Floor Statements

Mr. President, before the Senator from Florida leaves the floor, I wish to do two things. First, I want to thank him for the energy and the perception he has shown in pointing out some of the problems with this prescription drug benefit which was voted on.

He has a lot of seniors in his State, and he is uniquely aware of, sensitive to, and determined to see if we cannot make some changes in this process which will make what we have done a lot more friendly to seniors. I cannot think of anybody in this body who knows more about this subject or is more determined to make the changes necessary for the benefit of our seniors.

Because of the confusion out there, the uncertainty is rife. We do not have quite as many seniors in our State as they do in Florida, but our seniors are telling me pretty generally what the seniors down in Florida are saying to the Senator from Florida. I thank him and commend him for the leadership he is taking and for the proposed change he is proposing.

Secondly, I thank him for his service on the Armed Services Committee. We have a wonderful committee. It is a bipartisan committee. The Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson, makes an important contribution to it. He is there all the time with very perceptive questions that are intended to support the men and women in our military. I thank him for his participation.

Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico, I believe, now is ready to offer an amendment which is referred to in the unanimous consent agreement. I will yield to him 15 minutes, should he so need 15 minutes, on our side of the debate for that purpose.

Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that in the absence of a speaker on the Republican side, the time between now and 4:30 p.m. be divided as follows: the Senator from Massachusetts be recognized for 30 minutes, then the Senator from Connecticut be recognized for 10 minutes. If, during that period, the floor manager on the Republican side indicates

time is required on the Republican side, we would then do our best to make arrangements for that to happen, perhaps delaying the 4:30 p.m. timetable. We are trying to accommodate two Senators, the Senator from Massachusetts, who needs a half hour, and the Senator from Connecticut, who needs 10 minutes.

We are trying to accommodate colleagues and make sure you are protected. I suggest the following: the Senator from Massachusetts speak for a half hour; the Senator from Connecticut speak for 10 minutes, unless the Senator from South Carolina knows of someone on his side; and then if our people or a person on their side, Mr. President, needs some time, the 4:30 p.m. shift to the appropriations bill be delayed by 5 or 10 minutes to accommodate the Republican side. I can't think of anything better without knowing exactly who wants to speak.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Massachusetts be recognized for 30 minutes, the Senator from Connecticut for 10 minutes, and the remainder of the time between now and 4:30 p.m. not be assigned at this time, and we will do our best to accommodate the Republican side should there be speakers after the Senator from Connecticut speaks.

Mr. President, I think we indicated last week that while the time is limited, as it had been prior to this point in terms of debate on the Iraq amendments, there would be time either on the amendments themselves or in morning business tonight after the vote. There is a very limited period of time under the unanimous consent agreement for tomorrow. We had hoped that could have been expended, but apparently there is no agreement to that.

I remind colleagues who have not had a chance to speak on the Iraq amendments which are pending that the best time to do that, given the very limited time remaining on tomorrow on these amendments, would be after the vote on the appropriations bill tonight.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Hawaii proceed in morning business for 5 minutes and then we would turn to the committee bill pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement.

I think that is going to be up to the Senator from South Carolina as to what progress he is making on it.

We should again put our colleagues on notice that there is very limited time tomorrow morning under the unanimous consent agreement. There was an effort made to extend that time. The effort did not succeed. So there will literally be 30 minutes tomorrow morning equally divided between both Iraq amendments and the habeas corpus matter, which is a very small window of time tomorrow morning. We would urge, I think my good friend from Virginia would agree, that the Senators who wish to speak on either of those matters should make a real effort to get here tonight.

If he is ready, I am happy to proceed.

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

I thank my friend from South Carolina for working on this matter as hard as he has. The Senator from Arizona has also worked hard. Many Members on this side have worked on this issue as well as the Republican side. There is a lot of thought that has been given to this matter.

The amendment approved last Thursday had some real problems with it, in my judgment, and I voted against it, as did 41 Senators. The amendment which was approved last Thursday, which is the one now awaiting this amendment, would have provided for review only for status determinations and not of convictions by military commissions.

As my friend from South Carolina pointed out, that is an omission which he and others acknowledge. It is a real indication of his commitment to try to figure out what the right course of action is, that he does acknowledge that omission. One of the reasons I voted against the amendment last Thursday is that it did not provide for that direct judicial review of convictions by military commissions. That is the major change in the amendment before the Senate, the so-called Graham-Levin-Kyl amendment which is before the Senate.

There are a number of other changes as well, but of all the changes, what this amendment does is add to the Graham amendment, which was agreed to last Thursday, adds a direct appeal for convictions by military commissions--not just for status determinations--and that direct appeal would, of course, go to a Federal court.

The amendment which we are going to consider tomorrow morning, after we consider the Bingaman amendment, will also provide for review of whether the standards and procedures which are referred to in the amendment are consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States. Those are important words because all Members believe we must operate according to our Constitution. Our laws and the review which is provided for now, if we agree to this amendment to the adopted Graham amendment, would explicitly make it clear that the review of a court would look at whether standards and procedures that have been agreed to are consistent with our Constitution and our laws.

The other problem which I focused on last Thursday with the first Graham amendment was that it would have stripped all the courts, including the Supreme Court, of jurisdiction over pending cases. What we have done in this amendment, we have said that the standards in the amendment will be applied in pending cases, but the amendment will not strip the courts of jurisdiction over those cases. For instance, the Supreme Court jurisdiction in Hamdan is not affected.

However, what our amendment does, as soon as it is enacted and the enactment is effective, it provides that the standards we set forth in our amendment will be the substantive standards which we would expect would be applied in all cases, including cases which are pending as of the effective date of this amendment.

We will first vote on the Bingaman amendment tomorrow. I will vote for that amendment. It does preserve some habeas corpus review of constitutional issues relative to the detention of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay. It avoids habeas corpus review of less consequential issues, while enumerating the important issues which it would provide or permit habeas review of.

However, I cosponsored the Graham amendment with Senator Graham because I believe it is a significant improvement over the provision which the Senate approved last Thursday, specifically for the two main reasons I identified. The direct review will provide for convictions by the military commissions, and because it would not strip courts of jurisdiction over these matters where they have taken jurisdiction, it does, again, apply the substantive law and assume that the courts would apply the substantive law if this amendment is agreed to. However, it does not strip the courts of jurisdiction.

