Outer Continental Shelf Revenue Sharing Act of 2005

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: It is my understanding we are on the bill for appropriations for our defense purposes under the management of the distinguished Presiding Officer. Am I correct?

Mr. President, this is a matter that I have discussed with the managers of the bill as well as, on several occasions, our distinguished Republican and Democratic leaders. On behalf of Senator Levin and myself, I file today the 2006 authorization bill which has been prepared by the Committee on Armed Services. It was taken up by the Senate some weeks ago but, due to schedule pressures, we did not have the opportunity to finish that bill.

I emphasize that Senator Levin and I jointly are taking this action today. We do so having also worked very conscientiously with our two leaders to prepare a unanimous consent request, which is still in the works, by which our bill can once again be brought up as a freestanding measure and the Senate act upon it. I will not dwell at this time on the various options we are discussing as to how that UC is drawn up. Senator Levin and I believe that it is imperative, on behalf of the men and women of the Armed Forces, that this bill be considered in a timely fashion. As we continue our work on the UC, I have to seize upon this opportunity, together with Senator Levin, to file our bill as a proposed amendment to the appropriations bill, together with a managers' package, a proposed managers' amendment, of some 80 amendments that Senator Levin, since the time of the original consideration of our bill, and I have looked at, agreed, and would be seeking unanimous consent for the incorporation of those amendments in our bill.

The armed services bill was acted on with some 31 amendments at the time it was on the floor. So we have the original bill with 31 amendments which were agreed to in the course of several days of deliberation. Again, the Defense authorization act is too important to our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, and the national security of our country for the Senate not to complete action on it. If we cannot achieve unanimous consent prior to the final passage of this bill, it is the intent of Senator Levin and myself to urge upon the Senate the incorporation of the Defense authorization bill, together with at least a first managers' package of 80 amendments. For the convenience of Senators, I ask unanimous consent that a list of those 80 amendments and a brief description and the Senators, some 68 in number, who are affected by this managers' package, be printed in the Record.

By way of historical context, I would like to point out the following: There is an unbroken record for the last 45 years of Senate history that the Senate has passed an annual Defense authorization bill. The Senate and House have come to a conference agreement on and the President has signed that conference into law as the National Defense Authorization Act. Only once before has the chairman of the Armed Services Committee had to resort to the rare parliamentary procedure of proposing that that bill, the entire Defense authorization bill, be placed upon another legislative matter. That was in the year 1988.

Time is short. We must be reasonable in the amount of time we have been debating both the authorization bill and the appropriations bill. I ask for my colleagues' consideration and restraint in offering amendments to the appropriations bill, as well as to the authorization bill, hopefully, to achieve the unanimous consent agreement, which I hope will be offered in the next few days, to enable the authorization bill to become a freestanding bill with a designated number of amendments, with designated time agreements, and a clear estimate for both the Republican and Democratic leaders as to the number of days that would be required for completion. That will all be set forth, hopefully, in the next few days in a UC request.

We must be aware of the importance of the measure, the authorization bill. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, guardsmen, Active Reserve and National Guard, and countless civilians who support military, diplomatic, and humanitarian operations are serving valiantly in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations to secure our national security. This bill would provide them a broad range, literally a million-plus individuals in uniform and civilians, with better equipment to do their daily jobs and enhanced quality of life for themselves and their families through pay raises and benefits and the like.

For example, without this bill being acted upon by the Senate, we could not increase the death gratuity to $100,000, which the Senate strongly desires, for survivors of military members whose death resulted from wounds, injuries, or illnesses incurred under combat- related conditions or in a combat operation or a combat zone. We could not increase TRICARE benefits for the children of survivors. We could not provide the military services with the authorities for bonuses and other incentives needed to meet the troublesome recruiting situation today. We could not implement new assistance to school districts with significant enrollment increases in military-dependent students to stop troop relocations, creation of new units, and realignments under the BRAC Commission and, above all, the annual pay raises which the Congress provides for the men and women.

