Support our Scouts Act of 2005

Yes.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman.

Mr. President, let me begin by commending Chairman Warner and Senator Levin for the way they have brought this bill to the floor. It is a collaborative effort, a collegial effort which has brought to the floor a very good bill, which we hope can be improved by the amendment process. But we begin, I think, in a position of great strength and great unified support for our military forces across the globe, these young and women who make us so proud and do so much to protect our country.

I would like to step back for a moment and try to have an assessment in the context of our deliberations today with respect to the Defense authorization bill. It has been 28 months since the war in Iraq began. It has been 26 months since President Bush declared ``mission accomplished'' onboard the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln. And it has been almost 13 months since the sovereignty of Iraq was handed over from the Coalition Provisional Authority to the people of Iraq.

It is time, I think, for an assessment. It is time for an assessment in the context of our deliberations today with respect to this very important legislation governing the conduct of our military forces around the globe.

In October 2002, I was one of 23 Members of this body who voted against the congressional authorization to use force against Iraq. Regardless of how we voted that day, on this day we are united in support of our forces in the field. We have to give them what they need to do the job they were called upon to perform.

Back in October 2002, I was not convinced there were weapons of mass destruction that could be used effectively by the Iraqis. I was also concerned that our stay in Iraq would not be tranquil, that we would not be greeted as liberators, but we would literally be sucked into a swirling vortex of ethnic and sectarian rivalries, of ancient feuds, of economic problems, of infrastructure problems, which I think should have provided us a more cautionary view of our preemptive attack.

Again, despite our forebodings then, our mission now is to be sure we provide the resources necessary for our soldiers and sailors and marines and airmen and airwomen to carry the day for us.

What we have seen since that day, in my view, has been a series of mistakes and errors by the administration in carrying out their policies, and also an inability to recognize some of these mistake and to take effective corrective action. I think this inability to recognize what has gone wrong--to admit it and to correct it--still acts to interfere with the successful implementation of our objectives in Iraq.

One of the most glaring and most obvious aspects of our runup to the war in Iraq is the fact that the American people were told one thing and in reality it turned out to be something quite different. The administration argued that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the Nation, which we all know today is simply not true, and some of us then believed was not true.

In his State of the Union to the American people in January 2003, the President talked about Saddam Hussein seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Those assertions proved unsubstantiated. In his address to the U.N. Security Council, Secretary of State Powell claimed Iraq had seven mobile biological agent factories. That, too, proved to be inaccurate.

In a February 2003 statement, President Bush stated:

Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met

at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent

bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al

Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and

biological weapons training.

Again, these assertions have not been substantiated in the intervening days. Many leaders in the administration stated that Iraq attempted to buy high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. These assertions also proved to be without major substantiation.

Based on these statements by our Nation's leaders, the majority of the Congress and the American people supported our operations in Iraq in October 2002. But it was not long until these misstatements became clearer to the American public.

The CIA sent two memos to the White House 3 months before the State of the Union Address expressing doubts about Iraq's attempt to buy yellowcake from Niger.

In 2002, the CIA produced a report that found inconclusive evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qaida and was convinced that Saddam Hussein never provided chemical or biological weapons to terrorist networks.

Experts at the Department of Energy long disputed the assertion that the aluminum tubes were suitable for nuclear weapons production.

The administration's use and misuse of prewar intelligence has caused an upheaval in the intelligence community and made Congress, the American people, and the world community skeptical of actions with Iraq and other countries of concern.

I believe this mistake will take years to overcome. What it has done, I think, is provide a sense of skepticism in the American public about the justifications for our operations in Iraq. This skepticism has slowly been eating away, as reflected in the polls, the view of the American public as to the usefulness of our operations in Iraq. Once again, what is heartening is the fact that this skepticism has not translated into anything other than unconditional support for our American soldiers and military personnel. That is critical to what they do and critical to what we should be encouraging here.

We are now engaged in this war. People are skeptical and critical of the premises advanced by the administration. But we must, in fact, stay until the job is done, until a satisfactory outcome is achieved.

The military phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom was brilliantly executed and a great success. It shows the extraordinary preponderance of military power we can wield in a conventional conflict where we are sending task forces of tanks and mechanized infantry against other conventional military forces.

Perhaps, however, the most important part of the operation was not defeating the enemy in the field but winning the peace in Iraq. That larger task has not gone as well as we all had hoped. One reason is because we did not plan for operations after our conventional success. According to an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer, when a lieutenant colonel briefed war planners and intelligence officials in March 2003 on the administration's plans for Iraq, the slide for the rebuilding operation, or phase 4-C, as the military denotes it, read ``To Be Provided.'' We went in with a plan to defeat the military force in Iraq but no plan to occupy and reconstruct the country.

What makes this lack of a plan worse is that the experts knew and told the Pentagon what to expect. The same Philadelphia Inquirer article states there was a ``foot high stack of material'' discussing the probability of stiff resistance in Iraq. A former senior intelligence official said:

It was disseminated. And ignored.

There was ample planning done but not used. We have had, as all military forces, contingency plans dating back many years for possible operations in Iraq, including occupation operations. They were ignored. There was a feeling--an erroneous feeling--we would be greeted as liberators, that it would be basically a parade, rather than the struggle we have seen today.

The results are clear as to this lack of planning. The insurgency today is robust, and it continues to inflict damage not only against American military personnel but also against Iraqis who are struggling to develop a democratic country.

In May there were about 700 attacks against American forces using IEDs, the highest number since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The surge in attacks has coincided with the appearance of significant advancement in bomb design. This is not only a robust insurgency, it is a very adaptable insurgency. They are learning as they fight, and that makes them a formidable foe.

Improvised explosive devices now account for about 70 percent of American casualties in Iraq. Recent U.S. intelligence estimates put the insurgents'

strength at somewhere between 12,000 and 20,000. I would note that in May 2003, insurgent strength was estimated to be about 3,000 persons. So this is not the last gasp of the insurgency. This is an insurgency that has momentum, has personnel, and increasingly has technical sophistication.

As of today, July 21, 1,771 American soldiers have been killed, and 13,189 have been wounded. I say American soldiers. I will use that as a shorthand for valiant marines, Navy personnel, Air Force personnel, because every service has suffered in Iraq.

One of the reasons the insurgency may be stronger is because most of the 300-mile border with Syria remains unguarded because of a lack of sufficient troops, allowing insurgents and foreign fighters to freely move back and forth between the countries. This insurgency is also allowed to move freely within the country because there are insufficient troops to break insurgent strongholds.

We have seen operations, very successful operations, such as the tremendously valiant and skillful operations of marines reducing the number of insurgents in Fallujah. But then at the end of the day, or days later, Marine forces withdraw or pull back, and Fallujah again is a source of at least incipient resistance to the central Government of Iraq.

In addition, these insurgents continue to have ample ammunition because it is estimated that even today approximately 25 percent of the hundreds of munitions dumps have not yet been fully secured. I was amazed, in my first trip to Iraq--one of five I have taken--to be up in the area of operations of the 4th Infantry Division with General Odierno, and also at the time with General Petraeus, then the commander of the 101st, when they pointed out there were hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of ammunition dumps unsecured by any military personnel, international, American, or Iraqi.

If you want to know where all this ammunition and explosives are coming from, well, it was there. It was stolen. It was diverted. It was hidden away. And now it is being used against our soldiers.

To me, that is a glaring example of why we should have had more troops on the ground at the beginning and, indeed, more troops on the ground today. But that was not done.

Perhaps the most well-known consequence of undermanning is the abuses at Abu Ghraib. It was a prison out of control, and one primary reason was the lack of U.S. military personnel. In 3 weeks, the population of this prison rose from 700 prisoners to 7,000. Yet the number of Army personnel guarding these prisoners remained at 90 personnel.

As former CPA Administrator Paul Bremer stated in October 5, 2004:

The single most important change, the one thing that would

have improved the situation, would have been having more

troops in Iraq at the beginning of the war and throughout.

Subsequently, he might have modified or somehow explained this comment, but I think that is an accurate assessment. On October 5, 2004, that was his assessment. Today, months after President Bush declared the end of major combat operations and predicted that troop levels would be at 105,000, over 138,000 troops are still stationed in Iraq and are likely to be there for some time. I would argue that that, in fact, is not sufficient force. When we cannot secure the borders, when we cannot secure ammunition dumps, when we cannot do many things that are central to stability in Iraq, then we need more forces on the ground.

One of the more frustrating aspects of the administration's unwillingness to adjust troop levels was that Congress was ready and willing to help. You can't have additional forces on the ground in Iraq unless you have additional forces in the Army and the Marine Corps, our land forces. Senator Hagel and I first raised concerns about this issue in October 2003. We offered an amendment to the fiscal year 2004 emergency supplemental to raise the end strength of the Active-duty Army by 10,000. The amendment was passed by this body, but it was dropped in conference, primarily because of the opposition of the administration. Then again in 2004, Senator Hagel and I offered an amendment to the fiscal year 2005 Defense authorization bill which was passed by concerned Senators by a vote of 94 to 3. This amendment raised Army end strength by 20,000 personnel and the Marines' end strength by 3,000.

However, the President's budget request this year did not acknowledge these end-strength increases. We will therefore try again. The bill which we are presently considering authorizes an end strength of 522,400 personnel for the active Army, 40,000 more than the President requested, and 178,000 active personnel for the Marines, 3,000 more than requested. I hope, in fact, we might be able to augment even these end-strength numbers.

In addition, I hope we can finally pay for these increased regular soldiers not through supplemental appropriations but in the regular budget itself. We are deluding ourselves to think that we can live for the 5 or 10 years we will have a significant engagement in Iraq--and that is roughly along the lines of even admissions by the Department of Defense--unless we are prepared to have not a temporary fix to the end strength but a permanent fix, paid for through the budget and not through supplementals.

One other aspect, in addition to the notion of end strength and the number of personnel on active duty, is how do we recruit and retain these soldiers to maintain overall end strength. This issue is of acute concern because unless we are able to attract new soldiers and Marines and unless we are able to retain the seasoned veterans, we will no longer have the kind of force we need.

When Senator Hagel and I first offered our amendment in October 2003 to increase end strength, there was a headline which said quite a bit. Its words were, ``Another Banner Military Recruiting and Retention Year.'' Back in 2003, we could attract soldiers, Marines to the service, much more so than today. That was the time period to act. Not only was the need obvious, but the means to obtain objective, willing recruits were also much more evident.