My friend from South Carolina has pointed out what the scope of the review would be if this amendment was agreed to. I will read something which he made reference to that is important it be very clear as to what this grant of review is on page 6, paragraph B:

(i) with respect to a capital case in which the alien was

sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 10 years or more,

shall be as of right; or

(ii) with respect to any other case, shall be at the

discretion of the United States Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit.

The scope of review is set forth. It gets the Congress back into the business of laying out the ground rules for these reviews, which has been the main goal of the Senator from South Carolina. It is a goal which I hope all share. We may disagree as to what the ground rules are, but I hope all Members share in that goal that Congress become reinvolved in setting the ground rules for both the commissions and for the tribunals which make the status determinations.

Again, it has been a very constructive effort on the part of Senator Graham, myself, Senator Kyl, and others who cosponsored and will vote for this. It makes a significant improvement over what the Senate did last Thursday. Again, I as one Senator will first support the Bingaman amendment, but if it is not agreed to, I will strongly urge our colleagues to vote for the Graham-Kyl amendment.

I support my friend from South Carolina.

Mr. President, I thank my dear friend from Virginia for his positive comments. As always, he seeks to build bridges and to overcome differences and to reach across the aisle. It is typical of him, and it has been that way since the first day I met him many years ago.

The Levin-Reid amendment--there are two amendments pending--is an effort to, indeed, try to improve the situation in Iraq, to try to change the course for the better. There is no date for withdrawal in our amendment. It is not saying that we will withdraw troops at any particular specific date. We have done that because we think it would be a mistake to set a specific date, at least most of us do. On the other hand, we believe it is essential that we change course in a number of directions in order to improve the chances of Iraq becoming a success.

America is going to be less secure if Iraq is a failed state. Everybody agrees on that. The question is, How can we improve the chances of Iraq not becoming a failed state? What could we do here, carrying out our responsibility, what contribution can we make here to success in Iraq? Things are not working very well in Iraq in many ways. I know there are people who will point to progress in Iraq and, obviously, there are things to which one could point. But on the other hand, there are things that are not working well, and this amendment intends to address those in a constructive and positive way.

Staying the course is not a strategy; that is a slogan. How do we improve the chances for success? How do we modify our course so that we can achieve or help the Iraqis achieve--more accurately--a nation? And how can we also look forward to the day when our troops come out sooner rather than later?

This amendment looks at the year 2006 as a transition year, with Iraqi forces taking over security functions to a far greater extent. For that to happen, this amendment points out that a number of things need to happen. First, we have to advise the Iraqis that we are not there for an indefinite period of time, that they must take the steps necessary to achieve a broad-based political settlement which is so essential to defeating the insurgency. Our military advisers are unanimous on this point. There is no purely military solution unless the Iraqis come together politically. Unless they unify politically, they will not be able to defeat the insurgents. It is a point which must be made to the Iraqis. They cannot simply continue to squabble over the content of a constitution. They have to come together or else they are not going to succeed, and we are not going to succeed in helping them to achieve the security they want.

We need to advise the Iraqis we are not there indefinitely. They have to take the steps necessary to achieve a broad-based political settlement which is critically important to defeating the insurgency. We need a plan for success. We don't have a plan for success. I will speak more about that in a moment.

I want to go through the amendment. I want to point out where there is apparently agreement and where there is disagreement and what the significance is of both. The sense of the Senate starts by saying something that I think every Member of this body would agree with:

. . . members of the United States Armed Forces who are

serving or have served in Iraq and their families deserve the

utmost respect and the heartfelt gratitude of the American

people for their unwavering devotion to duty, service to the

Nation, and selfless sacrifice under the most difficult

circumstances.

We start with that. Our troops and their families deserve the very best in equipment, training, and support, but also in our thinking. That doesn't mean there is going to be unanimity around. People who disagree on what the next step should be should not be pilloried in any way or criticized as being less American than those who support the administration's policy lock, stock, and barrel. There is a place for constructive criticism, for different points of view in a democracy. That is what our troops have always fought for. That is what men and women have died for, so that we would have an opportunity to have the kind of debate on policy which is going on now.

First, our heartfelt gratitude to our troops. Second, the sense of the Senate recognizes that the Iraqi people have made enormous sacrifices and that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis want to live in peace and security. There is no disagreement on that. The alternative amendment that we will be voting on does not differ with that.

The next paragraph there is no difference on either. Both amendments have the same language. There is no change in our version from the Frist-Warner version. That is:

. . . calendar 2006 should be a period of significant

transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security

forces taking the lead for the security of a free and

sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the

phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq.

That is in paragraph 3 of the sense of the Senate. There is no change in that language to the Frist-Warner language. That is paragraph (b)(3). Creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq surely ought to be a goal.

(4) United States military forces should not stay in Iraq

indefinitely and the Iraqi people should be so advised.

That is an important statement to the Iraqi people, and it is an important statement to our people. We should not be staying in Iraq indefinitely. That is the wrong message to send for a number of reasons to the Iraqi people.

What the Warner version does is, it strikes the word ``indefinitely'' and says:

United States military forces should not stay in Iraq any

longer than required and the people of Iraq should be so

advised.

The problem with that is, they could be required forever. That is open-ended. It is unlimited. It is the wrong message. That is a difference, and it is the first difference.

The next paragraph, there is no difference on:

. . . the Administration should tell the leaders of all

groups and political parties in Iraq that they need to make

the compromises necessary to achieve the broad-based

political settlement that is essential for defeating the

insurgency . . . within the schedule that they have set for

themselves.

By the way, the schedule that they have set for themselves is to appoint a commission when the new assembly takes office in January, to appoint a constitutional commission to review the constitution and make recommendations for changes within 4

months. That is their schedule. They ought to keep that.

Next--there is no disagreement on this language--

. . . the Administration needs to explain to Congress and the

American people its strategy for successful completion of the

mission in Iraq.

No difference on that language.

Now to paragraph C on the reports.

That is correct.

The Senator is correct.

On the report section, there is a change from 30 days to 90 days, which I will not spend time on. I think it is a fairly technical change, that there is not a particular difference or problem.

After that first report, whether it is 30 days or 90 days--30 days in our version, 90 days in Senator Warner's version--every 3 months thereafter, until all U.S. combat brigades have been redeployed from Iraq, the President shall submit to Congress an unclassified report on U.S. policy and military operations in Iraq. In our version we say:

Each report shall include the following:

What the Warner version adds is ``to the extent practicable, unclassified information.'' And by the way, it is clear that there is classified information that cannot be in a report, and we don't suggest to the contrary. We just want an unclassified report to the extent you can have an unclassified report on each of the following items:

. . . The current military mission and the diplomatic,

political, economic, and military measures, if any, that are

being or have been undertaken to successfully complete that

mission.