In addition to the above, the threat reduction program, which is designed to keep nuclear materials and expertise away from terrorists, would expire. Weapons systems costs would increase

because multiyear procurement authorities would not be enacted. Special acquisition authorities designed to facilitate the rapid procurement of technologies to prevent casualties from terrorist roadside bombs, or IEDs, would fail to go into effect. Military construction and family housing programs would be jeopardized, including over $1.5 billion to fund projects in support of communities that will be affected by the 2005 BRAC round, if that is eventually becoming law. These are a few of the essential authorities contained in the legislative provisions of this year's bill, something that I am proud to say the Senate Armed Services Committee has worked on since January of this year and resulted in 278 legislative provisions as contained in this bill.

I respectfully ask my colleagues to support my efforts and that of Senator Levin in bringing the Defense authorization bill to the floor.

As I said, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator Levin to announce that we have taken what I consider extraordinary action by filing two amendments to the pending bill. It is with great reluctance that I propose these amendments to the Defense Appropriations Act. But I do so only with the interests of the men and women of our armed forces at heart.

The first amendment consists of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006--including not only the version of the bill unanimously reported out of the Armed Services Committee on May 17, but also 31 amendments added to the bill when it was on the floor in July.

Senator Levin and I, with our respective leaders, are trying to work out a unanimous consent agreement that would return the Defense authorization bill to the floor as a stand-alone bill. However, in the absence of that agreement, we have to leave open the option of including this bill on another legislative vehicle. The Defense authorization act is just too important to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines and the national security of our country for the Senate not to complete action on the bill. If we cannot do this as a stand-alone bill, we need to find another way to bring this bill into law.

The second amendment we are offering today contains additional amendments that are agreed and ready to be included in a ``managers' package'' to the Defense authorization act. I offer this amendment to illustrate to my colleagues the significant progress that has been made on this bill so far. This new managers' package contains 80 amendments on behalf of 67 Senators. Together with the action already taken on this bill in July, our colleagues can clearly see that nearly every U.S. Senator has made an important contribution to the Defense authorization act.

I am committed to making this ``managers' package'' the first amendment to be considered to the Defense authorization bill once it is taken up as a separate bill. We are not finished reviewing proposed amendments. The committee is still working through a number of amendments that I expect would be included in a second managers' package.

Since January 1961, the Senate has passed an annual Defense authorization bill. Each and every year, for 45 years, the Senate and the House have come to a conference agreement on and the President has signed into law a National Defense Authorization Act. Only once before has the chairman of the Armed Services Committee had to resort to the rare parliamentary procedure of proposing to put the entire defense authorization bill on another bill. This occurred in 1988. As the custodian of this important piece of legislation, I find I am left with very few options this year to ensure Congress can adequately support our troops by passing this bill.

I, with my friend Carl Levin, am willing to do whatever it takes to pass this bill. Time is short and we must be reasonable in the amount of time we spend debating this bill. I ask for my colleagues' consideration and restraint in offering additional amendments to this bill and to support a unanimous consent agreement to limit the number of contentious amendments that may require time to debate on the floor. At the same time, Senator Levin and I pledge to work with Senators to accept as many amendments as possible in a managers' package.

Our responsibility to consider and pass the Defense authorization bill goes beyond statutory requirements, floor schedules, and historical precedent. We must also be aware of the importance of this measure to our men and women in uniform around the world. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen-- active, reserve, and National Guard--and, countless civilians who support military, diplomatic and humanitarian operations are serving valiantly in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations to secure hard-won military successes and to preserve peace and freedom. This bill will provide them with better equipment to do their daily jobs, and an enhanced quality of life for themselves and their families. Together we can and must complete this bill for them.

Without this bill, DoD could not, for example, increase the death gratuity to $100,000 for survivors of military members whose death resulted from wounds, injuries, or illnesses incurred under combat- related conditions or in a combat operation or a combat zone; increase TRICARE benefits for the children of survivors; provide the military services the authorities and pays needed to enhance recruitment and retention in the active and reserve forces; and implement new assistance to school districts with significant enrollment increases in military dependent students due to troop relocations, creation of new units and realignments under BRAC.

In addition, authorities related to the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program which is designed to keep nuclear materials and expertise away from terrorists would expire. Weapon systems costs would increase because multiyear procurement authorities would not be enacted. Special acquisition authorities designed to facilitate the rapid procurement of technologies to prevent casualties from terrorist roadside bombs or IEDs would not go into effect. Military construction and family housing programs would be jeopardized, including over $1.5 billion to fund projects in support of the 2005 BRAC round.

These are just a few of the essential authorities contained in the 278 legislative provisions in this year's bill.

