Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve Boundary Adjustment Act of 2005

Mr. President, I am very pleased the Senate has turned to this important legislation. It was first brought up Wednesday night with activity on Thursday and again on Friday. I thank all those who participated.

I am reminded that at 2 o'clock today, all first-degree amendments need to be filed in view of the pending cloture motion. This is a motion which the distinguished leader, Mr. Frist, and I will discuss, together with others. It ripens tomorrow morning. So as a protection, I ask Senators to consider their own interests in the context that it could be ripened, but that decision has not yet been made.

At this time, even though the distinguished ranking member is not with me, there is a matter by the Senator from Maine about which I hope she will find the opportunity at this time to address the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, before my distinguished colleague leaves the floor, she had the courtesy, as she always does, to show me the amendments. One of them relates to BRAC. The distinguished Senator from South Dakota offered a BRAC amendment the other night. I glanced at this one. It seems to be similar in form, but I have not had a chance to examine it.

The purpose of my colloquy with the Senator would be to encourage Senators who are concerned about the important issues on BRAC to take note that we had an extensive colloquy between myself and the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, with the Senator from Michigan, the ranking member joining in, the other evening on the subject. I hope that other Senators who may be cosponsors or otherwise interested in this issue will find the opportunity to examine the original amendment and this amendment and that we hopefully today can have a continuation of this important debate on the issues relating to BRAC which are of great concern to a number of colleagues.

I thank my distinguished colleague. I do bring to the attention of colleagues that today is a

good opportunity for debate such that we can have a vote on it as quickly as the proposers and others think it is appropriate.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, if I might ask my distinguished colleague a question or two. We are all good, strong supporters of the CTR program. But I am informed that you are taking $50 million from the missiles. I will address that question momentarily. But I think the Senate should know this--and I ask if I am in error, if the Senator would correct me, if not now, perhaps one of your staff members, in due course, could assist. The Senate should know there is $500 million of unspent 2005 money in the CTR program. The amendment would take this program, which as you point out has some test problems, and to give it the body blow this amendment would render, for $50 million will virtually cause a very severe perturbation in the production line. The Senator is familiar with how the production lines work. There are estimates of cost up to as much as $270 million to restart the line at some point in the future. But with $500 million for 2005 unexpended in CTR, I hope, if colleagues look at this amendment fairly and practically, maybe judge it on the merits--the use of these funds, to me, is not a justification for supporting the amendment.

I agree with the Senator's premise but I wouldn't want Senators to believe that, if I am correct, the shortage of money is in CTR. I am informed there is, in the bank, $500 million of 2005 unexpended funds. Does the Senator want to address that now?

I am a big supporter of CTR. I happened to be in the room on the day CTR was born--by Sam Nunn. I will never forget it. I have followed the program. I have been a supporter. I think there is quite a bit of funding in this budget for CTR right now. I point out, if the Senator is persuaded by the fact that CTR needs the money more than the missile program--and I will argue the point strenuously that is not the case--there is quite a bit of money. We are way into the 2005 cycle. As a matter of fact, September is on the horizon.

So I hope the Senator could carefully research that point, come back, and if I am in error, I would certainly like to hear his views.

I point out the current bill is consistent with the President's program that allocated $50 million toward this next tranche of the long-lead, cumulative money for ground-based interceptors. If you take $30 million out of the $50 million, I assure you, that does considerable disruption to the production line.

Then I point out the amount available for construction of associated silos, reduced by $20 million. I wonder if you might take the chance to check on the fact that the President's budget in this bill only allocates $13.5 million to the initial construction of the associated silos, and therefore your $20 million is considerably in excess of the $13.5 million.

We will have our staffs check those figures. I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I would like to vigorously oppose this amendment for the following reasons. The impact of the amendment would be, first and foremost, to send a message that we are not supporting, as a nation, wholeheartedly the ballistic missile defense capabilities to defend ourselves. It is clear North Korea has capabilities. This program was engendered in large measure, and accelerated in large

measure because of the threat posed by North Korea.

I noted here recently that Japan is now building its missile defense system. So it is not that the United States alone, in the world of nations, considers it a threat; other nations consider the North Korean capabilities a threat. It is correct we have had these test bans, but the failures that more or less have been in the mechanical phase-- somehow the missile is adjusted in its launch pad as opposed to the actual failure of the missile itself. And then I will address this question of the break in production which could result--assuming the program is restarted in its full measure--maybe up to $270 million is one estimate I have been given to restart it.

Again, I agree with the sponsors of the amendment that the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program is an important national security issue for the defense of our homeland against the growing threats. But asking us to choose between missile protection and CTR is a false choice. We need both. This bill funds the President's requested amount fully for both programs.

The bill before the Senate authorizes the requested amount of $415.5 million for CTR programs within the Department of Defense and $1.6 billion for other nonproliferation efforts in the Department of Energy. There is a very strong recognition in this bill before the Senate, the authorization bill, of the importance of CTR. There is no current need for extra CTR funds. That is our basic proposition. They have in the bank very substantial amounts from 2005. They are unexpended. Whether they have been committed, I will have that checked. With a backlog that large and only roughly 70 days left in the fiscal year--that is an awful lot of money if someone is going to try to commit it and expend it in that period of time.

The President's budget for missile defense, on the other hand, has already taken a considerable amount of cuts. Due to last-minute decisions made at the Department of Defense as the fiscal year 2006 budget was being finalized, the missile defense budget request was reduced by $1 billion in 2006 and $5 billion overall between 2006 and 2011.

The sponsors of this amendment argue we should not provide long-lead funding for the GBI missiles 31 to 40 because of test failures. I am mindful of the recent difficulties encountered by the GMD system test program, but it is my view and that of the Department--and, indeed, independent authorities have looked at this problem--that these difficulties do not represent serious technological hurdles by the GMD program. Indeed, such problems are to be expected during the R&D and development phase of complicated weapons systems.

To get at the root cause of the testing problems, the Director of the Missile Defense Agency, to his great credit, commissioned the Independent Review Team, called the IRT, to examine the recent GMD test failures. The IRT found, one, that no fundamental GMD system design flaws are related to the recent test failures. Moreover, this independent panel found no evidence that major modifications of the current system hardware or software will be required. In other words, it is unlikely that future testing will find some major fault in the system that will require costly retrofit to the already fielded and those in production line of the GBIs.

For those of my colleagues concerned about testing, I point out that this bill before you contains a provision--developed in a bipartisan fashion during the committee's markup--which requires the Missile Defense Agency, the service operational test agencies, and the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation to plan and conduct tests that demonstrate the operational capability of the ballistic missile defense system. The bill also reallocates $100 million from longer-term development efforts to GMD testing, consistent with the recommendations of the Independent Review Team.

The current and growing threat posed to our country by long-range ballistic missiles argues for proceeding without delay with the Department's approach of concurrent testing and fielding of ballistic missile defense capabilities for the homeland.

Some of my colleagues suggest that because the current system is not fully proven, we should not procure additional missile interceptors. To this I would respond that General Cartwright, Commander of U.S. Strategic Command--the senior military official charged with advising the Secretary of Defense and the President on missile defense matters-- has testified, with respect to the current GMD system, that ``in an emergency, we are in fact in the position that we are confident that we can operate and employ it.''

In addition, the Pentagon's chief independent weapons tester, the Director for Operational Test and Evaluation, noted in his most recent Annual Report to Congress that ``the test bed architecture is now in place and should have some limited capability to defend against a threat missile from North Korea.''

In my view, it is a good thing that we have some capability--albeit limited--to defend the homeland against long-range missiles. For as General Cartwright testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in April, ``we have a realistic threat here; we have an imperative.''

General Cartwright is referring to CIA and DIA estimates that the North Korean Taepo-Dong 2 ballistic missile is capable of reaching the United States with a nuclear warhead--and that North Korea could resume flight testing of the Taepo-Dong 2 at any time. The Defense Intelligence Agency also estimates that Iran will have the capability to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile, ICBM, by 2015.

We simply can't wait until the threat is upon us to deploy missile defenses; we can't wait until the GMD system is fully and completely tested before we start providing some measure of protection against this threat. It is our responsibility to field what capabilities currently exist, even while we continue to test and improve the system. By continuing to field missile defenses today, we send a message to potential adversaries that we will not be deterred or coerced by their possession of long-range ballistic missiles.

In summary, I ask my colleagues to reject the amendment offered by Senator Levin. This amendment would needlessly delay the fielding of a ballistic missile defense capability to protect the homeland. As the Commander of STRATCOM warns, the threat is real. We must continue on the current path of fielding available capabilities--even while testing continues to improve the system over time.

Mr. President, may the manager of the bill address the Senate for a moment?

Mr. President, the way we run is the managers usually try to get recognition.

What we would now like to do, Mr. President, is to have the Senator from Oklahoma address his amendments--for what period of time?

I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.

The Senator from Florida desires recognition, so I would ask the Senator from Florida if he could give a rough estimate of the time he would like following the Senator from Oklahoma.

Fifteen minutes. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Oklahoma now be recognized for a period not to exceed 20 minutes, to be followed by the Senator from Florida.

Could we act on the UC request, Mr. President?

Mr. President, before the Senator brings up this matter-- and he has the floor--I wonder if I can clarify this among my colleagues, to try to accommodate others. We have Senator Dorgan to be recognized under the previous unanimous consent. I understand 10 minutes would be sufficient there.

We are anxious to get going, but we will do 15 minutes. I see the Senator from Colorado here. I know the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from South Carolina called within the hour. They need time. Can the Senator advise me as to what his desires might be?

