A bill to provide for the establishment of a strategic refinery reserve, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, I commend our colleague. This is a very significant and important step that he has taken. I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor on the amendment.

The Senator from Kansas asked for a moment or two to speak. I shall yield the floor at this point and then follow with my remarks. I first ask the Presiding Officer with regard to the time remaining for the proponents of the amendment.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, before the distinguished Senator from Kansas leaves the floor, I want to speak to him about another matter. I ask unanimous consent to go off this amendment for a brief period and charge the time to me from the bill time so I may have a colloquy with my good friend and colleague from Kansas.

The Senator has submitted to me an amendment which is in our allocation of 12 amendments regarding the notification that you deem important with military families, should they seek to access a military hospital for the performance of an abortion by a young person in that family. Am I generally correct about that?

In studying the amendment over the night--now it is not the pending amendment, but I want to bring these issues to the attention of the Senator, in fairness. The Senator, though, appreciates that so many of these families, particularly those abroad, are often separated because a spouse, male or female, as the case may be, the serving member in uniform, could be detached from the family homesite and sent into other areas of the globe for periods of time to

perform missions. For example, there is a number of families resident in Europe whose spouses are then part of cadres of individuals going into the Iraq situation, some into the Afghan situation. That poses some difficulty, as I see it, in trying to work out a communication between family members, which communication is relative to life and death, and very important.

I am concerned that we are reaching down to a very small number of individuals, i.e., the military families, and could be imposing upon them, should this amendment be adopted and become law, a difficult situation. I am of an open mind, but I am concerned about having that type of legislation on this bill.

And then if the Senator would address also the issue of the U.S. Federal district court being a participant in this situation.

Mr. President, if I could interject at this time, personally, my own philosophy is in agreement with the objective. My only concern as manager of the authorization bill of the Department of Defense is that I cannot let my personal beliefs override my judgment as to how best to treat these families of our military.

Mr. President, again, I strongly support the principle and the goals the Senator is seeking, but I have to be mindful of the practicalities of military life. It is so different than the families who are in our several States, wherever they may be, and that, of course, brings up another question. Suppose this particular military family's members are residents of a State, which State thus far has not addressed this issue. This State has no requirement for the parental consent in that State, yet they are now being subjected to a Federal law which, of course, would have supremacy over the State law. But is that not an invasive practice in the States rights?

Mr. President, I engaged my colleague to set forth my concerns to other Members who are trying to evaluate their positions on this amendment, should it come forward, and I anticipate at the appropriate time the Senator will be introducing it. I question is there any precedent in Federal law for requiring parental notification, for example, in Medicare, Medicaid, or Federal employee health programs?

I have to move on to this amendment, but it is a series of very important fundamental questions that has to be addressed in the context of the Senator's amendment, despite my own personal view that I associate myself with the Senator about the parental consent. Consistently I have voted for that here, but I have an overriding responsibility for the men and women in the military, and this is very unique.

So I put this aside at this time, Mr. President, and return to the Inhofe amendment. I thank my colleague.

I thank my colleague. We are going to move swiftly today, and issues could be brought up with very short time limitations on debate. That has allowed me the opportunity to express my serious concerns that I will have to address in the context of this amendment as the day progresses.

I ask unanimous consent we go back to the amendment by the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe.

Mr. President, I want to again thank my colleague from Oklahoma. I think it is a very important amendment.

Mr. President, this is an issue that must be carefully balanced, the constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion and the constitutional prohibition against the establishment of religion. But it is a longstanding tradition at these academies, and I think the amendment is carefully drafted to strike a balance in those two important considerations.

Moreover, this amendment deals with the particular circumstances and environment that exist at our service academies, those honored institutions with long and storied traditions that have the mission of training our next generation of military leaders. A part of that mission is now and always has been the development of moral character and the appropriate respect for religious beliefs and needs of others who are entrusted with their leadership.

I must draw a little bit on my modest experience in service on active duty in periods of two wars. I can tell you my own observation of the importance of religion to individuals, particularly those serving overseas, and the hardships they endured either from family separation or combat situations or other difficult problems. It is a very deep feeling these many individuals have about their respective religious traditions and family traditions in religion, and it has often been a matter of life and death to some individuals. Clinging to those strong beliefs has

pulled them through difficult situations.

I also stop to think about our academies. I have had the privilege over the years to visit all of them. I think particularly of the Naval Academy and its magnificent chapel. People come from all over the world to see the chapel at the U.S. Naval Academy. Just this year I was privileged to be the keynote speaker at the dedication of a new small entrance at the Naval Academy where those of the Jewish faith can go and quietly exercise their religion and share their prayers. I encourage anyone in that area to go and look at these two edifices. To me they symbolize the importance of religion in our military life.

I commend the Senator from Oklahoma.

I have been informed by the distinguished ranking member that there could be an amendment in the second degree and that individual who would bring it forth is due here in about 20 or 30 minute is my understanding, at which time I hope we could finish addressing this amendment such that the Senate could vote presumably on the second- degree amendment and then the underlying amendment prior to the noon period, although we will not stop consideration of the bill at the time but would continue. But I hope that amendment could be agreed to.

I see the distinguished ranking member.

Mr. President, before we depart, I hope the Senator could share with me and the Republican leadership, with the understandable impediments our two leaders have, with regard to votes and scheduling them. We want to try to----

And the Ensign amendment.

I have. It is such that you and Senator Craig can discuss that amendment.

Mr. President, we have a technical problem we have to address with regard to the UC request; that is, we are operating this bill under a UC, 12 amendments each side. This is not 1 of the 12.

Therefore, I think we could go on the bill time for the purpose of discussing the Senator's amendment in the hopes what differences remain could be reconciled so this amendment could be included as part of the managers' agreed-upon package.

Mr. President, let the record reflect we are not calling this amendment up within the context of the UC which controls the overall procedure of this bill but that the two Senators are simply having a colloquy, which is fine.

Mr. President, may I inquire of the proponent of the amendment, I heard him use the term ``military cemeteries.'' There are State and Federal cemeteries. This amendment is directed at Federal cemeteries?

Mr. President, I would like to join Senator Craig as a cosponsor on this amendment.

This is an example which other Senators may wish to access as to how the

two managers are willing to work in open colloquy on areas where there are amendments outside the framework of the 12 on each side which could possibly be reconciled, and a part of that reconciliation process would be the need for an open colloquy. This is a format the Senator from Michigan and I are pleased to entertain where there are other amendments that a colloquy in open session would be helpful in trying to reach a reconciliation.

Mr. President, it is also important, with my colleague on the floor, that we are bound by this UC, 12 amendments on each side, and as we bring up amendments, I carefully designate, as the Senator from Michigan does, that they are within the 12 each side has.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Texas inquired of the managers if he could address an issue that is tangential to our national security. I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to speak as in morning business, thereby not taking time off the bill, and that would be for not to exceed 10 minutes.

Madam President, we need to inquire as to the issues of the proponent of the amendment, as to the allocation of time. What is his desire on that?

Madam President, that sounds like a reasonable request. Can the Senator from Rhode Island advise the Senate?

That would be the desire of the manager.

I wish to inquire of the proponent. Does he agree to the course of action?

Madam President, I thank my two colleagues.

Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I am about to propound a unanimous consent request which I understand is cleared on both sides.

I ask unanimous consent that at 2:45 today, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Inhofe amendment No. 2440, as modified, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Ensign Amendment, No. 2443; provided that there be 6 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form prior to the first vote and 6 minutes equally divided for debate prior to the second vote, with no second degrees in order to either amendment prior to the vote.

I think we are cleared.

I think everything has been cleared.