Since the administration has refused to raise the numbers of troops overall--and the number of troops in particular in Iraq--the Army has been worn down by repeated deployments and a persistent insurgency. Now, ironically, even if we raise end-strength numbers, it is going to be very difficult for the Army to recruit these new soldiers. The Army missed its February through March 2005 recruiting goals. In June, the Army recruited 6,157 soldiers, 507 over their goal. However, the June 2005 goal was 1,000 fewer soldiers than the preceding year. One might think that the goalposts were moved.

As of June 30, the Army recruited 47,121 new soldiers in the year 2005, but that is just 86 percent of its goal. General Schoomaker, Chief of Staff, said the Army will be hard pressed to reach its goal of 80,000 Active-Duty recruits by the end of the fiscal year in September.

Despite the improvement in June, the Army has only 3 months left to recruit soldiers; that is, it will have to recruit on an average of 11,000 soldiers a month, which is a target way beyond the expectation of anyone. The June numbers were also not anywhere near the 8,086 recruits the Army brought in during January. This recruiting problem is persistent, and it is causing extreme difficulty.

These are Active-Duty recruits. The Army National Guard also has its challenges in recruiting. The Army National Guard is the cornerstone of U.S. forces in Iraq. I am extraordinarily proud of my Rhode Island Guard men and women. They have served with great distinction. During the first days of the war, the 115th and the 119th military police companies and the 118th military police battalion were in the thick of the fight in Fallujah and Baghdad. Since that time, we have had our field artillery unit, the 103rd field artillery unit, deployed. We have had a reconnaissance unit, the 173rd, deployed. The 126th aviation battalion, the Blackhawk battalion, has been deployed. They have done a magnificent job. The Army National Guard, however, is also seeing the effects of this operation and the strains are showing.

The Guard missed its recruiting goal for at least the ninth straight month in June. They are nearly 19,000 soldiers below authorized strength. The Army Guard was seeking 5,032 new soldiers in June, but signed up roughly 4,300. It is more than 10,000 soldiers behind its

year-to-date goal of almost 45,000 recruits, and it has missed its recruiting target during at least 17 of the last 18 months. Lieutenant General Blum, Chief of the National Guard Bureau, said it is unlikely that the Guard will achieve its recruiting goal for fiscal year 2005, which ends September 30.

Today our Army is one Army. It is not an active force with reservists in the background. A significant percentage of the forces today in Iraq are National Guard men and women. We cannot continue to operate our Army, not only to respond to Iraq but to other contingencies, if we do not have a fully staffed National Guard and Reserves.

Looking at the Army Reserve, the story is the same. So far this year, the Army Reserve has only been able to recruit 11,891 soldiers. Their target is roughly 16,000. At this point, they are about 26 percent short of their goal.

One Army recruiting official noted that since March, the Army has canceled 15 basic training classes for the infantry at Fort Benning because it did not have the soldiers, 220 to 230 of them for each those classes. Now they will begin processing smaller classes of about 180 to 190.

Complementing the recruiting effort, of course, is the retention effort. Retention is a ``good news'' story. Retention rates are high. But they won't address certain key personnel vacancies which are being discovered within the military.

From October 1 to June 30, the Army reenlisted about 53,000 soldiers, 6 percent ahead of its goal. At that pace, the Army would finish this fiscal year with 3,800 troops ahead of the targeted 64,000. However, that still is a 12,000-troop shortfall when you look at the recruiting and retention numbers together.

One method the Army is using to maintain retention levels is the so- called stop-loss procedure, where someone who might be able to leave the service at the end of enlistment, if their unit is notified to go to Iraq, they cannot leave during that notification period and during that deployment period. That adds to retention a bit, but it is not something that, over time, year in and year out, can be sustained.

So we have a situation now where our Army is deeply stressed, and this stress is demonstrated very clearly in recruitment, very clearly in making end-strength numbers which we are trying to increase.

The Army is also trying to deal with this issue of recruitment and retention by looking at their standards. One of the dangers--and it hasn't become manifest yet but it certainly has been in previous conflicts--is that there is a huge effort or tension, if you will, to reduce standards in order to get people to come in. I don't think that has happened yet, but that is looming over the horizon. I think we have to be conscious in this body to look carefully at the numbers, not just in terms of how many soldiers enlisted but also that we are continuing to maintain adequate quality within the forces. I think we are, but I am afraid that continued pressure on the forces will force military personnel to begin to look at ways they can attract forces by weakening the criteria.

We are in a situation where we have to be very conscious of the stress that is on the Army, and we also have to do more to support the Army, particularly in recruiting and retaining. The Congressional Research Service has determined that approximately 50 new incentives have been signed into law since the United States invaded Iraq. These are positive tools to enhance recruitment and retention. But while these incentives are needed, we must acknowledge the cost the Government is paying is a significant sum. We must pay that sum, but we must recognize that this is an expensive proposition of recruiting volunteers in a time of war.

The other aspect that we should be concerned about is the fact that we have seen a situation in Iraq where now we are discovering shortages of key personnel, complaints that the soldiers in the field, the units in the field, were not fully resourced, had inadequate training, again, most demonstrably the Abu Ghraib situation where the lack of resources and training were singled out. What we have found though is that, going back, no one seemed to be complaining--at least to us--about these lack of resources.

One fear I have is that there essentially has been a chilling effect by Secretary Rumsfeld with respect to advice flowing from the field into the Pentagon and to him. The most notorious example of this might be the treatment of General Shinseki, as we all recall. He was asked-- he did not volunteer--about the size of the force needed in Iraq. And he said something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers. He was immediately castigated by the Secretary, who said his estimate was far from the mark. Secretary Wolfowitz called the estimate outlandish, and then, in his few remaining days in the Army, General Shinseki felt shunned by the civilian leadership of the Pentagon. In fact, General Shinseki's observation was more accurate than any of the plans being advanced by the Secretary of Defense.

This aspect of criticizing professional officers who come forward publicly at our request and give their professional opinion does not create the kind of environment that is conducive to bringing forward advice and to recognizing problems and to providing the kind of leadership which is necessary.

It wasn't just limited to General Shinseki. The former Secretary of the Army, Secretary Thomas White, defended the Army on several occasions, disagreed with the Secretary. He was, for all intents and purposes, cashiered. That sends a bad signal, and it has a chilling effect. We are living with that chilling effect today, unfortunately.

Then again, as I mentioned, as we look at Abu Ghraib, that is one of most serious issues we face here, this lack of resources, the lack of training. All of that was not apparently diagnosed and reported in adequate ways so it could be corrected in a timely way. We have seen how this incident has caused tremendous implications in the Islamic world. It has questioned our conduct. It has set us up for criticism, and it has been--in terms I used with Secretary Rumsfeld when he appeared before us--a disaster for us. Still, I don't think we have fully accounted for what happened. I don't think we adequately understand how techniques that were developed for use at Guantanamo, which was deemed by the President to be not under the legal control of the Geneva Convention, how those techniques might relate to Iraq which, according to the President, was fully subject to the Geneva Conventions. How did those techniques move from one area to another area? It wasn't simply five or six individual soldiers; it was something more than that. We have had several snapshots. We have had 12 reports, but they have looked at various pieces. I don't think we have a comprehensive view of what happened.

More importantly, I think we have yet to be able to step back and determine, in a careful and thoughtful way, what the rule should be. As I talk to senior officers, one of their demands is: Give us clear rules. Give us the policy. And that policy has to be produced not in the secretive corridors of the Pentagon but here--and perhaps not here, directly in the Congress, but through a commission that we can adopt that will look at what happened, put all the pieces together and then recommend what changes we must make so that we can conduct this war on terror without sacrificing our principle dedication to international laws and also without putting our troops in danger. Because unfortunately what we do, even if it is the aberrant acts of a few soldiers, could easily be emulated by others when our soldiers fall into their hands. That would be terrible.

Now, there is another aspect of the problem. We can win a military victory in Iraq, but unless we restore the country economically and help them develop a viable political process, we will not succeed. The reconstruction activities to date have been sadly lacking and lagging. We have approximately $18.1 billion committed to the effort, but these dollars have not been spent well or wisely. Most of the money is going to what they call ``security premiums'' because of the instability in Iraq.

My colleagues, including Senator Lautenberg, were talking about some of the aspects of what appears to be excessive billing by our contractors. And, of course, more and more attention is being paid to the issue of corruption and bribery within the context of the Iraqi economy. All of this suggests that we have a long way to go before we can demonstrate to the Iraqi people those palpable benefits which I believe

can help them and force their allegiance to their government more quickly.

One of the areas of concern is oil production. There were those in Washington, before the invasion, who said that within a few months we will be pumping oil and it will be a profit center, it will pay for the whole war, and we don't have to worry about anything. We are not nearly paying for this war with the proceeds of Iraqi oil production.

The goal was to export a certain number, and we are falling short of that number of barrels per day. Iraqi oil revenue will be $5 billion to $6 billion short this year. That revenue pays for many things-- subsidies for petroleum in Iraq, food, civil service, and it pays for infrastructure. Who is going to make up that shortfall? If we leave in a situation when the Iraqis cannot generate enough money to pay their own budget, what is going to happen to that country?

So we have huge economic problems. Another manifestation of the economic problems of the Iraqi Government is electricity. It is the key to stability. There are places in Baghdad today that are enjoying fewer hours of electricity than they did under Saddam Hussein. As a result, there are brownouts and blackouts. It is a direct reminder to the people that things are not going so well. We need to get that situation in order.

Now, as General Abizaid pointed out:

Military forces, at the end of the day, only provide the

shield behind which politics takes place.

Providing politics that are open, transparent, and

legitimate, we have been trying to do that.

There has been established a process to draft a constitution. We hope by August 15, 2005, a draft is presented to the nation and can be voted on by October 15. If the constitution is approved, a permanent government can be elected by December 15 and take office by December 31, the end of this year. But it is a very difficult process. If you look at the headlines today, Sunni members of the parliamentary commission are at least temporarily boycotting it because of fears for their safety. There are suggestions that some provisions of the constitution would be difficult for us to support--they are heavily allied with Islamic law, or they don't provide for a robust secular sector in Iraq.

For all these reasons, we still have a long way to go in the political process and the economic process that will provide us the final means to leave the country, to take out significant military forces.

There is one other aspect of the political process and of the economic process, and that is the role not of our military forces but of our State Department personnel. One of the things that struck me when I was in Iraq last Easter was the comment by soldiers in the field that they needed more State Department support, not in Baghdad but in the field--Fallujah, Mosul, and those towns--to carry out the reconstruction, provide political advice, and be the confidants and advisers of Iraqi civilian officials. The sad story is that we don't have enough State Department personnel outside of Baghdad to do these jobs.

