Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota. He covered such a wide range of issues with such depth and integrity that is really quite extraordinary. We are ready for his amendment. I think he is prepared to proceed with the amendment. We look forward to hearing from him on that matter.

Mr. President, first let me compliment the Senator from North Dakota. He has been absolutely steadfast on this issue. He has made a major contribution on this issue.

If the Senator will stay for a moment, I want to ask him a question about the Truman Committee which he has made reference to. Perhaps I will make a brief statement and then ask him if he concurs with this history.

When then Senator Truman was appointed to head up the special committee to look into the abuses of contracting during World War II, he did an incredible job for a lot of reasons. One, he took on the abuse, the waste, the fraud that existed. He unearthed it. He brought it out in the daylight. He made a major contribution to our troops and to the taxpayers. It was such an important contribution that his temporary ad hoc special committee then became a Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

So that the origin of our Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations which now exists over at the Homeland Security Committee was the special Truman Committee. That is how big an impact that Truman Committee had. And I am wondering whether or not that little bit of history shows us in addition to all of the reasons that were given by the Senator from North Dakota how vitally important these special committees can be, what a contribution they can make to the war effort and to saving taxpayers' dollars.

I again thank the Senator from North Dakota for the amendment and I hope that we can get some bipartisan support for it.

There have been reports on abuses. Reports are no substitute for hearings. When you have hearings following a special committee investigation, you have people who are put under oath, who are in the public spotlight so that we can bring a focus on these whistleblower complaints, and that is what has been missing. We have not had a place where the whistleblowers and the people who defend against their charges are brought together, both put under oath in a public forum so that we can then try to end what seems to be so clearly the abuses which have existed.

One of these contracts is a $10 billion contract-plus, basically. It is for indefinite delivery of goods, and it is for an indefinite amount quantitatively. So you have this contract which exists with Hallliburton or the company that they own which allows them to have the total, complete, unilateral sole-source ability to be given a work order--sometimes the money is agreed upon in advance, sometimes the amount of the contract is not agreed to until afterwards--indefinite delivery for indefinite quantities of indefinite goods.

Now, that kind of a contract just automatically lends itself to abuses, which should not happen here. This is something I spoke about yesterday. There should have been at least two and perhaps three contractors who were put in the exclusive contract to provide goods and services in support of the troops.

This is an open-ended contract of undefined scope which then later on billions of dollars of work orders are then put in place. It just lends itself to excess and to abuse. This is something again which I have spoken on a number of times. You need to have competition--not just for who is going to get an open-ended contract but in the implementation of work orders you need some competition. The only way you are going to get it in this circumstance when we are at war is if you have two or three contractors that are awarded these so-called IDIQ contracts so that when it comes to supplying the goods underneath it, they can compete against each other. It is the only hope that you have for a fair price for an amount of goods that is not known at the beginning but which has to be then supplied during the contract.

What these hearings which Senator Dorgan has spearheaded have shown is this kind of a contract and the potential for abuse that it leads to. It has raised all kinds of questions as to whether Halliburton overcharged the Coalition Provisional Authority for several million dollars for oil that was purchased in Kuwait and delivered to Iraq.

It raised the question of whether Halliburton overcharged the Department of Defense for thousands of meals that were not actually served.

It raised the question of whether Halliburton had the estimating subcontracting and financial management systems needed to run two multi-billion-dollar contracts in Iraq.

It raised the question of why did Halliburton receive a follow-on contract for the reconstruction of the Iraqi oil industry at a time when the DCAA, the Defense Contract Audit Agency, had warned that the company's systems were not up to this challenge.

It raised the question, these hearings that were spearhead by Senator Dorgan, as to whether Halliburton knowingly supplied our troops with spoiled food or unsafe drinking water.

It raised the question as to whether Halliburton intentionally withheld information from the Government to avoid raising questions about the quality of its performance.

There have been only two hearings in our subcommittee. I compliment our chairman. Our committee and our subcommittee every year have to deal with a bill, and this bill is in the Chamber. It takes a huge amount of our time as a practical matter. The two subcommittees that have hearings on this issue which Senator Dorgan raises simply have not been able to put in the kind of time that a special Truman Committee can to focus on this kind of issue. And that is why I very much support the appointment by the Senate of a Truman Committee on Iraq contracting.

When you have this many tens of billions of dollars which are being spent and when you have allegations by whistleblowers, people who are in the know, that we have been unable to get into or have not gotten into for one reason or another, they have not been investigated or overseen by the other committee that might do this, this really needs a focus if we are going to have some credibility in the expenditure of these huge amounts of money in the Iraq war. And this should be done on a bipartisan basis. It would be with a Truman Committee. It needs to be done in a way which is free of any kind of political taint or political slant. But it needs to be done. We have to restore credibility and confidence in this contracting system, and the only way we are going to do that I can see is to have a bipartisan Truman-like committee that spends the time, has the staff focus on it, making recommendations which I think will be similar to the ones that were defeated yesterday but they should not be prejudged. In any event, it could make recommendations to this body, and I would hope we would all welcome those kinds of recommendations.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I have been on that committee as long as I have been here.

That subcommittee has a major agenda and a whole host of areas that the chairman has identified, frequently with my support, and it has a very full plate. This committee, our committee, has something that that committee does not have, and that is we have the knowledge, we have the information because we are the committee that specializes in the work of Halliburton in the field. We are the people who have the experience in terms of what the troops need and how it is provided to the troops. And so our committee also has the ability to handle these hearings. Neither committee has seen fit, either because it has too full a plate already--and I think our committee from firsthand knowledge is in that situation--has a very full plate, and therefore has not been able or for whatever reason has decided not to look at what are clearly excesses which need to be reviewed.

So it is a matter of finding, identifying Senators who have an interest in this matter who would focus on this

matter because of the attention that it deserves.

Now, it could be an outside commission. If the chairman would prefer that there be an outside commission to do this, perhaps Senator Dorgan would be willing to do it. But this requires a major undertaking with an investigative--you have to identify and set out special staff that will do the investigations on this, and then prepare for hearings. If our committee were able to do this, I would be all for it.

There have been requests--I believe from the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee--to get into this. And if the chairman would be willing to sign a letter with me making another request to that chairman to try to find time in either her committee work or in Senator Coleman's committee, I would again be very happy to join in that request.

If we are unable do that on our committee, which we have not been able to do anything that needs to be done here--and I understand the time pressures on the committee because of this annual bill we have; I know what is on the plate over at the Governmental Affairs Committee and on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations--

That is exactly right. I have been there throughout my tenure. I am personally familiar with the work they have undertaken. But if Senator Warner would be willing to sign a request to Senator Collins, I would be delighted to join in that.

That would be fine.

I am on that committee, as you pointed out. I know the workload they have. Just yesterday, they completed a markup on one bill which took 2 days. I don't know of any people who work harder in the Senate than do Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman.

That would be fine.

Reserving the right to object, and I will not, I just wonder if the Senator would identify the Senator who has sponsored the amendment so that they will hear their amendments have now been cleared.

I thank the chairman.

I was hoping the Senator was referring to Iraq, but since he is referring to our bill, I also see that we ought to be able to finish this next week. We will have a good debate on Iraq, I guess probably next Tuesday. Next Monday, I believe we have an amendment lined up.

On your side of the aisle. After Senator Dorgan offered his today, it would then go to your side of the aisle to offer the next amendment, if we want to keep that informal order which has been established.

Then we could perhaps pick up the debate on the Dorgan amendment on Monday after the debate on the judge.