Madam President, I presume there will be an opportunity. We are making progress. But there are junctures at which time Senators can address various aspects of the bill, including the distinguished Senator from Nevada.

Madam President, I am willing to accede to that. Would that time be equally divided?

Fifteen minutes between now and 2:45 be reserved for a debate on the Ensign amendment, 15 minutes equally divided.

I ask the Presiding Officer if that is in place, as modified with the 15 minutes?

I thank the Chair.

Amendment No. 1563, As Further Modified

I ask unanimous consent that the previously agreed to amendment No.

1563 be further modified. I send that modification to the desk. There was a technical error in the preamble. There is no change in the substance of the amendment.

Madam President, we are making progress on this bill. I thank all Senators for their cooperation. It is my hope that in the intervening period between now and the hour of 2:45, subject to the unanimous consent of 15 minutes, that other Senators can come to the Chamber and address the managers regarding the timing of the remaining amendments under the unanimous consent providing 12 amendments on each side.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, in consultation with the distinguished Senator from Michigan and leadership, I propound this unanimous consent request, which I understand has been cleared on both sides. I ask unanimous consent that the 2:45 votes be delayed to begin at 3:20, and further that at 5:30 the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Chambliss amendment No. 2433, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Durbin amendment No. 2473, with the instructions modified to change it to a first degree, with no second degrees in order to either amendment prior to the vote; further, that there be 2 minutes equally divided between each of the stacked votes.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I say to my colleague, I recall that period very well. There were times when the Nation's capital had blackouts. At that time my father was a doctor actively practicing medicine in this city, and he had to take the headlights on his car and put a black screen over the headlight with about a 1-inch slit so he could respond to emergency measures during the blackout. Where our home was at that time we had blackout curtains. We regularly went out to make sure there was no leakage of the light because at that time the city lights, if they had been on, silhouetted U.S. and other allied shipping such that they were the target of then German submarines off the coast. Indeed, it is hard to believe this, but the coastline from Florida all the way up to New England was strewn with the damage of ships that were torpedoed.

I remember well that period of time, and I remember the phrase. I am surprised you, as an Army man, used a Navy phrase that loose lips sank ships. But we have a very serious amendment here, deserving of equally serious attention. It has just been handed to us. I am sure the Senator would appreciate that we would need some time to study this to determine exactly how we should respond.

I am reading the first paragraph: ``No person who knowingly violates,'' that would mean he would have to know that, A, his material is classified, and, B, that he has to have a knowledge of the law and regulation? Are those the two elements of that?

I understand what the consequences are. But I want to make certain the Senator was trying to draw this up in such a way that, no matter how misfortunate, if it is unintentioned, then that would not be a violation.

I find it difficult to believe anyone who has a security clearance would not understand the basic law and regulation prohibiting or controlling its use. You can almost impute to the person knowledge of the statute and law.

Let me interrupt. I want to make certain that time used during the colloquy is divided equally, that when I speak, it is charged to my time, and the Senator from New Jersey, as he speaks, the time will be charged to him; is that agreeable?

The standard you have is ``could have a significant adverse impact.'' Do you have any criteria for ``significant''? As you and I both know, having dealt in these areas for many years, we often look at things that are classified and we say to ourselves: Why in the world would they be classifying this document? Unfortunately, the broad brush of classification sometimes is utilized on things that I don't think need to be classified.

Would the Senator be able to supply for the record the references that he says would define further the word ``significant''? You said it is defined in law. Could you cite those laws upon which you rely?

I think I still have the floor.

Mr. President, again, this amendment has just been given to the majority side. We will, in due course, have further response to the Senator. At this time it becomes the pending amendment.

Fine. I thank my colleague.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, are we not at this point in time guided by the standing order we just entered?

May we now proceed with the vote.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that we have a second vote as ordered.

Amendment No. 2443

Mr. President, I wish to indicate to my colleagues that I have carefully studied this. I support the Ensign amendment. I defer to my colleague, Senator Levin.

Mr. President, as I stated on the floor yesterday, I am able to support Senator Ensign's amendment because it now includes several important modifications that were requested by the administration. As a result of those modifications, the amendment more accurately reflects current U.S. policy and law regarding the use of riot control agents by members of the Armed Forces. I thank Senator Ensign for agreeing to those modifications. I will take into account the views and recommendations of the administration as we continue our work on this issue and the bill in conference.

The resolution of ratification for the Chemical Weapons Convention, CWC, passed by this body contained a condition requiring the President to certify that the United States is not restricted by the CWC in its use of riot control agents in certain specified circumstances. In addition, the condition required the President not to eliminate or alter Executive Order 11850, which prohibits the use of riot control agents in war ``except in defensive military modes to save lives.''

In response to questions from myself and Senator Levin on the floor yesterday and today, Senator Ensign confirmed that he does not seek through this amendment to amend, expand or reinterpret Executive Order 11850 in any way. It is on that understanding that I can support his amendment.

The Senator from Nevada has raised the question of whether the U.S. Armed Forces currently have sufficiently clear authority with respect to riot control agents. I have looked into this matter and consulted with representatives of the Department of Defense, including representatives of our commanders in the field.

They have informed me and my staff that, in their view, the use of riot control agents is a very complex matter. It is not clear that commanders in the field want to use ``RCAs'' widely. However, there are a number of cases where RCAs could be very useful to avoid unnecessary loss of life. I have been assured that, consistent with the Executive Order, U.S. Armed Forces have authority to use riot control agents. Furthermore, I am informed that DoD will examine whether any confusion exists about RCA use, and will take all steps necessary to ensure that U.S. Armed Forces have the clear guidance that they need and deserve.

I am confident that the DoD and the administration will ensure that our men and women in uniform have every tool available to them consistent with U.S. and international law.

Mr. President, we remain on the bill, but a colleague has a unanimous consent.

Is there not a pending amendment that must be laid aside first?

I thank the Presiding Officer.

The Lautenberg amendment is the pending amendment on the Defense authorization bill.

Mr. President, the need for a quorum call at this time is because there are a number of Senators who had to depart Capitol Hill for a meeting. Therefore, it is beyond the control of either manager. We need to keep in reserve our time on the bill. So I ask unanimous consent that the time expended in the quorum call up to just a minute ago, when I withdrew it, as well as the time that will ensue in the following quorum call not be charged to either side.

I thank the Presiding Officer and I thank the Parliamentarian.

Mr. President, I have an amendment to offer, an amendment I have shared with both sides. It is, in fact, an amendment that we have previously debated. It deals with the subject of contracting abuses, especially contracting abuses in the reconstruction in Iraq-- the money that is paid by American taxpayers, through our Government, to major contractors that are given no-bid contracts, spending billions of dollars, and the stories about contracting abuse are horrifying. Yet nothing seems to happen.

I have described previously something that happened in the 1940s. Harry Truman was in the Senate. Harry Truman was a Democrat. A member of his party was in the White House, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He couldn't have been very happy about Harry Truman because Truman came to the floor of Senate and said: I have substantial evidence of wrongdoing, of contracting, of military waste with respect to defense contracts and defense spending. I think it needs to be investigated.

They began holding a series of hearings. He finally was able to get a committee together called the Truman Committee. They began a series of hearings. It lasted a number of years. At a time when a member of his own political party was President, it was probably embarrassing for everybody that Harry Truman was leading the charge while FDR was in the White House. But they uncovered a substantial amount of abuse and waste and fraud. Good for them. The memory of the Truman Committee lives on today as an example of what should be done with respect to oversight by the Congress.

We spend a dramatic amount of taxpayer money. The question is, Is it spent wisely? If it is not, when it is wasted or stolen or subject to cheating of the taxpayers, shouldn't somebody know it? Shouldn't somebody see it and do something about it? That is the issue.