In Baghdad, the State Department authorized 899 positions but has only filled 665. The State Department has then authorized 169 for the rest of the country--in fact, I suggested that the level should be higher--but only 105 of those have been filled. Iraq is short about 298 needed State Department personnel. These are the people who are doing what is so critical at this juncture--providing political mentoring, providing technical assistance, providing those resources that complement military operations. Without them, military operations would not ultimately be successful.

There are several reasons for this situation with the State Department. First, the tour for State Department personnel in Iraq is not 3 years, but 6 months or a year, so State is running through people at a very rapid rate.

There is a general shortage of mid-level officers for the State Department worldwide, and those are the officers who would be placed outside Baghdad. They have the experience and expertise to operate independently. The problem is opening up too many new posts. We have situations in which new nations evolved. They have to be supported by State Department personnel.

Secretary Powell did a great job in engaging new personnel to come to the State Department, but these are entry level personnel, and the midlevel, key midlevel personnel are inadequate in terms of numbers, not in terms of skills or talents--certainly not that--but in terms of numbers.

There is another obvious reason. It is very dangerous to be outside the green zone in Iraq. All of these State Department personnel need to be protected, and that is slowing down their ability to deploy into the field.

I understand also there are incentives being considered by the State Department to get more people there. However, unless we have a robust complement of AID officials, State Department experts to help support our military efforts, we will not be able to obtain a satisfactory resolution in Iraq. I hope we can do more to do that.

This is a very perilous time in Iraq. Just this week, a Shi'a leader stated that Iraq was slipping into civil war. If it does, then we will have a terrible burden with our forces deployed in the midst of a civil war. Some others have said there has been an incipient civil war for months now and one of a more major characteristic ready to break out. We do need to respond to these issues.

There is another policy impact with respect to Iraq, and that is the impact on its other worldwide missions, like our ability to maintain our successes in Afghanistan and keep open all options with regards to North Korea and Iran.

The war in Iraq also has tremendous impact on our economy. We are a great power, and that is a function of several components. One is military power, but also economic power. If we are not able to support and afford these efforts over the 5 years, 10 years, or more this global war on terror is going to take place--and all observers see this as a generational struggle, not an episodic one--then we are not going to have the economic staying power.

Frankly, our economy is performing in a fitful fashion. We have a huge fiscal deficit that is draining our ability to fund needed programs--not just military programs but domestic programs also. We have a huge current accounts deficit which, again, will come home one day when those foreigners who are lending us money will ask for the money back with interest. These economic forces will, I think, not support indefinitely the kind of expenditures we need to protect ourselves.

So along with reforming and strengthening our military, we have to reform and strengthen our fiscal policies in the United States. We cannot continue to spend in supplementals billions of dollars a year. We have to recognize that and we have to take steps, and we have to ultimately pay for this war.

It seems to me in this context illogical, if not absurd, to advancing huge additional tax cuts at a time when we are struggling to conduct a war. If that had been our attitude in World War II, we never would have succeeded. We would have been bankrupt before 1945. At that time, we responded, as we have in every major conflict. We asked all Americans to share the sacrifice, not just those in uniform, but those on the homefront, those who can help pay for the war, as well as those who are fighting the war.

Yet today we are advancing two, in my mind, almost contradictory proposals. We are going to stay the course in Iraq, we are going to take a generation, if necessary, to defeat global terror, we are going to do it not only with military resources, but we are going to have to mobilize resources of the world to change the social and political dynamics of countries across the globe, particularly Islamic countries--all that very expensive--but, of course, we are going to cut taxes dramatically. We have to decide in a very significant way whether we can afford this dramatic contradiction. I don't think we can.

We have a great deal to do in the next few days with respect to this legislation. I think it is important to get on with it. I hope not only do we stay the course in Iraq, but we stay the course on this legislation. The majority leader has suggested he is prepared to leave this bill in midcourse to turn to legislation with respect to gun liability immunity. That would, in my

view, be moving from the national interest to one very special self- interest, the self-interest of the gun lobby.

We have soldiers in the field. We have sailors, marines, air men and women who are risking their lives. I think they would like us to finish our job before moving on to something else. I hope we don't move off this bill. Stay the course on this legislation. We will have amendments, debate them, hopefully we will adopt those to improve the bill, and then we will send, I hope, to conference a good piece of legislation of which we can be proud and, more importantly, that can assist our soldiers, sailors, marines, and air men and women in the field.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if I may respond, I appreciate not only the leadership of the chairman, but also his incredible commitment to our military forces. My point is very simple. I think we should finish this bill. We have waited weeks to go on it. But I also point out that if other matters come before the Senate, as Senators we have the full right to use all of the procedures, we have the right to debate. I would hate to be in a situation--and I hope that is not the case--where if we attempt, let's say, next week to engage in extensive and productive debate about a particular issue, we are not reminded that we are holding up the Defense authorization bill; that no one will suggest our ability to debate an issue which, frankly, is on the agenda not through our desires but others', would somehow be interpreted as slowing down our ability to respond to the needs of our soldiers, sailors, marines, air men and women.

I am on record saying I would like to see us finishing this bill without interruption, but if there is an interruption, then this Senate and our colleagues have to have the right to fully debate any measure that comes before the floor, and I don't think we should be--and maybe I am anticipating something that will not evolve--be put in the position of being hurried off the floor because the Defense bill has to come back.

We have the bill before us now. I think we should stick to the bill.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, let me also join Senator Frist in this legislation. I believe it is very significant. I spoke last April on the Senate floor on behalf of this issue, and I am proud to do so again with this amendment.

Sadly, since my previous speech, there has been a recent Federal court ruling against the Pentagon's support for the National Boy Scout Jamboree, which occurs every 4 years and attracts about 40,000 people. It will be taking place on July 25.

In her decision, a Federal judge in Chicago ruled that a statute permitting the military to lend support for the National Scout Jamboree violates the establishment clause of the Constitution.

In short, the judge ruled that Pentagon funding is unconstitutional because the Boy Scouts are a religious organization as it requires Scouts to affirm a belief in God. I will speak more on this later.

However, it is clear to me that for more than 90 years, the Boy Scouts have benefited our youth and helped produce some of the best and brightest leaders in our country. I believe we must reaffirm our support for the vital work they have done and continue to do. Like many of my friends here, I was a Boy Scout many years ago.

As a result of the great work they do, I was pleased to be an original cosponsor of S. 642, the Support Our Scouts Act of 2005, as well as this amendment.

I had at one time considered introducing my own bill on this very important matter. However, I was so pleased with the substance of this bill that I was proud to add my name as a cosponsor, and I again thank Senator Frist for his efforts on this issue.

As you may know, this bill, and now this amendment, address efforts by some groups to prevent Federal agencies from supporting our Scouts. This bill would remove any doubts that Federal agencies can welcome Scouts and the great work they do.

Sadly, as the following excerpt from a July 20, 2005, Wall Street Journal editorial demonstrates, these great organizations have come under attack. The column from this respected publication explains that:

Because the Scouts require members to ``privately exercise

their religious faith as directed by their families and

religious advisors,'' the ACLU petitioned the court to

declare the organization ``theistic'' and ``pervasively

sectarian.'' Judge Blanche Manning didn't go quite that far

last month, but she did rule it an overtly religious

association because it ``excludes atheists and agnostics from

membership.'' She ordered the Army to expel the next Jamboree

from Fort A.P. Hill in 2010, by which time we trust the

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals will have overturned her

decision.

I hope this unfortunate decision is overturned as well.

As Senator Frist has said, this legislation will specifically ensure that the Department of Defense can and will continue to provide the Scouts the type of support it has provided in the past. Moreover, the Scouts would be permitted equal access to public facilities, forums, and programs that are open to a variety of other youth or community organizations.

It is enormously regrettable to me that the Scouts have come under attack from aggressive liberal groups blatantly pushing their own social agendas and become the target of lawsuits by organizations that are more concerned with pushing these liberal agendas than sincerely helping our youth.

Rather than protecting our religious freedoms, these groups are clearly bent on discriminating against any organization that has faith as one of its tenets.

Thus, today, the Federal Government continues to defend the lawsuit aimed at severing traditional ties between the Boy Scouts and the Departments of Defense and Housing and Urban Development.

What is more, Scouts have been excluded by certain State and local governments from utilizing public facilities, forums and programs, which are open to other groups.

It is certainly disappointing and, frankly frustrating that we have reached a point where groups such as the ACLU are far more interested in tearing down great institutions like the Boy Scouts than helping foster character and values in our young men. I am tired of these tactics. It is very disturbing to me that these groups unabashedly attack organizations, regardless of the good they do or the support they have from the vast majority of Americans, simply to further their own subjective social agendas.

I, for one, am saddened that the Boy Scouts of America has been the most recent target of these frivolous lawsuits. I reject any arguments that the Boy Scouts is anything but one of the greatest programs for character development and values-based leadership training in America today.

We should seek to aid, not impede, groups that promote values such as duty to God and country, faith and family, and public service and sacrifice, which are deeply ingrained in the oath of every Scout. To fail to support such values would allow the very fabric of America, which has brought us to this great place in history, to be destroyed.

Today, with more than 3.2 million youth members, and more than 1.2 million adult volunteers, we can certainly say that the Boy Scouts of America has positively impacted the lives of generations of boys, preparing them to be men of great character and values. Remarkably, Boy Scout membership since 1910 totals more than 110 million.

I am proud to report that in Oklahoma we have a total youth participation of nearly 75,000 boys; and in Oklahoma City alone, we have about 7,000 adult volunteers.

These young men have helped serve communities all over our State with programs such as Helping Hands for Heroes, a program where Scouts help military families whose loved ones are serving overseas. These young men have cut grass, cleaned homes, taken out the garbage, and walked dogs. What a great service for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines and their families. Our Boy Scouts have also served as ushers and first-aid responders at the University of Oklahoma football games for more than 50 years.

Notably, Scouts in my State have also shared a long and proud history of cooperation and partnership with military installations in Oklahoma. Furthermore, events, such as the National Jamboree, allow an opportunity to expose large numbers of young Americans to our great military in a time when fewer and fewer receive such exposure. I believe this is a very good thing, and I will fight to see that it continues.

Given all this, I hope my colleagues will join me in defending this organization and others like it. We must not be afraid to support our youth and organizations like the Boy Scouts that support them.

As the Wall Street Journal editorial that I mentioned previously argued:

The values the Scouts embody are vital to the national good

and in need today, more than ever.

I agree and am proud to rise in support today and always for this great cause.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I respond to the distinguished chairman that I do have three amendments that are prepared and I am ready to bring them up and get them into the system. I also have two UC requests. If I could be recognized for that purpose, I would appreciate that.