So I ask my colleagues to support Senator Levin's and my efforts to bring the Defense authorization bill to the floor. We are all mindful of the risks members of the U.S. Armed Forces face every day and of the sacrifices made by the families and communities that support them. Our men and women in uniform have been asked to do much in the past year, and they have responded in the finest traditions of the generations of Americans that preceded them. The American people are proud of their Armed Forces for what they have accomplished, and for the manner in which they represent American values and the generosity of America. It is time for us in the Senate to do our part.

With the understanding that the two bills are filed, I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn.) The amendments will be filed for the Record.

Mr. President, there are no two individuals in the Senate today that have a finer reputation for Senatorial courtesy and for the need for our national defense legislation than the two managers of the appropriations bill, the Senators from Alaska and Hawaii, both of whom have had such distinguished careers in the uniform of the country in which we all take such pride.

Both of these individuals have conferred with my colleague, Senator Levin, and with me about the measures I have taken today. Senator Stevens very carefully pointed out to me exactly what he has said--his grave concern, understandable concern, and proper concern about the imperative need of the passage of the appropriations bill. In no way is it the intention of this Senator or Senator Levin to try to unduly delay that bill.

We will see whether a time agreement is achievable, either for consideration of our bill for a brief period of time, on the appropriations bill, or by virtue of a UC as a freestanding bill. I urge we try and do it on this bill.

The Senator pointed out the exigencies of conferences. In my research, there are several options on how to conduct a conference on these two bills. I am sure we can work out a method to do so. For example, it may be possible to split off the authorization bill prior to final passage of the appropriations bill in order to facilitate two separate conference reports. If that is not possible, the chairman of the subcommittee on appropriations could decide to hold what would be basically two conferences--one of the authorizers, one of the appropriators. But nevertheless, the appropriators would have overall control and only one conference report would be voted on by the Senate. I think either of these options could be achieved here. Certainly, I know Senator Levin and I would work to these ends. But I also bring to the attention of the managers, we all know full well there are several amendments--I shall not try to characterize them other than to say there are several amendments that are to be brought against the authorization bill which, I am inclined to believe, will be brought against the appropriations bill should we not move ahead with the authorization bill so those amendments can be authorized on this bill.

There is a strong conviction among a number of my colleagues--I don't agree, but I respect them--to have a commission to study how this country deals with its detainees and other commissions that are in the minds of others.

I don't think, unless there is clarity as to what is going to happen to the authorization bill, that you can rule out the possibility that one or more of these amendments might be directed in the next few days against this bill, with the best of intentions, and those would be time-consuming matters, I assume.

Yes, of course.

I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Outer Continental Shelf Revenue Sharing Act of 2005.

Earlier this year, the Congress passed a bill, and the President signed it into law. It is the first comprehensive energy package in over a decade.

Great strides were made in addressing the Nation's energy needs. This new law contains a number of valuable conservation measures and, as the chairman of the Energy Committee once stated, passage of this legislation means we will need 170 fewer powerplants by 2020. On the energy supply side, however, we still have much work to do. The recent disruptions in the Nation's energy supply caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita--tragedies, natural disasters of proportions never really seen before in this county--underscore the fragility of our energy supply system. The estimates are that 20 to 25 percent of our energy needs come in through that narrow nexus of Louisiana and Mississippi, right in that area.

During debate on the bill, I offered an amendment to provide for an increased domestic supply of oil and natural gas from Outer Continental Shelf lands. Regrettably, my amendment and other similar measures were not successful.

I thank the distinguished manager of that bill, Mr. Domenici, and others. They gave me a great deal of encouragement, as did the Senators from Louisiana, who likewise participated in that debate. But, nevertheless, I was not successful. I did say--and I suppose in a prophetic way--and I remember beckoning to fellow Senators on the floor, ``The day will come when I will once again stand on this floor and offer this same legislation, not knowing, of course, of the tragedies of Katrina. But that did give this Nation a serious wake-up call as to the fragility of our energy system.

Again, the tragic events of the past month along the gulf coast have thrust the issue of energy supplies back into the spotlight. We need only look at the rising gas prices all over our pumps in this Nation's land, where people--men and women--on small budgets are struggling to find the resources to meet their daily requirements of the use of the automobile and to inject these increased gasoline prices into their budgets. Prices at the pump have climbed quickly, and with the winter heating season approaching, we can expect natural gas and home heating oil prices to increase, perhaps going as high as 50 percent more than last year's level.