I have held a number of hearings as chairman of the Policy Committee on this subject, only because no one else is holding any substantial hearings on it. We will have a couple people come to the floor and say: We have held a good number of hearings. That is not true. Very few if any hearings have been held on this issue.

I wish to go through a few examples of the hearings that we have held, along with some of the headlines. I wish to say this before I get into this too far: Some of this deals with a company called Halliburton. The minute you mention the company Halliburton on the floor of the Senate, they say: Aha, this is a criticism of Vice President Cheney because he used to be president of Halliburton. It is not about Vice President Cheney. Vice President Cheney is not now president of Halliburton. He left that job when he became Vice President. This is not about him.

All of these actions have occurred after Vice President Cheney left the Halliburton Corporation. But this is about Halliburton and some other companies--Halliburton being the largest--that have gotten big, fat, multibillion-dollar contracts, no-bid, sole-source contracts, and, with all of the evidence in front of us, have been charging American taxpayers for services they have not delivered or overcharging the taxpayers for other services.

We need to aggressively root out that waste, fraud, and abuse. Let me give some examples. The committee that I chair, the Policy Committee, had a hearing. We heard from a man named Rory Mayberry. Rory Mayberry is the former food production manager for KBR, which is a Halliburton subsidiary. Halliburton has gotten billions of dollars to deliver all sorts of things to our troops in Iraq, including feeding the troops.

Here is what Mr. Mayberry, who was the food service supervisor, told us:

Food items were being brought in to our military base that

were outdated or expired by as much as a year and we were

told by the food service managers, feed them anyway, use them

anyway. So the food was fed to the troops, expired food with

expired date stamps. For trucks that were hit by convoy fire

and bombings we were told to go into the trucks, remove the

food items and use them after removing the bullets and any

shrapnel from the bad food that was hit. And we were told

then to remove the bullets and turn them over to the managers

of the food service operation as souvenirs.

We had hearings at which Bunnatine Greenhouse testified. Bunny Greenhouse was the top civilian official at the Corps of Engineers. She rose to the very top, the highest civilian official in the Corps of Engineers. That is the area of the Pentagon where they actually do the contracts for these firms. In that position, she was responsible for reviewing all contracts worth more than $10 million. After she objected to special treatment given Halliburton on a number of occasions, including an occasion where the company was brought into the meeting at which the contract was being discussed, the specs developed, and who it was going to be awarded to, after objecting to all that, she was forced to either resign or face demotion.

This is a woman who was the highest civilian official in the Corps of Engineers, given stellar performance reviews always, an outstanding employee. But then she started raising questions with the good old boy network about giving billions of dollars of sole-source contracts under the buddy system. She said:

I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to

contracts awarded to KBR [Halliburton] represents the most

blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during

the course of my professional career.

That is pretty strong.

Now let me go through a couple of headlines. Boston Globe, June of this year: Internal Pentagon audits have flagged about $1.4 billion in expenses submitted by Halliburton for services the firm is providing in Iraq. Charges include $45 for a case of soda, $100 per bag for laundry service, and several months preparing at least 10,000 daily meals that the troops didn't need and ultimately went to--by the way, in this meal issue, there is another complaint. The other complaint is they were charging for 42,000 meals a day and preparing 14,000 meals a day. That meant they were charging the taxpayers for 28,000 meals they were not serving the troops.

``Ex-Halliburton Workers Allege Rampant Waste: They say the firm makes no efforts to control costs, overspending taxpayers' money in Iraq and Kuwait.'' One former employee: ``They didn't want to control costs at all. Their motto was don't worry about cost. It's a cost plus contract.''

The supervisor described an arrangement in which Halliburton provided 10 percent of additional payment on its phone calls to a Kuwaiti company for providing cellular phones although nothing in the contract between Halliburton and the company called for the payments.

They just added 10 percent.

Well, I won't go through it at great length, but $7,500 a month to rent ordinary cars and trucks; $85,000 new trucks left on the side of the road because they had a flat tire, to be trashed and torched. Yes, the taxpayer paid for them. How about a fuel pump that was plugged. Leave the truck on the side of the road. It gets torched. It is all over. The taxpayer pays for it. It is all cost plus.

``Millions in U.S. Property Lost in Iraq, Report Says; Halliburton Claims Figures Only `projections'.''

``Halliburton Unable to Prove $1.8 Billion in Work, Pentagon Says.''

``Halliburton Faces Criminal Investigation,'' Houston Chronicle. ``Pentagon Proving Alleged Overcharges for Iraq Fuel.''

``Uncle Sam Looks Into Meal Bills; Halliburton Refunds $27 million as a Result.''

You would think with all of this you would have committees in the Congress saying: Wait a second, we are going to pull back the curtain. We are going to have tough investigations to evaluate what is happening, what is happening to the American taxpayer, what is happening with contracts that are given without any competition, soul- source, no-bid contracts.

Of course.

Mr. President, that gives me some hope, and I hope as a result of that the Senator would support my amendment as well. The fact is, we have not had many oversight hearings. We have now been in this conflict for several years, and a substantial amount of money has been spent. A very substantial amount of it has been wasted, regrettably.

But I think anything that any committee or subcommittee does to shine a spotlight on this makes some sense. I must say, however, as my colleague knows, there is substantial brushback from the administration. They do not want anything to do with this. And I understand why. But the fact is, what happened here was wrong. A top contracting official gets demoted because she blows the whistle on bad practices, and the taxpayer takes a bath to the tune, I think, of billions of dollars.

So whatever subcommittee or committee wants to dig into this, I think that would be great, and I certainly will commend my colleague if he convenes these hearings. But I would say this: I think there are substantial pressures on many of our committees and subcommittees by the administration not to move too far. We had an example of that on the issue of intelligence recently, and I won't explore that more, but there has been a lot of foot dragging in a lot of areas.

The point of this on behalf of myself, Senator Durbin, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Boxer, and others, the point of it is to establish what we know works, and what we know works is the Truman committee. Yes, it is an old model, but it is a model that really did work-- nonpartisan, bipartisan. Take a hard look at what is going on. Don't care where the chips fall, investigate it all. If somebody is cheating the American taxpayer, hold them accountable for it. I mean how do you miss 28,000 meals, overbilling somebody by 28,000 meals a day? I come from a town of 300 people, so we had a small restaurant. You can understand somebody missing a cheeseburger or two but 28,000 meals a day? That is cheating. And it ought not take twice to learn the lesson. Do business with companies that cheat. Cut them off. Shut it down.

I am not going into this at great length, but I can give the example of companies that in the same week that they were paying multimillion dollar penalties for cheating and defrauding the Government, in that same week they were signing new contracts for new business with this Government. Are we that lamebrained that we can't understand when somebody cheats you once you don't need a second chance?

In my hometown, again, a town of 300 people, you wouldn't need to learn that lesson twice. You do business with somebody who cheats you, you don't do business with them again. Not in this town. It is a slap on the wrist, a pat on the back. Atta boy. That is not the way it ought to work.

I could spend a lot of time on this. I will not do it now, but I could spend a lot of time talking about the abuses--the taxpayer pays to air-condition a building under reconstruction in Iraq. Well, that contract that goes to a subcontract, that goes to a local subcontract and pretty soon it is all done. We pay it. It is like an ice cube; it melts in your hand like money does as it goes through to--guess what-- pay for air-conditioning, and it is a ceiling fan in a room in Iraq some place. Cheating? You bet it is.

I want to show you a picture of two million dollars. Incidentally, this guy wearing the striped shirt, he worked in this area. These are hundred-dollar bills wrapped in Saran Wrap. What would they be doing with a pile of bills wrapped in Saran Wrap? He testified: I was over there with the Coalition Provisional Authority, which is really us, as you know.