So far, no difference on that one.

Efforts to convince Iraq's main communities to make the

compromises necessary for a broad-based and sustainable

political settlement.

That is what I referred to before. It is so critically important that we must convince the communities in Iraq that they must make the compromises necessary for a broad-based, politically acceptable settlement. No difference on that language; no proposed change in that.

Next, in our amendment, we need to engage

the international community and the region in the effort to

stabilize Iraq and to forge a broad-based and sustainable

political settlement.

No difference on that.

We need a report to us every 30 days on what is being done to strengthen the capacity of Iraq's Government ministries; to accelerate the delivery of basic services; to secure the delivery of pledged economic assistance from the international community, and additional pledges of assistance; to train Iraqi security forces and transfer security responsibilities to those forces and the Government of Iraq.

No difference on that in terms of what must be in this report.

Next, we need in this report to know

whether the Iraqis have made the compromises necessary to

achieve the broad-based and sustainable political

settlement--

We need to keep the pressure on the Iraqis. We need the administration to tell us the Iraqis have made the compromises necessary. Without that kind of keeping the Iraqis' feet to the fire, it is less likely the Iraqis are going to make the kind of broad-based compromises that are necessary--the compromises that are necessary to achieve that broad-based political settlement that is essential, in our words, to defeat the insurgency in Iraq.

And now we get down to the heart of the matter where there seems to be a difference, and I want to spend another couple minutes on this. This report, according to our amendment--not disagreed to with the Warner amendment--must include specific conditions that were included in an April 2005 campaign action plan and any subsequent update to that campaign plan that must be met in order to provide for the transition of security responsibility to the Iraqi security forces.

There seems to be no objection to that. There is no change in that. So we want that document, that report from the administration to set forth any specific conditions that were in the April 2005 campaign action plan and any updates to that campaign plan that need to be met in order to provide for transition of security responsibility.

There is an acknowledgement by no change in our language that there is a report containing conditions, that there is a need for updates to that campaign plan that need to be met in order to provide for the transition of security responsibility to the Iraqi forces.

Now we then have language which on this whole next page is not objected to, which is accepted, which is that to the extent these conditions are not covered, as I have just outlined, the following needs to be addressed. We lay out here one, two, three, four conditions: number of battalions of Iraqi Armed Forces that have to operate independently or take the lead in counterinsurgency operations; number of Iraqi police units that have to operate independently or take the lead in maintaining law and order in fighting the insurgency, the number of regular police that must be trained and equipped to maintain law and order; the ability of Iraq's ministries and provincial and local governments to independently sustain, direct, and coordinate Iraq's security forces.

Now, so far there is apparently no problem. We have laid out all of those conditions that need to be set forth in the report that has to come every 30 days after that first report.

Then in subsection (6) we have a requirement in the report that is also not objected to, which is a schedule for meeting such conditions. There is no objection to that in the Warner amendment. There is no language change in his version.

So we require a schedule for meeting those conditions which I have outlined and an assessment of the extent to which such conditions have been met, information regarding variables that could alter that schedule, and the reasons for any subsequent changes to that schedule.

So far, so good. No change in the language.

Not quite, because there was that one change which the Senator from Virginia made in the sense-of-the-Senate language.

I know you said there has been no change other than this. I said there was a prior one which we agreed was a change.

I would agree. Now to the last paragraph, which for reasons beyond me has been stricken.

We referred to the campaign plan--without objection. There was a campaign plan we referred to which said, what are the conditions in that plan that must be met in order to provide for the transition of security responsibilities to Iraqi security forces? There is the campaign plan. There are the conditions which have been laid out, which of those conditions must be met in order to achieve the goal which we have agreed on in this document--transition of security responsibility to security forces.

Then we have agreed that the report has to contain a schedule for meeting those conditions. What are the conditions? What is the schedule for meeting

them? Three times we refer to that schedule in that same paragraph. No objection so far.

But now we say that campaign plan should also contain estimated dates for the phased redeployment of the United States Armed Forces from Iraq as each condition is met. The conditions are already laid out. What is the campaign plan with estimated dates for the phased redeployment as those conditions are met?

Then we explicitly acknowledge that, with the understanding that unexpected contingencies may arise.

We have already made reference to the phased redeployment. That is the first time we have made a reference to phased redeployment.

In the sense of the Senate, paragraph (b)(3), we have said:

Calendar year 2006 should be a period of significant

transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security

forces taking the lead for the security of a free and

sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the

phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq.

So in subparagraph (7), the last paragraph, which makes reference to the campaign plan--we have already described what that is, with no objection to it--are the estimated dates for the phased redeployment of the United States Armed Forces from Iraq--we have already made reference to the goal of phased redeployment of United States Armed Forces--as each condition is met. We already have agreement on everything up to now, talking about all those conditions and the need that they be met, with the understanding that unexpected contingencies may arise, which I can't imagine anybody would object to because there are unexpected contingencies that always arise. We have acknowledged this.

But why it is there is objection to acknowledging what is obvious, that a campaign plan needs to have dates, estimated dates for the phased redeployment we have already agreed is desirable, as conditions allow and as each condition is met? Why that would be objectionable is frankly a mystery to me unless there is a reluctance to do what we do in an earlier paragraph, which is to say, folks, we can't stay there forever, we have a plan for success, where there is a takeover of the major security operations by the Iraqis so we can in a phased way redeploy our forces. Eliminating that part of the plan, it seems to me, is eliminating what is essential, what clearly follows from everything that precedes it, which has been agreed to, and I think it would send exactly the wrong message, to agree to all of the pieces that come up to that conclusion, including the conditions which need to be met, the desirability of phased redeployment, the fact that there is a campaign plan, the fact that that campaign plan has conditions in it that need to be met in order to provide for the transition of security responsibility.

It is all there. It is all there in the pieces leading right up to paragraph (7). Suddenly in the Warner version, paragraph (7) is stricken.

Again, I close with this emphasis. We have not said in this document that there should be a date for withdrawal. We said there should be a plan. What are the conditions for phased redeployment? What would it take for this to happen? What number of battalions need to be brought up to capability on the part of the Iraqis in order for there to be a number of our forces that are reduced and under what conditions? What are those circumstances and conditions which will allow us to reduce our forces?