I wouldn't want to speak for the Senator from Massachusetts. I

do believe, though, he is working on an amendment. There will be at least two amendments on this side relative to Iraq.

There is one Senator Jack Reed and I are working on, and I think there is one Senator Kerry is working on. I can't speak for others. There may be a number of amendments on this side.

Mr. President, we believe there are a number of amendments which will need debate. It would be useful for all Senators on either Monday or Tuesday morning, if they could, to let us know what amendments they are planning on offering so we could get an estimate--I know you would agree as the floor manager--as to how many amendments are out there.

I think we might be better off not formalizing it.

Mr. President, a unique type of gun trafficking sting operation was completed recently. Teams of undercover law enforcement officials wearing hidden cameras traveled to Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Virginia to make purchases which were designed to appear to be what are known as ``straw purchases.'' Straw purchases are transactions that violate Federal law in which one individual submits to the required Federal background check for a gun that is clearly intended to be used by someone else. These purchasers play a crucial role in the illegal trafficking of guns by purchasing with the intention of reselling them to prohibited buyers.

In addition, a lawsuit was filed by the city of New York. The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn, asks the court to enforce gun laws regarding such sales and require extra training for and supervision of dealers. The lawsuit also seeks punitive and compensatory damages. According to New York City's Web site, its police have

confiscated more than 500 guns that were sold by the 15 dealers named in the lawsuit and subsequently used in crimes there.

In January 2001, a 12-year-old boy in New York City, playing with a semiautomatic handgun from a pawnshop in Summerville, SC, accidentally shot someone in the chest. The gun involved was one of 49 such guns from the store linked to crimes and accidents in New York City. As New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg pointed out, ``Our suit offers clear and compelling evidence that guns sold by these dealers are used in crimes by people ineligible to own a gun far more frequently than guns from other dealers.''

To build its case, the city of New York compiled a list of gun dealers based on data it received from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Investigators worked in pairs. One looked at the merchandise, talked with the salesman and handled the weapon, while the other wandered the store, seemingly uninterested. When it came time to complete the necessary background check forms, the first operator, often a man, would call over his partner, frequently a woman, who had not been part of the discussion of the weapon. The second investigator would fill out the background paperwork, and the first one would pay for the gun in cash. This procedure was used to clearly illustrate that the second person was making a ``straw purchase'' for the first person.

Gun-control advocates praise the sting operation and the lawsuit. This type of action sends a message to dealers that more government officials are not willing to look the other way. Other cities, including Gary, Indiana, Chicago and Detroit, have taken similar approaches in their own jurisdictions, often using local law enforcement officials. This operation however, marks the first time investigators across the country participated in such a sting involving a number of States.

I would like to commend everyone on both the Federal and local levels who aided in this investigation. This kind of illegal activity can be stopped by vigorously enforcing our existing gun laws, providing law enforcement with more tools to crack down on gun trafficking and corrupt gun dealers, and by passing sensible gun safety legislation.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, it was my understanding that this was either cleared or was going to be supported by the chairman. I did not confirm that with my friend. That is a little bit in limbo. I very much support the Senator's amendment. I hope it can be cleared. If so, apparently the Senator is willing to take a voice vote.

I wonder if I could proceed with my remarks in support of the amendment while they discuss it.

I support the Feingold amendment to ensure that the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction has jurisdiction over funds appropriated for the reconstruction of Iraq.

As the Senator from Wisconsin has mentioned, Congress established the Special Inspector General position in a fiscal year 2004 emergency supplemental appropriations bill to ensure effective oversight and audit of relief and reconstruction efforts in Iraq. The Special Inspector General reports jointly to the Secretaries of Defense and State and has responsibility for oversight of operations and programs funded by the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund. The Senator from Wisconsin last year offered an amendment to extend the position. It was very welcome. It was a very useful and important contribution. I commend him for it. It is unfortunate that the most recent emergency supplemental which we just passed today would appropriate funds for Iraq reconstruction without including those funds in the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund. It is important that this amendment be agreed to so as to ensure that this Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction has jurisdiction over all funds appropriated for the reconstruction of Iraq.

Under current law, this funding approach would have the effect of excluding reconstruction projects using these new funds from the jurisdiction of the Special Inspector General.

The State Department says that its Inspector General would be responsible for auditing the use of these funds. However, the State Department IG, unlike the Special Inspector General, does not have a significant presence in Iraq and does not have experience in auditing contracts and ferreting out fraud in the unique environment of Iraq.

For the last 3 years, the Special Inspector General has been the only source of consistent, independent, on-the ground review of reconstruction activities in Iraq. As a result, the Special Inspector General has reported case after case of criminal fraud and egregious waste that would otherwise have gone unremedied. Report after report documents cases--at al Hillah General Hospital, Babylon Policy Academy, Karbala Library, Baghdad International Airport and elsewhere--in which we paid contractors millions of dollars for work without making site visits, issuing performance reports, preparing post-award assessments, or taking other steps to ensure that the work we paid for was actually performed. In case after case, the Special Inspector General determined that either the contractor's performance was deficient or the work was not performed at all.

One particularly egregious case reviewed by the Special Inspector involved a $75 million contract with Kellogg Brown and Root, KBR, to develop a Pipeline River Crossing at Al Fatah, Iraq. The Special Inspector General reported that the project ailed because subsurface geologic conditions made it impossible to carry out the project design. These conditions were identified by a consultant before work commenced, but neither the Army Corps of Engineers nor KBR acted on the consultant's recommendation to perform additional research that would have prevented the failure.

A subject matter expert for the Coalition Provision Authority recognized that KBR had limited experience in this type of project and advised that the project would probably fail because design restrictions provided no flexibility to accommodate site conditions. However, KBR refused to conduct design reviews requested by the subject matter expert.

The Army Corps of Engineers awarded KBR a firm fixed price contract with no performance requirements. As a result, KBR was assured that it would get paid the full contract amount, regardless whether it successfully completed the project.

A KBR subcontractor identified problems with the site conditions at the outset of the project and suggested alternative drilling sites, but was turned down by KBR. KBR prohibited the subcontractor from talking directly to the Army Corps of Engineers and told the Army Corps that detailed cost reports would not be provided, because they were not required by the contract.

As a result, we spent the entire $75 million allocated to the project, but achieved only 28 percent of the planned pipeline throughput. According to the Inspector General, the lack of pipeline capacity resulted in the loss of more than $1.5 billion in potential oil revenues to the Iraqi government.

The Special Inspector General is the only U.S. audit and investigative authority with a significant on-the-ground presence in Iraq. He is the only inspector general who has an experienced staff with hands-on knowledge of how things work in Iraq. He is the only inspector general who has shown the capacity and the desire to turn over rocks in Iraq to identify and address problems of fraud and criminal conduct.

If we are serious about protecting the taxpayer and preventing contractor abuses in Iraq, we will adopt this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the Feingold amendment.

Mr. President, while that is being worked on--I hope we can resolve that because this is a very important amendment. We want that Special Inspector General, who is really doing the only significant oversight on the expenditure of these billions of dollars in Iraq, to perform the same oversight functions on the appropriations, for instance, which we just adopted.

I again commend the Senator from Wisconsin. It was at his instigation and his initiative that we extended this Special Inspector General's Office last year, and it was that initiative which has paid off so handsomely for us. This initiative is critically important or else we might, I think inadvertently, not have the same watchdog looking over the most recent appropriations we adopted.