He says: We were telling people that when you come to pick up the cash for your contracts and so on, understand it is going to be in cash, so bring a bag. We deal in cash. He said we actually threw these around as footballs from time to time in the office, hundred-dollar bills wrapped in Saran Wrap.

I don't know how that would feel. But you can look at what it looked like, how they appeared. He said: Bring a bag. We deal in cash. He said: It was like the Old West

I have spoken at some length about this with a company called Custer Battle. A couple guys show up in Iraq, and they decide: We are going to be contractors. Pretty soon they are contractors. Pretty soon they have millions of dollars, millions of dollars in contracting, and then they start setting up offshore subsidiaries and selling to them, cheating the Federal Government. A couple of their employees decide that is not right and they are going to disclose it. Then their lives are threatened.

There is so much going on that it is just almost unbelievable to me.

The inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority issued a report about the use of funds that actually belong to the Iraqis. It came from the oil revenues which was under our control then. There were 8,206 guards at one Iraqi ministry, 8,206 guards at one of the ministries. And that is what we were paying for through this $9 billion. It turns out, in paying 8,206 security people, there were only 602 of them. But 8,206 were paid. Where did the money go? If we could have dyed all that money purple and walked around to see who had purple pants pockets, we could have figured it out. This is a massive cheating and abuse scandal.

This is like a Rip Van Winkle operation. We sort of doze through it all, don't offend anybody, upset anybody.

I am delighted to hear my colleague is going to hold some hearings in December, but I am telling you this is a cesspool of trouble, digging into this.

The guy who used to buy towels for our troops, from K.B.R. Halliburton, bought hand towels--you know, the little hand towels. He told us how he ordered the hand towels. Need some thousands and thousands and thousands of hand towels for the troops? Well, you just order them, don't you? Oh, no, no. His supervisor said you don't just order hand towels, you order hand towels embroidered with the company's logo on it so it can double the price. You think when the troops are washing their hands and face they are going to want just a plain towel? No, they are going to want one with our company logo on it, so order the more expensive one.

The sky is the limit. It is all cost plus. Don't worry. Be happy. We are all making money--except the taxpayer is taking a bath.

I have raised this issue now for about 2 years on the floor of the Senate, to dead silence.

There was a silence back in the forties when Harry Truman raised it. They empowered a committee to take a look and they discovered billions of dollars of waste, fraud, and abuse. The taxpayer was taking a bath and the Congress did something about it. The question is, Will it now?

We haven't received one answer from the Pentagon about all these issues. We haven't received one single answer. This has all been transmitted to the Pentagon, all of the testimony from five or six hearings. It is just unbelievable.

By the way, do you want 50,000 pounds of nails? I know where 25 tons of nails are. They are laying in the sand in Iraq, 25 tons of nails, 50,000 pounds ordered for reconstruction of Iraq. But they are the wrong size, and it does not matter, I guess, so they throw them on the ground and they reorder. It is just the taxpayers' money. It is all cost plus. Order 50,000 pounds of nails the wrong size. Don't sweat it. We are all going to get paid.

What a mess. So the point is, Congress has the responsibility. Congress has a responsibility to legislate, and Congress has a responsibility for something called oversight--oversight with respect to the funds that the Congress appropriates. These funds, after all, come in from the American taxpayers

and then are used to be expended on various operations, various projects, in this case reconstruction in Iraq or contractors that are contracting to provide assistance to the troops in Iraq. Some of that assistance to the troops manifests itself in food that is expired, manifests itself in charging for food that wasn't delivered.

Now, Mr. President, I was tempted to go through the whole list of those who have testified. I shall not do that in deference to my colleague who is on the floor ready to speak. But I think the point is made. The Congress can continue to decide, No, we don't want to do anything about this, and vote against this amendment. They have done it previously. But it is pretty hard, it seems to me, to look in the mirror and think you have done a good job for the people in this country, the taxpayers who pay the taxes, if you don't believe this deserves your special attention and you don't believe that Congress has failed in its responsibility of oversight. If you don't believe that, then you should vote against my amendment. But if you understand the responsibility for oversight and understand there has been virtually nothing done except for the hearings I chair in the Policy Committee and with those hearings have uncovered dramatic examples of massive waste, fraud, and abuse, if you believe that is a real serious problem, then you ought to support this amendment.

I hope every Senator will ask questions of the Pentagon about Bunnatine Greenhouse, the highest ranking civilian in the Pentagon with outstanding performance reviews, outstanding reviews all along the way until she began to say: You can't do this. You are violating the regulations of the Pentagon in the way you are proceeding with respect to no-bid contracts, no-bid, sole-source, cost-plus contracts, the minute she started telling those at the top of the Corps of Engineers who wanted to award these kinds of contracts to say: Look, you are violating the very rules that exist. The minute she started doing that, her career took a dramatic turn for the worse. At that point, she was told you are either going to be fired or demoted.

If the Congress does not care about that, then it does not care about anything. If those who have the courage to speak up and tell the truth, as they see it, are told the consequences for that will be their career, then this Congress doesn't care much about those who have the courage to stand up and speak out when it is necessary. There has been a deafening silence, with the exception of a few Members of Congress, on that point as well.

This woman fights on alone. Why? Because not enough people here seem to care, not even to care to ask the basic question of those who run the Pentagon. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Durbin, Senator Lautenberg, and Senator Boxer, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I inquire, how much of the 30 minutes allowed to the proponent of the amendment has been used?

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. Senator Durbin, I know, wishes to speak on this amendment. I reserve the remainder of the time on this amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, may I ask what the regular order is right now, what the pending amendment is?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the Ensign amendment, and I send to the desk my amendment No. 2440 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, even though the Founding Fathers were very clear and spoke of ``Nature's God'' and of the ``Creator'' in the Declaration of Independence, the Federal courts are increasingly trying to drive every vestige of faith from public life.

On April 30, 2003, came an example from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

As the Boston Globe reported it:

Judges bar prayer at public colleges. In a precedent-

setting ruling against prayer at a State college, a Federal

appeals court has barred the Virginia Military Institute from

writing and reciting a prayer before cadets eat their evening

meals.

VMI and then the Citadel down in South Carolina have scrapped their prayers since that Federal court ruling, though Justice Stevens declared:

There is no injunction presently barring VMI from

reinstituting the supper prayer.

The Naval Academy in Annapolis has also been reviewing its policy. The ACLU, the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, is calling on the academy to review its practices of leading the students in prayer.

Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for the Boston Globe who wrote in 1996:

Have you heard about the Virginia politician who wanted

references to God injected into the Declaration of

Independence? Or about the activist from Massachusetts who

urged making the Fourth of July a quasi-religious holiday?

These proposals were made 220 years ago. Today they would be

swiftly denounced by the ACLU, the Democratic Congressional

Campaign Committee, and a slew of editorial pages.

It was just last year that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled to have ``under God'' taken from our Pledge of Allegiance.

We go around, as I do in my State of Oklahoma, spending a lot of time talking to people. I know what we do up here is significant. We pass laws. We have a lot of rules and regulations coming out of the White House, out of the various committees, including the one I chair, the Environment and Public Works Committee, but when you are on the street, it is the legislating from the bench that bothers people more than anything else. And certainly taking ``under God'' out of our Pledge of Allegiance is right at the top of that list.

Now, I agree with my friend in the other body, Congressman Walter Jones, who has led this fight in the House of Representatives, when he asks the question:

How much longer will we stand by and allow others to ignore

the very God upon whom our Nation was founded?