Mr. President, first, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee for allowing me to offer these amendments. I will stay within a timeframe that will allow other speakers under the UC to be heard. I have three amendments I will be bringing up.

I first ask unanimous consent that Senator Collins be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 1312 and that Senator Kyl be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 1313.

Mr. President, is it necessary to set aside the pending amendment for me to offer my amendment?

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I send an amendment to the desk, No. 1311, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, as a practical and timely step toward addressing problems with China, I am introducing amendment No. 1311. This amendment addresses the review process of foreign acquisitions in the U.S. The review of controversial buys, such as the CNOOC, currently falls to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, CFIUS. I will state this simply: CFIUS has not demonstrated an appropriate conception of U.S. national security. I understand that Representatives Hyde, Hunter and Manzullo expressed similar views in a January letter to Treasury Secretary John Snow, the chairman of CFIUS. Of more than 1,500 cases of foreign investments or acquisitions in the U.S., CFIUS has investigated only 24. And only one resulted in actually stopping the transaction. This lone disapproval, in February 1990, occurred with respect to a transaction that had already taken place--it took President George H.W. Bush to stop the transaction and safeguard our national security.

Another example of CFIUS falling short is with Magnequench International Incorporated. In 1995 Chinese corporations bought GM's Magnequench, a supplier of rare earth metals used in the guidance systems of smart bombs. Over 12 years, the company has been moved piecemeal to mainland China, leaving the U.S. with no domestic supplier of neodymium, a critical component of rare-earth magnets. CFIUS approved this transfer. The United States now buys rare earth metals, which are essential for precision-guided munitions, from one single country--China.

Some experts believe that China's economic policy is a purposeful attempt to undermine the U.S. industrial base and likewise, the defense industrial base. Perhaps it is hard to believe that China's economic manipulation is such a threat to our Nation. In response, I would like to read from the book ``Unrestricted Warfare'', written by two PLA, People's Liberation Army, senior Colonels:

Military threats are already no longer the major factors

affecting national security . . . traditional factors are

increasingly becoming more intertwined with grabbing

resources contending for markets, controlling capital, trade

sanctions and other economic factors.

I have outlined in my earlier speeches how China is a clear threat. I believe it is. But I also believe that this threat can be addressed and allow a healthy, mutual growth for both our countries. The CFIUS process is at the heart of this issue. Chairman of the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Dick D'Amato, stated this morning that the CFIUS process is ``broken.'' This amendment is a step toward fixing the problems, enabling the foreign review to carry out its function and truly protect our national security.

First, it clearly charges the commission with measuring energy and economic security as fundamental aspects of national security.

Second, it brings congressional oversight into the foreign investment review process. After a 10-day review period, an oversight committee chairman can extend the review period to 30 days. Congress then has the option to pass a resolution of disapproval and thus stop an acquisition harmful to our country.

Third, the amendment calls for a report on the security implications of transactions on a monthly basis. There will also be a yearly report to the proper congressional committees that will review the cumulative effect of our sales with China.

The amendment also changes the name of the review mechanism to reflect the national security focus that it should be emphasizing. The new name would be Committee on Foreign Acquisitions Affecting National Security, or CFAANS. Further, the designated chairman of the process would become the Secretary of Defense, also reflecting the security focus that the process should be based on.

The foreign investment review process is vital to providing for U.S. security, particularly in relation to countries such as China. However, it is in need of attention and changes no less drastic than I have suggested here.

We are going to have to do something about the performance of this organization. To do it, we will have to change the structure. I am going to be recommending that the chairman of CFIUS no longer be the Secretary of the Treasury but be the Secretary of Defense, since they deal with very critical national security issues.

Amendment No. 1312

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I send amendment No. 1312 to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

In October of 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 and industrial base and China's military and weapons proliferation. I have read these recommendations. I have given four 1-hour speeches on the floor of the Senate concerning the recommendations. I think it is appropriate that we have those recommendations incorporated into the Defense authorization bill under consideration at this time. My amendment 1312 puts these recommendations into place that I have spoken on before in the Senate Chamber.

As I said, in October of 2000 Congress established the U.S.-China Security Economic Review Commission to act as the bipartisan authority on how our relationship with China affects our economy, industrial base, 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 between 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 this complex situation. However, I fear their reports have gone largely unnoticed.

In the most recent report, dated June 2004, the commission makes this alarming opening statement:

Based on our analysis to date, as documented in detail in

our Report, the Commission believes that a number of the

current trends in U.S.-China relations have negative

implications for our long-term economic and national security

interests, and therefore that U.S. policies in these areas

are in need of urgent attention and course corrections.

As their report and recent news headlines show, China has continued on an alarming course of expansion, in some aspects threatening U.S. national security. I have found the recommendations in the commission's 2004 Report objective, necessary, and urgent, and I am introducing an amendment to express our support for these viable steps. This amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that: China should revaluate 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.''

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.

The U.S. should revitalize engagement in the Asian region, broadening our interaction with organizations like ASEAN. Our lack of influence has been demonstrated by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization recently demanding that we set a pullout deadline in Afghanistan.

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

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

The administration ought to review the effectiveness of the ``One China'' policy in relation to Taiwan to reflect the dynamic nature of the situation.

Various energy agencies should encourage China to develop a strategic oil reserve so as to avoid a disastrous oil crisis if availability should become volatile.

The administration should develop and publish a national strategy to maintain U.S. scientific and technological leadership in regards to China's rapid growth in these fields.

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, 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.

The administration should continue in its pressure on the EU to maintain its arms embargo on China.

Penalties should be placed on foreign contractors who sell sensitive military use technology or weapons systems to China from benefiting from U.S. defense-related research, development and production programs. The administration should also provide a report to Congress on the scope foreign military sales to China.

And finally, we should provide a broad consensus in support of the Commission 2004 Report's recommendations.

The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission have done an outstanding job providing us with a clear picture of a very complex and serious situation. 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. They will continue to manipulate regional and 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. As the China Commission states,

We need to use our substantial leverage to develop an

architecture that will help avoid conflict, attempt to build

cooperative practices and institutions, and advance both

countries' long-term interests. The United States cannot lose

sight of these important goals, and must configure its

policies toward China to help make them materialize . . . If

we falter in the use of our economic and political influence

now to effect positive change in China, we will have

squandered an historic opportunity.

The U.S.-China Commission was created to give us in Congress a clear picture about what is going on--they have done their job. Now let's do ours.

Amendment No. 1313

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

Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. We have talked about some of the problems that have existed with the ICRC, the International Committee on the Red Cross. I would like to make sure people understand we are not talking about the American Red Cross. There have been problems that have come up. My first concern is for the American troops. The ICRC has been around since 1863 and has been there for American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines through two world wars. I thank them for that good work they did. Likewise, I thank all Americans for their military service to America. I did have occasion to be in the Army. That was one of the best things that 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 the drift in focus of the ICRC. In spite of some of the things that have been very good that they have done in the past, there have been some very serious problems. I think they need to be called to the attention of the Senate and be made a part of this bill.

Specifically, the ICRC has engaged in efforts to reinterpret and expand international law so as to afford terrorists and insurgents the same rights and privileges as military personnel of

states party to the Geneva Convention. They have advocated, lobbied for arms control, issues that are not within the organization's mandate, and inaccurately and unfairly accused the United States of not adhering to the Geneva Conventions when the ICRC itself has demonstrated reluctance to ensure that the Geneva Convention protections are afforded U.S. prisoners of war.

Neither the American Red Cross nor any other national Red Cross or Red Crescent Society is consulted by the ICRC or is in any way involved in the ICRC's policy decisions and statements. The Government has remained the ICRC's single largest contributor since its founding in 1990. The Government has provided more than $1.5 billion in funding for the ICRC. Congress should request from the administration and the GAO an examination of how the ICRC spends the U.S. taxpayers' dollars to determine whether the entire annual U.S. contribution to the ICRC headquarters--in other words, the ICRC operations--is advancing American interests.

Additionally, Congress should request that the State, Defense, and Justice Departments jointly certify that the ICRC's operations and performance have been in full accord with its Geneva Conventions mandate. The administration strongly advocates for full transparency of all ICRC documents relating to the organization's core and noncore activities and the administration argues for a change in the ICRC statute so as to allow non-Swiss officials to be a part of the organization and directing bodies of the ICRC.

Indeed, I fear that 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 of war 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.''

The ICRC and the State Department have confirmed that this ICRC official is now transferred from the Iraq assignment in the wake of her comment. Such a comment is obviously damaging to the morale of our American troops and offended the soldiers and airmen present.

The Senate Armed Services Committee has now held 13 hearings on the topic of prisoner treatment.

Sometimes we get bogged down in all the detail and we forget about the overall picture, the big picture. And I'm shocked when I found, only last Tuesday, from the Pentagon's report, that after 3 years and 24,000 interrogations, there were only three acts of violation of the approved interrogation techniques authorized by Field Manual 3452 and DOD guidelines.

The small infractions found were found by our own government, corrected and now reported. In all the cases no further incidents occurred. We have nothing to be ashamed of. What other country attacked as we were would exercise the same degree of self-criticism and restraint.

Most, if not all, of these incidents are at least a year old. I'm very impressed with the way the military, the FBI, and other agencies have conducted themselves. The report shows me that an incredible amount of restraint and discipline was present at Gitmo.

Having heard a lot about the Field Manual 3452, I asked, ``Are the DOD guidelines, as currently published in that manual, appropriate to allow interrogators to get valuable information, intelligence information, while not crossing the line from interrogation to abuse?'' The answer from Gen. Bantz J. Craddock, Commander of U.S. Southern Command was, ``I think, because that manual was written for enemy prisoners of war, we have a translation problem, in that enemy prisoners are to be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions-- that doesn't apply. That's why the recommendation was made and I affirmed it. We need a further look here on this new phenomenon of enemy combatants. It's different, and we're trying to use, I think, a manual that was written for one reason in another environment.''

Lt. Gen. Randall M. Schmidt, the senior investigating officer said, ``Sir, I agree. It's critical that we come to grips with not hanging on a Cold War relic of Field Manual 3452, which addressed an entirely different population. If we are, in fact, going to get intelligence to stay ahead of this type of threat, we need to understand what else we can do and still stay in our lane of humane treatment.''

Brig. Gen. John T. Furlow, the investigating officer, stated, ``Sir, in echoing that, F.M. 3452 was originally written in 1987, further updated and refined in 1992, which is dealing with the Geneva question as well as an ordered battle enemy, not the enemy that we're facing currently. I'm aware that Fort Huachuca's currently in a rewrite of the next 3452, and it's in a draft form right now.''