If the Senator from Colorado could be recognized following Senator Dorgan, I would like to reserve an hour for myself and Senator McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham.

He will certainly get that time. I ask unanimous consent for that.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Oklahoma continue for about 10 minutes; Senator Dorgan for 15 minutes; the Senator from Colorado for 10 minutes; and 1 hour equally divided between Senators Warner, McCain, and Graham.

He can be recognized following the hour of three of us.

I thank our colleague. It will be given careful consideration. It relates to an important subject matter.

I understand the Senator from Colorado has about 10 minutes, followed by Senators McCain, Graham, and Warner for 1 hour.

Mr. President, under the unanimous consent requirement, Senator McCain, Senator Graham, and I are now recognized for an hour. I ask our distinguished colleague from Arizona--I would like to amend that to allow Senator Salazar to go for 2 minutes. I request that unanimous consent.

Mr. President, we now turn to the three Senators. I would like to take 1 minute to address both Colorado Senators.

I followed with interest your amendments. I do hope we now have on the record a clear statement of support by the Secretary of Energy. Am I correct in that?

Yes.

I thank the Senator.

Now, Mr. President, we would like to commence the 1 hour. I yield the floor so Senator McCain can gain recognition. But I would want to say this is a subject that is enormously important. I commend Senator McCain and Senator Graham. It merits the full attention and hopefully the support of the Senate. These are issues that go far beyond just the question of detention. It goes to the perception of the great Nation of which we are privileged to be citizens, the United States of America, as it relates to how we treat those people who come into our custody in the course of defending freedom, on battle fields, and elsewhere in the world. I have such great respect for Senator McCain.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 1557, as Modified

Mr. President, I suggest we take up the other one--you and I have discussed it--as soon as the other one is completed because I am a cosponsor on the one that is now pending.

Mr. President, I commend Senator McCain. I have been privileged to know him ever since I was Secretary of Navy in the closing years of the war in Vietnam. I know no military family that has served our Nation with greater distinction than the McCain family. This is a subject about which my dear friend has knowledge that none of us possess. I have absolute confidence they are doing the right thing.

The two of us do have some technical differences of opinion. His amendment is predicated on the Army Field Manual which he mentioned is being revised. The current Army Field Manual basically dealt with State-sponsored conflict. I have every reason to believe that the follow-on manual, in due course, presumably in both classified and unclassified form, will be completed.

Amendment No. 1566

There is another approach here. I ask unanimous consent, if it is agreeable, to set the McCain amendment aside temporarily and ask amendment 1566 be brought up.

And in no way do I wish it to substitute for Senator McCain's amendment. This is a complicated subject.

Essentially, my amendment simply says it will be the Secretary of Defense that will establish uniform standards and procedures for two separable subjects, detention and interrogation.

While I have not had a chance to go through in detail the Army's Field Manual, I am not sure there is the emphasis placed on the detention rule in such a manner as equivalent to the detention and regulation that will be and is on the interrogation. Those responsible for detention are often quite different than those responsible for interrogation. If there is any mistreatment in the course of the detention, depending on the timing between such treatment and the follow-on interrogation, it seems to me we have a problem.

Therefore, my amendment entrusts to the Secretary of Defense the task to put together basically all of the objectives as enunciated by my distinguished friend from Arizona.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

There are considerable parallels between the two amendments, with the exception that the subject should be adjusted to the Secretary of Defense. He may well designate the Army Field Manual as his work product, but then I would need, under the amendment, the assurance that equal emphasis is put on the detention phase as well as the interrogation phase.

Recent history has shown we must have uniform standards for detention and interrogation across the Department of Defense. We cannot have different standards for different theaters.

Soldiers, as Senator McCain pointed out, have to be trained and well understand the rules and regulations as they relate to both detention and interrogation. That is the goal of the McCain amendment. I wholeheartedly support it. It is best to entrust the entire subject to the Secretary of Defense and hold him accountable, as opposed to the designation of the specific document which is in the process of being changed.

Amendment No. 1557, As Modified

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate return to consideration of the McCain amendment.

Mr. President, seeing our other colleague, Senator Graham, I yield the floor. But I also see Senator McCain.

Mr. President, if I could reply to my good friend, you are absolutely right. And I know that chapter as you do and have studied it. But under the law, the Secretary of Defense is still the head of the Department, and as such I suppose he can alter the field manual of the Army and make it less in the present form and in the revised form in due course. But I think it is important we have a clear chain of authority and accountability. I look up the chain, and there are the laws established by the Secretary of Defense as opposed to those who might be involved in drawing up the Army Field Manual. I presume the Secretary of the Army is at the top of that pyramid.

But that is the reason I put in this amendment. I say to my good friend from Arizona, I hope we can sort this out before final passage and possibly amend it. I will withdraw mine because I want you to take the lead in every respect on this important amendment.

If I might add, I say to my friend from Arizona, there is another important amendment you needed to get completed.

Well, whatever.

Fine.

Mr. President, I accept my good friend's critique, but I do point out, as the Army Field Manual is under revision, there will be both a classified and unclassified portion of that manual.

Mr. President, I am well aware of the efforts of my good friend from Michigan to get documents from the Department of Defense and his modest success and some lack of success.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from South Carolina such time as he deems necessary.

Could the Chair advise us as to the amount of time remaining under the hour that I requested?

That is the full time?

Well, we will allocate the time among the three of us in an equitable way.

I yield the floor.

Yes, Mr. President, I suggest that we have amended the present one which is referred to as the Army Field Manual, and I am a cosponsor on that. Now there is a second amendment. I submitted to the Senator a suggestion, I believe that is----

Let's bring that up now and have that pending.

Mr. President, the field manual amendment has been laid aside for the moment. This goes to a second amendment which is----

That is correct.

I believe the Senator has just come on the floor. We have been on this now for about 45 minutes covering the parameter of the issues that would be brought up. I respect his desire to speak. We will try to accommodate you at any point. I would urge that we allow the Senator from Arizona to perfect this amendment and then in due course he will speak to it. I will speak to it, and we will lay it aside. And we will find the time for the distinguished Senator from Alabama to speak.

We definitely will make that happen. But I want to inquire of the Senator from South Carolina, you also have a third amendment. I am not sure of the status. You have it at the desk. You have spoken to it.

Mr. President, I think that is a very orderly manner in which to accommodate. Then the Senator from Alabama--let's get the time remaining and I will yield some of my time to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. President, I will assure you, working with the distinguished Senator from Michigan, we

will arrange--he has time immediately following the 1 hour being divided between three Senators and now a fourth. I want to make sure we have the time remaining to satisfy the needs of the Senator from Alabama. We now are proceeding on the second McCain amendment.

Mr. President, we would like to have the Senator from Arizona take such time as he desires to explain this. I wish to be added as a cosponsor to this amendment. Then we will yield the floor to the Senator from Alabama to speak for up to 10 minutes on the subjects of these three amendments. Then the balance of the time will be accorded to the Senator from South Carolina to bring forth his amendment.

That is correct. Would the Chair advise of the three Senators in the original order, what is the time remaining for each.

I can't hear the Chair.

I yield from my 9 minutes such time as the Senator from Arizona may need.

If the Senator will withhold, I want to endorse the McCain amendment. Essentially what he is doing is codifying what is policy now. I think it is of such importance that it would require this bill to do so.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 1557

We are operating under an original 1-hour agreement that was modified to give 10 minutes to the Senator from Alabama. I think under the original 1 hour the Senator from Virginia has time and the Senator from South Carolina has time. Would I be correct?

Mr. President, that is followed by a vote, is my understanding.

Reserving the right to object, and I do not wish to object, it seems to me that reality dictates that in 6 minutes we will go on the ADA; am I correct?

In effect, the Senator from South Carolina, unless he wants to take the 6 minutes and put his amendment in, we would have to come back to it at the conclusion of the ADA. Would that be acceptable?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the previous order, the Senate resume consideration of S. 207 at 5:15 today, with 15 minutes to debate under the control of Senator Harkin. I further ask that following the use or yielding back of the time, the Senate proceed to a rollcall vote on the resolution as under the previous order.

Mr. President, I believe that will accommodate our distinguished colleague from South Carolina to introduce his amendment beginning now, concluding at 5:10, at which time the Chair will recognize the junior Senator from Michigan for a period not to exceed 5 minutes.

I do so to accommodate Senator Levin. We have 2 minutes now for the Senator from Alabama to complete his remarks before the Chair recognizes the Senator from South Carolina; is that correct?

We certainly want to accommodate the Democratic leader. The Senator from South Carolina indicated that perhaps he would like to take up his amendment following the vote, giving him then such time as he requires, and giving the Senator from Michigan such time as he may require. So perhaps let us allocate the remaining time between now and 5:15 between the Senator from Alabama, the two colleagues on that side, and the distinguished Democratic leader.

Mr. President, following the completion of the rollcall vote, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from South Carolina be recognized.

Mr. President, that is correct.

Mr. President, today I rise, along with Senator Vitter, to introduce a bill to establish the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area in Louisiana. This legislation has particularly special meaning to those of us from Louisiana because of the importance of the cultural and natural resources of the Atchafalaya region to the Nation. It would establish a framework to help protect, conserve, and promote these unique natural, cultural, historical, and recreational resources of the region.

This legislation, which has been passed by the full Senate 3 times, once during the 107th Congress and twice during the 108th Congress, would establish a framework to help protect, conserve, and promote these unique natural, cultural, historical, and recreational resources of the region.