For the administration to resist stating to the American people what are the conditions that need to exist for us to reduce our forces in Iraq it seems to me is wrong. It means there is no plan, there is no strategy that they are willing to lay out for the American people and for the Iraqi people as well so that there is no misunderstanding as to where this responsibility must fall ultimately, which is on the people of Iraq to come together politically and to take over their own military security.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a correction? I inadvertently said the report would be every 30 days after the first report. I misspoke. It would be every 90 days, as the Senator from Virginia correctly has stated. It would be every 90 days after the first report.

Would the Senator yield on that point?

My amendment is exactly the same as Senator Warner's amendment in that regard. Senator Warner has adopted my amendment with two minor changes. He has not made any change in terms of the progress that has been made or the reference to the great work of our troops. I thought I heard the Senator from Connecticut--and I have no dearer friend in the Senate--suggest that he had wished that my amendment would be more fulsome relative to progress. I

just wanted to assure the Senator that there is no change in that language in the version which was subsequently filed by the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. President, first let me thank my good friend from Connecticut, particularly for his repeated reference to a Senator from Michigan whom we all hold in such huge esteem--particularly Michigan, but it is not limited, obviously. We just put his portrait out in the reception room, one of the two Senators we have added in that reception room. I believe there are only seven Senators whose portraits are there. One of them is now Senator Vandenberg. I quote him often for many purposes, including the bipartisan foreign policy that he espoused.

As the Senator from Connecticut pointed out, he also urged us to give our very best thinking and not to worry about being mischaracterized or being challenged in terms of patriotism because all of us, I believe, agree that when we give our best assessment of the path forward, the success in Iraq, that we are all acting in the best of faith.

I know every colleague I either know of or do not know of is operating in the best of faith, total support for our troops, total support for their families, and how we can best succeed in Iraq. I believe we have to make some changes in our course. This amendment explicitly suggests some of those changes in course. It will hopefully make it more likely that we will succeed in Iraq.

One thing I know for sure, and that is that unless the Iraqis take hold, unless they put their political house in order, unless they do what this amendment says in both versions, that they make the political compromises and the tough political decisions that are necessary for them to be unified against the insurgency, unless they do that, there is no chance that they are going to succeed against this insurgency. They must come together politically. That is what this amendment says.

This amendment provides that they also must understand that we are not there for an unlimited period of time, because if they do believe that we are there for an unlimited period of time, they are less likely to make the political compromises which must be made for them to unite against the insurgency. That is the reason the message is so important. Are we there for an unlimited period of time, as long as you need us? Is that the right message? Or is the right message that we are not there for an unlimited period of time, we are not setting a date for departure, but we are putting you on notice, folks, you need to get your political house in order so that you can defeat, with our assistance, that insurgency. And without that kind of coming together, that military success is either unachievable or far more difficult.

That is the purpose of this amendment, and that is why the few words that were in this version, which the Senator from Virginia would change, are important words, to let the Iraqis know that the American military forces are not going to be there indefinitely, because, again, if they think we are there as long as they need us, which is the way the administration has phrased it, it is less likely that they are going to make the very difficult compromises that need to be made in order to put together a modified constitution around which all Iraqi factions can rally.

That is one of the purposes of this amendment. The other purpose is on the reports, which already, in this amendment which has been agreed to by my friend from Virginia, this amendment as written and as agreed to--there is no change to this--requires a schedule for meeting conditions. It requires a listing of variables that could alter a schedule. It requires that reasons be provided for any subsequent changes to that schedule.

What is one of the conditions? One of the conditions is that there be a campaign plan that must be met to provide for the transition of security responsibility to Iraqi security forces. So that is one of the stated conditions, that there be this campaign plan provided to the Congress, and that plan provide for the transition of security responsibility to Iraqi security forces.

Three times we make reference to a schedule and we make very clear the conditions which must be laid out as to which conditions need to be met when, including what are the number of the battalions in the Iraqi Armed Forces that can operate independently or take the lead in counterinsurgency operations--all that seems to be agreed to. We have a schedule. We have to lay out the conditions. One of the conditions is how many battalions of Iraqi Armed Forces need to be able to operate independently. We lay all of that out.

But then in the last paragraph, when we use the words ``estimated dates'' rather than ``schedule,'' for some reason the use of the words ``estimated dates'' creates a problem. Maybe it is not the words ``estimated dates,'' maybe it is the words ``phased redeployment,'' but I would again remind my colleagues that, in our sense of the Senate, we set forth a goal that, in order to succeed in Iraq, we have to have significant transition in the year 2006, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of the United States forces. That is a goal stated and apparently agreed to by my good friend from Virginia.

There is much in common here. I think the Senator from Connecticut is right. There is clearly a sense we have to do some things here to make it more likely that we are going to succeed in Iraq. That has to be everybody's goal, regardless of what our positions were going in or how critical we are of the way this war is run. Our goal is to maximize the chances for success in Iraq.

But our amendment does have some differences. We should not paper over those differences. There are two differences, which the Senator from Virginia has pointed out and I have pointed out. I guess that is where it is going to rest when the Senate votes tomorrow.

Mr. President, I hope we have performed that service. I know we all tried in good faith to do it. I am perfectly content, as the Senator from Virginia is, that our colleagues read that last paragraph, read the paragraph before that making reference three times to schedules, read the entire resolution we have written, and then determine as to which is the better message to send to the Iraqis.

I am perfectly content to leave it rest there.

Madam President, is the time between now and 11:30 allocated?

I thank the Presiding Officer. I know that Senator Dorgan wanted some of this time. I would have a couple comments relative to the Dorgan amendment, first of all. I happen to agree with what has been recently said about the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. He, indeed, would be a useful witness for the Senate to call, and I hope that either the Armed Services Committee or the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee would call that Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction so that he could come and testify before us. That has not been done.

The Department of Defense IG has withdrawn his people. These are the people who look at the contracts with the contractors that are supporting our troops. The DOD IG withdrew his people so that there are no longer those folks on the ground who can tell us about those contractors. I do not believe that the Government Accountability Office people have been called to testify before the Senate.