It is clear that our military has humane treatment placed at the forefront of their concerns.

At the same time I want to ask, ``What other country would freely discuss interrogation techniques used against high-value intelligence detainees during a time of war when suicide bombers are killing our fellow citizens?

Why would we freely explain the limitations placed on our interrogators, when we know that our enemy trains his terrorists in methods to defeat our interrogations?

We're handing them new information on how to train future terrorists. What damage are we doing to our war effort by parading these relatively minor infractions before the press and the world again and again and again while our soldiers risk their lives daily and are given no mercy by the enemy?

Our enemies exploit everything we do and everything we say. Al- Zarqawi, the other day, said to his followers, quote, ``The Americans are living their worst days in Iraq now. Even Members of Congress have announced that the u.S. is losing the war in Iraq.''

Let us stop demoralizing our troops. I say let us support our troops in their continuing humane treatment of the detainees at Gitmo.

While we have done more than enough examining of ourselves, I believe it is fair to pose some questions to others as well.

In this amendment, I am requesting, with my cosponsors, simply a report to the Congress about activities of the ICRC.

In the past 15 years the United States has provided more than $1.5 billion dollars in funding to the ICRC. I would like to ask for some accountability for the use of this money and a modicum of oversight. For example, I think it is fair to ask:

``How is our money being spent?''

``What are the activities of the ICRC to determine the status of American POW's/MIA's unaccounted for since World War II?''

``What are the efforts of the ICRC to assist American POW's held in captivity during the Korean War, Vietnam War, and any subsequent conflicts?''

``Has the ICRC exceeded its mandate, violated established practices or principles, or engaged in advocacy work that exceeds the ICRC's mandate as provided for under the Geneva Conventions?''

Please join with me in supporting this simple, fair request for such a report.

I yield the floor.

I am aware that only one affects the Banking Committee. The national security ramifications of the performance and the functions of CFIUS are far greater than any banking function. I would be happy to deal with the chairman of the Banking Committee and talk about the proper jurisdiction.

That is my judgment.

Yes, that is a fair request.

Mr. President, I see the distinguished majority leader. My understanding is he wishes to lay down an amendment, for which I am grateful. We would be happy to lay aside the pending amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I commend the distinguished majority leader, and I associate myself with his remarks and this report.

I just looked at one thing, and the staff advised me that the terms ``Boy Scouts'' and ``Girl Scouts'' embrace what is known as the Cub Scouts. I want to make sure my understanding is correct that was the intention of our distinguished leader, because a lot of families are very active in those organizations.

Mr. President, I thank our distinguished leader. I, too, have had a very modest career in the Scouts. I was sort of attenuated when I left and joined the Navy in World War II. So I never attained any special recognition. But I must say that the training that was given to me helped me enormously in my early training in the military because first you learned discipline, then you learned regimentation. You learned the concept of sharing with others, the need to work with your fellow Scouts. It is a magnificent organization. I am so glad you have done this.

I also must say I have attended the rally in Virginia to which you referred. I will never forget waiting, as one of the several speakers. I was a most inconsequential speaker because a world-famous baseball player attended. As far as the eye could see, there were clouds of dust. They looked like the Roman legions marching in. Tens of thousands of Scouts assembled at this rally, all carrying their banners, and the parents were all seated under the trees watching this rally. It was a spectacle to behold. It was a marvelous experience.

So again, Mr. President, I encourage other Senators to join our distinguished leader in support of this legislation.

Mr. President, I wish to thank our distinguished colleague from Tennessee. I listened carefully to his remarks. It did evoke memories of this humble Senator when I had a rather inauspicious career in the Boy Scouts. Nevertheless, they did a lot more for me than I did for them.

I remember the jamborees. I can remember very well on our first encampment filling a tick bag full of barn straw which we used for a mattress. I was greatly impressed with that.

Mr. President, in consultation with the majority leader and the distinguished Senator from Michigan, as to the amendment by Senator Frist, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be laid aside and that we return to my amendment No. 1314.

On that matter, it is contemplated now that we will have a vote in relation to the Warner amendment regarding the wheeled motor vehicles, armored, today at 12:30.

I think it is important. Senator Bayh has been very active on this issue.

Amendment No. 1314, as Modified

Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification to my amendment in the nature of a technical modification. I believe it has been examined by the other side. This modification identifies an offset of $445.4 million from the Iraqi Freedom Fund for this amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator DeWine and Senator Collins be added as cosponsors to the amendment.

Mr. President, this amendment was debated yesterday. I see other Senators seeking recognition. From my perspective, the debate has been satisfied, unless there are other Senators.

Has the Chair ruled on the vote at 12:30? I ask unanimous consent that the vote in relation to the Warner amendment No. 1314 regarding wheeled vehicle armor occur today at 12:30 with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote.

I bring to the Senator's attention, we did have that discussion. I didn't, at the time, recognize the imminence of the vote. I see a colleague who does have an amendment in relation to the bill. Therefore, I am hesitant to grant UC to go off the bill. Could I inquire of the Senator from Oklahoma?

Mr. President, are there other colleagues who wish to address the Defense bill? Hopefully, we can accommodate our colleague from Oregon. Let's determine, procedurally, the order in which matters in relation to this bill should be brought up.

I thank the Senator from Maine.

I thank the distinguished Senator from Tennessee. I bring to his attention that that measure has been laid aside. It doesn't preclude his speaking to it, but we will see what we can do.

I ask my colleagues on this side, the Senator from Oregon, do you want 10 minutes or 8 minutes?

I wonder if the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma could proceed, followed by the Senator from Maine, and then prior to the vote, if you desire to do it before 12:30?

I would like to ask my colleague, the Senator from Michigan, to concur in that UC, that following the vote, the Senator from Oregon be recognized for a period of not to exceed 10 minutes, and we will go off the bill for that purpose.

I assure you that you will have 5 minutes in that period of time. If the Senator from Oklahoma could present his amendments, followed by the Senator from Maine, the Senator from Tennessee, and then Senator Kennedy.

Not the pending. In other words, I desire not to go off the bill to accommodate our friend from Oregon. He has now been accommodated. We are looking at a period of roughly 40 minutes to be allocated among three Senators who wish to speak to matters in relation to this bill and reserving at 12:25 that Senator Kennedy be recognized for a period of 5 minutes.

Mr. President, we will do our very best to at least introduce an amendment at that time.

Might I inquire as to the amount of time the distinguished Senator from New Jersey might wish?

Five minutes then.

I have no objection.

Mr. President, the Senator's amendment will be considered on the floor in due time. But I assume that at least two of the amendments involve another committee, the Banking Committee, other than the Armed Services Committee; would I be correct in that?

I thank the Senator. As to the other two amendments, is it his judgment that they are solely within the jurisdiction?

I accept that.

Mr. President, at this time I believe our colleague from Maine has an amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Cantwell and Snowe be added as cosponsors to the amendment of the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. President, I want to make certain the Senator from Virginia is added as a cosponsor to the Frist amendment now pending at the desk.

The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, I believe, under the UC is about to address the Senate.

Mr. President, can we have a clarification?

Mr. President, that is very clear. The Senator from New Jersey seeks up to how much time?

Can we enter into a time agreement equally divided?

Mr. President, I think we will have to enter into that agreement later, but I will work toward that goal.

Is the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey now at the desk?

Mr. President, I ask that the amendment now be laid aside for purposes under the UC agreement so that the Senator from Massachusetts may address the Senate, I believe for 5 minutes.

I will be happy to share my brief time for remarks with my colleague. The Senator has joined our bill and I appreciate him expressing confidence in this amendment of the Senator from Virginia. I commend the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Bayh, and many others who worked in this area of the up- armoring of our military vehicles. But I must take issue with the Senator's observations that in any way the Department of Defense is open to criticism because it has been a constantly evolving requirements issue before the combatant commanders.

When we look at this record in a careful manner, we will see that the Department has responded very quickly to the communication from the combatant commanders to adjust through the military departments, primarily the Department of Army, the procurement of the necessary equipment.

This Senator from Virginia and others are very conscious of the IED problem. I just visited Quantico and looked at their research and development facilities dealing with the IED question. Our committee periodically, at least every 60 to 90 days, has the general in charge of the overall responsibility of IEDs in the Department to brief us on what are his needs and are they fully met financially and in every other way.

I frankly think the record shows that the Department of Defense is doing its very best for a quickly evolving and changing set of facts requiring the addition of up-armored vehicles.

Mr. President, is the amendment the pending business for the purpose of a vote at 12:30?

I believe the vote is in order at this time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Before the Senator from Oregon addresses the Senate, I wish to speak for 2 minutes and thank colleagues for their strong support of this amendment. We do not often get 100 votes. It was not put up here in mind that there would be 100 votes. It is very reassuring to send this strong messages to our Armed Forces and indeed throughout the world that the Senate stands behind those measures which will strengthen our ability to fight terrorism in the world.

At this point in time in the struggle against terrorism, not only with our country but the coalition of nations, the type of weapons being employed, while basic in nature, are lethal in nature, and it requires the modification of our military equipment. This amendment provides the funds to do it.

I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on our side we will at an appropriate time interject our opposition to this amendment. We have just gotten the amendment, and it requires some further study. So until such time as I get some additional material, I will have to defer my statement in opposition.

Mr. President, as I said, in due course I will have further to say. But again it comes down to separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, and given those situations--and I respect my good friend's evaluation of the tragedy associated with people in those lands and the potential for some dollars being funded toward that purpose. But the President has to look at this situation constantly, every day, 365 days a year. Situations change. And for the Congress to lay on a blanket prohibition on Presidential power to exercise his discretion of where and when and how to disrupt the flow of dollars, as pointed out by my colleague from New Jersey, we are very much hesitant to do that. So at the appropriate time I will have further to say about this amendment.

Mr. President, it is always a pleasure to hear my old friend and colleague in the Senate of so many years. At the appropriate time I and others will put forth our case on this issue.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Lautenberg amendment be laid aside and that time be granted to our distinguished colleague and very valued member of the committee, the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed.

Mr. President, will the Senator kindly yield so I can inform the Senate of the desire on behalf of this side of the aisle?

I will wait to propound the unanimous consent request until the other side responds. I am going to ask unanimous consent--but I will wait until we get a response from the other side--that a vote on or in relation to the Frist amendment No. 1342, regarding supporting our Boy Scouts, and others, occur at 2:15 today, with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote; provided further that there be 2 minutes equally divided for debate prior to the vote. So I

say there is the strong likelihood that request will be granted.