We need to address our inadequate refining capacity and expand conservation incentives. With more than 30 percent of our domestic supply of oil coming in from the Gulf of Mexico and a significant portion of our refining capacity located in the Gulf States, we must also look at ways to increase and diversify the location and sources of our domestic supplies of energy, as well as the refining capabilities; and natural gas, likewise.

Before passage of the energy bill, production revenues totaling more than $7.5 billion annually from offshore oil and gas belonged to the Federal Government. This is an inconsistent policy, however, because 55 percent of the revenues from land-based oil and gas production has always been returned to the States. The one exception to this rule is Alaska, which receives back 90 percent of such revenues. Thanks to the diligence of my colleagues from Louisiana, this inequity was partially addressed in the energy bill by providing that current offshore energy- producing States will now share in the Federal Government's royalties.

Indeed, it is a matter of fairness that these revenues be shared with the energy producing States. After all, it is the states closest to oil and gas production facilities that are assuming the risks that those production facilities will not have harmful environmental or economical impacts. Tourism is often the lifeblood of these regions which could be adversely affected by any environmental accidents. So it is very appropriate that they should receive a share of the revenues derived from offshore oil and gas production.

While the issue of revenue sharing was addressed in the energy bill for States currently producing oil and gas off their coasts, it does not include a comprehensive policy for offshore production opportunities.

Specifically, the bill does not allow other States to share revenues when and if they ever become producing regions. As we all know, the production of oil and natural gas has been subject to a moratorium along most of the Nation's coastline. While this moratorium has been in effect for some time, many Americans believe that it is now time to reevaluate its need. This past year in Virginia, both houses of the state legislature passed legislation asking for production to occur off the Virginia coast if the State is allowed to receive a share of the revenue. I think the rising costs of oil and gas are now leading other States to consider the same possibility.

The bill I am introducing today would provide a portion of revenues to States under the current moratorium that may decide to undertake future offshore exploration and production activities. My legislation is based, in large part, on the hard work of my colleagues who achieved a revenue-sharing proposal for their States and local governments in the recently enacted energy bill. The new law provides State and local governments with a share of the royalties from offshore energy production, but it is limited only to the five States that are currently exempt from the moratorium on offshore oil and gas leases.

As provided by current law, my bill requires the Federal Government to transfer 50 percent of the revenues received from any offshore leases to the States based upon the production levels. This would put oil and gas production in coastal areas on par with the production on other Federal lands throughout the United States. It is a matter of equity for all producing regions and represents a fair revenue-sharing model for the Federal and State governments.

My proposal does not affect the current moratorium on offshore energy production. As the moratorium expires, however, my legislation enables States that wish to pursue oil and gas production to be eligible for a portion of the royalty payments that otherwise would go exclusively to the Federal Government.

The amendment does not supersede a State's ability to veto any production proposals under their authority of the Coastal Zone Management Act, CZMA. It does not change the manner in which the Federal Government grants these production leases, and it does not lift the moratorium for any OCS land that is currently in place.

While I believe very strongly that the States should have a role in determining whether or not to utilize these resources, I also believe that they should receive a fair share of the revenues from any production that may follow.

I understand the concerns of some of my colleagues and their desire to avoid drawing specific boundary lines. While this amendment does not address all of the concerns, it offers a fair starting point to discuss this issue. It is my hope that we can all work together in addressing these concerns that will result in a commonsense approach to expand our domestic supply of oil and gas, to diversify the geographic concentration of our current industry, and to allow the States to have a role in the process.

Mr. President, the time has come for the Senate to speak boldly. We can all agree that more supply is needed and that there is a vast resource yet to be tapped. My proposal offers a fair way to encourage production in States that wish to do so. In the long term our Nation will benefit by reducing its dependence on foreign sources of energy and by diversifying the geographic source of our domestic supply.

I believe this proposal will solve a necessary part of the energy puzzle. I believe it is essential for our energy security, our economic security, and our national security to evaluate this, and other proposals, that address our energy supply needs.