I also believe the Special Inspector General actually testified before the Chair's subcommittee earlier this year, so the Presiding Officer has had the ability to hear firsthand from the Special Inspector General about his operations.

By the way, I commend our Presiding Officer for those hearings. They were very helpful.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, is it my understanding that following the disposition of these two amendments that then a Democratic amendment would be the next in order?

With that understanding--and there will be a Senator Nelson of Florida amendment, so you are on notice relative to that--I have no objection.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for this suggestion.

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

Mr. President, I am one who has cosponsored a version of the Iranian sanctions amendment which Senator Santorum offered now over a year ago. I believed then and I believe now that it may well be necessary for sanctions to be imposed on Iran.

However, I cannot support the amendment that has been offered by Senator Santorum for two reasons. One is the fact that it is significantly broader than the other amendment that was introduced by Senator Santorum, the Iran Freedom and Support Act of 2005. In many ways, it is broader and it interjects an unrelated issue with respect to Russian pricing for nuclear reactor fuel. It removes the requirement that a person have actual knowledge of the actions for which he is going to be sanctioned. There is a direction here to a United Nations representative, which was not present in the amendment I cosponsored. It changes the threshold which makes it more difficult for the President to waive sanctions. So there are a number of significant differences between this and an amendment I cosponsored.

The other difference is that, of course, there has been significant change which occurred since that time. Senator Warner has outlined that point. That change is now the decision of the administration--which I support--to engage or participate in direct talks with Iran under specified circumstances. I think that is a policy which should be given a chance to work, and if the policy doesn't succeed and Iran does not work out a negotiation and agreement with all the countries with which there are discussions going on, at that point, it seems to me there is a greater chance we will get those other countries, including Russia, to support sanctions if, in fact, the negotiations and discussions with Iran do not succeed.

So those discussions the President has decided to engage upon are actually a prelude to a much stronger chance to succeed with sanctions down the road because countries that might support us on sanctions, and whose

support would be extremely helpful, would then realize we had gone through the negotiation and discussion route with Iran. I believe that policy is wise. It will strengthen our position in getting sanctions, should that be necessary. Also, it is the best chance of having the solution here, which will avoid greater and greater conflict down the road. While it is with some reluctance that I cannot support a sanction amendment relating to Iran, nonetheless, because this is broader than the one that previously I cosponsored, and mainly because of the ongoing negotiations which will strengthen our position if they do not lead to a good resolution, I cannot support the Santorum amendment. I will support the Biden amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Biden amendment.

Also, I ask unanimous consent, I believe with the agreement of the chairman, that Senator Lautenberg, who has been promised 3 minutes, be given those 3 minutes, and that if Senator Santorum needs a minute or two to respond to Senator Lautenberg, he be given it.

Yes.

Mr. President, there are a number of differences between S. 333 and the Santorum amendment. These differences include a number of new provisions in the amendment that are not in the S. 333. Some of them are:

Remove the requirement that a parent or a subsidiary of a person against whom sanctions have been issued must have actual knowledge of the activities before sanctions can be issued against them.

Remove the requirement that an affiliate of the Company against which sanctions have been issued must have actual knowledge of the activities before sanctions can be issued against them.

Remove Libya from the scope and title of the Iran Libya Sanctions Act.

Would impose an additional condition on the exercise of the President's waiver authority by imposing an additional element in the report that must be submitted to Congress prior to the waiver going into effect. Current law requires, among other elements of the report, an assessment of the significance of the assistance provided to the development of Iran's petroleum production. The new requirement would also require an assessment of the significance of the assistance to the development of Iran's weapons of mass destruction or other military capabilities.

Reduces operations and maintenance funding for the Army for Iraq and Afghanistan by $100 million.

In other instances, there are modifications to provisions in the amendment that are included in S. 333. For instance, both S. 333 and the Santorum amendment would expand the universe of persons against whom sanctions could be imposed to include a private or government lender, insurer, underwriter, reinsurer, or guarantor of a person sanctioned. S. 333 would require that these persons would have to have actual knowledge of the activities of the person sanctioned; the Santorum amendment does not include the requirement of actual knowledge.

Both S. 333 and the Santorum amendment would expand the definition of a person to include a financial instution, insurer, underwriter, reinsurer, guarantor. The Santorum amendment would also include any other business organization, including any foreign subsidiaries of the foregoing.

Reserving the right to object.

I object.

I have no objection.

I have no objection.

No objection.

Somehow or other, we did make progress.

If I may ask the Senator from Virginia, did the Senator from New Jersey want to debate his amendment further?

Maybe we could ascertain that. He is on his way to the floor. I know he was willing to make the modification. It is helpful to put the date of his amendment in line with our bill, the fiscal year, as I understand it.

First let me commend the Senator from New Jersey for his leadership in this matter and for his identifying a real problem which needs to be corrected. It would be, it seems to me, unconscionable for us to be increasing these copays in the middle of a conflict. For the men and women in the military and their families to face additional copays at this point is very, very inadvisable. I thank Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey for identifying this problem, and to all of his cosponsors, the same thank you and gratitude is owing. I very much support the amendment, and I hope it will be promptly adopted.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4211

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, first let me thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee for his wisdom in identifying an appropriate way--one of the many, but very appropriate ways--we can honor President Ford. Jerry Ford is a dear friend to Members of Congress and probably thousands of others. Regardless of party, he was someone who knew how to reach across the aisle. It was a matter of pride for him to reach Democrats as well as Republicans, to pull together in common causes.

We are particularly proud of Jerry Ford in Michigan. He is a proud son of Michigan. He went to the University of Michigan. He represented a district in west Michigan for a long period of time in the Congress. His Presidential library and his Presidential museum are both in Michigan, and they are the objects of a great deal of reverence, not just for the people of Michigan but for people who visit Michigan as well.

He came to be President at a time when we needed a healer, when we needed someone who would unify this Nation in a time of great turmoil.

We were in the middle of the Watergate crisis and the Watergate crimes. It was fortuitus that it would be Jerry Ford who would become President when President Nixon resigned.

Senator Warner has read from one line of Jerry Ford's remarks on taking the oath of office as President. I thought I would close by reading a few other lines because he captured the sentiment and the feel of our Nation at a very critical moment in our history. Jerry Ford started his remarks on taking his oath in August of 1974 by saying:

The oath that I have taken is the same oath that was taken

by George Washington and by every President under the

Constitution. But I assume the Presidency under extraordinary

circumstances never before experienced by Americans. This is

an hour of history that troubles our minds and hurts our

hearts.

He went on to say:

I have not sought this enormous responsibility, but I will

not shirk it. . . . It is only fitting then that I should

pledge to [all of the people] that I will be the President of

all of the people.

A little later in his remarks, in addressing the people of other nations, he said:

I pledge an uninterrupted and sincere search for peace.

America will remain strong and united, but its strength will

remain dedicated to the safety and sanity of the entire

family of man, as well as to our own precious freedom.

And then he said:

I believe that truth is the glue that holds government

together, not only our Government but civilization itself.

That bond, though strained, is unbroken at home and abroad.

In all my public and private acts as your President, I expect

to follow my instincts of openness and candor with full

confidence that honesty is always the best policy in the end.

And then he added, as Senator Warner has quoted:

My fellow Americans, our long, national nightmare is over.

The only other line I would choose to quote from his remarks is the following. It speaks so much of Jerry Ford and what he stood for and the reason he is held in such affection and esteem by all of our people, particularly by the people of Michigan.