I thank the Senator for his courtesy.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his comments. Senator Reed is an esteemed member of the committee.

I assure the Senator, I have been in consultation with our leadership and presumably the Senator's leadership about this bill. We brought it up with the understanding that there may be matters that require the attention of the Senate, at which time we do not do anything but put it aside for a brief period of time and then bring it up again. This is my 27th time I have had the privilege of being engaged in one level or another the managing of the Defense bill. I can recall one time it took us 4\1/2\ weeks to get it through. But it was a leadership decision and the managers of our bill recognize from time to time we have to accede.

I am not here to try and prejudge what legislation may or may not be brought up, but I assure the Senator, I am in total support of the leader making those decisions.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague. If the Senator participated in many of these bills before--for example, tonight, I am not being entirely popular with a number of individuals because I am requesting of the leadership the right to go on into the night with votes, as late as we can possibly go, and then tomorrow morning have more votes and continue tomorrow. After the votes, presumably, if they are scheduled in the morning, it may well be we will continue on the bill with some understanding among Members that the votes we desire, as a consequence of the other work on Friday, will be held on Monday some time.

I assure the Senator from Rhode Island, I am working as hard as I can to get this bill passed. I thank the Senator for his cooperation.

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

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

Mr. President, in concurrence with my distinguished ranking member, I advise the Senate that we will have a vote on amendment No. 1342, regarding supporting the Boy Scouts, occurring at 2:30, with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote; provided further, there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided before the vote.

That is correct.

I am prepared to discuss it.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for raising this question. The distinguished Senator from Michigan discussed it with me earlier. You have read it and you have interpreted it correctly. It is to sustain the level of funding and activities that have been historically provided by the several agencies and departments of the Government heretofore.

I say to my good friend, that is the way the bill reads, and there 60-some cosponsors who, presumably, have addressed that. I brought it to the attention of the staff of the leader a short time ago and indicated this, asking do I have a clear understanding, and the Senator has recited the understanding that I have.

Mr. President, if I may say to my colleagues, in no way does this bind the Appropriations Committee to exercise such discretion as it may so desire in that level of funding. If it was brought to their attention that there was malfeasance or inappropriate expenditures at some point in

any program, they are perfectly within their authority to limit or eliminate the funding altogether.

Mr. President, this issue was raised and the legal counsel drew this up. I must say, you raise a point, but I am sure if there are any improprieties associated with these programs, the appropriators have full authority to curtail or eliminate the funding.

Mr. President, what I suggest in the parliamentary situation is that I withdraw the unanimous-consent request at this time. In the interval, until we raise the question to vote again, the Senator presumably will engage with the leader's office regarding these concerns. So I withdraw the request at this time rather than amend it.

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

Mr. President, the amendment--we call it generically the Boy Scout amendment--offered by the distinguished majority leader is being looked at in the full expectation that it can be resolved and voted on at an appropriate time this afternoon. For the moment, I believe the distinguished Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from New York have an amendment, and I think we should proceed with that debate.

Yes. I thank my colleague. In view of the fact that there is a strong indication by myself and my distinguished ranking member that it be accepted, can we reach a time agreement?

Equally divided between yourself and the Senator from New York? Then I think 10 minutes for Senator Levin--let us assume that we can do it in 30 minutes.

I ask unanimous consent that the time agreement for the amendment offered by the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from New York be 45 minutes, 30 minutes to the proponents, and 15 minutes reserved to the managers.

Mr. President, clarification: Did 7 go to 15? Which is fine. You have 15 minutes, now, total, under your control.

No objection.

Mr. President, I am happy to yield to the Senator from South Carolina for the lineup of speakers.

The distinguished ranking member and myself are prepared to accept this amendment. But I want to talk just a bit about the importance of what these two Senators, primarily the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from New York, have done. This is a very significant piece of legislation. We laid the foundation last year and had some incremental improvement, but this really carries the ball the balance of the field and scores a touchdown in behalf of the men and women in the Armed Forces and Reserve.

As the Senator from South Carolina has pointed out, this is not a free benefit. There is going to be, I say to both of my colleagues, the Senator from New York and the Senator from South Carolina, a reasonable fee.

But if I could bring back a little personal experience, in 1950, I was a member of the Marine Corps Reserve, having come up from the enlisted ranks and gotten my commission. The Korean war sprung on us totally without anticipation. I remember at the time

Truman was in office, and Louie Johnson was basically the Secretary of Defense who disbanded the military. Suddenly we had to do a rapid turnaround, and we had nowhere to go but to call up the Reserves. I was just a young bachelor then. I was happy to go, but when I was in my first training command in the fall of 1950 at Quantico in the first special basic class, why, over half the class was married and had to leave their families and everything and quickly return. Most of us had been in World War II and gotten our commissions.

I simply point out that is another hidden element to this; that is, when you are maintaining voluntarily the status of being in the Select Reserve, you are subject to call at a late hour of the night to pack your bags, leave your family, leave your job, and go. And if you look, there are 1,142,000 members of the total Reserve, and the Select Reserve is only 700,000. I mean, it is a significant number, but it is that group of 700,000 that is subject to call on very short notice. And that is ever present. It sometimes requires a problem with the employer, to maintain that status knowing that valuable employee could leave on less than 30 days' notice and the employer has to seek another to fill the post, and so forth. So there is much to be said about staying in.

I recall when I got back from Korea, I was finished my obligated military service and could have cashiered out, but I stayed in the Reserves another 10 or 11 years, to my recollection--I think it was 12 years. There were certain benefits that were an inducement to stay in and, frankly, I enjoyed it enormously. I don't have a military career of great consequence. I am certainly grateful for the opportunity to serve, and I think this is a marvelous thing.

I would like to be listed as a cosponsor, as my distinguished colleague from Michigan likewise, and we salute the two Senators who pioneered this approach.

In the beginning we had to look at the dollars and the figures and balance it out.

As the Senator said, fight on. And we will be there, and each of these Members will be by our side. I hope Members can walk out of that conference some day with a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment.

I urge adoption of the pending amendment.

I thank our colleagues.

We are open for further amendments. The Boy Scout amendment is being reviewed. The Lautenberg amendment is, likewise, being reviewed on our side. It will take the managers a few moments to advise the Senate as to what the next matter will be.

Therefore, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada has consulted with the managers of the bill and desires to address the Senate in the context of several amendments. We thank the Senator very much for his participation.

Mr. President, we have no objection that I know of to this amendment. It does not purport to limit the jurisdiction of a Federal court in determining what the Constitution means. So we do not have any objection to it.

Mr. President, we very strongly support the Warner amendment. I ask unanimous consent that I be listed as a cosponsor of the Warner amendment.

Mr. President, we understand there will be no second- degree amendments to the Warner amendment now.

I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Kennedy be listed as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, we are checking on Senator Bayh right now.

We appreciate that.

I wonder if we could lock in an additional speaker. I ask unanimous consent that immediately prior to the vote on the Warner amendment at 12:30, Senator Kennedy be recognized for 5 minutes at 12:25.

Mr. President, I am afraid I didn't hear that request. Are the speakers that have been identified speaking on the pending amendment?

I ask unanimous consent that we add to that request that Senator Lautenberg then be recognized to offer an amendment immediately after the speakers who have been identified.

He would just lay down an amendment prior to Senator Kennedy speaking and then he would pick up after the vote.

I wonder if the good Senator will also share the amendment with the chairman and the ranking member in the Banking Committee, both.

Mr. President, let me also commend the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Indiana. They have been stalwarts in terms of urging we address this armor question.

Our service men and women continue to die and suffer grievous wounds in Iraq and Afghanistan, and by far the major casualty producer is the roadside bomb or mine--what the military calls an improvised explosive device or IED. The services are working to counter that threat through a variety of means--better intelligence, innovative tactics, techniques and procedures, the use of jamming devices, and of course, adding armor to Army and Marine Corps HMMWVs and other trucks. On my recent visit to Iraq, met with the Marines in Fallujah and viewed and discussed the various levels of armor protection on their HMMWVs and the new armor package for their heavy truck.

The armor issue is both a good news and a bad news story. The good news is that in just over 2 years, the Army and Marine Corps have gone from only a few hundred armored trucks to nearly 40,000 and 6,000 respectively. Many people have worked night and day to make that happen, and we commend and thank them for doing so. Congress has

consistently provided all the funding requested and, in several instances, has provided funding ahead of any request. In fact, the fiscal year 2005 Defense emergency supplemental added $1.2 billion for various force protection equipment, most notably for uparmored HMMWVs and add-on armor for HMMWVs and other trucks. As of last month, all known requirements for truck armor for Iraq and Afghanistan were funded, and the Army and Marine Corps were on track to complete those requirements for HMMWVs by July and September respectively, and for other trucks by December of next year.

The bad news is that military commanders have been slow to recognize the growing threat to thin-skinned HMMWVs and other trucks in Iraq and Afghanistan and determined requirements for armored trucks slowly and incrementally. For instance, in May of 2004, my staff sent me a memo which said:

The current Central Command requirement for [up-armored

HMMWVs in Iraq and Afghanistan is 4454. This appears to be an

ever-increasing number over the last year, having been

increased from 253 to 1233 to 1407 to 2957 to 3142 to 4149 to

4388, and finally to 4454. We have no confidence that it will

not be increased again in the future.''

That was a prescient statement because over the next year, the requirement for uparmored HMMWVs continued to increase--to 10,079 for the Army and 498 for the Marine Corps. The story was similar for the requirements to armor other Army and Marine Corps trucks. These incremental increases in requirements have led to inefficient acquisition and unnecessary delays in getting armored trucks for our troops.

It has also caused a lot of confusion and some fingerpointing, particularly between the Army and the Marine Corps on the one hand O'Gara Hess, the company which produces the uparmored HMMWV, On the other. A recent New York Times article reported that ``in January, when it [referring to the Army] asked O'Gara to name its price for the design rights for the armor, the company balked and suggested instead that the rights be placed in escrow for the Army to grab should the company ever fail to perform.'' With respect to the Marine Corps' uparmored HMMWV requirement, the same article further reported that, ``asked why the Marine Corps is still waiting for the 498 humvees it ordered last year, O'Gara acknowledged that it told the Marines it was backed up with Army orders, and has only begun filling the Marines' request this month. But the company says the Marine Corps never asked it to rush.''