There are a lot of issues. There are a lot of issues about the initial contract, why it was awarded on a sole-source basis, whether the CPA, the provisional authority, was overcharged by Halliburton for oil which was purchased. There are serious questions about meals which were served or not served. There are questions about whether Halliburton had the estimating, subcontracting, and financial management systems they needed to run two multibillion dollar contracts. There are a lot of questions which need to be reviewed. They ought to be reviewed. And we ought to have Senate committees that are calling these people to testify in front of us. It seems to me that in the absence of that, what Senator Dorgan is doing is saying: Let's have a Truman-type committee, a special inspector general to look at the contracting issues. Not only do I see nothing wrong with it, it has tremendously powerful precedent.

It is named the Truman committee because Harry Truman, in the middle of a war--I emphasize in the middle of a war, World War II--Harry Truman, a Democrat, with a Democratic President, was willing to undertake an investigation of contracting practices and procurement practices because he felt the war was being exploited for profit by certain persons who were trying to profiteer off the bravery of others.

There is no disagreement among any Member of this body that I know of about the bravery, the professionalism, the courage of our troops. They deserve everything we can give them, and I believe we are giving them everything they need. There is no disagreement about that here. When Members of this body get up and are critical about the way in which this war has been won, it seems to me that is what we owe our troops. We not only owe them the material and the training and we owe their families everything, but we also owe them our best thinking. And our best thinking is not unanimous. There is not a consensus. There are not 100 people here who are cloned to think the same way. There are different thoughts.

We owe our troops our best, honest, conscientious thinking, and when people get up on this floor and provide that thinking, particularly where it is critical, it should not just be characterized as somehow or another undermining our troops.

Our troops depend upon us for the equipment, the training, the materiel, morale, for the support of their families. They depend on us for that. They are entitled to that. People who stand up and give their best thinking are supporting our troops in the best sense of

the word; they are giving them their best, honest, conscientious thoughts as to how we can succeed in Iraq and make the best of a situation that is not going well, not just stay the course, stay the course, which is a bumper sticker, not a strategy, but how can we modify this course to increase our chances for success.

I want to yield the floor. I see Senator Dorgan is in the Chamber. I know he wants to speak on his amendment. I yield to him such time as he needs to speak relative to his amendment.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, since Senator Dorgan does have another minute left, I believe, and I want to give him an opportunity to respond, I will use 30 seconds of that time simply to say that Senator Dorgan has, indeed, been tenacious. There has been an absence of oversight in this area which has been glaring. He has almost by himself filled in some of those gaps as he described it. He should not need to do that. We should either have the committees doing that or else we need this special Truman-type committee.

I commend him for his tenacity. I am glad he is bringing this to a vote, and maybe one of these days--hopefully today--he will prevail.

Mr. President, I believe now the confirmation has taken place?

I wish to have a very brief colloquy with my dear friend from Virginia on this matter, which I think he would want to comment briefly on, and that is I understand that once Secretary Winter is confirmed, which he now is, the Department of Defense will adopt an approach under which Secretary England will continue to act as Deputy Secretary of Defense on an interim basis. This approach is lawful, but it is temporary only and it is not intended to establish a pattern for future appointments. Would the Senator agree with that statement?

I do welcome that assurance. It is important for this institution. Whether the President is a Democrat or a Republican makes no difference on this issue. This is a matter of this institution asserting its constitutional responsibility, and I thank my friend from Virginia.

The Senator from Massachusetts is ready to proceed with his amendment.

Senator Akaka needs 5 minutes--have you gone through this?

We are hopeful we can complete the drafting of an Iraq amendment in the next half hour which, if we succeed, we would want to show it to the Senator from Virginia, but it may take some real time this afternoon.

If I could ask the Senator to yield, the Senator from Minnesota has an amendment or needs morning business?

With a second-degree amendment expected on that.

Excuse me. We made reference to two other Senators within that period of time. Senator Akaka would get 5 minutes for morning business, and I want to make sure the Senator from Minnesota, within that same time period, will have 10 minutes that relates to the pending amendments, as I understand the Senator.

Does the Senator expect the possibility of a vote before 12:45?

So it is unlikely between now and when?

Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I, of course, will not--in terms of sequence, it is possible there may be two amendments relating to the first-degree amendments relating to the same subject. If that were true, it may be wiser that this not intervene those two amendments.

Have amendments been scheduled for votes?

I think that may be better.

Mr. President, to help clarify the situation: Is it the proposal that there be two amendments voted on?

That would be better.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

I yield those 2 minutes.

Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Vermont.

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we have not seen the perfecting amendment of the Senator from South Carolina. I have not seen the perfecting language. Reserving the right to object, what is the purpose of that, if I may inquire?

I have no objection.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is essential that the amount of time between now and 4:30 be used on the debate on the Graham amendment. That would detract, I am afraid, from that amount of time.

I would ask unanimous consent--and I ask everyone to pay attention to this--that any time taken to comply with that request be added on at 4:30 so that the vote would be at 4:35 or 4:40, depending upon whether this insert would take 5 or 10 minutes to that modification.

Is the Presiding Officer's question, Is there objection?

Reserving the right to object--I don't intend to object--I ask a parliamentary inquiry as to whether there is anything in this unanimous consent agreement which would preclude the offering of additional second-degree amendments to the Graham amendment should the Graham amendment 2516 be agreed to and should the Bingaman motion to strike be defeated.

Or amendments.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico.

I do not see the Senator from South Carolina on the floor, and I wanted to propound a question to him. So I will wait until he returns.

Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from South Carolina might make himself available to answer an inquiry by the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from New Mexico, then, would like to proceed with his time and then yield to me in a few minutes? And then I could propound that question at a later moment.

I thank my friend from New Mexico. I wonder if I could inquire of the Senator from South Carolina, I agree with much of what he said, and I congratulate him for trying to get some rules and regulations into these proceedings. I believe that is important. But if the habeas corpus proceedings were added to the Senator's amendment-- they were not part of the Senator's amendment to begin with, and I think all of us shared the original amendment of the Senator from South Carolina, but then the court-stripping provisions were added relative to habeas corpus. That is where we are getting into very precipitous trouble.

Given the language of the new amendment of the Senator from South Carolina, if one of these enemy combatants is sentenced to death, there would be no appeal; is that correct?

Let me read the language of the Senator's amendment.

If I could read this, because I only have a few minutes, on page 3 of the amendment, Judicial Review:

United States Code is amended by saying no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien outside the United States who is detained at Guantanamo Bay.

Is it not accurate to say that no court of the United States could review a conviction which even resulted in a death sentence for one of these people down at Guantanamo and that that is inconsistent with the decision of the Supreme Court in re Quirin?

