the exclusive right to accept such
offer by providing written notice of acceptance to the
Secretary within the specified 180-day time period. If the
Secretary's offer is not so accepted within the 180-day
period, the offer shall expire.
(2) Conveyance deadline.--If a lessee accepts the offer to
convey the property or a portion thereof in accordance with
paragraph (1), the conveyance shall take place not later than
2 years after the date of the lessee's written acceptance,
provided that the conveyance date may be extended for a
reasonable period of time by mutual agreement of the parties,
evidenced by a written instrument executed by the parties
prior to the end of the 2-year period. If the lessee's lease
or license term expires before the conveyance is completed,
the Secretary may extend the lease or license term up to the
date of conveyance, provided that the lessee shall be
required to pay for such extended term at the rate in effect
at the time it was declared excess property.
(d) Payment of Costs of Conveyances.--
(1) Payment required.--The Secretary shall require the
lessee to cover costs to be incurred by the Secretary, or to
reimburse the Secretary for costs incurred by the Secretary,
to carry out a conveyance under subsection (a), including
survey costs, related to the conveyance. If amounts are
collected from the lessee in advance of the Secretary
incurring the actual costs, and the amount collected exceeds
the costs actually incurred by the Secretary to carry out the
conveyance, the Secretary shall refund the excess amount to
the lessee.
(2) Treatment of amounts received.--Amounts received under
paragraph (1) as reimbursement for costs incurred by the
Secretary to carry out a conveyance under subsection (a)
shall be credited to the fund or account that was used to
cover the costs incurred by the Secretary in carrying out the
conveyance. Amounts so credited shall be merged with amounts
in such fund or account and shall be available for the same
purposes, and subject to the same conditions and limitations,
as amounts in such fund or account.
(e) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of any real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory
to the Secretary.
(f) Additional Term and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with a conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.

amendment no. 1619

(Purpose: To authorize the Department of Defense to participate in
programs for the management of energy demand or the reduction of energy
usage during peak periods)

At the appropriate place in title III, insert the
following:

SEC. __. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PARTICIPATION IN PROGRAMS FOR
MANAGEMENT OF ENERGY DEMAND OR REDUCTION OF
ENERGY USAGE DURING PEAK PERIODS.

(a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 173 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:

``Sec. 2919. Department of Defense participation in programs
for management of energy demand or reduction of energy
usage during peak periods

``(a) Participation in Demand Response or Load Management
Programs.--The Secretary of Defense, the Secretaries of the
military departments, the heads of the Defense Agencies, and
the heads of other instrumentalities of the Department of
Defense are authorized to participate in demand response
programs for the management of energy demand or the reduction
of energy usage during peak periods conducted by any of the
following parties:
``(1) An electric utility
``(2) An independent system operator.
``(3) A State agency.
``(4) A third party entity (such as a demand response
aggregator or curtailment service provider) implementing
demand response programs on behalf of an electric utility,
independent system operator, or State agency.
``(b) Treatment of Certain Financial Incentives.--Financial
incentives received

[[Page S7857]]

from an entity specified in subsection (a) shall be received
in cash and deposited into the Treasury as a miscellaneous
receipt. Amounts received shall be available for obligation
only to the extent provided in advance in an appropriations
Act. The Secretary concerned or the head of the Defense
Agency or other instrumentality, as the case may be, shall
pay for the cost of the design and implementation of these
services in full in the year in which they are received from
amounts provided in advance in an appropriations Act.
``(c) Use of Certain Financial Incentives.--Of the amounts
derived from financial incentives awarded to a military
installation as described in subsection (b) and provided for
in advance by an appropriations Act--
``(1) not less than 100 percent shall be made available for
use at such military installation; and
``(2) not less than 30 percent shall be made available for
energy management initiatives at such installation.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such subchapter is amended by adding at the end
the following new item:

``2919. Department of Defense participation in programs for management
of energy demand or reduction of energy usage during peak
periods.''.

amendment no. 1638

(Purpose: To require a master plan to provide world class military
medical facilities in the National Capital Region)

At the end of title XXVII, add the following:

SEC. 2707. REQUIREMENT FOR MASTER PLAN TO PROVIDE WORLD CLASS
MILITARY MEDICAL FACILITIES IN THE NATIONAL
CAPITAL REGION.