As we bind up the internal wounds of Watergate, more

painful and poisonous than those of foreign wars, let us

restore the golden rule to our political process, and let

brotherly love purge our hearts of suspicion and of hate.

So spoke Jerry Ford, and that is the way he lived his life.

I am delighted that Senator Warner has taken the lead, as he has, to so identify this new class of nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. I thank him again for his graciousness, his sensitivity, and his wisdom in identifying this specific class of aircraft carriers to be named after a truly great man and wonderful son of Michigan, Jerry Ford.

And as Vice President, we will also claim him as a Member of the Senate as well.

I wonder if we could inquire of the Chair whether the Durbin amendment has been offered. I don't believe it has yet. We agreed yesterday it would be next in line; however, there is an effort being made to work out the Durbin amendment, and I suggest Senator Dorgan be recognized.

We asked Senator Dorgan to come over and take over that spot.

If the Senator will yield, I wonder if we could keep Senator Durbin in line after Senator Santorum, subject to the work being completed on his amendment?

Mr. President, I want to particularly commend the Senator from North Dakota for sections 1521 and 1522 of his amendment which address the issue of competition in contracting. This is an issue that I have been concerned about since I worked with Senator Bill Cohen to enact the Competition in Contracting Act in 1984.

Sections 1521 and 1522 in Senator Dorgan's amendment build on the principle that the Federal Government, taxpayers, and Government contractors all benefit from the competitive award of Federal contracts. I was pleased to work with Senator Dorgan and his staff in drafting these particular provisions of his amendment.

Over the last 10 years, the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Defense Inspector General, and others have documented numerous shortcomings in the application of competition rules by Federal agencies. These problems have included, one, numerous unjustified sole-source awards under Government-wide, multiple-award contracts. Some studies have indicated that more than 50 percent of such awards have been made on a sole-source basis. Second, the award of huge what are called indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity, or IDIQ, contracts--some of them in the billions of dollars--go to individuals, individual contractors, rather than multiple contractors.

These single awards--these indefinite delivery and indefinite quantity contracts--basically give a single contractor the right to sole-source award of innumerable highly lucrative projects. Such contracts include the highly visible contracts awarded to Halliburton relative to Iraq.

Sections 1521 and 1522 of the Dorgan amendment would address these problems by prohibiting, with limited waiver authority, the issuance of long-term, open-ended contracts, like Halliburton's LOGCAP contract, to a single company. Federal agencies would be required to issue such contracts to more than one company so that they could compete with each other for work, unless the agency makes a determination that it is not practical to do so and reports that determination to Congress. That section of the amendment would also extend to civilian agencies a legislative provision that we wrote 4 years ago to eliminate abusive sole-source awards and ensure competition when Department of Defense officials place work orders under multiple-award contracts, and we would authorize bid protests for task orders in excess of $500,000 under multiple-award contracts.

So I commend our colleague from North Dakota for offering this important amendment. I support this amendment. I hope the Senate will adopt it and not table it because it includes many important reforms and changes in our contracting process to address some of the abuses that have been identified by the expert agencies that we actually utilize and hire to do these kinds of reviews.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

The two Senators will be recognized in that order?

Mr. President, will the Senator yield? It was my understanding that the Senator from Florida was going to speak on an existing amendment or some other subject, and he now has offered an amendment?

There is a lineup of amendments to which we had previously agreed. It was not my understanding the Senator would be offering an amendment.

Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator has additional copies of the amendment he can share.

I very much appreciate it.

No objection.

My remarks in support of the McCain amendment will be fairly brief, but Senator Byrd does wish to speak on the amendment. We are trying to ascertain how much time he desires.

Mr. President, let me congratulate Senator McCain, not just for his honesty in the budgeting amendment, but also for the previous amendment which he brought up while I was absent from the floor and which I am proud and pleased to cosponsor, which would name this bill after our esteemed colleague, Senator Warner. We will have a lot more to say about that later, but it is the right thing to do. I know there will more Members on the Senate floor when we accomplish that wonderful goal.

It is.

Reserving the right to object, and I will not, I wonder if the Senator can make room in there for an additional 3 minutes under our control

so I can speak in favor. We can work that out.

I have no objection.

Mr. President, I will be brief. First, let me thank the Senator from West Virginia. He, as always, speaks eloquently. If I can make the claim, he speaks for all of us when he talked about our flag and what it means to him. I think he reflected the spirit of every Member of this body. I thank him for it.

I also thank Senators Byrd and McCain. The McCain-Byrd amendment, which restores honesty and truthfulness to our budget process by reflecting the cost of war, is absolutely essential if we are going to have a realistic budget. Regardless of whether one supports or doesn't support our going to war or how the operations have taken place, it is critically important that we pay the cost and know what we are paying for and that the budget reflect those costs.

The effort has been made year after year to do that but so far without success because it was not put into law. This amendment of Senator McCain and Senator Byrd will put this requirement in law. It is essential. I commend both of them for it.

I believe all Members of this body, regardless of the differences we may have about our policy on Iraq, should agree that we should budget for and pay for these operations. This week Congress will send to the President the second FY2006 supplemental which includes another $70 billion on the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, on top of the $50 billion provided in December. That means in the current fiscal year we will spend $120 billion, or $10 billion a month, on these operations-- and none of it was included in the President's 2006 budget. I can think of no clearer evidence of the need for this amendment.

In February, I included the following statement in my letter to the Budget Committee:

[T]hese costs should be moved into the regular budget

process, rather than continuing to treat them purely as

emergency spending. These expenses are not, to use the words

of section 402 of last year's budget resolution,

``unforeseen, unpredictable, and unanticipated''. Calling

them emergencies does nothing to reduce their impact on our

federal deficit and debt. Furthermore, the Quadrennial

Defense Review released by the Department of Defense last

month asserts that our military is fighting a ``long war''

that ``may last for some years to come''. If this is so, all

the more reason to start recognizing the ongoing costs of

this ``long war'' in our budget, so we can start paying for

it. So far, these costs have been financed entirely by

deficit spending. That may be necessary for a short,

unforeseen war, but if a ``long war'' is part of our national

security reality, it must become part of our fiscal reality,

and we must pay for it.

There is an additional reason why these costs should be

built into our regular budget process. Supplementals are not

subjected to the oversight of the authorizing committees. I

believe it is time for that to change. The costs of war are

enormous, and these costs, starting with the $50 billion

budget amendment the administration intends to submit, should

receive more oversight, and putting this funding through the

normal budget process will help Congress do its oversight job

better, which will better serve the American public.

As I also stated at our Armed Services Committee hearing with Secretary Rumsfeld in February that:

Reponsible budgeting means making choices and setting

priorities. This budget request fails that test. It

understates the true cost of our defense program because it

does not fully recognize or pay for the cost of ongoing

operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2007. Funds for those

will apparently be requested later this year on an emergency,

non-paid for, basis. That is not responsible budgeting. Those

costs should be planned on and paid for now. Honest budgeting

requires no less.

It is essential that our budget begin to reflect reality and recognize the enormous cost of these ongoing military operations. I congratulate Senator

McCain and Senator Byrd for this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I am honored to recognize James McCann, a tireless and dynamic educator, on his retirement after 40 years of service in Michigan. For 20 years, Jim has served as district superintendent of the Lamphere School District with unparalleled leadership and vision. His efforts have led to numerous opportunities for his teachers, staff, students, and their families, as well as others across Michigan, and have earned the Lamphere School District many awards and achievements over the years. I know I join many in Michigan in congratulating him on a stellar career that has spanned decades and has inspired generations of students to strive for excellence.