Specifically, the legislation would establish a National Heritage Area in Louisiana that encompasses thirteen parishes in and around the Atchafalaya Basin swamp, America's largest river swamp. The heritage area in south-central Louisiana stretches from Concordia parish to the north, where the Mississippi River begins to partially flow into the Atchafalaya River, all the way to the Gulf of Mexico in the south. The thirteen parishes are: St. Mary, Iberia, St. Martin, St. Landry, Avoyelles, Pointe Coupee, Iberville, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafayette, West Baton Rouge, Concordia, and East Baton Rouge. This boundary is the same area covered by the existing Atchafalaya Trace State Heritage Area.

This measure will appoint the existing Atchafalaya Trace Commission as the federally recognized ``local coordinating entity.'' The commission is composed of thirteen members with one representative appointed by each parish in the heritage area. Both the Atchafalaya Trace Commission and the Atchafalaya Trace State Heritage Area were created by the Louisiana Legislature a number of years ago. The Atchafalaya Trace State Heritage Area program currently receives some State funding, and already has staff working at the Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation & Tourism, DCRT, under Lieutenant Governor Kathleen Blanco. State funds were used to create

the management plan for the heritage area, which followed ``feasibility analysis'' guidelines as recommended by the National Park Service. Therefore, the recently-completed management plan need only be submitted to the Secretary of the Interior for approval as this legislation would recognize an existing local coordinating entity that will oversee the implementation of this plan. We are very proud that this state heritage area has already completed the complicated planning process, with participation of local National Park Service representatives, while using a standard of planning quality equal to that of existing national heritage areas. All at no cost to the Federal Government.

Please let me also emphasize that this legislation protects existing private property rights. It will not interfere with local land use ordinances or regulations, as it is specifically prohibited from doing so. Nor does this legislation grant any powers of real property acquisition to the local coordinating entity or heritage area program. In addition, the legislation does not impose any environmental rule or process or cause any change in Federal environmental quality standards different from those already in effect.

Heritage areas are based on cooperation and collaboration at all levels. This legislation remains true to the core concept behind heritage areas. The heritage area concept has been used successfully in various parts of our Nation to promote historic preservation, natural and cultural resource protection, heritage tourism and sustainable economic revitalization for both urban and rural areas. Heritage areas provide a flexible framework for government agencies, private organizations and businesses and landowners to work together on a coordinated regional basis. The Atchafalaya National Heritage Area will join the Cane River National Heritage Area to become the second National Heritage Area in Louisiana, ultimately joining the 23 existing National Heritage Areas around the Nation.

The initiative to develop the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area is an outgrowth of a grassroots effort to achieve multiple goals of this region. Most important among these is providing opportunities for the future, while at the same time not losing anything that makes this place so special. Residents from all over the region, local tourism agencies, State agencies such as the DCRT and the Department of Natural Resources, the State legislature, Federal agencies including the National Park Service and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, parish governments, conservation and preservation groups, local businesses and local landowners have all participated in this endeavor to make it the strong initiative it is today. These groups have been very supportive of the heritage area effort, and as time moves on, the heritage area will continue to involve more and more of the area's most important resource, its people.

I would also like to give you a brief overview of the resources that make this place significant to the entire country. Not only is it important to our Nation's history, but it is also critical to understanding America's future. The name of the place itself, Atchafalaya, comes from the American Indians and means ``long river.'' This name signifies the first settlers of the region, descendants of whom still live there today.

Other words come to mind in describing the Atchafalaya: mysterious, dynamic, multi-cultural, enchanting, bountiful, threatened and undiscovered. This region is one of the most complex and least understood places in Louisiana and the Nation. Yet, the stories of the Atchafalaya Heritage Area are emblematic of the broader American experience. Here there are opportunities to understand and witness the complicated, sometimes harmonious, sometimes adversarial interplay between nature and culture. The history of the United States has been shaped by the complex dance of its people working with, against, and for, nature. Within the Atchafalaya a penchant for adventure, adaptation, ingenuity, and exploitation has created a cultural legacy unlike anywhere else in the world.

The heart of the heritage area is the Atchafalaya Basin. It is the largest river swamp in the United States, larger than the more widely known Everglades or Okefenokee Swamp. The Atchafalaya is characterized by a maze of streams, and at one time was thickly forested with old- growth cypress and tupelo trees. The Basin provides outstanding habitat for a remarkably diverse array of wildlife, including the endangered American bald eagle and Louisiana black bear. The region's unique ecology teems with life. More than 85 species of fish; crustaceans, such as crawfish; wildlife, including alligators; an astonishing array of well over 200 species of birds, from waterfowl to songbirds; forest- dwelling mammals such as deer, squirrel, beaver and other commercially important furbearers all make their home here. Bottomland hardwood- dependent bird species breed here in some of the highest densities ever recorded in annual North American Breeding Bird Surveys. The Basin also forms part of the Mississippi Valley Flyway for migratory waterfowl and is a major wintering ground for thousands of these geese and ducks. In general, the Atchafalaya Basin has a significant proportion of North America's breeding wading birds, such as herons, egrets, ibises, and spoonbills. Some of the largest flocks of Wood Storks in North America summer here, and the southern part of the Basin has a healthy population of Bald Eagles nesting every winter.

The region's dynamic system of waterways, geology, and massive earthen guide levees reveals a landscape that is at once fragile and awesome. The geology and natural systems of the Atchafalaya Heritage Area have fueled the economy of the region for centuries. For decades the harvest of cypress, cotton, sugar cane, crawfish, salt, oil, gas, and Spanish moss, have been important sources of income for the region's residents. The crawfish industry has been particularly important to the lives of Atchafalaya residents and Louisiana has become the largest crawfish producer in the United States. Sport fishing and other forms of commercial fishing are important here, too, but unfortunately, natural resource extraction and a changing environment have drastically depleted many of these resources and forced residents to find new ways to make a living.

Over the past century, the Atchafalaya Basin has become a study of man's monumental effort to control nature. After the catastrophic Mississippi River flood of 1927 left thousands dead and millions displaced, the U.S. Congress decreed that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should develop an intricate system of levees to protect human settlements, particularly New Orleans. Today, the Mississippi River is caged within the walls of earthen and concrete levees and manipulated with a complex system of locks, barrages and floodgates. The Atchafalaya River runs parallel to the Mississippi and through the center of the Basin. In times of flooding the river basin serves as the key floodway in controlling floodwaters headed for the large population centers of Baton Rouge and New Orleans by diverting water from the Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico. This system was sorely tested in 1973 when floodwaters threatened to break through the floodgates and permanently divert the Mississippi River into the Atchafalaya. However, after this massive flood event, new land started forming off the coast. These new land formations make up the Atchafalaya Delta, and is the only significant area of new land being built in the United States. These vast amounts of Mississippi River sediment are also rapidly filling in the Basin itself, raising the level of land in certain areas of the basin and filling in lakes and waterways. And to demonstrate just how complex this ecosystem is, one only needs to realize that just to the East of the Delta, Terrebonne parish, also in the heritage area, is experiencing some of the most significant coastal land loss in the country.

Over the centuries, the ever-changing natural environment has shaped the lives of the people living in the Basin. Residents have profited from and been imperiled by nature. The popular cultural identity of the region is strongly associated with the Cajuns, descendants of the French-speaking Acadians who settled in south Louisiana after being deported by the British from Nova Scotia, formerly known as Acadia. Twenty-five hundred to three

thousand exiled Acadians repatriated in Louisiana where they proceeded to re-establish their former society. Today, in spite of complex social, cultural, and demographic transformations, Cajuns maintain a sense of group identity and continue to display a distinctive set of cultural expressions nearly 250 years after their exile from Acadia. Cajun culture has become increasingly popular outside of Louisiana. Culinary specialties adapted from France and Acadia such as etouffee, boudin, andouille, crepes, beignets and sauces thickened with roux, delight food lovers well beyond Louisiana's borders. Cajun music has also ``gone mainstream'' with its blend of French folk songs and ballads and instrumental dance music, and more recently popular country, rhythm-and-blues, and rock music influences. While the growing interest in Cajun culture has raised appreciation for its unique traditions, many of the region's residents are concerned about the growing commercialization and stereotyping that threatens to diminish the authentic Cajun ways of life.

While the Atchafalaya Heritage Area may be well known for its Cajun culture, there is an astonishing array of other cultures within these parishes. Outside of New Orleans, the Atchafalaya Heritage Area is the most racially and ethnically complex region of Louisiana, and has been so for many years. A long legacy of multiculturalism presents interesting opportunities to examine how so many distinct cultures have survived in relative harmony. There may be interesting lessons to learn from here as our Nation becomes increasingly heterogeneous. The cultural complexity of this region has created a rich tapestry of history and traditions, evidenced by the architecture, music, language, food and festivals unlike any place else. Ethnic groups of the Atchafalaya include: African-Americans, Black Creoles, Asians, Chinese, Filipinos, Vietnamese, Lebanese, Cajuns, Spanish Islenos, Italians, Scotch-Irish, and American Indian tribes such as the Attakapa, Chitimacha, Coushatta, Houma, Opelousa and Tunica-Biloxi.

This heritage area has a wealth of existing cultural, historic, natural, scenic, recreational and visitor resources on which to build. Scenic resources include numerous State Wildlife Management Areas and National Wildlife Refuges, as well as ten designated state scenic byways that fall partially or entirely within the heritage area. The Office of State Parks operates three historic sites in the heritage area, and numerous historic districts and buildings can be found in the region. There are also nine Main Street communities in the heritage area. Outdoor recreational resources include two State Parks and a multitude of waterways and bayous. Hunting, fishing, boating, and canoeing, and more recently birdwatching and cycling, are popular ways to experience the region. Various visitor attractions, interpretive centers and visitor information centers exist to help residents and tourists alike better understand and navigate many of the resources in the heritage area. Major roads link the heritage area's central visitor entrance points and large population centers, especially New Orleans. Much of the hospitality industry servicing the Atchafalaya exists around the larger cities of Baton Rouge, Lafayette and Houma. However, more and more bed and breakfasts and heritage accommodations, such as houseboat rentals, are becoming more numerous in the smaller towns and rural areas.