Mr. President, as I say, today I introduce, again, this bill, which I put in a few months ago. It provides for the offshore drilling of oil. I recognize the sensitivity of that, but I say to my colleagues, we can not continually ignore these warnings, whether they are brought about by Mother Nature or political problems or wars or conflicts across our shores. Now is the time to lay down that framework of legislation for those States which, by actions taken by the Governor and the State legislature, say: We will permit offshore drilling off of this State's boundaries. Hopefully, we can receive for those States, should that take place, an additional source of revenue.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, and I will seek to have it considered by the Senate as a whole at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Outer Continental Shelf Revenue Sharing Act of 2005.

Earlier this year, the Congress passed a bill, and the President signed it into law. It is the first comprehensive energy package in over a decade.

Great strides were made in addressing the Nation's energy needs. This new law contains a number of valuable conservation measures and, as the chairman of the Energy Committee once stated, passage of this legislation means we will need 170 fewer powerplants by 2020. On the energy supply side, however, we still have much work to do. The recent disruptions in the Nation's energy supply caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita--tragedies, natural disasters of proportions never really seen before in this county--underscore the fragility of our energy supply system. The estimates are that 20 to 25 percent of our energy needs come in through that narrow nexus of Louisiana and Mississippi, right in that area.

During debate on the bill, I offered an amendment to provide for an increased domestic supply of oil and natural gas from Outer Continental Shelf lands. Regrettably, my amendment and other similar measures were not successful.

I thank the distinguished manager of that bill, Mr. Domenici, and others. They gave me a great deal of encouragement, as did the Senators from Louisiana, who likewise participated in that debate. But, nevertheless, I was not successful. I did say--and I suppose in a prophetic way--and I remember beckoning to fellow Senators on the floor, ``The day will come when I will once again stand on this floor and offer this same legislation, not knowing, of course, of the tragedies of Katrina. But that did give this Nation a serious wake-up call as to the fragility of our energy system.

Again, the tragic events of the past month along the gulf coast have thrust the issue of energy supplies back into the spotlight. We need only look at the rising gas prices all over our pumps in this Nation's land, where people--men and women--on small budgets are struggling to find the resources to meet their daily requirements of the use of the automobile and to inject these increased gasoline prices into their budgets. Prices at the pump have climbed quickly, and with the winter heating season approaching, we can expect natural gas and home heating oil prices to increase, perhaps going as high as 50 percent more than last year's level.

We need to address our inadequate refining capacity and expand conservation incentives. With more than 30 percent of our domestic supply of oil coming in from the Gulf of Mexico and a significant portion of our refining capacity located in the Gulf States, we must also look at ways to increase and diversify the location and sources of our domestic supplies of energy, as well as the refining capabilities; and natural gas, likewise.

Before passage of the energy bill, production revenues totaling more than $7.5 billion annually from offshore oil and gas belonged to the Federal Government. This is an inconsistent policy, however, because 55 percent of the revenues from land-based oil and gas production has always been returned to the States. The one exception to this rule is Alaska, which receives back 90 percent of such revenues. Thanks to the diligence of my colleagues from Louisiana, this inequity was partially addressed in the energy bill by providing that current offshore energy- producing States will now share in the Federal Government's royalties.

Indeed, it is a matter of fairness that these revenues be shared with the energy producing States. After all, it is the states closest to oil and gas production facilities that are assuming the risks that those production facilities will not have harmful environmental or economical impacts. Tourism is often the lifeblood of these regions which could be adversely affected by any environmental accidents. So it is very appropriate that they should receive a share of the revenues derived from offshore oil and gas production.

While the issue of revenue sharing was addressed in the energy bill for States currently producing oil and gas off their coasts, it does not include a comprehensive policy for offshore production opportunities.

Specifically, the bill does not allow other States to share revenues when and if they ever become producing regions. As we all know, the production of oil and natural gas has been subject to a moratorium along most of the Nation's coastline. While this moratorium has been in effect for some time, many Americans believe that it is now time to reevaluate its need. This past year in Virginia, both houses of the state legislature passed legislation asking for production to occur off the Virginia coast if the State is allowed to receive a share of the revenue. I think the rising costs of oil and gas are now leading other States to consider the same possibility.