I questioned the Army Chief of Staff and the Commandant of the Marine Corps on these issues in a hearing on June 30. I asked the Army Chief of Staff for an answer for the record as to whether or not it was true that the Army sought to purchase the design rights so that we could produce the uparmored HMMWVs a lot more quickly and that the company balked. I also asked the Commandant of the Marine Corps for an answer for the record as to whether the Marine Corps ever asked O'Gara to rush its order for uparmored HMMWVs. Just this morning, I received a formal response from the Army on the design rights. The Marine Corps has informally asserted that it did ask the company for accelerated production.

In its defense, Armor Holdings, the parent company of O'Gara Hess, has said that at the time of the Marine Corps' inquiry in September of 2004 relating to potential production of additional uparmored HMMWVs, the company indicated its interest in and its ability to produce those vehicles, and that as soon as the order was actually placed by the Marines in February 2005, it began to work on and has already begun to deliver those vehicles. What is still unclear is whether the Marine Corps ever coordinated a request for accelerated production through the Army's Tank Automotive and Armaments Command which handles all of the contract actions for upamored HMMWVs, and if it did, why the company was not issued a contract to increase the production rate over and above the increase from 450 to 550 a month that the Army requested in December of 2004.

With respect to the technical data package, TDP--the ``design rights'' discussed in the New York Times article--the Army says it requested, for informational purposes only, that O'Gara Hess submit a cost proposal for procurement of the technical data package in order to obtain a price for a TDP complete enough for any firm to manufacture the current uparmored HMMWV. The company has argued that the TDP was developed by Armor Holdings, with its own money, under its own initiative; that a formal request was never made by the Army to purchase that TDP as required under Federal Acquisition Regulations; that the company responded to an informal e-mail inquiry to that effect in January 2005 by offering to place the TDP in escrow and in so doing, allow the Army instant access to the design information if the company ever failed to meet the Army's request. In the company's view, it saw no logic to the inquiry because it had met or exceeded every production requirement and schedule, was ready and willing to produce more, and consequently there was no need for the Army to obtain alternative production sources.

What is not clear is why the Army would request the rights to the TDP for the uparmored HMMWV in January 2005, since already contracted for a the uparmored HMMWVs it planned to procure in fiscal year 2006--the last year that it intends to procure uparmored HMMWVs as it moves to implement its long-term armor strategy of procuring removable armor kits. I am expecting further information from the Army and the Marine Corps soon to clear up these matters.

This illustrates the continued confusion surrounding uparmored HMMWVs that has frustrated so many of us in Congress.

Given this background, and in light of the uncertainty as to whether requirements would continue to increase, the Senate Armed Services Committee, in the markup of the fiscal year 2006 authorization bill, added $120 million for the Army to continue to procure uparmored HMMWVs or add-on armor for HMMWVs and other trucks, even though the known requirements for Iraq and Afghanistan had been met with fiscal year 2005 emergency supplemental funding.

Now, however, it appears that the requirements have once again changed. Central Command is currently considering a request from the Southern European Task Force commander for additional uparmored HMMWVs for Afghanistan. And the Marine Corps has decided to upgrade and ``pure-fleet'' all 2,814 Marine Corps HMMWVs in the CENTCOM area of operations to the uparmored HMMWV configuration. Based on current, on- hand quantities, the Marine Corps could be short 1,826 uparmored HMMWVs.

To compound the potential problem, the Army plans to end all production of the uparmored HMMWV as it ramps up the production of a new HMMWV model with a heavier chassis that is ready to accept an integrated, bolt-on/off armor kit. However, the fiscal year 2006 President's budget only funds 90 of these vehicles with the armor kit. This would not appear to be a prudent approach, given the history to date of ever increasing requirements for truck armor.

The pending amendment would do two things: it would add $340 million to fund the 1,826 shortfall in the newest Marine Corps requirement for uparmored HMMWVs, and it would add $225 million to the Army for truck armor, an increase from the $120 million currently in the authorization bill. That is enough for the Army to procure the add-on armor kits for the 4,037 M1152 HMMWVs that will currently be fielded without armor in fiscal year 2006. With this funding and these additional armor kits, by the end fiscal year 2006 the Army will have fielded 16,768 HMMWVs with the highest--Level 1--armor protection.

I whole-heartedly support this amendment and urge my colleagues to do likewise. I also urge the Department of Defense to thoroughly review Army and Marine Corps long-term truck armor strategies and ensure that all requirements are identified in a timely manner, and that sufficient funding is requested in a timely manner so that we can ensure our troops get the equipment they need and deserve as quickly as possible.

Mr. President, to reiterate, lack of armor for our troops has been truly one of the most discouraging elements of the Iraq war. Partly it is because of what the Senator from Virginia said.

There has been a change in requirements along the way. Partly it has been administrative failures along the way inside the Department.

Listen to a New York Times article that has a conflict between the Army and Marines on the one hand and our producer, O'Gara Hess, on the other hand. The New York Times article says:

In January, when the Army asked O'Gara to name its price

for the design rights for the Army, the company balked and

suggested instead that the rights be placed in escrow for the

Army to grab should the company ever fail to perform.

So we have the Army asking the manufacturer how much would it cost to buy the design rights so we could have a second line, so we could have a second source, we are short of armor. And the Army says they never got the answer. The producer says it was never asked formally. In the meantime, men and women are dying in Iraq because of that kind of confusion.

So, yes, the requirements have changed, but there have also been administrative failures as well.

Then the Marines say they asked the company to rush the orders. The company denies it ever got the request to rush the orders.

Yes, the chairman is right, there have been changes in the requirements, the numbers needed, but I am afraid the Senator from Massachusetts is also right, that there have been some true failures and incompetence in the administration of the armor program. The differences in the conflicts that exist between the stories told by the Army and Marines on the one hand and the company that produces the humvees on the other, it seems to me, are evidence of those failures.

I will be happy to yield.

Mr. President, I think the vote is scheduled for 12:30. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 additional minute.

Mr. President, I wholeheartedly support this amendment. I commend our chairman for it and urge our colleagues to support the amendment. In addition to that, I hope the Department of Defense will thoroughly review the Army and Marine Corps long-term truck armor strategies so we can identify requirements in a timely manner, sufficient funding be requested in a timely manner so we can assure our troops that they will get the equipment they need and deserve in time to meet the threat.

I know this Congress, under this chairman's leadership, has over and over again told the Defense Department: We will give you every dollar you need. There are no financial constraints when it comes to supporting our troops.

We have told them that over and over again. It should not be necessary to add this money, but it is. I wholeheartedly support it, and I thank the chairman for his leadership.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bayh of Indiana, who I know is trying to get to the floor to support this amendment because of his leadership in this area, be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I commend our colleague from New Jersey for this amendment. It is ironic--the person who is presiding at this moment will understand this reference--that when it comes to Cuba, the sanctions not only apply to companies that would deal with Cuba under our law but also apply to their subsidiaries. And yet when it comes to the subsidiaries of companies that are dealing with terrorism, which have sanctions against them for different reasons, we don't cover the subsidiaries. So with Cuba, the subsidiaries are covered when it comes to sanctions, but when it comes to dealing with states that are on a terrorist list where the President of the United States decides to exercise his discretion to impose sanctions against a country and where companies are not thereby allowed to do business with that country, we don't cover the subsidiaries of the corporations, only the corporations themselves.

It is not only a loophole which has been pointed out by my friend from New Jersey, but it is a very inconsistent treatment. What the Senator from New Jersey is saying is let's do the same for the subsidiaries of corporations that deal with terrorist states and terrorist organizations and groups as we cover subsidiaries that deal with Cuba. I thank him for pointing out the loophole. If we are going to be serious about our war on terrorism, we have to be serious about providing sanctions against states that support terrorism. We have to be serious about telling American companies they cannot deal with those states or with those entities, and that we are truly serious. We have to also tell companies when we say you may not deal with terrorist states, you may not do business with terrorist states when the President so determines, that we are also applying this to your subsidiaries as well.

So it is an important amendment. We had a vote on a very similar amendment I believe a year ago or so. It almost passed this body. I think it came within one vote, and I hope that, given what we have seen in the last year, we can only reinforce the point which the Senator from New Jersey made in his amendment previously, that we can pick up the additional votes this time and pass this very important amendment. I commend him on it.

Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I understand that is a delay being requested from 2:15 to 2:30, so that everybody can understand.

Will the Senator from Illinois yield for a question?

I read this the same as the Senator from Illinois. It is not just that there be no possibility ever of any agency reducing any funding that goes to the Boy Scouts, which is the purported purpose of this, but it is any youth organization because it says any form of support for a youth organization. That means any youth organization, including the Boy Scouts. As I read this, it would make it impossible for any youth organization, no matter how bad it was managing its books, no matter what there might be in terms of fraud and abuse--we are talking about every single youth organization that gets funding from the Federal Government, no matter what the reduction in the number of members of that youth organization is, you could not reduce, apparently, a grant from a Federal agency to any youth organization. I think that goes way beyond the stated purpose of this amendment, which is to protect the Boy Scouts, which I agree with and understand and support.

My reference was to any Federal agency, which means any grant agency, not just Appropriations, which the Senator from Illinois referred to, but any Federal agency, which means any agency that makes any grant to any youth organization cannot reduce that grant, no matter what the reason is, next year. That is the way I read this. It is so overly broad, it ought to be modified or stricken or something.

I think all of us want to support the Boy Scouts and their jamboree, using the facilities or the support of the Secretary of Defense and the armed services, as they have done before, but this is way broader than that.

Mr. President, I wonder if we could reach a time agreement on this amendment to give everybody an idea as to time. We are hoping it will be accepted. It is a terrific amendment. I am wondering if the chairman might consider a time limit.

Is Senator Leahy a supporter or opponent of the amendment?

I do not know of any opposition.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation amending the Constitution to permit direct popular elections for the Presidency and Vice Presidency of the United States.

I am mindful of the fact that altering the text of one of our country's most sacred documents requires careful thought, study and debate. But for me the status quo raises too many problems and questions.

The Electoral College is an archaic system. It may have been suitable during the founding years of the Republic. But it is hardly appropriate for the 21st century modern democracy that we have become.

Fundamental fairness dictates that we have a single, nationwide count of popular votes. Hopefully my proposal represents the starting point for how best to structure a system to accomplish that.

My approach is simple: the President is elected through a direct popular vote of the American people. Every American's vote counts the same, whether they live in Florida, Maine, California, or Nebraska. All the complexities of the current electoral college system are swept away. With my legislation the winner of the presidency is the individual who tallies the most votes cast in the election.

For those who believe the Electoral College is a reasonable basis for electing the President, consider the following: would a foreign country today, creating a new democratic election system from scratch, rely on the U.S. Electoral College as a model? Not likely.