Let me read from the opinion in the Hamdan case to see if the Senator would agree with it. Ex parte Quirin, in which captured German saboteurs challenged the lawfulness of the military commission before which they were to be tried, provides a compelling historical precedent for the power of civilian courts to entertain challenges that seek to interrupt the processes of military commissions. The Supreme Court ruled against the petitioners in Quirin but only after considering their arguments on the merits.

What the language of the Senator's amendment does--and I hope it is inadvertent--the Senator eliminates court review of the sentences of enemy combatants before these commissions. I understand that he provides a mechanism to review the status of those enemy combatants. That is fine. He sends them all to court. That creates the kind of problem which the Senator from Pennsylvania talked about. But he goes way beyond that. The Senator's language goes way beyond saying that we are substituting court review for habeas corpus relative to status determinations. The Senator's amendment eliminates habeas corpus on all issues for enemy combatants at Guantanamo. That would be a clear repeal of the decision in Quirin and would also do one other thing.

In the Rasul case, which has been already decided by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court concluded that Federal courts have jurisdiction to determine the legality of the executive's potentially indefinite detention of individuals who claim to be wholly innocent of wrongdoing. This decision of the Supreme Court would be reversed if we adopted this language.

Finally, in the moment I have remaining, there is pending a decision at the Supreme Court which would be retroactively prohibited. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case recently, about a week ago, in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld to decide whether military commissions established by the President--

In the Hamdan case, the Supreme Court, a few days ago, agreed to determine the legality of the military commissions established by the President to try enemy combatants and about whether detainees at Guantanamo are entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions. That case would be wiped out under the language which is retroactive in the Senator's amendment. The Supreme Court, although they have agreed to hear the case, would be stymied in hearing a case they have agreed to hear. This goes way beyond the question of whether we are substituting. I have no great problem in substituting the court review for habeas corpus relative to those determinations of status. I think that is a fair substitute because at least then there is a court review. But this goes way beyond that, because this amendment eliminates habeas corpus for all issues which might be raised by detainees, including a conviction which leads to a death sentence that violates Quirin.

It is inconsistent with what the Supreme Court did in the case which I already referred to. It would eliminate the jurisdiction already accepted by the Supreme Court in Hamdan.

I urge that we not adopt this amendment. It is far too broad. Senator Specter's argument that the Judiciary Committee should have an opportunity to look at this is an argument to which we ought to listen.

Although I disagree with the Senator's modified amendment, I do want to commend Senator Graham because he has at least undertaken to tackle a very difficult issue which this body should tackle.

Does the Senator from South Carolina want to give those same terrorists due process, for heaven's sake? Of course, he does. He gets up on the floor and says he wants to provide due process. I say--

I want an opportunity here. He is on the right track in doing it. The question is whether there will be an appeal. If there is a conviction of those alleged terrorists for committing a war crime, is there any appeal under this language in the amendment? I am afraid there is not. I don't think it is the intention of the amendment, because the Senator says, of course, there is going to be appeal. The trouble is, the language of the amendment, by its own specific terms, says: No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by somebody at Guantanamo. That is the problem here. There would be no appeal.

Although the Senator makes a plea for due process for these same terrorists, he would eliminate the appeal of a conviction that led to a capital offense, the death penalty, for these same terrorists. I hope that is not his intent, but it would be the first time that that would ever happen, that we would purport, as the Senate, to strip the court of habeas corpus opportunity to review that kind of a conviction. Since ex parte Quirin, we have never done that.

My final question, to what court would the conviction of a detainee at Guantanamo for a capital offense subject to death, to what court would that appeal lie, if this language of the Senator is adopted? It is a very specific question, to what court?

If we are getting back to where we have always been, we don't need this amendment. The Senator just answered my question by not answering it. I asked him what court would an appeal of a death sentence be appealed to? His answer was, a three-judge panel. That three-judge panel is appointed by the Secretary of Defense. I asked specifically to what court would a death sentence be appealed, if this language is adopted. I read the language as to how broad it is. It eliminates explicitly any appeal: No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for writ of habeas corpus, and that is the way an appeal goes to a court from one of these people. It is eliminated. We strip courts of the right to hear a habeas corpus petition on a death sentence.

I agree with what the Senator started out to do with his amendment. He was on the right track. But this language goes way beyond it. That is why the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter, and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, oppose this amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Reserving the right to object, and I surely will not, is it my understanding that we had agreed that there would be some brief time period on Tuesday, prior to the votes on the Iraq amendments, I believe it was like 20 minutes?

With that clarification, I am very content.

I was going to send that up immediately after the Senator sends up his amendment.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Biden, Senator Harry Reid, and others.

If the Senator will yield, Mr. President, I agree with the description which my dear friend from Virginia has provided, that I did provide him with our amendment. Even though our amendment has a later number, it was the amendment which was first provided. The Senator from Virginia, after consultation with his leader and others, has made some modifications in our amendment and that amendment, under the unanimous consent agreement which will be voted on first, is the amendment basically that we drafted over here with the modifications made by the Senator from Virginia and others. So that is the chronology, that is the history, and that is the order we will be voting on and will be debating these on Monday under the unanimous consent agreement.

There are some differences. I would not describe them as major differences but, nonetheless, there are some differences that now exist between the two versions, and we can debate which is the preferable version. But in any event, under either version, it strikes me that there is clearly a call here for some changes in course in policy in Iraq. But that again is something we can debate further on Monday.

If the Senator will yield, also I believe the debate on the second-degree amendments to the Graham amendment would occur on Monday since the only time on Tuesday prior to votes on the amendments would be 30 minutes equally divided and that would be needed, perhaps, for both second degrees to Graham and the Iraqi amendments, all wrapped into that 30 minutes.

There may be and I think there probably would be debate on Monday on the second-degree amendments, referred to in this unanimous consent agreement, to the Graham amendment.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I agree with his comments and I reinforce the importance of our colleagues notifying our offices and our cloakrooms if they desire to have time to speak on Monday afternoon so we can schedule that time. It would be very helpful for us to be so informed as early as possible on Monday. I want to reiterate there are two groups of amendments we are talking about here that will need to be debated Monday. One is the Iraqi amendment. The other one is the second-degree amendments to the Graham amendment. We are going to have to fit all that in on Monday afternoon, and possibly, as the Senator from Virginia mentions, after the vote on Monday. So it is important that our colleagues let us, our offices and our cloakrooms, know on Monday morning if they want time on either or both of those subjects. We will try to work the best we can and protect everybody's opportunity to speak.