After earning a teaching degree from Eastern Michigan University and a master's degree in educational administration from the University of Michigan, Mr. McCann has focused his efforts in southeast Michigan. He began as an educator with the Archdiocese of Detroit. Five years later, he accepted a position with the Lamphere Schools. During his tenure with the Lamphere Schools, he served as an administrative assistant, assistant principal, and a principal at various schools in the district, and in 1986, he was named the district superintendent.

Jim's passion for integrating technology into the classroom has earned him national recognition, and I am familiar with Jim's energetic and passionate approach to educating young people. I have been privileged to work with Jim on an effort to enhance learning across Michigan, and that project has benefited greatly from his innovation and enthusiasm.

In 1982, Jim attended a summer institute at Harvard University that emphasized the importance of using technology to teach multiple learning styles. Recognizing an urgent need to train teachers and staff in the district in computer networking, programming and software use, he developed an innovative plan to install cable and wiring in classrooms and to provide a 2-week training program for his teachers. This innovative approach led to Lamphere being the first district in Michigan to have Internet access in the classroom, which occured in 1992.

Jim has been the chairman of the Oakland County Superintendents' Committee for Instructional Technology since 1992 and through this position has helped to improve and advance the use of educational technology in schools throughout Oakland County. In 1996, he was instrumental in bringing

the JASON Project to Michigan. This effort established the Lamphere School District as a JASON Project Primary Interactive Network site for Michigan. As host for JASON, Lamphere Schools helped thousands of Michigan students experience exciting scientific adventures. In 2001, Mr. McCann received the first-ever ``Tech-Savvy Superintendent Award'' for his leadership and vision in the area of educational technology, one of only 10 educators nationwide to earn this distinction by ``eSchoolNews.''

I know my Senate colleagues join me in congratulating James McCann on his retirement. I am proud to recognize his contributions to education and the indelible mark he has made in teaching with technology in Michigan. I wish him and his family many more years of good health and happiness.

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

Pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement which we adopted last night, it is my recollection that on the Democratic side we were going to be offering an amendment immediately following the pending Warner amendment.

I stand corrected. Apparently there was an understanding on this, between myself and Senator Warner, which was not incorporated.

I thank the Presiding Officer. Pursuant to that understanding, then, I ask unanimous consent that the pending Warner amendment be temporarily laid aside so I can offer an amendment on behalf of Senator Lautenberg.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4205, an amendment on behalf of Senator Lautenberg, and ask for its immediate consideration following the disposition of the Warner bipartisan amendment.

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

Mr. President, the President's budget proposes that the copays for prescriptions under the TRICARE Prescription Benefit Program be increased for our troops and their families and for retirees, and that the increase in the copays be, on the generic prescriptions, from $3 to $5; on brand-name prescriptions from $9 to $15. The amendment that Senator Lautenberg is offering and that I very much support would freeze the current copays in place until December 31, 2007.

This is not the time, in the middle of a war, to be raising copays on our military personnel and their families. They should not have to worry about whether their families are going to be able to afford to buy prescription drugs. The copays that currently exist are not statutory, so the Department of Defense does not need legislative authority to increase them. They have their authority. The problem is that our bill is silent on this subject so they would be increasing the copay because there is no prohibition in our bill on their doing so.

About 43 percent of the prescriptions filled through the TRICARE pharmacy benefits program are filled in retail pharmacies. The increase which the administration proposes would significantly increase beneficiary cost shares for medical care. Of course, the fear is not only that it would be additional

money coming out of the pockets of our troops and their families, but also this increase would discourage beneficiaries from using their military health care benefit.

The Department of Defense has estimated that the copayments would create additional revenue of $81 million in fiscal year 2007. They also believe beneficiaries would not use their military pharmacy benefits to the same extent and that would mean that there would be savings to the Government of $54 million and there would also be some savings if beneficiaries switch to mail order rather than retail pharmacies.

I don't think we ought to be assuming savings or counting on savings coming out of the pockets of our troops and their families while we are at war. I think it is a totally inappropriate time to do so, so I support the Lautenberg amendment. For a soldier in combat, under these circumstances, the circumstances that exist these days, to have a worry that a spouse or children would not get needed prescriptions because of the administration's desire to save some money is simply unconscionable.

The Senate bill directs a Comptroller General study of the DOD pharmacy benefit program to examine the cost and copayments structure of the program. We clearly ought to await that before we allow these copays to be increased as the administration budget proposes.

I see my dear friend and colleague, Senator Warner, our chairman, on the floor now. We had an understanding that we would lay down this amendment this morning, that I would lay it down on behalf of Senator Lautenberg and speak briefly in support of it, and that after the disposition of the chairman's amendment, which is a bipartisan amendment, we would then come back to the Lautenberg amendment and at that point there would be additional debate--Senator Lautenberg would speak in support of his amendment and any others who wish to debate it would have an opportunity at that time.

We thought, given our understanding last night, we would lay this amendment down at this time. I have just done so.

I appreciate that. That is fine with us.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask the time be equally divided.

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

Mr. President, I join my colleagues in first thanking the men and women of our military services who were responsible for the myriad of actions that were taken years ago that led to the ultimate elimination of such a vicious terrorist as Zarqawi. We also thank the men and women of our military services who are serving multiple tours of duty in arduous and dangerous locations with great personal sacrifice and great disruption in their lives and those of their family members.

The killing of Zarqawi is very welcome news. It is not the panacea for addressing the extreme levels of violence in Iraq or for solving the large

number of vexing issues--and the President has acknowledged as much-- but it is an important step and one that will reduce the influence of al-Qaida in Iraq. He was responsible for a number of spectacular terrorist attacks that produced a large number of casualties and grizzly murders of kidnap victims. Zarqawi, while not the dominant part of the insurgency but a part of it, needed to be attacked and needed to be addressed. The insurgency, however, primarily is made up of disaffected Iraqi Sunnis. Zarqawi played a role in stirring up ethnic conflict between the Sunnis and the Shiites. Much of the violence relating to that conflict is traced to the reaction of Shiite militias to the Sunni insurgency and to, of course, their reaction to the Shiite militias. Our security forces need to confront those militias and the other armed groups.

I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.

Mr. President, there needs to be a political solution in addition to the military force which is present. Indeed, probably a more important event than the killing of Zarqawi was the selection by the Prime Minister and the ratification by the Iraqi Council of Representatives of the key ministries, Defense and Interior, and the National Security Adviser. Those vacancies lasted too long. Their filling, hopefully with people who have the support of all the Iraqi people who want Iraq to become a nation, is even a more important step than the killing of Zarqawi, as important as that step is.

As we all support--hopefully unanimously--this bipartisan amendment which is before us, we also need to recognize that there is critical work that remains to be done, and while this is a step toward, hopefully, a direction of Iraqi nationhood, most of the steps remain to be taken.

While Senator Durbin is on the floor, I ask unanimous consent that immediately after the disposition of the next amendment of Senator Warner, Senator Durbin then be recognized, as we are alternating amendments, by my understanding.

The pending amendment, Mr. President, as I understand it, is the amendment of Senator Warner on behalf of Senator Frist, Senator Reid, and myself.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Jonathan Epstein, a legislative fellow in Senator Bingaman's office, be given floor privileges during the pendency of S. 2766 and any votes thereon.

Mr. President, I congratulate my good friend, Robert C. Byrd, on becoming the longest serving Senator in American history. Senator Byrd is an institution within this institution that we all dearly love. For more than 47 years in the Senate, he has served America and his beloved West Virginia with firm purpose, confident that his work is to do their work. He has done it extraordinarily well.