I also agree with the position of the Concerned Women for America that:

Prayer is essential to the protection of our families, our

communities and our nation. We believe that the men and women

who put themselves in harm's way have the right to give

public thanks to God and ask for His blessings. But some are

trying to take this right away.

Ronald Ray and Linda Jeffrey of Concerned Women for America recap:

On July 11, 2005 the Marine Corps Times announced the Anti-

Defamation League's reissued call to cease the traditional

noon-meal prayer at the Naval Academy, and the Academy's

refusal to surrender. The ADL's demands echo the April of

2003 complaint by the ACLU, which could not find a

plaintiff to pursue a lawsuit.

This is kind of interesting. The ACLU was trying to find one cadet at the Naval Academy to act as a plaintiff. They couldn't find one.

Take a good look at this painting by Arnold Frieberg of ``The Prayer at Valley Forge.'' Since the time of George Washington and the founding of our country, there is unbroken historic precedent of leader-led prayer sustaining American fighting men on the battlefield through every American war. In his Farewell Address, George Washington said:

I consider it an indispensable duty to close this last

solemn act of my official life by commending the interests of

our dearest country to the protection of Almighty God and

those who have the superintendence of them into his holy

keeping.

On the 4th of July, John Adams of Massachusetts said:

It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by

solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.

The centrality of prayer for the protection of those in peril upon the sea and acknowledgment of divine providence is an official tenet of preparation of the American military. America's dependence upon prayer exhibits itself before, and in the Declaration of Independence, and in the Inaugural Address of every President. Congress opens each day with a prayer. The tradition of prayer continued on June 6, 1944, when President Roosevelt led the entire Nation in prayer during his radio address, lifting up our assault forces and the families of those who would give the supreme sacrifice in the D-Day invasion. The President did that before the invasion.

During World War II, GEN George Patton led the famous prayer for favorable weather during the crucial 1944 Battle of the Bulge, and the weather dramatically improved. Patton issued 3,200 training letters to officers and chaplains in the Third Army to ``urge, instruct, and indoctrinate every fighting man to pray as well as to fight.'' That is George Patton.

In one of the largest social science research projects in history, the Social Science Research Council reported after World War II that soldiers selected prayer most frequently as their source of combat motivation. From 1774 until today, more than 67 Armed Forces prayer books have been widely and efficiently distributed to our fighting forces during war, from the American war for independence to the war on terror we are fighting today.

A sampling of just two prayer books distributed during World War II and the Korean war contain recommended prayers from 34 senior uniformed military authorities, including Bradley, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Marshall, and Patton.

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Thomas Moorer, concludes:

Prayer for the common good and acknowledgment of Divine

Providence is a central, official and historic tenet of the

combat leadership preparation for the American Military,

particularly officer training and particularly in times of

national peril or war.

Our Constitution demands the freedom to worship freely, and our future leaders, our men and women in military academies across the country, may soon be denied that freedom for which many have died to ensure that freedom for all of us.

Last year, 2004, the Supreme Court decided not to hear the ACLU challenge to cadet-led prayers at Virginia Military Institute. VMI, that is where it all started. That decision allowed the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision to stand which prohibited VMI from sponsoring a daily supper prayer. Right after that, the Citadel followed their lead.

Supreme Court Justice Stevens pointed out in his decision for the majority not to hear the case that, in contrast, the Sixth and Seventh Circuit Courts have rejected challenges to nondenominational prayer at the college level, reasoning that ``college-age students are not particularly susceptible

to pressure from peers towards conformity.''

It is important to acknowledge here that the Sixth and Seventh Circuits, as well as the Fourth Circuit, all agree that there is not a problem in our colleges and universities. The VMI prayer was voluntary. Stevens states that there is no ``direct conflict among Circuits,'' relying on the factual differences between the cases in the different circuit courts.

Justice Scalia writes, however, that ``the basis for the distinguishing--that this was a separate prayer at a state military college, whereas other cases involved graduation prayers at state nonmilitary colleges--is, to put it mildly, a frail one.''

Scalia continues:

In fact, it might be said that the former is more, rather

than less, likely to be constitutional since group prayer

before military mess is more traditional than group prayer at

ordinary state colleges.

That is the state of the law today. Currently, they are not praying at VMI and at the Citadel. There is some problem at the Naval Academy.

Frustrated by the failure to find anyone in the Naval Academy to serve as a plaintiff, the ACLU now asks the Armed Services Committee of the Congress to take action. My amendment is designed to send an unsubtle signal to any court that entertains an ACLU suit against the military academies. It will stand as an indication of congressional intent on the matter. That is important. A lot of times congressional intent is not. However, when it is stated, when a decision is being made on a matter like this, it is significant. It is that intent that we want to have as an amendment to the bill today.

Judges inclined to back mealtime prayer will be able to point to this legislation as an argument for judicial deference to the will of Congress and the executive branch.

My amendment's language was in the House-passed version of last year's National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005. This year I want to see a recorded vote in the Senate to make clear exactly who agrees with this provision and who does not and to show the strength of support for this provision. While debating this National Defense Authorization Act, and hereafter, let us honor our heroes and those who have returned home and those who sacrificed their lives by standing against those liberals who would seek to challenge their God- given right to pray to a living Lord.

What I would like to do is yield the floor. First, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Allard be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

I understand Senator Warner, our distinguished chairman, wants to speak, as well as Senator Brownback.

I yield the floor and retain the remainder of my time.

Reserving the right to object, let me ask the author of the request what the intention is because I want to continue with my discussion. About how much time does the Senator want to take for consideration of the amendment?

I have no objection.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Cornyn be added as a cosponsor of my amendment.

Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. President, I don't know of anyone who is going to be wanting time to speak against this amendment. I inquire of the ranking member if he knows of anyone who is going to be speaking in opposition to this amendment?

Or another first-degree amendment. That is fine. In opposition to this amendment, though.

I understand there is 8 minutes remaining; is that correct?

In that there is no one on the floor right now, if it is all right with the chairman and ranking member, I will conclude my remarks.

Mr. President, I have always enjoyed one-sentence amendments because one can't misinterpret one sentence. I had one the other day that had to do with the appropriations process. I did one in 1994 that ended up being a major, significant reform in the other body.

I will read this so people don't misunderstand it:

The superintendent of a service academy may have in effect

such policy as the superintendent considers appropriate with

respect to the offering of a voluntary, nondenominational

prayer at an otherwise authorized activity of the academy. .

. .

Some people asked a question about denominational prayer. Let me share with you--and I think I can read it in this period of time--an entire piece by John Adams. John Adams was the first Vice President of the United States and the second President of the United States. This is what he said on this subject:

When the Congress met, Mr. Cushing made a motion that it

should be opened with prayer. It was opposed by Mr. Jay of

New York and Mr. Rutledge of South Carolina, because we were

divided in religious sentiments, some Episcopalians, some

Quakers, some Anabaptists, some Congregationalists, so that

we could not join in same set of worship. Mr. Samuel Adams

rose and said, that he was no bigot, and could hear a prayer

of any gentleman of piety and virtue, and at the same time a

friend to his country. He was a stranger in Philadelphia, but

had heard that Mr. Duche deserved that character and

therefore he moved that Mr. Duche, an Episcopalian clergyman,

might be desired to read prayer to Congress to-morrow

morning. The motion was carried in the affirmative.

Accordingly he . . . read several prayers in the

established form, and then read . . . the 35th Psalm. You

must remember this was the next morning after we had heard

the rumor of the horrible cannonade of Boston. It seemed as

if Heaven had ordained that Psalm to be read that morning.

After this, Mr. Duche, unexpectedly to everybody, struck

out into extemporary prayer, which filled the bosom of every

man present.