The bill I am introducing today would provide a portion of revenues to States under the current moratorium that may decide to undertake future offshore exploration and production activities. My legislation is based, in large part, on the hard work of my colleagues who achieved a revenue-sharing proposal for their States and local governments in the recently enacted energy bill. The new law provides State and local governments with a share of the royalties from offshore energy production, but it is limited only to the five States that are currently exempt from the moratorium on offshore oil and gas leases.

As provided by current law, my bill requires the Federal Government to transfer 50 percent of the revenues received from any offshore leases to the States based upon the production levels. This would put oil and gas production in coastal areas on par with the production on other Federal lands throughout the United States. It is a matter of equity for all producing regions and represents a fair revenue-sharing model for the Federal and State governments.

My proposal does not affect the current moratorium on offshore energy production. As the moratorium expires, however, my legislation enables States that wish to pursue oil and gas production to be eligible for a portion of the royalty payments that otherwise would go exclusively to the Federal Government.

The amendment does not supersede a State's ability to veto any production proposals under their authority of the Coastal Zone Management Act, CZMA. It does not change the manner in which the Federal Government grants these production leases, and it does not lift the moratorium for any OCS land that is currently in place.

While I believe very strongly that the States should have a role in determining whether or not to utilize these resources, I also believe that they should receive a fair share of the revenues from any production that may follow.

I understand the concerns of some of my colleagues and their desire to avoid drawing specific boundary lines. While this amendment does not address all of the concerns, it offers a fair starting point to discuss this issue. It is my hope that we can all work together in addressing these concerns that will result in a commonsense approach to expand our domestic supply of oil and gas, to diversify the geographic concentration of our current industry, and to allow the States to have a role in the process.

Mr. President, the time has come for the Senate to speak boldly. We can all agree that more supply is needed and that there is a vast resource yet to be tapped. My proposal offers a fair way to encourage production in States that wish to do so. In the long term our Nation will benefit by reducing its dependence on foreign sources of energy and by diversifying the geographic source of our domestic supply.

I believe this proposal will solve a necessary part of the energy puzzle. I believe it is essential for our energy security, our economic security, and our national security to evaluate this, and other proposals, that address our energy supply needs.

Mr. President, as I say, today I introduce, again, this bill, which I put in a few months ago. It provides for the offshore drilling of oil. I recognize the sensitivity of that, but I say to my colleagues, we can not continually ignore these warnings, whether they are brought about by Mother Nature or political problems or wars or conflicts across our shores. Now is the time to lay down that framework of legislation for those States which, by actions taken by the Governor and the State legislature, say: We will permit offshore drilling off of this State's boundaries. Hopefully, we can receive for those States, should that take place, an additional source of revenue.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, and I will seek to have it considered by the Senate as a whole at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on legislation I am introducing that will fix a problem that many of us thought was corrected 8 years ago. My legislation will close a loophole in the law that now allows capital offenders to be buried in America's national cemeteries. My legislation will ensure that no one who may be given a life sentence or who may be sentenced to death for murder will be honored at their funerals by the presence of a military funeral detail. And, finally, my legislation will direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Secretary of the Army, and other military service Secretaries to each prescribe a proactive process by which officials can ascertain whether there exists a burial or funeral honors prohibition on individuals who may have been capital offenders.

In 1997, the Congress learned that the perpetrator of the Oklahoma City bombings--Timothy McVeigh--was, in fact, eligible for burial and memorialization in a VA national cemetery and, under certain circumstances, Arlington National Cemetery. Largely, but not exclusively, in response to McVeigh's eligibility, Public Law 105-116 was enacted to deny interment in Arlington National Cemetery, VA National Cemeteries, and State veterans' cemeteries funded with VA grants, to any person convicted of a Federal capital crime or a State capital crime for which a sentence of death or life imprisonment without parole is given. Later, in 2002, Public Law 107-330 was enacted to deny to capital offenders VA-provided flags, headstones and markers, and Presidential Memorial Certificates. The intent of the 1997 and 2002 laws was clear: We should not bury brutal murderers alongside America's honored dead and we should not provide memorialization benefits to those who have so dishonored themselves through their own post-service conduct.

The circumstances surrounding the placement of the cremated remains of a convicted double-murderer--Russell Wayne Wagner--at Arlington National Cemetery in late July caused me, and many of my colleagues, to wonder what impact the 1997 law actually had. The media coverage of former Chief Justice William Rehnquist's Arlington Cemetery funeral only served to confirm my bewilderment: How could an individual like Wagner who committed such heinous acts be placed in the same hallowed ground as Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Thurgood Marshall, President Kennedy, and hundreds upon hundreds of servicemembers to whom this country owes its eternal respect?