Senator Byrd's place in history was assured long before this milestone. He is distinguished more by his love for the Senate than by the length of his service. Senator Byrd knows the history and rules of the Senate better than any of us serving today--perhaps better than anyone who has ever served this body. He has defended the traditions and prerogatives of the Senate as strongly as any Senator ever has. Senator Byrd reveres our Constitution, a copy of which he always carries in his pocket, and is as firmly committed to our Constitution as any American ever has been.

To just give one example, I saw that commitment in our work together against the line-item veto, which Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law in 1996. In the floor consideration of that bill, Senator Byrd illuminated the debate, as he so often does, by reaching back into history. He quoted the 18th century English jurist, Sir William Blackstone, who wrote:

In all tyrannical governments, the supreme magistery, or

the right of both making and enforcing the laws, is vested in

one and the same man, or one and the same body of men. And

wherever these two powers are united together, there can be

no public liberty.

After the bill became law, despite that opposition, I joined Senator Byrd and Senator Moynihan in filing an amicus brief at the Supreme Court, arguing that the line-item veto was an unconstitutional surrender of legislative power to the executive branch. In June 1998, the Supreme Court agreed in a 6-to-3 decision. Senator Byrd came to the Senate floor, and he declared:

This is a great day for the United States of America, a

great day for the Constitution of the United States. Today we

feel that the liberties of the American people have been

assured. God save this honorable Court.

Well, we are honored to have this giant in the Senate--a true living legend--among us and guiding us in our daily work.

The determination with which Senator Byrd approaches his work in Washington is born of his devotion to the people of West Virginia.

Through his arduous work, he has brought needed infrastructure to an area that has lacked for economic development. He has fought, first and foremost, for the working people and particularly the coal miners of West Virginia. Just last week--I guess the week before now--the Senate passed the mine safety bill that he championed along with his colleague, Senator Rockefeller. West Virginia has had no finer advocate in its history than Robert Byrd, a fact the State recognized when it selected him ``West Virginian of the 20th century.''

In addition to his service in the Senate, Senator Byrd has lived, and hopefully will continue to lead for many years, an amazing and an amazingly full life. He is a man of great abilities and many passions. He plays the fiddle, he reads the classics, he is a master orator, he has worked as a butcher and welder, he is a writer and historian, he has lived in a shack with no electricity, and now keeps the company of Presidents and of Kings.

He has known true and deep love with his cherished wife Erma whose birthday they would have celebrated today. His life and his love for the Senate and for the Constitution is exceeded only by his love for Erma.

When I was elected to the Senate in 1978, Robert Byrd was majority leader. The first vote I cast was on a Robert Byrd motion. And since that day, I have learned more about this institution from Robert Byrd than I have from anyone or from anywhere else. The greatest tribute we can pay to Robert Byrd is to stand firm for Senate procedures which have made the Senate the most notable place in the world of democratic institutions where the protection of minority rights to debate and to amend legislation are the most protected. There is no other place like the Senate in the world. It is here where the right to debate is given a privileged position, a protected position so that minority views can be aired fully and so that, hopefully, consensus can be arrived at rather than just simply adopted by prompt majority votes.

So that is the tribute we can all pay to Robert Byrd: to defend this institution, to stand for its procedures, and to carry, as he does, at least in our hearts, the Constitution, as he carries the Constitution on his body.

Congratulations to Senator Byrd on this historic milestone in his lifetime of service to our Nation and his now record length of service to the Senate of the United States.

I am pleased, once again, to join the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, in bringing the National Defense Authorization Act to the Senate floor. This bipartisan bill was favorably reported by unanimous vote of the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 4, 2006, as our distinguished Presiding Officer is well aware, since he had an important role bringing this bill to the floor.

This is the sixth Defense authorization bill that Senator Warner has brought to the Senate floor as chairman of our committee. Under the 6- year term limitation imposed on committee chairmen under the Republican Conference, it will also be his last.

Senator Warner served this country as an enlisted man in the Navy in World War II, as an officer in the Marine Corps in the Korean war, and as Secretary of the Navy during the Vietnam war. He has continued that service as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee since his election to the Senate in 1978.

As Senator Warner has pointed out on many occasions, he and I came to the Senate together. We have now served side by side on the Senate Armed Services Committee for more than 27 years.

As chairman of our committee, Senator Warner is unfailingly patient, courteous, and thoughtful. He has always been willing to listen. He has always tried to work out constructive solutions to even the most difficult problems. And when he is unable to work out those solutions, he is always up front and is always protecting the opposition's procedural rights. Senator Warner has consistently shown his dedication to providing the resources that are needed for our national defense and meeting the needs of our men and women in uniform.

Senator Warner has served in the finest tradition of our committee, a tradition of bipartisan dedication to the national defense established by previous giants such as Richard Russell, John Stennis, and Sam Nunn, and we thank him for it. He is now and will, hopefully for a long time, be on that list of giants--but after this year and after this bill, not as chairman of our committee.

Every Senator in this body trusts John Warner. Perhaps this is the highest of all the tributes that one can pay. The unanimous vote of the committee on the bill we bring before the Senate today is a fitting statement about Senator Warner's chairmanship.

This bill contains many important provisions that will improve the quality of life of our men and women in uniform.

Again, we all thank the Senator. His service on the committee is not over, and his service as chairman is not over. We still have a long way to go, through the floor of the Senate and through conference, but we have no doubt about the outcome of either the floor debate or the conference. He will pull this bill through again, as he invariably has.

This bill contains many important provisions that will improve the quality of life of our men and women in uniform. It will provide needed support and assistance to our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world, and make the investments that we need to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

First and foremost, the bill before us continues the increases in compensation and in quality of life that our service men and women and their families deserve as they face the hardships that are imposed by continuing military operations. For example, the bill contains provisions that would prohibit increases proposed by the administration in TRICARE Prime enrollment fees and require the Comptroller General to conduct a comprehensive analysis of Department of Defense health care costs and savings proposals.

The bill rejects cuts proposed by the administration for the National Guard budget, ensuring that National Guard end strength will be fully funded.

The bill would repeal provisions of the Survivor Benefit Plan that reduces military retirement payments by amounts received for dependency and indemnity compensation, and the bill would require an audit of pay accounts of wounded soldiers and actions to correct erroneous payments, including a toll-free hotline for military personnel and next-of-kin who are experiencing pay problems.

The bill also includes important funding authorities needed for our continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and our efforts to secure our Nation against terrorism.

For example, the bill contains provisions that would authorize over $2 billion for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund to facilitate the rapid development of new technology and tactics and the rapid redeployment of equipment to counter the IED threat.

The bill authorizes an additional $950.5 million for force protection equipment including $559.8 million for up-armored High Mobility Multi- purpose wheeled vehicles and $100.0 million for counter-IED engineer vehicles:

The bill provides $115.2 million over the President's budget request for combating terrorism and enhancing domestic preparedness:

The bill authorizes $50.0 billion supplemental to cover the cost of ongoing military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and the global war on terrorism in fiscal year 2007, and it provides expanded authorities for regional combatant commanders to train and equip foreign military forces, provide logistics support, supplies and services to allies and coalition partners, and lease or lend equipment for personnel protection and survivability to foreign forces participating in combined military operations with U.S. forces.