Here was a scene worthy of a painter's art. It was in

Carpenter's Hall, in Philadelphia. . . . Washington was

kneeling there, and Henry, and Randolph, and Rutledge, and

Lee, and Jay; and by them stood, bowed in reverence, the

Puritan patriots of New England, who, at that moment had

reason to believe that armed soldiery was wasting their

humbled households. It was believed that Boston had been

bombarded and destroyed. They prayed fervently for America,

for Congress. . . .

I think that is very significant.

I read an article the other day that was very interesting. It was an article by a military historian who said that the Revolutionary War could not have been won. He goes back and talks about the same thing that John Adams was talking about, about this tremendous army, the greatest military force on the face of this Earth marching up to Lexington and Concord. Our soldiers at that time were not really soldiers; they were hunters and trappers, and they were armed with just basic and crude equipment. We remember the story that most of them couldn't read or write.

So in training, I say to my friend from Texas, they put a tuft of hay in one boot and a tuft of straw in another boot, and they marched to a cadence of ``hay foot straw foot.'' As they stood there and heard the ground shaking as the greatest army on the face of this Earth approached Lexington and Concord, they knew by resisting they were signing their own death warrant. They knew when they heard the shot heard round the world they were going to win in spite of these odds, not even knowing that a tall redhead stood in the House of Burgesses and made a speech for them and for us today, when he asked: How could this frail group of patriots defeat the largest army on the face of this Earth? He made a very famous speech, but there are three sentences people have forgotten. They are:

Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means

which the God of nature has placed in our power. Three

millions of people armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in

such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by

any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir,

we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who

presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up

friends to fight our battles for us.

And they fired the shot heard round the world, and we won.

We were a nation under God, and we depended upon God to win that fight and every fight since then. That is why I think it is so important today, as a part of this reauthorization bill, that we reaffirm our ability to train our people at our academies to look to Almighty God in the way they deem appropriate, in a way to use that power to defend America in their careers.

I retain the remainder of my time, Mr. President. I understand there is 3 minutes remaining.

If the Senator will yield, I inquire of the Senator, he has used some of the time in opposition speaking to this amendment. Is the Senator's desire to have another amendment on the same subject to be introduced separately from this?

Mr. President, we have a problem.

Mr. President, I understand I only have a couple of minutes left, so let me very quickly say right now: There is a problem. In the Air Force all they have is a 20-second period of silence. I don't call that a prayer. At West Point they do not even have a period of silence. They say you can pray, but everyone else is talking. This is not a prayer. I think a problem is there.

I think the argument that this might raise the profile is not a valid argument. I have heard it before. In 2003 the ACLU requested specifically that the prayers stop. In 2005 the Anti-Defamation League did the same thing. The attack is there.

This is a very simple, one-sentence solution to the problem. At the appropriate time, in fact, right now, I urge the adoption of this amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

It is not my intent to proceed until we start several votes at a later time, I say to my good friend from Rhode Island.

I would say to the chairman, I think the allocation of time has already taken place. I have used my time. I have not yielded back the remainder of my time. I probably only have 30 or 40 seconds left. It is my desire to get a vote on this amendment, if the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island has an amendment that we get a vote on his amendment, and whatever the allocation of time is at that point, we will exercise that.

Would the Senator please repeat that course of action?

My preference would be to go ahead and have this as a first-degree amendment, offering the amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island as a first-degree amendment, and if he desires to have a vote on his first, I would have no objection.

Would that satisfy the Senator from Rhode Island?

There would be side-by-side amendments.

I object to that course.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I have read the suggested change that the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island has to my amendment. If it is his intention not to offer another amendment on this subject matter but merely to amend mine, I will accept that. I would yield the remainder of my time, and we would have one vote to take care of it.

Madam President, that seems very acceptable to me.

I will read the modification on page 2 of the amendment. On line 2, insert the following: ``the United States Constitution and . . . '' I have no objection to that.

Amendment No. 2440, as Modified

I send this amendment to the desk and ask unanimous consent that it be so modified.

Madam President, there is a pending amendment offered by Senator Chambliss numbered 2433 which I am going to seek to amend.

With the permission of the Presiding Officer, I would speak to that issue at this moment. We are working with the Parliamentarian on the exact number of this amendment we will be offering. There is no agreement at this time. If I might, I want a few minutes to speak to the amendment I am offering, if that would meet with the approval of the Senator from Nevada.

For the information of my colleagues, the amendment we are going to offer to the Chambliss amendment is designated as 2473.

Madam President, most Senators are probably unaware of the real differences between the military retirement system for Reserve components compared to Active components of our military forces. A person who joins the active-duty military and has 20 years has the option to retire at that point and draw half their pay. A young person at age 18, with 20 years in service--age 38, still relatively young, moves on to a new career, new source of income--still receives half of their military pay.

For a member of the Guard and Reserve, it is different. As you might expect, retirement pay from a part-time career is lower than at the end of a full-time active-duty career. It makes sense.

The major difference, however, lies in the length of time the reservist retiree must wait to start to receive retirement pay. Under the current system, a person who completes 20 years in the Reserve component becomes eligible to receive retired pay but cannot begin to draw the pay until they reach the age of 60. In the Reserves, a young person age 18 can enlist, complete 20 years of dedicated service to our country, and at the end of 20 years reach the age of 38 and retire. But that person has to wait 22 years before receiving the first penny of retirement pay.

That is entirely too long. Many have recognized the system needs to be changed. The Military Officers Association, Reserve Officers Association, National Guard Association, Enlisted Association, the National Guard, all have called for Reserve retirement age to be

reduced from age 60 to 55. There have been several Senate proposals to accomplish it.

I offered this bill in the last Congress. Senators Corzine and Graham introduced bills in the current Congress. I am a cosponsor of both bills. All are worthy approaches to accomplish our goal.

Unfortunately, the plan that has been offered in the form of the amendment by the Senator from Georgia, Senator Chambliss, falls short of being a good age 55 Reserve retirement proposal. In fact, I have some concerns and I offer an alternative approach. The Chambliss amendment offered a modest reduction in the retirement age and then only offers it to about half the members of the Guard and Reserve. Under the Chambliss amendment, half of all reservists still draw no retirement pay until the age of 60. It rewards only those who are called up. There is little or no incentive to stay. This amendment lowers the retirement age for those called up for an extended period in support of major military operations and then only reduces the retirement age by 3 months for every 3 months the member spends on duty.

At this point, more than 450,000 reservists have been mobilized since September 11, 2001. Over 330,000 have been deployed overseas. But we must remember, there are roughly 860,000 members in the select Reserve. That is, members of the National Guard and Reserve who dedicate a minimum in service in the Reserve of 1 weekend each month plus 2 weeks each year to maintain military readiness. So while roughly half of our reservists have been called up for duty, about half of them have not. They have continued to perform every weekend, gone to their annual training periods.

For this segment of our dedicated force, I am afraid the Chambliss amendment does nothing at all. A retirement system should create an incentive to serve. The Chambliss amendment rewards mobilization but does nothing to create the incentive for further service. It simply provides a future benefit to those who get called up. We want to honor the members of the Guard and Reserve who are selected in order to go overseas. Yes, we want to reward service that takes members of the Guard and Reserve away from their families and careers for a year and puts them in harm's way. But we must ask ourselves if such a modest adjustment in the retirement pay eligibility age is the best way to do it.

With recruiting targets being missed by our Reserve components and retention holding steady, but under severe pressures, what we need to do is to revise the retirement system so that it is both fairer to members of the Guard and Reserve and a more powerful incentive to continued service. We should make changes to the system which reward long and continued service, not just volunteering--or being involuntarily selected--for a mobilization.