Russell Wayne Wagner's two life sentences carried with them the possibility of parole. The 1997 law only bars national cemetery interment to State capital offenders sentenced to death or life in prison without parole. Thus, we have our first example of the ``parole loophole.''

To further explore how wide the ``parole loophole'' is for State capital offenders, I asked the Congressional Research Service to analyze the sentencing of Dennis Rader, the infamous ``BTK serial killer,''--``BTK'' being short for Rader's method to dispose of his 10 victims: Bind, Torture, Kill. Rader was given ten consecutive life terms for which he must serve a minimum of 175 years in prison. However, because the Kansas law under which Rader was tried did not allow for a sentence of death, nor did it allow for a sentence of life without parole, CRS concluded that, as an honorably discharged veteran of the Air Force, ``it would appear that he is not statutorily precluded from interment in a national cemetery.'' If the 1997 law cannot prevent the interment of a notorious serial killer, then what good is it? I called a hearing in September to find an answer to that question.

The Committee heard from Mr. Vernon Davis, son of Wagner's victims, who described in vivid detail how Wagner repeatedly stabbed his elderly parents to death. I was so astounded that an individual who committed such a cowardly action could be buried at Arlington that I immediately introduced legislation--S. 1759--to have his remains removed.

The Committee also heard from VA and Arlington cemetery officials who described the process that is in place to deny burial in national cemeteries to capital offenders. Unfortunately, the process appears to be a passive one. The Deputy Superintendent at Arlington told me that Arlington officials do

not even ask whether a person on whose behalf burial is sought is a convicted capital offender. While I understand that finding out such information needs to be handled delicately and with tact, to have no screening process at all is unacceptable.

Finally, we heard the unified testimony of 5 veterans' organizations, who reminded us that decisions to take away benefits earned by virtue of honorable military service should never be made without careful, reasoned deliberation.

Based on the testimony from the Committee's hearing, I have joined with my colleagues from Kansas--Senators Roberts and Brownback--in introducing this legislation today. Section 1 of the legislation would remove the language in law that provides capital offenders--like Wagner and the BTK Killer--with their continued burial eligibility. Furthermore, to address situations where a capital offender may have plea-bargained his or her way out of a death or life sentence, section 1 would remove the language in statute that ties the prohibition of cemetery burial to a capital crime sentence that was received and would replace it with language tying the prohibition to a capital crime sentence that may be received. This statutory language change would recognize that while the actual sentence for those who commit heinous acts may vary, the underlying action meriting those criminal sentences should be treated equally for purposes of burial prohibition.

Section 2 of the legislation would deny the provision of military honors and burial at a military cemetery of a person convicted of a Federal capital crime or a State capital crime for which a life sentence or the death penalty may be imposed. Section 3 would deny funeral honors--where at least two members of the Armed Forces are made available at veterans' funerals to fold and present the American flag, and play Taps--to those same persons, irrespective of whether burial is sought at national, state, or private cemeteries.

Finally, section 4 of the legislation would require the appropriate military service and VA to each prescribe regulations to ensure that a person is neither buried, nor provided funeral honors, before a good- faith effort is made to determine whether such person is ineligible as a capital offender.

This legislation is a necessary reform to the 1997 law. Let me be clear that while the effect of the legislation would be to take away benefits that were otherwise earned by honorable military service, the intent of it is not punitive. Rather, my intention is to preserve the dignity of America's national cemeteries.

President Lincoln delivered his Gettysburg Address at one of our Nation's first, and most revered, national cemeteries. Then he spoke of the ``honored dead'' who gave their ``last full measure of devotion.'' My legislation will ensure that we bring no dishonor to those who belong in our national cemeteries by inappropriately honoring those who, by their own actions, do not.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the Senator from Hawaii and I understand full well the problems facing the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. We want to work with them to the maximum extent possible. However, as we have informed the chairman, the Senator from Virginia, we feel that bringing that bill here without a time agreement, to call it up without a time agreement, would mean that we would face some 100 to 200 amendments, as the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee have faced in the past. In my conversations with Department of Defense officials, particularly the uniformed members of that Department, it is clear that we must have this bill to the President and signed before the middle of November. The Appropriations Committee had a series of reprogramming of 2006 moneys, done just before September 30, to assure that liquidity was there to maintain our forces in the field. Under the continuing resolution, we have no such flexibility now.