These are just some of the examples of the richness and significance of this region. This legislation will assist communities throughout this heritage area who are committed to the conservation and appropriate development of these assets. Furthermore, this legislation will bring a level of prestige and national and international recognition that this most special of places certainly deserves.

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

Mr. President, One Hundred and Thirty Nine years ago, before the term Homeland Security was even coined, a group of men devoted themselves to securing the frontiers of this Nation. They protected Americans in their homes; they deterred hostile invaders, and they secured the blessings of liberty for a young country. Even more remarkable, they secured these blessings for others, while they could not fully enjoy them themselves.

I am referring to the Buffalo Soldiers. These brave men instituted a tradition of professional military service for African Americans that spans the greater part of American history. African American military service is as old as our nation. There were black soldiers during the revolution, a unit of free black men played a pivotal role in the Battle of New Orleans, and the exploits of African Americans during the Civil War have been captured in novels and on film. However, it was not until the Army Reorganization Act of 1866 that soldiering and service to country became a realistic option for African Americans seeking to improve their quality of life. In so doing, they raised the bar of freedom, and revealed the injustice of preventing the defenders of democracy from fully participating in it.

The City of New Orleans, and the State of Louisiana have a rich history. They have given more than their fair share of sons to the service of our Nation. Much of this history is commemorated throughout the State. Yet, these great sons of New Orleans remain unacknowledged in their home. For in Louisiana's great military tradition, surely one of its greatest military contributions were the 9th Cavalry Regiment and the 25th Infantry Regiment.

These two forces, recruited and organized in New Orleans, represent half of all the units of buffalo soldiers. The 9th Cavalry alone constituted 10% of all the American cavalry. Their list of adversaries reads like a who's who of the Old West--Geronimo, Sitting Bull, Poncho Villa. In movies, when settlers encounter Apaches, the cavalry always comes to the rescue. Yet how many times were the cavalry that rode over the horizon African American? Of course, the reality is that the Buffalo Soldiers comprised some of our nations most capable and loyal troops. Despite suffering the worst deprivations known to any American soldiers of the period, they had the lowest desertion rates in the Army. The 9th Cavalry was awarded 10 Congressional Medals of Honor, including a native Louisianan, Sgt. Emanuel Stance--a farmer from Carroll Parish.

For these reasons, I am offering legislation today along with Senator Vitter that would authorize the creation of a suitable memorial in New Orleans for these gallant soldiers. There is an excellent statue to the Buffalo Soldiers at Fort Leavenworth, KS. It commemorates the 10th Cavalry Regiment stationed there. However, I believe that these men deserve to be recognized in their home city. Furthermore, it should be in an a location where thousands of visitors will have the opportunity to come to appreciate the legacy of the Buffalo Soldiers. I believe that the City of New Orleans is the perfect location.

We have made a number of changes to this legislation after consultations with the American Battle Monuments Commission. I believe these changes should address any concerns that they have expressed. Furthermore, we have an able and dedicated organization of individuals in the state who desperately want to see this project to completion. Last year, I had the pleasure of being in New Orleans with another of this Nation's great military heroes, Senator Daniel Inouye. We addressed a group of distinguished veterans from all around the state. Among them was George Jones, President of the Greater New Orleans Chapter of the Buffalo Soldiers Association. They have been working with Eddie Dixon, the artist for the beautiful Fort Leavenworth statute, to develop an appropriate memorial in the City of New Orleans for over a decade. This bill will fulfill that noble ambition.

This Nation has sadly found the need to say thank you to its servicemen and women after the fact on more than one occasion. Unfortunately, this is another. We are fortunate to have living memories of the 9th and 10th Cavalry Regiments today. The regiments were not disbanded until the conclusion of World War Two, where they served with distinction. We should take this opportunity to honor these veterans, and in so doing, honor the principles of liberty, freedom and democracy for which they fought and sacrificed. They have given so much to their nation, we owe them this public expression of gratitude.

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

Mr. President, today I rise, along with Senator Vitter, to introduce the Jean Lafitte National Historic Park and Preserve Boundary Adjustment Act of 2005. This bill was passed unanimously by the Senate during the 108th Congress.

The Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve was established in 1978 to preserve for present and future generations significant examples of the rich natural and cultural resources of Louisiana's Mississippi delta region. The park seeks to illustrate the influence of environment and history on the development of a unique regional culture. It is named for Jean Lafitte who was a pirate, or privateer as he like to be called, that fought alongside U.S. forces in the Battle of New Orleans at the end of the War of 1812. The park consists of six physically separate sites and a park headquarters located in New Orleans. The sites in Lafayette, Thibodaux and Eunice interpret the Acadian culture of the area. The Barataria Preserve, in Marrero, interprets the natural and cultural history of the uplands, swamps and marshlands of the region. Six miles southeast of New Orleans is the Chalmette Battlefield and National Cemetery, site of the 1815 Battle of New Orleans and the final resting place for soldiers from the Civil War, Spanish-American War, World Wars I and II and Vietnam. The park's visitor center, which is located in the historic French Quarter, interprets the history of New Orleans and diverse cultures of Mississippi delta region.

It is the Barataria site that is the focus of our attention today. The Bill before us would merely adjust the boundary of the Barataria preserve unit of Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve and by doing so protect a crucial component of one of the largest and most productive expanses of coastal wetlands in North America--coastal Louisiana or as they are known: America's Wetlands. The Barataria preserve is the only part of our coastal wetlands preserved in the National Park System. As we strive to find ways to stem the tide of coastal erosion in Louisiana, and bring about the restoration of wetlands already lost, it is equally important that we protect those areas that remain such as the Barataria preserve so that Americans can experience, first hand, the amazing beauty and fertility of Louisiana's bountiful coastal wetlands--the most threatened wetland ecosystem in the country--disappearing at a rate of 25 to 35 square miles a year. Located on the outskirts of New Orleans, where it is accessible not only to the people of New Orleans but also to the millions of tourists from around the world that visit New Orleans and south Louisiana, Barataria serves as an interpretive experience of this greatest of coastal wetlands.

This bill expands this national treasure without any cost to the Federal Government while preserving private property rights. It simply transfers to the Park over 3,000 acres of wetlands already in Federal ownership, already paid for by the American people. These lands, which are adjacent to the Preserve, became Federal as a result of the settlement by the Justice Department of two lawsuits brought by the landowners against Federal agencies. However, because these acres are not managed by the park, they are presently unavailable for public use. An Act of Congress is necessary to allow inclusion of these lands into a new boundary.

My bill does just that, opening these lands for canoeing, wildlife viewing, exploration, fishing, and hunting, all under the management and protection of the park service. The bill grants long-term protection to crucial resources that the Park Service has found suitable and feasible for inclusion within a new boundary through a 1996 boundary study.

The Park is immediately adjacent to the developed areas of the Westbank of Jefferson Parish along much of its boundary while the Barataria unit in particular is right next door to a hurricane levee. Making more of the park boundary contiguous with the levee

that divides developed land from undeveloped wetlands enhances opportunities for direct cooperation between these communities and the Park for management of shared concerns. These concerns include the routing of storm-water run-off; the discharge of treated sewage; estuarine water quality and its effects on fisheries and recreational uses; wetland restoration and mitigation; and a number of other problems and opportunities. The Park has worked with Jefferson Parish in seeking creative solutions to these problems and will continue to do so. The addition of these properties will only enhance their chances for success.

It is for all of these reasons that I am hopeful the Senate can approve of this measure in the near future. The expansion we seek in this Bill benefits us today as well as tomorrow.

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

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

Mr. President, I call up an amendment that Senator Levin has offered, which is at the desk.

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

Mr. President, this amendment was offered by Senator Levin and myself would do several very critical and important things. First, the amendment would increase funding for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program by $50 million. The offset would be twofold: $30 million would be taken from the long lead procurement of ground-based interceptors as part of the National Missile Defense Program and another $20 million would be taken from the funding for initial construction for silos to house these interceptors.

Essentially what Senator Levin is doing with this provision is to recognize the fact that a more immediate threat to the United States rests with literally thousands of locations where nuclear material might be housed from the breakup of the old Soviet Union, and other locations that need attention with respect to the reduction of these materials. I believe the greatest threat we face in this country is the fact that--hopefully not, but the situation where a terrorist might gain control of these materials, bring them into this country and use them with devastating effect.

So this amendment recognizes the most immediate threat comes from these materials and therefore is putting additional resources from the National Missile Defense Program, modest changes, to approach this major effort with respect to cooperative threat reduction.

The funds would come from our ground-based midcourse defense system. The interceptors and silos where the offsets occur are now currently being deployed at Fort Greely, AK, and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Because of recent developments, we have an opportunity to address the critical issue of loose nukes by transferring these funds. I would argue this is a most worthy cause. The offset will not affect the missile defense system at all. In fact, as we understand it, in the last several months the missile defense system has been reevaluating itself, looking at whether the technical issues are challenging, in fact, and have not conducted tests as they thought they could over the last several months. So I think now is the opportune time to put more resources in cooperative threat reduction.