We can do better for our men and women in uniform.

The amendment I offer is a substitute approach. Under my amendment, members of the National Guard and Reserve are encouraged to stay in the force by offering them a 1-year reduction in the retirement age for every year of service beyond 20 years. That is an incentive to stay in the force. A reservist can begin to draw retirement pay as early as age 55, but in order to do so, they would need to serve an additional 5 years.

By providing a way for reservists to draw retirement pay at age 55 rather than being forced to wait until age 60, this amendment brings the retirement age for reservists down to the Federal civil service retirement age, as was intended when the reservist retirement age was set 50 years ago. Our reservists make tremendous sacrifices. They risk their lives in combat zones. And, in far too many instances, they give their lives for our country. At the very least, they should have the same retirement age as Federal civil servants.

By replacing the current, inflexible approach with a sliding scale that provides earlier receipt of retirement pay in exchange for more years of service, we can create a powerful system of incentives to retain our personnel and maintain a strong Reserve.

This is the approach my amendment takes.

Many of my Republican and Democratic colleagues who, like me, are cosponsors of S. 337, the Guard and Reserve Retention Act, introduced earlier this year by my friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator from South Carolina, will no doubt recognize this concept. The mechanisms are very similar.

I invite my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join me in making a meaningful reform of the Reserve retirement age--one that encourages long and continued services, not simply rewarding after mobilization; one which will incentivize all of the force to stay in service longer, not just the half--roughly, 50 percent--who are tapped for a callup.

The amendment is endorsed by some significant groups: the National Guard Association of the United States, the Military Officers Association of the United States, the Reserve Officers Association, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States.

I ask my colleagues, as you consider the Chambliss amendment and my modification to that amendment, keep in mind the organizations that represent the men and women in uniform in the Reserve, who are literally serving our country and risking their lives, believe the approach I am suggesting is preferable. I hope my colleagues will feel the same.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Stephen Koper, retired brigadier general from the U.S. Air Force, who serves as president of the National Guard Association of the United States, be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I joined with Senator Dorgan of North Dakota in offering amendment numbered 2476. It is an amendment on which we both worked. Over the years we have shared billing on it because we both believe it is essential. It is an amendment which calls for the creation of a Truman-like commission to make certain we are spending our defense dollars effectively, we are not wasting money, and that the money spent is for the security of America and the protection of our troops.

In a report on defense logistics issued in March of this year, the Government Accountability Office found that U.S. troops experienced shortages in seven of the nine items that the GAO reviewed. The report reads:

These shortages led in some cases to a decline in the

operational capability of equipment and increased risk for

troops.

The items included generators for assault vehicles, armored vehicle parts, lithium batteries, meals ready to eat, truck tires, body armor, armored vehicles, and add-on armor kits. The GAO Comptroller, David Walker, testified in a Senate subcommittee hearing that the Department of Defense doesn't have a system to be able to determine with any degree of reliability and specificity how we spend tens of millions of dollars.

Mr. Walker then went on to say:

Trying to figure out what appropriated funds were being

spent on is like pulling teeth.

Shortchanging the taxpayers is not acceptable. Shortchanging our troops, especially when they are risking their lives for America, is absolutely inexcusable. We have been talking about personal and vehicle armor shortages for months.

I will never forget my first visit to Walter Reed to see the first injured veteran from Iraq, a member of the Ohio National Guard, who had lost his left leg below the knee. I asked him what happened. He said: It is those humvees. They don't have any armor plating on them.

This soldier told me he couldn't wait to get his new leg so he could get back in combat. That is the kind of fighting spirit which we love to see in the men and women who are serving this country. Shouldn't we have the same fighting spirit when it comes to providing them with the equipment they need so they can come home safely with their mission accomplished, truly accomplished? If we waste money with profiteers and those who try to gouge the Federal Government at the expense of our troops, we are not doing our soldiers any favor.

These shortages, especially of armor, have sent young men to Walter Reed for a long time, with missing arms and legs, and other serious injuries. I have met them. I don't know how we can face them and honestly say we have not tried to do everything within our power to make certain their fellow soldiers are protected. Our current system does not work.

In 1941, Senator Harry Truman, a Democrat from Missouri, introduced a resolution creating a special committee to investigate the national defense program. Who was the President at the time? Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat from New York. We had a Democratic Senator calling for an investigation of the War Department of a Democratic President. Those were the days--and you have to search the history days to remember them--when there was real oversight in Congress, regardless of the party affiliation.

We find exactly the opposite today. The Republican majority in Congress refuses to accept the responsibility of oversight because they might embarrass the Republican administration in

the White House. This is not about protecting the President from embarrassment. This is about protecting our troops.

This Truman Commission cost very little money in those days, but it saved us billions of dollars. It is a valuable lesson for today. Then, as now, skyrocketing contract costs, rapid allocation of funds meant we were wasting money. Harry Truman stated when he came to this Senate, the same Chamber, almost 64 years ago:

I'm calling the attention of the Senate to these things

because I believe most sincerely they need looking into. I

consider public funds to be sacred funds and I think they

ought to have every safeguard possible to prevent their

misuse or being mishandled.

Senator Truman went on to say:

I think the Senate ought to create a special committee with

authority to examine every contract.

The National Archives describes the Truman Committee:

The committee earned a high reputation for thoroughness and

efficiency. After the end of the war the committee turned its

analysis to wartime experiences in order to make

recommendations that improved postwar and future national

defense programs.

It was a real national service. We continue to offer this amendment on the Democratic side of the aisle and we cannot find a single Senator, or very few, I should say, on the Republican side even interested in talking about it. Why? Why wouldn't they be interested in making certain the taxpayers' dollars are well spent in the Department of Defense? Why wouldn't they want accountability when it comes to the equipment to protect our troops?

I joined with Senator Dorgan with this amendment to create a new Truman committee to oversee contracting awards in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terrorism. We need this committee. As Goldman Sachs International Vice President Robert Hormats stated:

There is nothing more corrosive of support for a war

anywhere in the world, the war against terrorism or dealing

with the problems in Iraq, than the concern that taxpayer

money is not being used well.

The simple fact is we need better oversight. We need this committee. We need to identify the weaknesses in our current system. We need the best practices to be followed by our Department of Defense.

We learned earlier this year that $8.8 billion that was managed by the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq simply disappeared. We brought back Mr. Bremmer, the head of that Coalition Provisional Authority for the United States, and gave him a gold medal. I wish we had found the $8.8 billion before we gave him a gold medal. Reports indicate that payrolls in Iraqi ministries under the control of that authority were inflated with thousands of ghost employees. The United States Inspector General for Iraqi reconstruction has said:

We believe the CPA management of Iraq's national budget

process and oversight of funds was burdened by severe

inefficiencies and poor management.

The list goes on and on.

We owe our troops and our taxpayers better oversight of their money. This bipartisan special committee called for in the Dorgan-Durbin amendment will accomplish that.

So many Members come to the Senate today and say not one penny is going to be spent for Hurricane Katrina or to safeguard America against avian influenza unless we offset it. We are watchdogs when it comes to new programs. Why not be watchdogs for existing programs? If Congress is not exercising its power of oversight, for goodness sake, let us create a Truman-like commission that will. Let's ask the hard question and get the right answers. Let's protect our troops and protect the taxpayers.

I reserve the remainder of my time and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the Dorgan-Durbin amendment numbered 2476.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) is necessarily absent.

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

Mr. President, I believe we are on the Inhofe amendment pending before the Senate?