Let me begin by offering a few facts and observations about the current system: the Electoral College allows a candidate to lose 39 States in a general election but still win the Presidency; the Electoral College allows a candidate to lose a general election, by 10 million popular votes or more, yet still be elected President; in a recent presidential election a candidate received nearly 20 million popular votes, roughly 19 percent of all votes cast, but that translated into 0 electoral votes; the Electoral College allows an elector to refuse to represent the majority of popular votes cast for a presidential candidate in his State's election--he can arbitrarily switch sides and throw his lot in with an alternative candidate, which has happened nine times since 1820; when a presidential election produces a 269 to 269 tie in electoral votes between candidates, the President is chosen through a ``contingent'' election conducted by the House of Representatives with each state's delegation casting a single vote--which unfairly grants equal status to California, whose population is 35.5 million, and Wyoming, whose population is 500,000; making matters worse, when such a ``contingent election'' occurs, House members are not bound to support the candidate who won the popular vote in the State they collectively represent--they are free to vote as they see fit; the two ``constant'' or ``senatorial'' electors automatically assigned to each State give less populous states a disproportionate advantage in the Electoral College vote count compared to States with more sizable populations; the winner-take-all concept for awarding a State's electoral votes disenfranchises all voters in a State who supported a losing candidate in that State; and finally, the Electoral College undermines national campaigns by causing presidential candidates to focus on a handful of contested States and ignore the concerns of tens of millions of Americans living in other States.

The political and substantive utility of this system, full of pitfalls and loopholes, is very hard to discern. Voter apathy is a function of a system signaling to people that their vote does not count, and the Electoral College manages that in spades.

Now, I don't take this effort on lightly, because we have amended the Constitution a mere twenty-seven times since the founding of the nation. But as a matter of practical necessity, fairness and common sense, we need to consider the inherent inequities involved with the Electoral College.

My hope is that we can treat this in a bipartisan and nonparochial manner that benefits the whole of the country. I appreciate that states and regions are affected differently, California among them, but my motivations derive from improving the American federalist system in a way that eliminates undue consequences.

I have not been solicited by any particular interest group, constituency, or voting bloc to amend the Constitution. At bottom, I believe this is a matter of serious import. Good public policy demands that we give this subject sustained attention and I intend to do that through the Senate hearing process.

There was a time, of course, when the Electoral College adequately represented the voting needs of the country. In the 1780s there were no formal political parties as such, no experience with conducting national campaigns for office, and no lack of mistrust among States large and small about protecting their interests.

The Founding Fathers understood: first, the social, economic and political disconnectedness that existed among the States; second, the federalist system of governance was only beginning to take root; third, the dearth of news and communications networks across the country made national campaigning difficult; and fourth, the likelihood that a local ``favorite son'' or regional candidate would prevail in a national presidential election.

This combination of factors justified an indirect election of the President through a College of Electors.

Inimical reasons existed for going this route as well. Had the Framers of the Constitution adopted the one man, one vote system, Northern States that permitted blacks to vote in popular national elections could have exercised greater influence in electing the President than southern states. And States that independently extended rights of suffrage to women also could have gained an advantage.

The 15th Amendment in 1870 extending voting rights to Black men and many years later women gaining those same rights laid these issues to rest. With the obstacles of racism and sexism now gone as reasons justifying the creation, of the Electoral College, the puzzlement over why we haven't updated the presidential election system only continues.

Regardless, as a means to reconcile the interests of State governments and the Federal government, of northern and southern states, of majority and minority interests groups, and to let all these voices be heard come election time, the Electoral College was considered a just compromise. Its basic form was adopted during the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

Political events occurred soon thereafter, though, prompting passage of the 12th Amendment and the first major changes in the Electoral College system. The presidential election of 1800, between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, ended in a tie of electoral votes, causing the House of Representatives to break the deadlock through a ``contingent election''. A messy political imbroglio ensued. It was only after many rounds of negotiations that Jefferson won the Presidency.

Importantly, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution passed in 1804 to streamline the process of contingent elections. I would observe that passage of the 12th Amendment confirmed that the Electoral College system was, and remains, appropriately subject to change.

Legislators in 1804 did not delay in amending the Constitution for reasons of fairness and practicality, and nor should we in 2004 fail to address the imperfect design that thwarts the will of the American public.

Even with the 12th Amendment in place, the Electoral College managed to turn logic on its head in presidential elections throughout the 19th century. Minority presidents, so-called for winning the electoral vote but losing the popular vote, were elected three times--John Quincy Adams in 1824, Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, and Benjamin Harrison in 1888.

And in 2000 the same problem re-surfaced, the fourth time in our Nation's short history, with Vice President Al Gore edging George Bush by 537,895 popular votes, but losing the electoral college by a mere 5 votes.

The Nation can be thankful, frankly, that we have only had disputed elections in just these four instances. A shift of a few thousand votes from one candidate to another in past presidential elections could have ordained similar disarray. Some noteworthy examples include: despite losing the popular vote by the sizable margin of 1.7 million votes, Gerald Ford in 1976 needed only 5,559 more votes in Ohio and 3,687 in Hawaii to reach the magical number of 270 electoral votes and he would have been returned to the White House.

And had California, Illinois and Ohio posited 29,000 more votes in Thomas Dewey's column, he lost the over popular vote by a wide margin, 2.1 million, in 1948, the face of history may have been changed forever with Harry Truman never returning to the White House.

And most recently, a shift of a mere 68,000 votes in Ohio from President George Bush's column to John Kerry would have allowed the Democrat to

win the electoral vote count, 271 to 267, and the Presidency, even though Bush enjoyed a sizable 3.5 million margin in popular votes cast.

According to some estimates, we have had no fewer than 22 near misses, all of which could have ended up as contentious as the 2000 contest. We are tempting fate by ignoring this problem: sooner or later a dramatic incongruity will occur between an electoral vote winner contrasted against a different popular vote winner whose margin of victory runs into the millions.

Electoral College anomalies don't end with disparities between the electoral and popular vote winners. The phenomenon of the ``Faithless Elector'' reflects a further structural defect in the Electoral College System.

History shows that electors have not been faithful to the presidential and vice presidential tickets winning the most votes in their respective states. They may initially pledge to the winning candidate, but enjoy individual discretion to change their vote when electoral votes are formally counted.

Contemporary examples are as follows: in 1968, Dr. Lloyd Bailey, a North Carolina elector initially pledged to Republican Richard Nixon, switched his vote to George Wallace of the American Independent Party; in 1972, Roger MacBride, a Virginia elector for Richard Nixon switched his vote to John Hospers of the Libertarian Party; in 1976, Mike Padden, a Washington elector for Gerald Ford voted for Ronald Reagan; in 1988, Margarat Leach, a West Virginia elector for Michael Dukakis, voted instead for Lloyd Bentsen, an unusual decision to exchange the positions of the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates; and in 2000, Barbara Lett-Simmons, a District of Columbia elector for Democrat Albert Gore Jr., cast a blank ballot.

These arbitrary decisions did not affect the outcome in each of those presidential election years. But they all flouted the electoral will of the people.

The fact that such capricious switching is permitted, irrespective of the outcomes of the popular vote results in the states in question, is cause for great concern. What might happen if electors break their pledges to a particular candidate en masse? Is that possible and legally enforceable? The answer appears to be yes.

In this vein, it does not require a stretch of the imagination to envision three or more candidates splitting the electoral tally of votes such that none received the requisite majority of 270 to win the White House.

In that situation, what prevents one of the candidates directing his electors to another candidate, before the formal meeting of the Electors to count and certify the electoral votes occurs in the month following the November election, to allow him to gain the necessary majority of 270 in exchange for policy concessions or worse, a massive cash payment? Would that kind of corrupt transaction be allowed? What element of the current Electoral College system prevents such an unfortunate outcome?

This may not be likely, given our strong two party system, but it is possible. Yet we tolerate the risk of it happening, year after year, because we assume it will never occur. Someday we may regret our indecision to fix what we know is wrong with the Electoral College system.

Twenty-five years ago in the 96th Congress, a majority of the Senate voted 51 to 48 to support abolishing the Electoral College and replace it with direct popular elections. That legislation, S.J. Res. 26, fell short of the necessary two-thirds required for a constitutional amendment, but I am encouraged that more than half the body supported the concept.

A few years before that, the House voted overwhelmingly in the 91st Congress, by a vote of 338 to 70, for the direct popular election of the President. Alas, the effort fell short in the Senate.

I am prepared to press the case for this idea, on a bipartisan basis, through extensive committee deliberations and onto the Senate floor. The time has come for the Senate to reconsider the essential building blocks of our democracy.

Some might claim that offering a constitutional amendment is a political gambit to overcome my own State's weak position in the Electoral College voting system. It is a fact that smaller States, such as South Dakota, Wyoming, and others, maintain disproportionate influence in the process compared to California.

I would respond to that as follows: my approach does equate the vote of a Californian, Rhode Islander and South Dakotan as being equal. But it also means that millions of votes cast for Republican candidates in future presidential races in my home state will have meaning and value. Their votes will count for something.

In the 2000 race, George Bush received over 4.5 million votes in California. That should have counted for something--but it did not. All 54 of California's electoral votes went to Vice President Al Gore.

Given the domination of Democratic presidential candidates in California in the modern era, it is clear that my party would not benefit from a direct popular election in California.

But for me, this is about principle over politics. It is the right thing to do, even if it gives renewed life to Republican presidential candidates in my home State.

As it stands now, California is not a place where Republican and Democratic presidential candidates genuinely compete for votes. They come to California to fill their campaign coffers but take a pass with real voters. That needs to change--for California, yes, but also for New York, Texas, for Utah and for so many other States in the country.

I have tried to understand the counterarguments to a nationwide popular vote. They reflect a desire to empower both regional and rural interests, and deny major population centers from having excessive power. I appreciate the notion that we don't want clusters of cities and particular regions where the greatest numbers of Americans reside, New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, to dominate the electoral landscape.

At the same time, a presidential candidate's priorities, record and vision for the country will determine how far he goes in the nominating and general election process. Stitching together a cross section of American voters, who represent different economic and social backgrounds, professions, parts of the country, religious faiths, and so much more holds the key to attaining a winning plurality or majority of votes in presidential races.

I would contend that it is up to the candidates to appeal to the broadest group of Americans but to level the playing field in doing so. In that process each American's vote, regardless of where that person lives in the country, should be counted equally.

Right now, that is just not the case. Our system is not undemocratic, but it is imperfect, and we have the power to do something about it.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Electoral College Abolition Resolution be printed in the Record.