We are all aware, as I have mentioned before, that the greatest threat to us today is the possibility that terrorists will acquire nuclear weapons or nuclear material and use it with devastating effect against us. Of course, one country with enormous amounts of this nuclear material is Russia.

It is estimated that Russia has approximately 16,000 nuclear weapons stored at between 150 and 210 sites. While that is a significant reduction from the 40,000 weapons at the end of the Cold War, it is still a huge number of weapons and also a large number of storage sites.

Indeed, there is some imprecision about where all the sites might be. Of course, we have also heard reports of potential sites for, if not nuclear material, other dangerous material in former components of the Soviet Union, the newly independent states. So this is a challenging issue we have to face.

Only about 25 percent of the total number of weapons sites have received any upgrades in the past five years. Many of them still lack adequate security and safeguards. At the rate planned for in the fiscal year 2006 budget request, it would be around 2011 or 2012 before the work at only a portion of the sites would be completed to bring them up to levels of security and safety that we would feel confident this nuclear material would not be stolen, misplaced or somehow find itself in the world community.

The Defense Department only expected work to be scheduled on one or two sites in fiscal year 2006 so they budgeted approximately $60 million in the process. But then in February, when President Bush and President Putin met at the summit in Bratislava, Slovakia, the two agreed on a way to address security upgrades at 15 key nuclear weapons sites. With this agreement, we have the opportunity to accomplish in 2 years what we thought would take 10.

The issue, of course, is funding. The total cost of these upgrades is approximately $350 million. With this amendment, we are adding $50 million to this project, which is not the total needed but will allow for a good start. Again, this is a huge breakthrough that occurred after the President's budget submission. It is a major opportunity we simply must take advantage of.

As I have indicated before, the proposal of Senator Levin is to move this $50 million into cooperative threat reduction from the National Missile Defense Program. I think it is useful to look at this program to indicate where these transfers are possible, available, and even desirable.

When President Bush first took office in 2001, he made missile defense one of his highest priorities. In May 2000, President Bush said America must build effective missile defense based on the best available options at the earliest possible date. Missile defense must be designed to protect all 50 States, our friends, allies, and deployed forces overseas from missile attacks by rogue nations or accidental launches. President Bush's first major action was to significantly increase funding for missile defense.

Since fiscal year 2002, approximately $45 billion, including fiscal year 2006 requests, has been provided for missile defense. That is $45 billion and here we are talking about a transfer of $50 million from that huge program. This amount is half of what has been spent on missile defense since President Reagan launched the Strategic Defense Initiative in 1984. We have seen a huge acceleration of funding with respect to missile defense. Another aspect of President Bush's plan for missile defense was that the systems would be developed and acquired under an approach called spiral development. As the Congressional Research Service succinctly summarizes: A major consequence of the administration's proposed evolutionary acquisition strategy is that the Missile Defense Program would not feature the familiar phases and milestones of the traditional DOD acquisition system. Another consequence is the Missile Defense Agency cannot provide Congress with a description of its final missile defense architecture, the capabilities

on any near or longer term system, the specific dates by which most elements of the emerging architecture are to be tested and deployed, or an estimate of the eventual costs of the Missile Defense Program.

So President Bush's plan was to spend an enormous amount of money in a short period of time with little plan and no traditional checks and balances with respect to traditional procurement programs.

This program has, in fact, come under self-generated pressures. Tests that were proposed to be conducted over the last several months have been postponed and cancelled. There is a hard relook at the technology. There is potential here, but certainly there is not the kind of progress that would justify the robust spending to date and certainly not indicate that they need an additional $50 million to keep doing what they are doing.

In the past, we have looked very carefully at this program of national defense. Like so many others, I believe if we can produce--and I think we can ultimately--a workable system to protect this country, protect its allies, our troops in the field, we have to do that, but we have to do it with deliberate speed, and I would emphasize deliberate speed, not all-out haste, which generally means waste.

I believe we should pursue this system, but I also believe we should take the time to determine that the technology, which is extraordinarily complex, is mature and effective. So beginning in 2002, I offered amendments which I felt would improve the Missile Defense Program. In the fiscal year 2003 bill, I introduced an amendment requiring a report on flight testing of the ground-based midcourse defense, or the GMD, system. In fiscal year 2004, I offered an amendment which would direct that the Missile Defense Agency provide information on procurement, performance criteria, and operational test plans for ballistic missile defense programs. In fiscal year 2005, I introduced an amendment requiring operationally realistic testing and independent evaluation of the ballistic missile defense system.

All of these amendments were modified by the majority. Then they were passed. Indeed, it is unclear if they were not modified whether they would have passed.

Furthermore, when the Missile Defense Agency met these requirements, in many instances details and quality of reporting were lacking. For the most part, the Missile Defense Agency has been doing what it wants to do with very little detailed supervision by the Congress and it has led to a situation now where the program is being seriously looked at. We certainly have not made the kind of technological breakthrough which was anticipated. One thing is certain, we have spent a great deal of money in this pursuit.

Now, where we are today, interceptor tests are the critical tests which involve a real missile defense interceptor hitting a real target missile. These tests are the only means to truly assess whether a missile defense system has the chance of working against a real enemy missile. There is nothing elaborate or sensational in this proposition. In order to see if a system works, one has to take it out and use it. One missile has to be fired against another missile and knock down the intruding missile. If that is done with enough frequency and enough confidence, then the system is ready to go.

The first intercept flight test of the system was conducted in December 2002 and it failed. Six days after that test failure, President Bush announced the United States would deploy the missile defense system. Usually such announcements are reserved for success, not failure. In effect, it is almost like looking at a new, expensive jet fighter prototype going down the way, malfunctioning and then turning around and saying let us buy a lot of them, let us put them in the sky. That is not what most people believe is the appropriate criteria for being operational.

Over the next 2 years, seven other planned tests were cancelled. Yet, in September 2004, the system was declared nearly operational, with six interceptors at Fort Greely, AK, and two interceptors at Vandenberg Air Force Base. Three months later, in December 2004, the Missile Defense Agency then conducted the only second integrated flight test on a multibillion system. It too failed, and the system was now described as operational in the near future.

On February 14, there was another integrated flight test and it too failed. After these three consecutive failures, Lieutenant General Obering, director of the Missile Defense Agency, established an independent review team to examine test failures and recommend steps for improving the test program. The team made some very interesting observations.

First, I believe they confirmed suspicions that there was a rush to deployment, a rush not justified by the technology, its maturity, and by the operational techniques that were necessary to deploy it, but simply to get it deployed. The team report states:

There were several issues that led to the flight test

failures of the Integrated Flight Tests . . . With the focus

on rapid deployment of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense

system, there was not always adequate opportunity to fully

ground test the system prior to each flight attempt.

Again, skipping over critical steps to rush to a

deployment. The team also found:

Schedule has been the key challenge that drives daily

decision making and planning in the program.

Not the technological maturity of the system, not technical issues, but schedule was driving the technology, not the other way around.

The independent review team also took issue with the spiral development and lack of testing. Again, in their words:

Due to the lack of application of a few well-known

verification specification and standards by the GMD program,

failure evidence suggests that some problems might have been

during the launch. The team feels that considerable

opportunity exists to improve the confidence in the

reliability of hardware and software by adopting industry

best practices that exist as specification and standards.

In effect saying, we have to have requirements, we have to have standards, we have to have specifications, we have to be able to measure this program and its components before we rush to deploy it, much of it echoing comments made on this floor by myself and many others.

The team report further states:

There are not enough ground tests available to verify/

validate system operational performance and reliability. The

Joint Program office should consider redirecting some

production assets for ground tests to gain a higher

confidence in the GMD system performance.

The GMD review team would again recommend, in their words:

The Ground-based Midcourse Defense Program enter a new

phase focused on Performance and Reliability Verification, in

which Missile Defense Agencies make tests and mission success

the primary objective. The new phase should validate the

technical baseline and should be event driven rather than

schedule driven.

In effect, build on success, don't build based on schedule.

General Obering also requested Rear Admiral Kate Paige to

direct a Mission Readiness Task Force to study the review

team's recommendations and put the program on a path to

flight test and management success.

The Mission readiness task force, under the Admiral, made

the following recommendation: Four interceptors previously

planned for near-term operational deployment will be diverted

to serve as ground test missiles. There will be a significant

increase in ground testing of all systems, components, and

processes before resuming flight testing. Contractors will be

held accountable for their performance. The first flight test

will not be an intercept test and the first intercept test

will not take place for more than a year.

Let me commend General Obering and the Missile Defense Agency for implementing these recommendations. I believe they will go a long way toward improving the missile defense system, an objective we all share. However, I note these recommendations sound very familiar and one could only contemplate how much effort and money would have been saved if we had approached the system this way from the beginning--not rushing to failure, but building for success.

There are presently six ground-based interceptors in silos at Fort Greely and two in silos at Vandenberg Air Force base. The administration also requested, and the Congress has already approved, most of the funding for these 30 interceptors. As I have noted, there has yet to be a successful flight test of these interceptors, so we are already buying an additional 30 interceptors when we do not know how to make the first 6 work. I think a responsible approach is to slow the allocation of

funds for the procurement of these interceptors until they are proven operational and to use that funding for more pressing needs. This amendment does that.

The President's budget request seeks long-lead funding for 10 operational interceptors and 8 flight test interceptors, 18 missiles in all. However, the actual production rate capacity for the interceptors is 1 per month, or 12 per year. That means the Defense Department is seeking funds for more missiles than they can build in 1 year. There is no need to pay for more interceptors than can be built in 1 year.

Instead, we can provide 1 year's worth of funding for 1 year's worth of missiles--12 instead of 18. This amendment will not cause a break in the production line.