Mr. President, I rise to address some of the issues that have been presented by the amendment of Senator Inhofe. I do so with some perspective on issues of prayer at service academies. I spent 4 years as a cadet at West Point, 2 years as a faculty member at West Point, and today I am the chairman of the board of visitors at West Point. I am the first to recognize the importance of prayer, not only in the life of the service academies but in the life of people everywhere.

Over the course of 200-plus years of history, prayer has become an important aspect of life, not only at West Point but at Annapolis and other institutions.

Interestingly enough, when I was a cadet, there was a much more significant structure of religious participation. We were actually ordered to go to chapel, ordered to participate in activities. That was struck down in 1972 as an unconstitutional infringement.

This is a very difficult issue because it does implicate serious constitutional concerns, as well as the desire to maintain the traditions and the customs of the military and the service academies. Interestingly enough, my perspective now, after about 30 years, is that the faith communities at West Point are even more vital and vibrant today than years ago when cadets literally were ordered to participate in religious activities. In fact, last summer, as part of the operations of the board of visitors, I asked that the chaplains come together on an informal basis, and we talked about religious participation at West Point. What I heard from the chaplains is that it is alive and well, that it is something important to the individual lives of cadets and to the community at West Point. That is why

I think, as we try to legislate these activities from the perspective of the U.S. Congress, we might be inviting more problems than we are solving.

As I look at the amendment of Senator Inhofe, it speaks of voluntary, nondenominational prayer at otherwise authorized activities of the academy, subject to the limitations of the Secretary of Defense, more or less. The real problem in the context of military activities is, what is voluntary? There is a strong sense that there is not much that is voluntary in the military. Anyone who has served on active duty understands that even in some cases volunteering isn't voluntary. I know I had a first sergeant in the 82nd Airborne Division who would walk in and pick three people and inform them they had just volunteered. That is a cultural aspect and a legal aspect of military service. So even though this speaks to voluntary, nondenominational prayer, the real issue in the context of the military is, Is it voluntary?

That issue is now being debated. One of the reasons prompting this particular legislative amendment is the fact that the Naval Academy has been questioned about a prayer at their luncheon meal. Whether it is nondenominational is not the point. The question is whether it is voluntary. I do not think we are going to escape that analysis and that issue by passing this legislation. In fact, my fear is by passing this legislation we are going to essentially invite litigation about a whole series of religious expressions at service academies, not just prayer in the mess hall at lunch but prayer at graduation ceremonies, at promotion ceremonies--all of that.

Frankly, on a practical basis, this legislation is not necessary. First, the superintendents already have the authority to prescribe what is happening at the academies--either explicitly or implicitly the current religious expression at the academies is being authorized by the superintendents.

Also, I think, given the fact that they are doing this and it seems to be working fairly well, this legislation does not give them any more authority than they have already. As I suggested previously, it raises, certainly, the profile, so it might engender the kind of controversies that will lead to seriously questioning and perhaps cutting back existing religious expression at these service academies. So I do not think, as a matter of either policy or of good sense, this legislation is in order or necessary.

In addition, what is happening at the academies now is not so much the sole issue of the propriety of prayer or religious expression at different authorized activities. There is another big issue out there that we have to recognize. It comes from the recent activities at the Air Force Academy, where there have been serious reports about proselytization, of superior officers using their rank and position to try to proselytize cadets, to try to insert in the activities of the academy a pronounced and sectarian religious approach. I think we are all familiar with many of the stories from the Air Force Academy.

As a result, the Secretary of Defense has issued interim guidance with respect to proselytization and other religious activities. I would note that the language of Senator Inhofe recognizes the right of the Secretary of Defense to do that. In fact, I would assume it lends further support and credence to the guidance that he is developing and will issue because, as the language says, ``subject to such limitations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe.''

I think what we are seeing, in terms of this legislation, is several results which might be unintended by those who are supporting it. First, I think rather than clarifying and settling the issue of religious expression at the service academies, it will prompt further discussion, debate, and perhaps even litigation. Second, it does specifically recognize that there is an ongoing process by the Secretary of Defense to redefine appropriate modes of religious expression at the academies. And, as I read it, it does give sanction to those activities--in fact, legal sanction to those activities.

So for many reasons I think the legislation is not the most appropriate way to deal with this issue. Ultimately, my sense is that these issues, because they are dominated by constitutional concerns, will be settled in court, not by legislative enactment. There is nothing we could do legislatively to correct such constitutional faults. I think to try to do that misconstrues what we are about and what we could practically do.

As a result, I hope this legislation could be withdrawn, but I suspect that is not the case. So I think we should make some changes in the legislation in that at least reflects the fact that all of us are bound by the Constitution of the United States.

Again, I have been involved with these academies since I was 17 years old. I have seen personally the important role that prayer and religion play in the lives of cadets, soldiers, and officers. I recognize and cherish the customs of these academies, and these traditions. I think it is unfortunate that we may unwittingly be starting a dynamic that will seriously erode these customs and traditions, and I think perhaps to the detriment of the academies and to the military service and to the young men and women who proudly wear the uniform of our Armed Forces. So I hope we can avoid that.

But I think, also, we have to recognize that we are all governed, particularly when it comes to issues of prayer in the public space, by the Constitution of the United States, and that there is nothing, as I said before, that we can do that can insulate activities within the military from the Constitution. There is nothing we should do. I think whatever language we adopt today has to more explicitly reflect that clear, and I think obvious, fact.

As I mentioned before, the Secretary of Defense is dealing today with the issue of religious activities at the Air Force Academy. He has also indicated that, if his interim guidelines are practical, workable, and appropriate in his view, that he intends to extend those to the other service academies, effectively doing what this legislation is proposing to do. I think we should give the Secretary of Defense a chance to do that. I think he is working in a way that is evenhanded, appropriate, recognizing that soldiers are bound by the Constitution. That is their duty. That is their obligation.

I say if we march down this road, I think we are raising serious issues that are going to complicate the facts even more than they are today. So I hope we could wait. I hope we could wait until these guidelines have been fully vetted by the Secretary and he has made a decision with respect to their propriety, their appropriateness. Indeed, once again, as the amendment suggests, ultimately whatever the superintendents of the academies do will be subject to the guidance of the Secretary of Defense. Frankly, that guidance today, if you look at it, is drawing mixed reviews from both the proponents of the separation of church and state and those who want a much more aggressive posture when it comes to religious expression in public places. Maybe that is a good sign. Maybe the Secretary has struck that balance between the constitutional demands of separation of church and state and the individual's desires and needs to express themselves to the Divine.

I hope we could forbear on this one. If not, then I think we have to make some changes in the text to reflect the overarching constitutional imperatives that are at the heart of this debate.

I retain the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

My preference would be to try to amend the Senator's amendment.

Mr. President, I yielded to the Senator. Would he like to use his time? I retain the remainder of my time.

Let me understand. Is it in order now for me to propose a second-degree amendment which would then require just a short explanation and debate, and then we can move to a vote on the second- degree amendment, and then on the underlying amendment?

We are agreeing, as I understand it, that as soon as the Senator yields his remaining time, it would be in order for me to offer a second-degree amendment. I will do so. I will speak briefly on the second-degree amendment, and I think it would be in order to either entertain additional debate by the Senator from Oklahoma and others or to set a time for a vote.

I think the most efficient course is simply to allow my second-degree amendment, allowing Members to vote essentially on my amendment first, then voice vote the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma--if it succeeds, then the underlying amendment. That was my preference.

No. My preference is that we entertain a second-degree amendment and vote, and if the second-degree amendment is agreed to, then the underlying amendment would be voted on. There would be a series of votes. Mine would be voted on first.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Madam President, the Senator from Oklahoma has offered to modify his amendment the way I suggested and then, having modified the amendment, schedule votes. I have no objection to that.