(a) Master Plan Required.--Not later than 180 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Defense shall develop and implement a comprehensive master
plan to provide world class military medical facilities and
an integrated system of health care delivery for the National
Capital Region that--
(1) addresses--
(A) the unique needs of members of the Armed Forces and
retired members of the Armed Forces and their families;
(B) the care, management, and transition of seriously ill
and injured members of the Armed Forces and their families;
(C) the missions of the branch or branches of the Armed
Forces served; and
(D) performance expectations for the future integrated
health care delivery system, including--
(i) information management and information technology
support; and
(ii) expansion of support services;
(2) includes the establishment of an integrated process for
the joint development of budgets, prioritization of
requirements, and the allocation of funds;
(3) designates a single entity within the Department of
Defense with the budget and operational authority to respond
quickly to and address emerging facility and operational
requirements required to provide and operate world class
military medical facilities in the National Capital Region;
(4) incorporates all ancillary and support facilities at
the National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland,
including education and research facilities as well as
centers of excellence, transportation, and parking structures
required to provide a full range of adequate care and
services for members of the Armed Forces and their families;
(5) ensures that each facility covered by the plan meets or
exceeds Joint Commission hospital design standards as
applicable; and
(6) can be used as a model to develop similar master plans
for all military medical facilities within the Department of
Defense.
(b) Milestone Schedule and Cost Estimates.--Not later than
90 days after the development of the master plan required by
(a), the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense
committees a report describing--
(1) the schedule for completion of requirements identified
in the master plan; and
(2) updated cost estimates to provide world class military
medical facilities for the National Capital Region.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) National capital region.--The term ``National Capital
Region'' has the meaning given the term in section 2674(f) of
title 10, United States Code.
(2) World class military medical facility.--The term
``world class military medical facility'' has the meaning
given the term by the National Capital Region Base
Realignment and Closure Health Systems Advisory Subcommittee
of the Defense Health Board in appendix B of the report
entitled ``Achieving World Class - An Independent Review of
the Design Plans for the Walter Reed National Military
Medical Center and the Fort Belvoir Community Hospital'',
published in May, 2009.

amendment no. 1642

(Purpose: To require the Comptroller General of the United States to
conduct a review of spending in the final quarter of fiscal year 2009
by the Department of Defense)

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

SEC. 1073. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REVIEW OF SPENDING IN THE
FINAL QUARTER OF FISCAL YEAR 2009 BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

(a) Review of Spending by the Comptroller General.--The
Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a
review of the obligations and expenditures of the Department
of Defense in the final quarter of fiscal year 2009, as
compared to the obligations and expenditures of the
Department in the first three quarters of that fiscal year,
to determine if policies with respect to spending by the
Department contribute to hastened year-end spending and poor
use or waste of taxpayer dollars.
(b) Report.--Not later than the earlier of March 30, 2010,
or the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress
a report containing--
(1) the results of the review conducted under subsection
(a); and
(2) any recommendations of the Comptroller General with
respect to improving the policies pursuant to which amounts
appropriated to the Department of Defense are obligated and
expended in the final quarter of the fiscal year.

amendment no. 1499

(Purpose: To authorize an Air Force Academy athletics support program)

On page 120, before line 1, insert the following:

SEC. 524. AIR FORCE ACADEMY ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION.

(a) In General.--Chapter 903 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 9361 the
following new section:

``Sec. 9362. Air Force Academy athletic programs support

``(a) Establishment Authorized.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Air Force may, in
accordance with the laws of the State of incorporation,
establish a corporation to support the athletic programs of
the Academy (in this section referred to as the
`corporation'). All stock of the corporation shall be owned
by the United States and held in the name of and voted by the
Secretary of the Air Force.
``(2) Purpose.--The corporation shall operate exclusively
for charitable, educational, and civic purposes to support
the athletic programs of the Academy.
``(b) Corporate Organization.--The corporation shall be
organized and operated--
``(1) as a nonprofit corporation under section 501(c)(3) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
``(2) in accordance with this section; and
``(3) pursuant to the laws of the State of incorporation,
its articles of incorporation, and its bylaws.
``(c) Corporate Board of Directors.--
``(1) Compensation.--The members of the board of directors
shall serve without compensation, except for reasonable
travel and other related expenses for attendance at meetings.
``(2) Air force personnel.--The Secretary of the Air Force
may authorize military and civilian personnel of the Air
Force under section 1033 of this title to serve, in their
official capacities, as members of the board of directors,
but such personnel shall not hold more than one third of the
directorships.
``(d) Transfer From Nonappropriated Fund Operation.--The
Secretary of the Air Force may, subject to the acceptance of
the corporation, transfer to the corporation all title to and
ownership of the assets and liabilities of the Air Force
nonappropriated fund instrumentality whose functions include
providing support for the athletic programs of the Academy,
including bank accounts and financial reserves in its
accounts, equipment, supplies, and other personal property,
but excluding any interest in real property.
``(e) Acceptance of Gifts.--The Secretary of the Air Force
may accept from the corporation funds, supplies, and services
for the support of cadets and Academy personnel during their
participation in, or in support of, Academy or corporate
events related to the Academy athletic programs.
``(f) Leasing.--The Secretary of the Air Force may, in
accordance with section 2667 of this title, lease real and
personal property to the corporation for purposes related to
the Academy athletic programs. Money rentals received from
any such lease may be retained and spent by the Secretary to
support athletic programs of the Academy.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 9361 the following new item:

``9362. Air Force Academy athletic programs support.''.

amendment no. 1634

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress regarding airfares for
members of the Armed Forces)

On page 201, after line 25, add the following:

SEC. 652. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON AIRFARES FOR MEMBERS OF THE
ARMED FORCES.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Armed Forces is comprised of over 1,450,000 active-
duty members from every State and territory of the United
States who are assigned to thousands of installations,
stations, and ships worldwide and who oftentimes must travel
long distances by air at their own expense to enjoy the
benefits of leave and liberty.
(2) The United States is indebted to the members of the all
volunteer Armed Forces

[[Page S7858]]

and their families who protect our Nation, often experiencing
long separations due to the demands of military service and
in life threatening circumstances.
(3) Military service often precludes long range planning
for leave and liberty to provide opportunities for reunions
and recreation with loved ones and requires changes in
planning due to military necessity which results in last
minute changes in planning.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) all United States commercial carriers should seek to
lend their support with flexible, generous policies
applicable to members of the Armed Forces who are traveling
on leave or liberty at their own expense; and
(2) each United States air carrier, for all members of the
Armed Forces who have been granted leave or liberty and who
are traveling by air at their own expense, should--
(A) seek to provide reduced air fares that are comparable
to the lowest airfare for ticketed flights and that eliminate
to the maximum extent possible advance purchase requirements;
(B) seek to eliminate change fees or charges and any
penalties for military personnel;
(C) seek to eliminate or reduce baggage and excess weight
fees;
(D) offer flexible terms that allow members of the Armed
Forces on active duty to purchase, modify, or cancel tickets
without time restrictions, and to waive fees (including
baggage fees), ancillary costs, or penalties; and
(E) seek to take proactive measures to ensure that all
airline employees, particularly those who issue tickets and
respond to members of the Armed Forces and their family
members are trained in the policies of the airline aimed at
benefitting members of the Armed Forces who are on leave.

amendment no. 1676

(Purpose: To require the Comptroller General of the United States to
review the assessment and plan for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense
element of the Ballistic Missile Defense System)

On page 66, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
(e) Comptroller General Review.--The Comptroller General of
the United States shall--
(1) review the assessment required by subsection (b) and
the plan required by subsection (c); and
(2) not later than 120 days after receiving the assessment
and the plan, provide to the congressional defense committees
the results of the review.

amendment no. 1677

(Purpose: To avoid a break in production of the Ground-based
Interceptor missile until the Department of Defense completes the
Ballistic Missile Defense Review and to ensure there is no gap in
homeland defense by ensuring that Missile Field 1 at Fort Greely,
Alaska, does not complete decommissioning until seven silos have been
emplaced at Missile Field 2 at Fort Greely)

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

SEC. 245. CONTINUED PRODUCTION OF GROUND-BASED INTERCEPTOR
MISSILE AND OPERATION OF MISSILE FIELD 1 AT
FORT GREELY, ALASKA.