I also note the House Armed Services Committee, in its fiscal year 2006 Defense authorization bill, reduced the long-lead funding for five of the operational interceptors. The administration has not indicated that the proposed reduction would cause any serious problems for the program.

I also want to state that the President's budget request includes $53 million in long-lead funding for eight test missiles. It is essential to produce missiles for testing. This amendment would not reduce that funding for the test missiles at all. We realize we are in the test phase. The problem becomes we are attempting to buy operational missiles before we are sure the test missiles will really work. That, I think, is at the heart of much of the criticism.

Our missile defense systems are robustly funded in this bill with about $7 billion. What this amendment does is take money that cannot even be spent this year and allocate it to a new opportunity to prevent loose nukes, which is truly an imminent threat, an existential threat to this country. This amendment, which enhances security by funding one program without causing any harm to another program, is a win-win situation, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

We are trying to exploit a diplomatic breakthrough that was engineered by President Bush in his meeting with President Putin that allows the expansion, rapidly, of inspection and securing of sites in the former Soviet Union and Russia. We are taking a truly modest amount of money, given about $6 or $7 billion for overall missile defense, and using that to try to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear materials across the globe, which is the most serious threat that we face as a nation.

I thank the Chairman for the question. My understanding is that the production cycle for the system, these interceptors, is 12 per year. Yet the budget is asking for more than that. So I don't think taking $50 million--as I understand the amendment, $30 million taken from long-lead, ground-based interceptors--taking $30 million away I do not think would upset the production line schedule. There is no intent to do that, and I think the effect would not be to do that also.

With respect to your point, which I think is well taken, about the buildup in funds in the comprehensive threat reduction, some of that-- we will check more dutifully--but some of that to my knowledge is the result of the inability to agree on a way to deal with some of these sites. We hope that difficulty has been substantially reduced by President Bush and President Putin's discussion in Bratislava. Now that they have agreed on a framework, they can start applying this money.

Also, again, I think this money would be well spent, would not disrupt the production of the missile systems, and just the sheer scale--this is $50 million total, $30 million from the ground-based interceptors, $20 million for initial construction of silos and housing for the interceptors--again, this is truly long-lead procurement. We have, in my view, and I believe that of Senator Levin, much more of a problem in the site in Russia that contains the nuclear materials.

We have all heard the horror stories of people being able to walk in, walk around, and walk out of these sites without anybody interfering with them--no electronic equipment or sensors that would detect or report their presence to anyone's attention. So our view--my view, speaking for myself--is that this money could be much better spent, without disrupting the missile defense program, by applying it to comprehensive threat reduction.

Frankly, $500 million is an impressive amount of money that has not yet been spent, but we all recognize, if any of this material made its way outside these sites and got into the hands of irresponsible people, it would be serious.

I could say, Mr. President, we will try to determine this, but unexpended does not mean that it is not committed. Some of these funds could in fact be committed to specific sites already so that money can't be spent again elsewhere. We will try to get a number on that.

But the scale of the problem, the number of sites--it is in the order, just within Russia, of 200 sites.

Mr. President, my information indicates the fiscal year 2006 budget for expansion, there is $20.682 million. I will ask my staff to coordinate with your staff.

Fifteen minutes, I believe.

Senator Levin will need some time, also.

Would the Senator restate the UC?

Reserving the right to object, I just want to protect the ability for Senator Levin to have time.

Mr. President, I will first make a comment or two.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a few minutes to respond to some of the substance of the two subjects discussed by the Senator from Utah. Then I would like to describe the amendments I have offered. It will probably take me 20 minutes.

Mr. President, first of all, let me say I was listening intently while the senior Senator from Utah talked about the F/A-22. I would like to add one thing that perhaps he assumes everyone is aware of, but I keep finding people are not aware of it, and that is the Chief of the Air Force now, General Jumper, not too long ago, I think 1997, made a very courageous observation. He called to the attention of the American people that the Russians were making--at that time he was referring to the Su-30, a strike vehicle, that it was actually better than anything we had in our inventory, our F-15 or F-16.

I think a lot of people assumed automatically that when we go onto the battlefield America has the very best of equipment. That is not true. It is kind of scary when you think about a strike vehicle that is out there that has greater capability than our very best and the fact that the American people expect the United States to have the best of everything.

I have talked on this floor many times about the fact that our artillery piece is not as good as one that is made in five different countries. The old Paladin technology is World War II technology. That is something we are going to correct with our future combat system.

But I commend the Senator from Utah for his comments about the F/A- 22. When we get the joint strike fighter and the F/A-22, we will be back in a position where we will be sending our young people out there with the best of equipment. We need to get there as rapidly as possible.

I also want to make a comment about the depot funding plan amendment that is offered by Senator Hatch. It supports the important and vital work being performed by our aircraft depot facilities.

Since the Bush administration came into office, we have seen a renewed interest in the Air Force's depots. To kind of fill us in where we are right now with that, I can remember when the last Secretary of the Air Force came in, his first trip was to Tinker Air Force Base to see how creative they were, to kind of personally examine the kind of work they were doing. He recognized we have to handle the problem that has been there for many, many years; that is, we need to have an in- house capability for depot maintenance on core issues.

The problem has always been: How do you define the core issue? The core issue is not an easy thing to describe and define. But until it is properly defined, we have been using the ratio of 50-50; in other words, to have the in-house capability to handle 50 percent of the functions in the case of a war so we would not be held hostage to a single source contractor.

The key to this overall reinvigoration has been the Air Force's Depot Maintenance Strategy and Master Plan that will ensure America's air and space assets are ready to rapidly respond to any national security threat. Because of this plan we have begun a restoration and modernization of our Air Force's three depot facilities located in Oklahoma, Utah, and Georgia, which will ensure the United States is able to maintain world-class aircraft repair and overall facilities.

If we are to realize the end result of this Maintenance Strategy and Master Plan, it is incumbent upon Congress to fulfill the Air Force's commitment for allocating $150 million a year, over a 6-year period, for recapitalizing, investing, and procuring advanced facilities, equipment, and operation. This funding began in fiscal year 2004, and significant in-roads have already been made.

In one year alone, with this funding support, the Air Mobility Command reported that the rate of aircraft grounded due to parts issues decreased by 37.6 percent. It bettered its flying hour goal by 922,000 hours. The rate of aircraft incidents due to parts issues decreased by 23.4 percent. Logistics response time increased by 20.4 percent. And the level of spare parts in stock improved by 5.5 percent. Such improvements are an indication of the impact of this funding, and this was only a single 1-year period.

We have spoken frequently in this body about the advanced age and challenges of some of our most critical low-density, high-demand aircraft, such as the C-130 tactical airlifter, and the KC-135 refueling tanker. The average age of the C-130 E and H models flying today is 40 years. The average age of the KC-135 E and R models flying today is 44 years. We went through some arduous times, several years ago--about 15 years ago--getting the C-17 on line. It was a recognition that we have to modernize this fleet. I am very thankful we have increased the numbers as the years have gone by. No one would have ever believed, prior to Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq, the need we would have on these heavy-lift vehicles.

We could go on and on, but the point we want to make is, if we are going to keep our aging fleet of aircraft flying, we must not only maintain them but we must also modify them and give them the latest technology, avionics and things, so we will provide our young people with the same advantage that some of our prospective opponents would have.

At our Air Force depots today, we require engineers and fabrication technicians to solve ever-challenging design and structural problems due to aircraft stress and fatigue that were never anticipated when the aircraft were manufactured. But because of age, we are seeing such flaws. The civilian aviation industry recapitalizes, buying new aircraft when their planes are no longer feasible to fly. Unfortunately, our Air Force does not have such a luxury. The effort the Air Force has started with the Depot Maintenance Strategy and Master Plan must be sustained, and Congress must provide the necessary resources.

In light of this, I applaud the sense of the Senate being offered by Senator Hatch. This has been a problem we have seen coming. We know it is there. We have been able to now give our depots some of the same resources, some of the same modernization. They have, on a competitive basis, proven they can do a very good job.

Amendment No. 1313

Mr. President, I have two amendments I have already filed. The second amendment is going to require a new number. The two I am going to be discussing are the ICRC amendment. I have several cosponsors of the amendment, including Senator Kyl. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Enzi be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 1313.

The other amendment has a new number. We have talked about it before. It is the U.S.-China

Commission amendment. It is now No. 1476. It is my intention to make a few comments about these two and then to ask for the yeas and nays. We would like to get to a vote on these amendments by tonight.

First, the amendment concerning the ICRC. I simply want to clarify some people's thinking that the ICRC is not the American Red Cross. This is the International Committee on the Red Cross. It has no relationship to the American Red Cross.

My first concern is for American troops. The ICRC has been around since 1863 and has been there for American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines throughout two world wars. I thank them for that work. Likewise and moreover, I thank all Americans for military service to America. I did have occasion to be in the U.S. Army. It was the best thing that ever happened in my life. In my continuing preeminent concern for American troops, however, I am compelled to note some concerns and pose some questions about a drift in focus of the ICRC away from its core principles in its mission statement. Indeed, I fear the ICRC may be harming the morale of our American troops by unjustified allegations that detainees and prisoners are not being properly treated.

For example, an ICRC official visited Camp Bucca, a theater internment facility for enemy prisoners that is, as of January 2005, being operated by the 18th Military Police Brigade and Task Force 134, near Umm Qasr in southern Iraq. As of late January 2005, the facility had a holding capacity of 6,000 prisoners but only held 5,000. These prisoners were being supervised by 1,200 Army MPs and Air Force airmen. According to the Wall Street Journal, citing a Defense Department source, the ICRC official told U.S. authorities:

You people are no better than and no different than the

Nazi concentration camp guards.