That is fine.

We are almost there. We are going to be there on Monday. We thought we would be there tonight, but we will on Monday.

Fixed stars.

Amendment No. 2485, As Modified

I understand this also is technical?

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

Mr. President, I appreciate the chairman's comment. I do hope and believe that Senator Reed will in about half an hour be able to address the issue. I can't commit to a vote, however, as indicated by the chairman. I believe there is some scheduling issue on this side which may preclude a vote at the time hoped for by the chairman. But let me work that issue the best I can as to when the vote would come on this amendment.

I believe Senator Craig may have an amendment----

I hope we could stack votes at some point, including a vote on the Inhofe amendment with a second-degree possibility and also----

And the Ensign amendment as well. I have talked to Senator Craig and you have apparently.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Idaho. The two changes we have proposed to the amendment make it clear that the conviction of a capital offense, as referred to, could either be State or Federal, would have to be a final conviction so there is no appeal pending or a pending court challenge. And it provides for the possibility of a commutation of that sentence by a Governor or the President.

With those two changes, it will be acceptable to us, and we can agree it will be part of a managers' package. There was no intent that this be 1 of the 12.

As I understand it, national cemeteries, Federal cemeteries are governed by the amendment. With those changes, we will not object to the amendment. In fact, I think there will be good support for it. Senator Mikulski, as I understand, is a supporter of it.

One other comment, Mr. President. It is my understanding that both the veterans organizations and the Veterans' Affairs Committee support this amendment; is that accurate?

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield further, we have had a discussion, and I received the assurance from Senator Craig, which I very much welcome, that it is not his intent that this lead to a broadening of this prohibition to include all felonies, but it is his intent, both in the amendment and his personal view, that this should be limited to the capital offense as identified in the amendment.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, we thank the Senator from Idaho for bringing this to the attention of the Senate and for making this correction.

If the chairman will yield on that point because I wish to affirm and confirm what he has just said, that these colloquies, which are necessary for clearance of amendments, are very useful. We are used to this, all of us in the Senate, engaging in these kinds of colloquies, and there is no intent, for instance, in this last colloquy, that amendment be listed as 1 of the 12 amendments on the Republican side.

Mr. President, I do believe there is at least one Member on this side who will be offering or considering a second-degree amendment.

The second-degree amendment--however one wants to characterize it--I do understand there is a second-degree amendment possible.

So we do not mislead our friend from Oklahoma, there may very well be Senators of whom I am not aware who would want to speak in opposition.

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

Mr. President, relative to the amendment of the Senator from Nevada, I had one question. Section 1 of Executive Order 11850 states the following:

The Secretary of Defense shall take all necessary measures

to ensure that the use by the Armed Forces of the United

States of any riot control agents and chemical herbicides in

war is prohibited unless such use has Presidential approval

in advance.

Is there anything in the Senator's amendment which purports or is intended to modify or change in any way that executive order?

I agree with that purpose. I want to be absolutely certain that all parts of the Executive order, including the specific requirement of section 1, continue and are not purported in any way to be changed by the Senator's amendment.

I believe that is a very useful purpose. I support that purpose. I support the Senator's amendment with that assurance. I don't know whether the Senator requested a rollcall, but if so we will support that rollcall.

Madam President, if there is no one prepared at this time to speak on the Durbin amendment, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Wisconsin be permitted to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dorgan be allowed to proceed as in morning business for 5 minutes, and that then Senator Dorgan be recognized to offer an amendment relative to--I think he is calling it a Truman-like commission. I have talked to Senator Ensign, and that is agreeable with the majority.

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

Mr. President, this has been cleared with the majority.

I call up the Durbin amendment No. 2473.

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

I thank the Presiding Officer. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada has assured the Senate that this amendment does not seek, in any way, to change current policy, including Executive Order 11850, relative to the use of riot control agents. I note that the President has provided the Presidential approval required by that Executive order for use of riot control agents in Iraq. We look forward to consulting with the administration. The amendment of the Senator from Nevada is an appropriate amendment. It could be very helpful, and we support the amendment.

Will the Senator from Louisiana yield for a question to Senator Durbin?

Mr. President, it is my recollection that the Senate already passed an amendment in one of the previous bills where we made up the difference for Federal employees; is that not correct?

In which all of us have participated. We have seen the parts that emerge and the parts that do not, and it is always a little mystery as to what emerges and what does not emerge.

My understanding is that clearly is a precedent for treating all employees. Everybody is activated the same way as Federal employees. That is No. 1. So I think that is a good argument for the amendment. But also the cost of this amendment, it seems to me, given the qualification period of 6 months, as I understand it, the cost over 5 years would be $295 million which would be a little under $60 million a year; is that correct?

I thank the Senator.

That is correct.

Mr. President, this is an important amendment. It has been offered on behalf of Senator Bayh, by Senator Durbin. Senator Landrieu is a very passionate and persuasive supporter of this amendment. I think Senators Bayh, Durbin, and Landrieu are right; that we basically designed the Guard and Reserve force to be a strategic reserve. As a practical matter, now they are effectively part of our operational forces. We have to change this arrangement so they do not take such a severe hit as they are being called up, and they are now in for longer and longer periods. I do not have the statistics on how long the average period of callup is now, but I am quite confident that if we could compare the length of the callup, say, during the last few years to the periods between 1973, when we ended the draft, that we would see there has been a dramatic increase in the length of the callup.

I support the amendment. I think we can make some real progress--I hope we can--this year in conference on this matter. It is a reasonable cost, a fair cost. It is something on which we can do better, and the troops deserve that we do better.

She is still part of the Guard and Reserve, though.

I do, indeed.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

If the Senator would yield on that?

It seems to me, the fact that there is a provision in both bills does increase the opportunity and the likelihood this time around that we will come out of conference with something. All we can do is continue to try, but I am a little more optimistic now that this amendment passed. Again, we thank the Senators from Indiana, Illinois, and Louisiana for their leadership.

Usually with his arm around you.

Mr. President, my understanding is that at 5:30 there will be two votes. I am wondering if Senator Lautenberg's amendment has been--I know it has been offered. I am wondering whether there is further debate on the Lautenberg amendment.

I think it is very helpful that Senator Lautenberg be informed that there is a plan to offer a second-degree amendment so perhaps he can then be prepared to come to the floor and debate whatever that second-degree amendment is.