The flexibility that comes from having a full year's bill out in front of the Department is absolutely necessary at this time. We are at war. We are involved in a global war on terror. If anyone heard General Abizaid's briefing for us and the one that was done publicly, we have to realize that we are facing what looks like the beginning of a new crusade by militant terrorists of the Islamic world. We cannot afford to delay this bill.

I say to my good friend--and it is not just a word of art here on the floor; we have been friends for many years--we cannot take on this burden unless we get a time agreement. The Senator's bill, as an amendment to our bill, is subject to a point of order. We will not raise that point of order because it should be before us. And the Senate should know it is possible to complete both of these bills by Friday, if we would work together. But we need to complete this bill by Friday in order that when we are not in session, due to the holidays of the following week, our staffs can pull together the conference report documents and be ready to go to conference when we come back on October 17 or 18 of this month. It will take some time to conference just the Appropriations subcommittee bill. I am certain it will take substantial time to conference the Armed Services bill in conference.

What worries me is, if that Armed Services bill becomes part of our conference, then we have an extremely difficult time if the House and Senate Armed Services Committee cannot complete their conferences in the same period of time that we would complete the conference on the appropriations bill. But we are all in this together. We know that there are provisions in the appropriations bill that require authorization. A substantial part do not. A substantial part are under general authority of appropriations for people in the field, for the armed services and for the operation and maintenance items that are in the bill and also those that are involved with continuing authorizations for various types of acquisitions and equipment.

We look forward to working with the Senator from Virginia. He does an excellent job as chairman of the Armed Services Committee. We are delighted that he is pressing hard for his bill because it is necessary. For instance, the

size of the pay raise, the size of the COLA, the size of various adjustments made between the various functions of the Department, all are necessary.

The annual items in this bill require authorization. Those that are a continuing part of defense operations, we can and should fund, notwithstanding the Armed Services bill might not have passed by the time we get this bill to the President to sign.

Above all, money for Afghanistan and Iraq is a supplemental attached to our bill. It is within our bill. It is $50 billion that is absolutely necessary to continue our operations there at a very critical time with the election coming up over there to approve their constitution and then, following that, the election of their officials. We have had to send additional people over there--not as many as we did for the first election over there, but there has been a flow of people over there. That money will come out of the $50 billion that is in this bill for operations for the future in regard to Iraq and Afghanistan and that portion of the war on terror.

I do believe the Senator from Virginia understands our situation.

Does the Senator from Hawaii wish to make any comments? I think we are in agreement on this position. We welcome the Senators' initiative and hope it works.

Will the Senator yield, Mr. President?

It is not for a question but for a statement.

Mr. President, the Senator from Hawaii and I have opposed filing cloture on the Defense appropriations bill in the past. It has not been necessary. As a matter of fact, in the past years, this bill has taken from 3 to 5 hours on the floor because it is a bipartisan bill. It is a bill that comes out of our subcommittee and the full Committee on Appropriations unanimously. Our staffs work tirelessly to make sure we cover every single possible objection or concern.

But this year, it appears to me, because of the timeframe I have mentioned, I am constrained to consult with my friend from Hawaii to seek the filing of cloture on Wednesday because if we do not vote by Friday, we are going to be into November before we even get this bill off the floor. We just cannot do that now.

I hope the Armed Services Committee members and all those who have amendments will keep in mind the timeframe. The way these holidays are coming at us, and because of the schedule, we must get this bill to the House for conference before the first of November. It is going to be very difficult to do unless we finish the bill by October 7.

I want the Senate to know, despite a longstanding policy of opposing cloture on the Defense bill, the timeframe that is involved in the consideration of this bill now, because of many things that are not under the control of anybody--two vacancies on the Supreme Court and various other matters that we have taken up that have taken prolonged time on the floor--we are very late in considering this bill.

I know the Senate understands the problem of funding when we have men and women who are overseas, particularly in a time of war. There is no way we can possibly consider taking off on Friday and not coming back until a week from the following Monday if this bill has not been passed. I urge the Senator to keep that in mind.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.