(a) Limitation on Break in Production.--The Secretary of
Defense shall ensure that the Missile Defense Agency does not
allow a break in production of the Ground-based Interceptor
missile until the Department of Defense has--
(1) completed the Ballistic Missile Defense Review; and
(2) made a determination with respect to the number of
Ground-based Interceptor missiles that will be necessary to
support the service life of the Ground-based Midcourse
Defense element of the Ballistic Missile Defense System.
(b) Limitation on Certain Actions With Respect to Missile
Field 1 and Missile Field 2 at Fort Greely, Alaska.--
(1) Limitation on decommissioning of missile field 1.--The
Secretary of Defense shall ensure that Missile Field 1 at
Fort Greely, Alaska, does not complete decommissioning until
seven silos have been emplaced at Missile Field 2 at Fort
Greely.
(2) Limitation with respect to disposition of silos at
missile field 2.--The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that
no irreversible decision is made with respect to the
disposition of operational silos at Missile Field 2 at Fort
Greely, Alaska, until that date that is 60 days after the
date on which the reports required by subsections (b)(3) and
(c)(3) of section 243 are submitted to the congressional
defense committees.
Mr. LEVIN. Now, Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that
Senator Udall be recognized as in morning business for 10 minutes; then
that Senator Akaka be recognized to speak on an amendment, which he
intends to offer, and which we will do everything we can to make in
order tomorrow; and then that Senator Murray be recognized for 10
minutes as in morning business.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will
not object, it is also my understanding then that at the beginning of
business tomorrow we will be taking up the Kyl amendment and the Bayh
either second degree or side-by-side, with 2 hours equally divided.
Mr. LEVIN. No. The UC, I believe, as it reads, is that we will take
up the Kyl amendment tomorrow, with a possible second degree or side-
by-side; and then after they are disposed of, then we would go to the
Lieberman amendment and a second degree or a side-by-side amendment of
Senator Bayh.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. On the alternate engine.
Mr. LEVIN. On the alternate engine.
Mr. McCAIN. So we would be taking up the Kyl amendment first, and
then----
Mr. LEVIN. Then a possible second degree or side-by-side to Kyl.
Then, after the disposition of Kyl and any side-by-side or second
degree, we would move to the Lieberman amendment on alternate engines,
with a Bayh second degree or side-by-side.
Mr. McCAIN. And there are time agreements on both amendments?
Mr. LEVIN. We do not have a time agreement yet on any of the
amendments. We hope in the morning to have time agreements. But we did
not have the language available for any--we did not have either the
second-degree amendment language or the side-by-side available, so your
side was unable, understandably, to agree to a time agreement.
Mr. McCAIN. Once the other sides of these amendments are aware of the
side-by-side, then it is our intention to have an hour or two equally
divided, and then move on to pending amendments.
Mr. LEVIN. If it is not already agreed to, I think there was an
understanding on the Lieberman and on the Bayh amendments there would
be an hour for each.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. That is fine.
Mr. LEVIN. We need the language before that can be agreed to. But
that is the understanding or intent.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the chairman. I think that clears up what our
plans are for a good part of tomorrow.
Mr. LEVIN. There will be no more votes tonight.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any objection to the speaker order?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to
speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Sotomayor Nomination

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, 28 years ago my father, former
Congressman from Arizona, Morris Udall, took the long walk from the
House of Representatives to come to the Senate. The divide that
separates the two great Chambers of Congress sometimes struck my father
as deeper and wider than the Grand Canyon of Arizona, but he crossed
over that day because he had a mission. He came to testify before the
Senate Judiciary Committee on behalf of a fellow Arizonan Sandra Day
O'Connor--the first woman to serve as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice.
My father, who was often at odds with ideologues of every stripe,
noted she was ``clearly conservative,'' but he also spoke of her
``great judicial temperament'' and her disposition to always put
justice ahead of partisanship.
Justice O'Connor proved to be an outstanding member of the Court, and
my father never regretted his decision to support her nomination.
A generation later, I am honored to stand here today to voice my
strong support for the first Hispanic woman nominated for the U.S.
Supreme Court--Sonia Sotomayor.
Judge Sotomayor's story is truly the quintessential example of the
American dream. The daughter of Puerto Rican parents who moved to New
York City at a time when racial and ethnic prejudice was widespread,
she lost her father at age 9. Her extraordinary mother worked hard to
provide an example of striving in the best sense of that word. Sonia
Sotomayor took that example to Princeton, Yale Law School, the
Manhattan District Attorney's Office, and as a Federal judge.
It is no wonder the Hispanic community is proud of this nomination
and has shown an outpouring of support for Judge Sotomayor. I was moved
personally to learn that Hispanic citizens from across the country
traveled to Washington, DC, and stood in line for hours in order to be
in the audience for her confirmation hearings.