I ask unanimous consent that this entire article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks about the ICRC.

Mr. President, I have been informed I will be asking for the yeas and nays for two different amendments. I will do that after explaining the second amendment.

I know the Senator from Florida, under UC, now has 15 minutes. My time is about to expire. I would ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Florida, I be recognized to present what was amendment 1312 and now is No. 1476. And at the conclusion, I will be asking for the yeas and nays.

I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for 15 minutes, followed by the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. President, so we can get procedurally back where we should be, I ask unanimous consent that the current amendment be set aside for the consideration of amendment No. 1313.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment No. 1313.

Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 1313 be set aside for the consideration of amendment No. 1476, which I send to the desk.

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

Mr. President, this amendment is similar to one that I am not going to offer that was previously going to be offered, No. 1312. There have been several changes made, so a new number is assigned to it.

Mr. President, in October 2000, Congress established the United States-China Security Economic Review Commission to act as a bipartisan authority on how our relationship with China affects our economy, China's military and weapons proliferation, and our influence in Asia.

For the past 5 years, the Commission has been holding hearings and issuing annual reports to evaluate ``the national security implications of the bilateral trade and economic relationship with the United States and the People's Republic of China.'' Their job is to provide us in Congress with the necessary information to make decisions about the complex situation. However, I fear their reports have gone largely unnoticed.

This has been very disturbing. I have had occasion to give four rather lengthy speeches concerning the recommendations. I will not be redundant, and I certainly will not take the time I took previously, but it is something that is very significant. This was a bipartisan commission, made up of Democrats and Republicans, some Members of Congress, and some former Members of Congress. They came out with recommendations over a period of years.

I found the recommendations of the Commission's 2004 report--this is the most recent approach--objective, necessary, and urgent, and I am offering an amendment to express our support for these viable steps.

This amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that China should, first, reevaluate its manipulated currency level and allow it to float against other currencies. In the Treasury Department's recent report to Congress, China's monetary policies are described as ``highly distortionary and pose a risk to China's economy, its trading partners, and global economic growth.''

Second, the appropriate steps ought to be taken through the World Trade Organization to hold China accountable for its dubious trade practices. Major problem issues, such as intellectual property rights, have yet to be addressed.

Third, the United States should revitalize engagement in the Asian region, broaden our interaction with organizations such as ASEAN, which is the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Our lack of influence has been demonstrated by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization recently demanding that we set a troop pullout deadline in Afghanistan. This clearly shows we do not have much influence there.

Fourth, the administration ought to hold China accountable for proliferating prohibited technologies. Chinese companies, such as NORINCO, have been sanctioned frequently and yet the Chinese Government refuses to enforce their own nonproliferation agreements.

Fifth, the U.N. should monitor nuclear, biological, and chemical treaties and either enforce these agreements or report them to the Security Council. The United States-China Commission has found that China has undercut the U.N. in many areas, undermining what pressures we have tried to apply on problematic states, such as Sudan and Zimbabwe.

Sixth, the administration ought to review the effectiveness of the one-China policy in relation to Taiwan to reflect the dynamic nature of the situation. The Defense Department's annual report to Congress, released 2 days ago, states that China's military ``sustained buildup affects the status quo in the Taiwan Strait.'' We have been watching this for a number of years. We have also been watching the growth and enhancement of China's conventional military capability. We have known about their nuclear capability for some time. Now we see, as the Senator from Utah was mentioning a few minutes ago, that countries are buying these superior strike vehicles from Russia, such as the SU-30s. China, in one purchase, I understand, bought some 240. One has to stop and think about this. It puts them in the position to have better strike vehicles than we do. Of course, we have seen the buildup, the effect on their relationship in the Taiwan Strait.

Seventh, various energy agencies should encourage China to develop its strategic oil reserve in order to avoid a disastrous economic crisis if oil availability becomes unstable. We have to understand that we have a serious problem in this country with the fact that we are relying upon foreign countries for some 65 percent of the oil we import. We are now starting to compete with China which has that great problem, too.

As one travels around and looks at countries such as Iran, Sudan, Nigeria, and other countries where they are establishing relationships--we have seen what they are doing in Venezuela right now--we have to recognize they are going to be our chief competition in becoming self-sufficient in our ability to fight a war without dependency upon foreign countries.

Eighth, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, called CFIUS, should include national economic security as a criterion for evaluation and the chairmanship to be transferred to a more appropriate chair allowing for increased security precautions.

Right now CFIUS has actually reviewed some 1,500 cases of purchases by foreign countries, and they have only questioned 24. They relented on those and only stopped one. That is 1 out of 1,500. There is something wrong. We see some things that are going on right now, such as Unocal, that have received a lot of publicity. This is a very strong recommendation. In fact, I have a separate resolution that covers just this issue and this alone. It will recommend that the chairmanship be changed from the Secretary of Treasury to the Secretary of Defense.

Ninth, the administration should continue its pressure on the EU to maintain its arms embargo on China. The recent Defense Department report states the EU would not have the capability to monitor and enforce any limits if the arms embargo is lifted.

Tenth, penalties should be placed on foreign contractors who sell sensitive military use technology or weapons system to China from benefiting from U.S. defense-related research development in production programs. What is going on is sales are taking place to China on technology that has been subsidized by the United States. In other words, we are putting ourselves in a situation where our national security would be impaired by our own research for which we have paid.

Eleventh, the administration should also provide a report to Congress on the scope of foreign military sales to China.

Finally, Congress should support the recommendations of the Commission's 2004 report to Congress. Unless our relationship with China is backed up with strong action, they will never take us seriously. We will certainly see more violations of proliferation treaties. It is happening over and over. We are looking at it right now. They continue to manipulate regional global trade through currency undervaluation and other unhealthy practices. They will develop unreliable oil sources and energy alliances with countries that threaten international stability. They will continue to escalate the situation over Taiwan, raising the stakes in a game neither country can win.

In today's world, we see how the unpaid bills of the past come back to haunt us in full. Ignoring these problems is unacceptable.

The United States-China Commission was created to give us in Congress a clear picture about what is going on. They have done their job. It is time for us to do our job.

I repeat, this is a commission that has been working now for 4 years. It is a bipartisan commission. These are specific recommendations. This amendment is a sense of the Senate to follow these recommendations.

This is amendment No. 1476.

Amendment No. 1312 Withdrawn

Mr. President, I withdraw amendment No. 1312.

We are considering amendment No. 1476. I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment No. 1476.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to modify my amendment No. 1557, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 1557, which is at the desk. I ask the clerk continue the reading of the amendment because it is short and important.

Mr. President, I asked that amendment be read because there may be various interpretations of what this amendment is and what it means. What it means to the sponsors--and I am grateful to my friend, Senator Warner, the distinguished chairman of the committee, and Senator Graham and others, including Senator Collins and others who have supported this. Basically, it says the U.S. Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation shall be the document that governs interrogation of prisoners who are under Department of Defense custody.

Some of us may like to see this expanded to treatment of prisoners who are under custody of different agencies of Government. This applies to the Department of Defense.

Before I proceed further, I ask my friend from Virginia--as he knows, we have two amendments. One is this one which we have just read, and the other one concerning cruel and inhumane treatment, which we are sort of still working on. Is it the desire of the Chairman we take up both amendments at this time?

I thank the distinguished chairman. For the information of my colleagues, the second amendment, which would be before the Senate for consideration at a different time, basically says that cruel and inhumane treatment will not be inflicted upon any prisoner, and we would adhere to the Geneva Conventions as well as other international agreements concerning the treatment of prisoners.

But on this issue it says this amendment would prohibit cruel and inhumane and degrading treatment of prisoners in the detention of the U.S. Government, and it is basically fairly straightforward and simple, as I read.

The Army Field Manual and its various editions have served America well, through wars against both regular and irregular foes. The manual embodies the values Americans have embraced for generations while preserving the ability of our interrogators to extract critical intelligence from ruthless foes. Never has this been more important than today in the midst of the war on terror.

I think we all agree to fight terrorism we must obtain intelligence. But we have to ensure that it is reliable and acquired in a way that is humane. To do otherwise not only offends our national morals but undermines our efforts to protect the Nation's security.

Abuse of prisoners harms--harms, not helps--us in the war on terror because inevitably these abuses become public. When they do, the cruel actions of a few darken the reputation of our honorable country in the eyes of millions. Mistreatment of our prisoners also endangers U.S. servicemembers who might be captured by the enemy--if not in this war, then in the next.

I want to emphasize to some of my friends who say that we should do anything that is necessary to extract intelligence, No. 1, torture doesn't work; No. 2, if extraneous or extraordinary actions have to be taken--and there may be cases, and we will get into this in the next amendment, where someone has information that it is believed poses an immediate threat to the United States--then I would suppose that it would be entirely appropriate, under law, that the President of the United States could make that judgment and take whatever actions are necessary. In the meantime, the Army Field Manual authorizes interrogation techniques that are proven effective in extracting lifesaving information from the most hardened prisoners. It also recognizes that torture and cruel treatment are ineffective methods because they induce prisoners to say what their interrogators want to hear, even if it is not true.

It is consistent with our laws and, most importantly, our values. Our values are different from those of our enemies. When colleagues or others may come on this floor and say: Well, they do it, others do it, al-Qaida does it, other nations in the world do it, what differentiates us, the United States of America, from other countries is the fact that we do not. We do not abuse human rights. We do not do it. I would argue the pictures, terrible pictures from Abu Ghraib, harmed us--not only in the Arab world, which is an area of great concern but it also harmed us dramatically amongst friendly nations, the Europeans, many of our allies.