I am pleased that the bill contains a provision requiring that Congress be provided a coordinated U.S. Government legal opinion on whether certain specified interrogation techniques would constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and other applicable provisions of law. This provision is necessary because the administration has refused to provide Congress existing legal opinions on the conduct of interrogations and detainee operations and failed to live up to its responsibility to provide clear guidance to our troops in the field on these issues.

Finally, the bill contains a number of provisions that will help improve the management of the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies. For example, the bill contains provisions that would improve the management of major defense acquisition programs by increasing the authority and responsibility of program managers and linking the payment of award and incentive fees directly to program outcomes; help identify and address problems with major information technology programs by establishing cost, schedule and performance requirements similar to those applicable to the acquisition of major weapon systems; ensure that the public receive accurate information on the department's budget requirements by prohibiting the ``parking'' of funds in one budget account when the funds are intended for a different purpose; continue the committee's oversight of interagency contracting by extending the current series of joint DOD inspector general audits to include interagency contracts managed by the National Institutes of Health and the Veterans' Administration; and address abusive contracting practices by requiring the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations prohibiting excessive pass-through fees charged on contracts and subcontracts:

For example, recent press articles have described a process in which work was passed down from the Army Corps of Engineers to a prime contractor, then to a subcontractor, then to another subcontractor-- with each company charging the government for profit and overhead before finally reaching the company that would actually do the work.

In one such case, the Army Corps reportedly paid a prime contractor $1.75 per square foot to nail plastic tarps onto damaged roofs in Louisiana. The prime contractor paid another company 75 cents per square foot to do the work; that subcontractor paid a third company 35 cents per square foot to do the work; and that subcontractor paid yet another company 10 cents per square foot to do the work.

In other words, we paid the prime contractor $1.75 per square foot for their work. He used a sub, who used a sub, who used a sub, who ended up paying the people who actually did the work 10 cents per square foot to do the work that we and the taxpayers paid $1.75 per square foot to accomplish.

In a second such case, the Army Corps reportedly paid prime contractors $28 to $30 per cubic yard to remove debris. The companies that actually performed the work were paid only $6 to $10 per cubic yard. A representative of one of the companies was quoted as saying:

Every time it passes through another layer, $4 of $5 is

taken off the top. These others are taking out money, and

some of them aren't doing anything.

We have many important issues to address as we consider this bill over the next few days. For example, I am sure that we will deal with amendments addressing the way forward for

our forces in Iraq. My own view, consistent with the long-held advice of our senior military commanders, is that there will be no military solution to the violence in Iraq and no way to defeat the insurgency until a political solution is achieved and accepted by the Iraqis themselves.

And we must find ways to press the Iraqis to make those political accommodations.

The good news that we received about the death of Abu Musab al- Zarqawi, and perhaps the more important news that the Iraqi parliament had approved the nominees for ministers of defense, national security, and the interior will hopefully foster greater cooperation among the various Iraqi parties.

The Iraqis must now turn to the difficult but critical task of making their constitution a unifying and inclusive document. The administration needs to be pressing the Iraqis to complete this essential task within the timeline which is provided by the constitution itself. Only the Iraqis can reach a political settlement that unifies their country.

Among the amendments that we will deal with in the coming days is one I intend to offer to reduce funding provided in the bill for ballistic missile interceptors and related deployment sites for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense--GMD--program. The GMD system has yet to have a single successful intercept test, yet this bill would provide funding for the final 10 operational interceptors requested by the Department of Defense. The flight tests that have occurred to date have shown the program to be immature and developmental in the test failures and numerous problems remaining to be solved, The Department's proposal to complete the acquisition of operational missiles before these missiles have been successfully tested puts us at risk of spending hundreds of millions of dollars on the deployment of a system that may not work.

I look forward to debating these and other issues as we move forward with this bill over the next few days.

As of today, more than 130,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are engaged in taking on an aggressive insurgency and helping the Iraqi security forces to prevent civil war in Iraq, almost 20,000 remain in harm's way in Afghanistan, and tens of thousands more are supporting the war effort through deployments thousands of miles from home. Our Armed Forces have also played a critical role in responding to the devastation left by Hurricane Katrina and other disasters both at home and overseas.

Senate action on this bill will improve the quality of life of our men and women in uniform. It will give them the tools that they need to remain the most effective fighting force in the world. Most important of all, it will send an important message that we, as a nation, stand behind them and appreciate their service--and that is true regardless of one's position on the wisdom of our Iraq policy.

I again congratulate our chairman, Senator Warner, for bringing forth this bill in a unanimous way, as he has and always does. I look forward to working with our colleagues to pass this important legislation as promptly as possible.

I yield the floor.

We look forward to that amendment. I am sure there will be a lot of support for that operation on both sides of the aisle. We haven't seen the language, but I am sure we will support it.

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

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

Mr. President, this year we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Detroit Salt Mine, and I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate them on reaching this important milestone.

In 1906, the Detroit Salt and Manufacturing Company began constructing the Detroit Salt Mine. The first few years were tumultuous, as the construction itself was so challenging and

costly that the company went bankrupt before it began to mine salt. Fortunately, the company quickly rebounded and completed its first mining shaft in 1910. The mine has passed through many hands over the years but is currently operated by the Detroit Salt Company, which has owned it since 1997.

Today, the Detroit Salt Company solely produces highway deicing salt, the salt that is used to melt the ice that covers roadways during the winter. It provides this salt not only for Michigan roadways but for other roads throughout the Midwest. Without this valuable product, our roadways would be repeatedly crippled during the winter months, causing massive and regular shutdowns of schools and businesses.

It is also important to recognize the Detroit Salt Company's efforts to keep its mine safe for its many workers. The Mine Health and Safety Administration has recognized the Detroit Salt Company for its excellent safety standards with the Sentinel of Safety Award for 3 of the last 6 years. Additionally, the company is part of the Detroit Local Emergency Planning Committee, taking an active role in keeping not only its employees, but also the citizens of its community safe and secure.

I know my colleagues join me in recognizing the historical significance of the Detroit Salt Mine and congratulate all of those who have contributed to its success.

Madam President, this bill to repeal the estate tax is unfair and unaffordable. Full repeal is estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation to cost $776 billion over the first 10 years it is in full effect. And in fact that cost would be nearly $1 trillion when interest payments on the extra debt that would be required are taken into account.

Repealing the estate tax would only benefit a tiny percentage of the very wealthiest Americans among us by enabling them to pass additional millions of dollars to their heirs tax-free. It would shift an even larger share of the Nation's tax burden and debt onto the backs of average working families and our children and grandchildren.

Only a tiny fraction of estates pay the estate tax. In 2004, only 1 percent of estates in Michigan and 1.2 percent nationwide paid any estate tax. In 2006, those numbers will likely be even smaller because each individual's exemption from the estate tax will increase from $1.5 million to $2 million, with those numbers doubled for married couples. In fact, it is estimated that in 2006, just one-half of 1 percent of all estates will owe any estate tax. This percentage will continue to shrink as the exemption level rises. By 2009, when $3.5 million--$7 million for married couples--will be exempt, only three out of every 1,000 estates will owe any estate tax; that's one-third of 1 percent.

Why are the Republican leaders pressing this? Over the last decade, a massive public relations campaign funded by a handful of families has succeeded in creating the mistaken impression that the estate tax catches millions of average Americans. According to a recent report by two nonprofit organizations, Public Citizen and United for a Fair Economy, 18 families worth a total of $185.5 billion quietly financed and coordinated a 10-year effort to repeal the estate tax. The report tells how these families spent over $200 million contributing to political campaigns, financing outside lobby groups and trade associations, and creating a massive anti-estate tax coalition that served as the main coordinator of the repeal campaign.