[[Page S7859]]

Former Colorado State Senator Polly Baca was one of those who
traveled from Colorado. As a friend of the Sotomayor family, Polly's
reaction mirrored many others when she said that the judge is ``just
brilliant.'' ``Some people viewed her as a bit of a nerd,'' Senator
Baca said, ``because she worked so hard, studied so hard. And she's led
her life that way. . . .'' ``She is who she is,'' Senator Baca
concluded. This historic nomination is not only a source of pride for
Hispanic Americans, but for all of us. That is because we all take
heart and experience pride when we hear of a fellow American who
overcomes great obstacles and does good through hard work and
perseverance.
Let me quote the Greeley Tribune out on our eastern plains in my home
State of Colorado. The Tribune wrote:

This is, instead, a celebration of the growth of our
democracy . . . it is important that we recognize her
nomination for what it is: a signpost on the unending road
toward a more perfect union.

The Framers of the Constitution specifically outlined the advise and
consent role of the Senate regarding nominations. This is one of our
most solemn duties as Senators, the importance of which cannot be
overstated. I take this responsibility very seriously. The Supreme
Court is the highest Court in our land. Once it rules on a case, that
holding and rule become the law of the land. The Presiding Officer, as
the former attorney general of Illinois, knows that to be the case. The
men and women we send to serve there make decisions and render
judgments that can chart our destiny, literally, as a people.
So an inspiring life story is not the only or even the most
compelling reason to confirm Judge Sotomayor. What matters most? Her
qualifications for the job, her record, and her approach to the
Constitution.
Last week my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee began the
confirmation proceedings for Judge Sotomayor and examined her record.
During those hearings, the judge handled herself with grace and poise.
She answered tough questions and clearly demonstrated her commitment to
the law and the Constitution.
Out on the west slope of our great State of Colorado, we have the
city of Grand Junction. The Daily Sentinel, that city's newspaper,
stated last week: ``Sotomayor is unquestionably qualified.'' And I
agree.
There is no doubt that she is superbly qualified to be our next
Supreme Court Justice. As a Federal trial judge, in addition to her
more recent experience on the court of appeals, Judge Sotomayor brings
more experience as a judge to the job of serving on the Supreme Court
than anyone currently serving on the Court.
In addition, the judge received a ``well-qualified'' rating from the
American Bar Association. This is the highest rating from the ABA,
notable because it is given by Judge Sotomayor's peers.
Judge Sotomayor has received endorsements from a variety of
organizations, ranging from law enforcement and sportsmen and hunters,
to legal and higher education professionals.
The Framers of the Constitution anticipated the importance of having
an independent and duty-bound judiciary. Alexander Hamilton, in the
Federalist Papers, noted that:

To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is
indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules
and precedents, which serve to define and point out their
duty in every particular case that comes before them. . . .

From her record, it is unmistakable that Judge Sotomayor has
demonstrated a commitment to precedent and the rule of law, as Mr.
Hamilton described it. During her confirmation hearings, she said:

As a judge, I do not make the law . . . judges must apply
the law.

Some have raised the question whether Judge Sotomayor is a ``liberal
activist'' because of her involvement on the board of the Puerto Rican
Legal Defense and Education Fund. But Judge Sotomayor's role and
involvement has not been in directing legal opinions from this
organization, but it has been directed instead at encouraging Puerto
Rican youth to pursue careers in the legal profession.
According to her record, she has participated in 434 published panel
decisions where there was at least one judge appointed by a Republican
President. Despite notions to the contrary, she has agreed with the
result favored by the Republican appointee 95 percent of the time. What
does that demonstrate? Well, it demonstrates that Judge Sotomayor does
not have an ideological bias but that she is a moderate jurist.
I also wish to acknowledge another alleged controversy Judge
Sotomayor's critics have seized upon as a reason to oppose her
confirmation; that is, her so-called ``wise Latina'' remarks in which
the judge waxed not so eloquently on her hopes that she might draw
special wisdom and insight from her personal experience. Judge
Sotomayor herself has acknowledged the clumsiness of her language. If
anything in her record suggested a special bias or prejudice, these
words might be evidence of a larger problem, but that is simply not
borne out in a review of her record on the bench. Nor did her decision
on the Ricci case strike me as evidence of activist bias so much as it
was a case of deference for judicial precedent. It strikes me as
particularly unfair for Judge Sotomayor's critics to assail her for
social activism when there is little, if any, evidence of that in her
record, and they also used the Ricci case as an example. Frankly, I
think the judge's opinions consistently show judicial restraint,
respect for established legal precedent, and deference to the
policymaking role of the elected branches--even when it leads to a
result that may be unpopular or different from her personal opinion.
After I had a chance to meet with Judge Sotomayor, I came away with
the opinion that she possesses the temperament, the qualifications, and
the experience to meet the challenges of serving at the highest level
on the Supreme Court.
I also appreciated that she acknowledged one of the most important
issues to the livelihood of westerners: water. She surprised me when
she said that all of the questions surrounding water may be among the
most challenging legal controversies we face in the next 25 to 50
years. We did not have a conversation about the specific legal issues
that might emerge around water, energy, or public lands in the West,
but what I saw was a reassuring appreciation for the unique problems of
our region and an intellectual curiosity to match it.
So as I conclude, I have reviewed Judge Sotomayor's impressive
judicial record. I have watched and listened carefully to her answers
during her confirmation hearing and met with her in person. Like
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, I believe she is poised to make history. I
am proud to support her nomination, and I would encourage my colleagues
in the Senate to do likewise.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the
remarks of the Senator from Hawaii, the Senate go into a period of
morning business, with Senator Murray to be recognized first for 10
minutes and other Members of the body permitted to speak for up to 10
minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.