Of course, they were appalled. Of course, we were all appalled. As we go through this later on, there were interesting exchanges between the civilian general counsel in the Pentagon and the military judge advocate general's--members of the judge advocate general, who were deeply concerned about regulations that were proposed for adoption, and exhibited very serious and fundamental concerns. For a short period of time, unfortunately, those objections by the uniform lawyers in the Pentagon were overruled, and we went through a period of time--thank God only a few months--where interrogation techniques were allowed which were then repealed, I am happy to say.

Our friends in London and elsewhere find themselves confronting the same evil that we do. Preserving the common values we hold dear is more important than ever. We fight not just to preserve our lives and liberties but our morals, and we will never allow the terrorists to take those from us. In this war that we must win--that we will win--we should never fight evil with evil.

As I said, the amendment I am offering would establish the Army Field Manual as the standard for interrogation of all detainees held in Department of Defense custody. The manual has been developed by the executive branch for its own uses, with a new edition written to take into account the needs of the war on terror for the new classified annexes due to be issued soon.

The advantage of setting a standard for interrogation based on the field manual is to cut down on the significant level of confusion that still exists with respect to which interrogation techniques are allowed. Two weeks ago, the Committee on Armed Services held hearings, under the chairmanship of Senator Lindsey Graham, with a slew of high- level Defense Department officials from regional commanders to judge advocate generals from the various branches to the Department's deputy general counsel.

A chief topic of discussion was what specific interrogation techniques are permitted, in what environment, with which DOD detainees, by whom and when. The answers included a whole lot of confusion. We got a bunch of contradictory answers. Several: I would have to take a look at that. A few: Let me get back to you.

Let's think about that for a second. If at the highest level of the Pentagon they do not know what exact techniques are allowed and what aren't, what is going on in the prisons? What is going on with the soldiers, the sergeant, the corporal, those who are supposed to do the actual interrogations? What we are trying to do is make sure there are clear and exact standards set for interrogation of prisoners which have held for other wars and are now being updated to take into consideration the kind of war that we are in.

Confusion results in the kind of messes that once again could give America a black eye around the world. We need a clear, simple, and consistent standard. We will have it in the Army Field Manual on interrogation. That is not my opinion but that of many more distinguished military legal minds than mine.

I received a letter recently from a group of people, 11 former high- ranking military officers, including RADM John Hutson and RADM Don Guter, who each served as the Navy's top JAG, and Claudia Kennedy, who was Deputy Chief of Staff for Army Intelligence. These and other distinguished officers believe that the abuses took place in part because our soldiers received ambiguous instructions which, in some cases, authorized treatment that went beyond what the Field Manual allows and that had the Manual been followed across the board we could have avoided the prisoner abuse scandal.

I am not sure we could have, Mr. President, but wouldn't any of us have done whatever we could to have prevented that?

I ask unanimous consent this letter, dated July 22, 2005, be printed in the Record.

I read from the letter:

We strongly support your proposed amendments to the Defense

Department Authorization bill concerning detainee policy,

including requiring all interrogations of detainees in DOD

custody to conform to the U.S. Army's Field Manual on

Intelligence Interrogation (FM 34-52), and prohibiting the

use of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by

any U.S. government agency.

It is now apparent that the abuse of prisoners in Abu

Ghraib, Guantanamo and elsewhere took place in part because

our men and women in uniform were given ambiguous

instructions, which in some cases authorized treatment that

went beyond what was allowed by the Army Field Manual.

Administration officials confused matters further by

declaring that U.S. personnel are not bound by longstanding

prohibitions of cruel treatment when interrogating non-U.S.

citizens on foreign soil. As a result, we suddenly had one

set of rules for interrogating prisoners of war, and another

for ``enemy combatants;'' one set for Guantanamo, and another

for Iraq; one set for our military, and another for the CIA.

Our service members were denied clear guidance, and left to

take the blame when things went wrong. They deserve better

than that.

The United States should have one standard for

interrogating enemy prisoners that is effective, lawful, and

humane. Fortunately, America already has the gold standard in

the Army Field Manual. Had the Manual been followed across

the board, we would have been spared the pain of the prisoner

abuse scandal. It should be followed consistently from now

on. And when agencies other than

DOD detain and interrogate prisoners, there should be no

legal loopholes permitting cruel or degrading treatment.

This is signed by GEN Joseph Hoar, LTG Robert Gard, LTG Claudia Kennedy, MG Melvyn Montano, RADM Don Guter, RADM John Hutson, BG David Brahms, BG James Cullen, BG Evelyn Foote, BG David Irvine, BG Richard O'Meara, et cetera, and all of these people, including General Hoar, served as Commander in Chief United States Central Command. These are very credible people. If we had chosen, we could have gotten many more signatories to this amendment.

We are Americans. We hold ourselves to humane standards of treatment no matter how terribly evil or awful they may be. To do otherwise undermines our security, and it also undermines our greatness as a nation. We are not simply any other country. We stand for a lot more than that in the world: a moral mission, one of freedom and democracy and human rights at home and abroad.

We are better than the terrorists, and we will win because we are better than they are. The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don't deserve our sympathy. But this is not about who they are--it is not about who they are. It is about who we are. These are values that distinguish us from our enemies.

President Bush understands that the war on terror is ultimately a battle of ideas, a battle we will win by spreading and standing firmly for the values of decency, democracy, and the rule of law. I stand with him in this commitment. By applying to ourselves the basic standards we rightly preach to others, I believe we will only increase our effectiveness as the world's ultimate champion of liberty.

I thank Senator Warner and Senator Graham and others who have shown an interest. Senator Warner has had a series of hearings for a long period of time. I believe we can do a great service for the military and for the country if we adopt this simple two-paragraph amendment that basically says that prisoners will be treated according to the Army Field Manual, which, by the way, is the tradition of treatment of prisoners for many wars.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have a brief comment on the chairman's amendment. Leaving it in the hands of the Secretary of Defense is what caused the huge amount of problems we have today.

I have here--in fact, thanks to the tenacity of the Senator from South Carolina--finally, after a year and a half, 2 years, the memoranda that were submitted by the uniformed JAGS when

the rules for the treatment of prisoners were set up the first time, I say to my friend from Virginia. They all objected to it. They were overruled by the Secretary of Defense and the general counsel.

So now, if I understand it, the amendment of my dear friend from Virginia is going to return that to the Secretary of Defense. I urge him to read these memoranda which we finally got thanks to, again, the Senator from South Carolina: treating OEF detainees inconsistently with the Conventions; arguably lowers the bar for the treatment of U.S. POWs in future conflicts, even when nations agree with the President's status determination. Many would view the more extreme interrogation techniques as violative of international law, other treaties, or customary international law; perhaps violative of their own domestic law. This puts the interrogators and the chain of command at risk of criminal accusations abroad, either in foreign domestic courts or international fora, to include the ICC.

I remind my colleagues, these are the memoranda that were sent to comment on the Secretary of Defense guidelines for interrogations of prisoners, which were overruled. And then, a couple months later, they were rescinded.

So in all due respect, my friend from Virginia has a degree of confidence in the Secretary of Defense which, frankly, is not validated by what took place and many argue is one of the reasons why we had Abu Ghraib.

So I thank my colleague and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thought my colleague wanted me to wait on the additional amendment.

But I will be glad to proceed. Why don't we let the Senator from South Carolina talk, and then maybe, if it is all right, I will offer the other amendment.

I am glad to yield.

Mr. President, I have amendment No. 1556 at the desk. I ask unanimous consent for its modification.

Mr. President, is it the desire that I call up 1556 at this time?

It is modified.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment No. 1556 be considered at this time.

Could I ask, maybe we could take a maximum of 5 minutes, 3 or 4 minutes on this amendment, for which I had unanimous consent, and then go back to allow the Senator from Alabama to speak.

I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to propose this amendment, the Senator from Alabama be allowed to speak for 10 minutes, the amendment be set aside, and the Senator from South Carolina be allowed to propose his amendment.

As modified.

Mr. President, with all due respect to the chairman, I don't think that is going to quite work because the Senator from Alabama needs 10 minutes. And if you are using your 9 and I only have 2, that doesn't get it done. I ask unanimous consent that I have 3 minutes to discuss my amendment.

That is an additional 3 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that following that, the Senator from Alabama be recognized for 10 minutes in addition to the unanimous consent agreement, and then the Senator from South Carolina be allowed to propose his amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment and the previous amendment, No. 1557.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Warner, Senator Lindsey Graham, and Senator Collins be added as cosponsors. I believe we are still scheduled for a vote at 5:30.

Mr. President, this amendment would prohibit cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of persons in the detention of the U.S. Government. The amendment doesn't sound like anything new. That is because it isn't. The prohibition has been a longstanding principle in both law and policy in the United States. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted in 1948 states simply that: No one shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the U.S. is a signatory, is the same. The Binding Convention Against Torture, negotiated by the Reagan administration, ratified by the Senate, prohibits cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. On last year's DOD authorization bill, the Senate passed a bipartisan amendment reaffirming that no detainee in U.S. custody can be subject to torture or cruel treatment as the U.S. has long defined these terms. All of this seems to be common sense and in accordance with longstanding American values.

I will be glad to explain that amendment more if anyone wants. In the meantime, I know the Senator from Alabama is waiting.

I yield back the remainder of my time on this amendment. I ask unanimous consent we return at this time to amendment No. 1557, according to the previous unanimous consent agreement.