The advocates of repeal have not been forthcoming about the billions they would save if the estate tax were repealed, but instead they have promoted stories about the effects of the estate tax on family farms and small businesses. Such family-run enterprises make up the core of the American economy and society, so it is no surprise that using them as the poster children in the campaign for repeal has been met with some public relations success. The well-funded initiative has left many with the mistaken impression that the estate tax requires many small businesses and family farms to be sold to cover the estate tax bill.

Few, if any, examples of that are ever offered, but no matter. The disinformation campaign continues. What is the reality? According to data from the Tax Policy Center, of the 18,800 taxable estates in 2004, there were only 440--or two percent--in which farm or business assets made up at least half the total value of the estate. Forty percent of these 440 farm and business estates were valued at less than $2 million and paid an effective tax rate of only 1.6 percent.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, at the upcoming exemption level of $3.5 million, only 200 farms in the year 2000 would have had to even file the estate tax, and fewer than 15 of those estates would have lacked sufficient liquidity to pay the estate tax.

From these numbers, it is clear that an exemption level and other safeguards can be set to keep effectively all small businesses and family farms from having to sell their businesses to pay the tax. That is why I hope that at some point in the near future we will be able to adopt a commonsense proposal to permanently set an appropriate, inflation-adjusted exemption level.

But proceeding to this bill at this time would not achieve that goal. The majority has indicated that if we proceed to debate this bill, consideration would be limited to a small number of predetermined amendments, each of which would set the tax rate on inherited wealth lower than the tax rate on workers' wages. Giving tax preference to inheritance over workers' wages is not the American way.

Furthermore, in the face of mounting deficits, adoption of any of the so-called compromise amendments being talked about would be fiscally irresponsible and would unfairly burden average taxpayers to make up the difference in lost revenue from the Treasury. The proposal endorsed by Senator Kyl would still cost eighty-four percent of the cost of full repeal.

The estate tax was created not only to raise revenue but also to prevent the concentration of wealth in the hands of just a few families. It ensures that those who prosper so greatly in the American economic system do their fair share to contribute to our continued national well-being. Just like other Americans, the very wealthy benefit from public investment of tax dollars in areas such as defense, homeland security, environmental protection and infrastructure, and they rely even more than others on the Government's protection of individual property rights. The estate tax is not intended to discourage people from seeing to it that their children are more secure, but rather, it is aimed at helping keep avenues of opportunity open to all citizens. In the words of President Teddy Roosevelt, who proposed the estate tax: ``[I]nherited economic power is as inconsistent with the ideals of this generation as inherited political power was inconsistent with the ideals of the generation which established our government.''

We should make sure that our current and future tax policies consider not only the value to taxpayers of their take-home pay or accumulated wealth, but also the value to them of the essential government services that are funded by their taxes. It is not a popular thing to talk about these days, but our Nation relies on and needs tax revenues. Every day in Iraq and around the world our military needs tanks, aircraft carriers and protective body armor. We need scientists working toward cures for cancer, Alzheimer's disease and birth defects. We need teachers to educate our children so they can keep our Nation economically competitive in the next generation. We need USDA personnel to screen our meat and livestock for mad cow disease and harmful toxins. We need Government grants to help buy bulletproof vests for the cops on our streets. We need dollars to build new bridges and highways to relieve congested traffic, as well as dollars to repair potholes in existing roads.

On top of these things and many others we already appreciate, there are many other important initiatives: lowering the spiraling cost of healthcare so that all Americans can get the care and medicine they need, improving our education system so that every child grows up prepared to make a valuable contribution to our society, investing in leap-ahead energy technologies that will boost our auto industry and help end our dependence on imported oil, preserving our irreplaceable natural resources, and protecting the jobs provided by our Nation's manufacturers.

If we are to have any hope of paying for even a few of these priorities, eliminating the estate tax for the extremely wealthy is exactly the wrong thing to do. We are running record deficits and we are fighting a war in Iraq. We simply cannot afford such a massive tax cut which would push us even further into the deficit ditch. Today, each American citizen's share of the debt is almost $28,000, and as we continue to run up record yearly deficits, the country's total debt is estimated to reach over $12 trillion by 2016, which is $39,000 per person. It is not just reckless fiscal and economic policy to saddle future generations with this kind of crushing

debt burden; it is morally reprehensible to pass this kind of burden to our children and grandchildren.

We need to look out for all of our citizens, not just the few who are extraordinarily wealthy. I cannot agree with policy changes that favor a handful of multimillionaires, one-third of 1 percent of our people who are the very wealthiest, at the expense of working American families and of critical national priorities. That is why I am opposed to repealing the estate tax.

Mr. President, the Senate is once again debating an amendment which proposes to establish a Federal definition of marriage in the U.S. Constitution. Only 2 years ago, the Senate rejected a similar effort.

One stated reason for considering this amendment is to protect States from having to honor the decisions of other States regarding marriage laws. This is unnecessary because 10 years ago this body overwhelmingly passed, and President Clinton signed into law, the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, which I supported, which states that ``No State . . . shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State . . . respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State . . . or a right or claim arising from such relationship.'' The Defense of Marriage Act has clearly already defined ``marriage'' as ``only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.''

Proponents of this amendment argue that it is only a matter of time before the Federal courts become involved with marriage law, and they raise the fear that the Defense of Marriage Act could be struck down by so-called ``activist'' judges and courts. However, this simply has not been the case. This same argument was made in the Senate in 2004, but the Defense of Marriage Act still stands and remains law.

Since 2004, DOMA has been upheld three times in Federal courts. In 2004, a Washington Federal judge upheld DOMA in a case where a couple had obtained a Canadian marriage license. In 2005, a Florida Federal district court upheld DOMA as constitutional in a case where a couple married in Massachusetts sought recognition of their marriage in Florida. And only last month, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court decision dismissing a challenge to DOMA in California. There is no particular reason to believe that another pending challenge currently in district court or future challenges to DOMA will be successful.

I believe that the laws regarding marriage are matters to be dealt with by the States. My State of Michigan, for example, enacted a constitutional amendment in 2004 which provides that marriages and other similar unions shall only be recognized as being between one man and one woman. DOMA continues to protect each State's right to define marriage.

The language of the proposed constitutional amendment contains a number of other problems. The amendment reads ``Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.''

The principal sponsor of this amendment, Senator Allard, states that this amendment will give ``State legislatures the freedom to address civil unions however they see fit,'' even though this is a power the States already possess. In fact, the very language of this constitutional amendment would make it unconstitutional for the States to create civil unions or domestic partnerships in their constitutions with any of the same legal benefits currently afforded to marriage.

Our Constitution should not be altered lightly. It has been amended only 17 times since the enactment of the Bill of Rights over 200 years ago. As former Republican Congressman Bob Barr, the author of the Defense of Marriage Act, stated in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee 2 years ago, ``We meddle with the Constitution to our own peril. If we begin to treat the Constitution as our personal sandbox, in which to build and destroy castles as we please, we risk diluting the grandeur of having a Constitution in the first place.''

The Constitution has been amended in the past to broaden and affirm the rights of Americans and never to narrow the rights of a group of Americans. Amendments to our Constitution have freed enslaved Americans and given women the right to vote. And it is the first 10 amendments, our Bill of Rights, which protect our most cherished freedoms like the freedom of speech.

For all these reasons, I will oppose the adoption of this constitutional amendment.