Amendment No. 1522

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to speak on amendment No. 1522 to S.
1390. I understand there is not yet an agreement to consider the
amendment, but I am hopeful there will be one soon.
Amendment No. 1522 would enhance the retirement security of Federal
employees and address inequities in the system. As chairman of the
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal
Workforce, and the District of Columbia, I am proud to join with
Senators Collins, Lieberman, Voinovich, Murkowski, Begich, Kohl,
Mikulski, Cardin, Inouye, Webb, and Warner in this bipartisan
amendment.
Each of these revisions is much needed and has been thoroughly
debated by the appropriate committees in the House and Senate. Many of
the changes were requested by the administrators of the retirement
plans and are strongly supported by many organizations. The list of
supporters is too long to read here, but it includes every major
Federal employee union; postal unions, supervisors, and postmasters;
the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and several
government managers groups.

[[Page S7860]]

Most important to my home State of Hawaii, the amendment provides
retirement equity to Federal employees in Hawaii, Alaska, and the
territories. More than 23,000 Federal employees in Hawaii, including
more than 17,000 Defense Department employees and another 30,000
Federal employees in Alaska and the territories, currently receive a
cost-of-living allowance which is not taxed and does not count for
retirement. Because of this, workers in the nonforeign areas retire
with significantly lower annuities than their counterparts in the 48
States and DC. COLA rates are scheduled to go down later this year,
along with the pay of nearly 50,000 Federal employees if we do not
provide this fix.
In 2007, I introduced the Non-Foreign Area Retirement Equity
Assurance Act. The bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent in
October 2008. Unfortunately, the House did not have time to consider
the bill before adjournment.
I reintroduced S. 507, which is included in the amendment, with
Senators Murkowski, Inouye, and Begich. It is nearly identical to the
bill that passed the Senate last year. It is a bipartisan effort to
transition employees in Hawaii, Alaska, and the territories to the same
locality pay system used in the rest of the United States while
protecting employees' take-home pay. The measure passed unanimously
through the committee on April 1, 2009.
The second provision I wish to highlight corrects how employees'
annuities are calculated for part-time service under the Civil Service
Retirement System. This provision removes a disincentive that now
discourages Federal employees near retirement from working on a part-
time basis while phasing into retirement. It would treat Federal
employees under CSRS the same way they are treated under the newer
Federal Employee Retirement System.
The third provision I wish to discuss would allow FERS participants
to apply their unused sick leave to their length of service for
computing their retirement annuities as is done for CSRS employees. The
Congressional Research Service found that FERS employees within 2 years
of retirement eligibility used 25 percent more sick leave than
similarly situated CSRS employees. OPM also found that the disparity in
sick leave usage costs the Federal Government approximately $68 million
in productivity each year. This solution was proposed by Federal
managers who wanted additional tools to build a more efficient and
productive workplace and to provide employees with an incentive not to
use sick leave unnecessarily near retirement.
Finally, I wish to add that this amendment will make good on the
recruitment promise made to a small group of Secret Service agents.
Approximately 180 Secret Service agents and officers hired from 1984
through 1986 were promised access to the DC Police and Firefighter
Retirement and Disability System. This amendment is meant to provide
narrow and specific relief only to this small group of agents and
officers by allowing them to access the retirement system they were
promised at the time they were hired.
I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, the
Federal retirement reform provisions, and the bill.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

____________________