Perhaps during those two votes, if the chairman so desires, we could try to line up the rest of the business for tonight.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, let me add my thanks to the Senator from Indiana for his eloquent, passionate portrayal of the needs and responsibilities we have to carry out toward our guardsmen and reservists.

Mr. President, I support very much the Chambliss amendment. I think it makes an important statement, as well as taking an important step toward greater equity relative to retirement. The Senator from Georgia has described his amendment, and I will not describe it again because he has accurately described it.

I commend him for this amendment. It is an important amendment.

I ask the Presiding Officer whether there is time between the vote on the Chambliss amendment and the Durbin amendment for an explanation of the Durbin amendment.

I will be in a position of supporting the Chambliss and Durbin amendments. While the Chambliss amendment takes an important step, the Durbin amendment takes three or four important steps in the right direction allowing earlier retirement. Where there has been 25 years of service, for instance, retirement would be allowed at age 55. Where there has been 24 years of service under the Durbin amendment, retirement would be allowed at age 56. There is a greater cost. I think it is justified. We will talk more about that in the minute which has been allowed on the Durbin amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Is there any way of determining that now?

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, we support this amendment. The Secretary's certification that is involved should not be related to the mobility capability study because that will not make any recommendations for changing airlift requirements. The certification should be related to the Quadrennial Defense Review because if there are changes in the national military strategy that affect airlift requirements, those should be reflected in the QDR.

If the Air Force does not buy any more C-17 aircraft after 2007, Boeing may have to close down its production line after delivering the last of 180 C-17s. That would be before we have the testing data on the C-5 upgrades because that data will not be available until 2008.

Given the fact there are some risks those upgrades will not achieve the mission-capable rates the DOD expects and then make it possible for us to meet our lift requirements, this is a positive amendment. It gives some real flexibility and discretion to the Secretary of Defense.

Parliamentary inquiry.

Parliamentary inquiry: It is my understanding the Senator has a right to send a second-degree amendment to the desk without consent.

Mr. President, the amendments have been cleared on our side.

No objection.

Mr. President, our Nation's gun safety laws do not go far enough to protect our families and communities and may leave us vulnerable to an attack by terrorists using military style firearms legally purchased within our own borders. Current law not only allows a known or suspected terrorist to buy firearms in the U.S., it also requires that records pertaining to the sale be destroyed within a day of the purchase. Congress should take proactive steps to address these shortfalls in our gun safety laws.

Federal law requires that anyone seeking to purchase or obtain a permit to possess, acquire, or carry firearms undergo a background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS. This process requires the applicant to provide a variety of personal information including name, date of birth, current residence, and country of citizenship which is then compared with data in the NICS system to determine whether or not the person is prohibited by law from receiving or possessing firearms. Disqualifying criteria includes such things as felony convictions and fugitive or illegal alien status.

As part of the background check, applicants are also checked against known terrorist watch lists. However, under current law, membership in a known terrorist organization does not automatically disqualify an applicant from receiving or possessing a firearm. In cases where a positive match is made, federal authorities search for other disqualifying information. If no disqualifying information can be found within three business days, the transaction is permitted to continue. In addition, all records pertaining to a positive match of an applicant to a terrorist watch list must, under current law, be destroyed within 24 hours if no disqualifying information is found.

I have cosponsored the Terrorist Apprehension Record Retention Act introduced by Senator Lautenberg. This bill would require that in cases where an NICS background check turns up a valid match to a terrorist watch list, all records pertaining to the transaction be retained for ten years. In addition, the bill requires that all NICS information be shared with appropriate federal and state counterterrorism officials anytime an individual on a terrorist watch list attempts to buy a firearm. This is only common sense.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors, which represents some 1,183 cities around the country, adopted a resolution strongly supporting the Terrorist Apprehension and Record Retention Act at their 2005 annual meeting. The resolution cites a report by the General Accountability Office which found that from February 3, 2004 through June 30, 2004, a total of 44 firearm purchase attempts were made by individuals designated as known or suspected terrorists by the federal government. This is an alarming statistic. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the resolution adopted by the U.S. Conference of Mayors be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the U.S. Conference of Mayors recognizes the importance of preserving records of gun purchases by known terrorists and the important role they could potentially play in uncovering a terrorist attack before it is carried out. We owe it to all Americans in this era of heightened risk of terrorist attack to do all we can to protect their safety.

Mr. President, how much time is there on each side, if we could inquire of the Chair.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

I am wondering if we have the time on the Nelson of Florida amendment. I do not have the number.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for 2 minutes in support of the amendment.

I thank the Chair.

I commend the Senator from Florida. He has been a passionate supporter of this cause for so long. He has had some success but not the full success which he deserves and which the widows and orphans in this country deserve and which the survivors and our disabled people in this country deserve, people who have given so much. So I want to add my voice in support. I think a strong vote will make the Senate more able to maintain this position in conference with the House.

I congratulate and thank the Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson, for his tenacity on this issue.

Mr. President, do we have two votes now scheduled?

Will that be a 10-minute vote?

Reserving the right to object, and I will not, of course, has the Byrd amendment either been adopted--

Mr. President, I too object to the amendment. It is inflexible. It provides no possibility that no matter how valuable----

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I talked to the manager, the chairman of the committee, about this. I ask unanimous consent there be 6 minutes allotted on our side in support of the amendment and that 3 minutes be allotted to the Senator from Virginia and that we then vote by no later than 25 to 6.

Is it my understanding the Senator from West Virginia would accept a voice vote?

Reserving the right to object, I wonder if the Senator from West Virginia would modify that so that the vote on the Byrd amendment would come immediately after the vote on my amendment and then we would proceed to the vote on the Reed-Levin amendment?

I ask unanimous consent that Senators Lautenberg, Feinstein, Biden, and Akaka be added as cosponsors of amendment No. 2430.

Mr. President, this is an amendment that would create an independent commission that would look into allegations of detainee abuses. I yield myself 2 minutes and then I will yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Delaware and then 2 minutes to the Senator from Illinois, if he is here.

There are major gaps in the investigation which has taken place so far. We have heard a lot about the number of hearings that have been held. We have heard that 12 major investigations have taken place, 30 open hearings, 40 closed hearings, and so forth. None of the hearings, none of the investigations, have gotten to five areas. These are huge gaps, and we cannot sweep these gaps under the rug.

No. 1, none has looked at the role of the intelligence community, the CIA role, secret prisons, ghost detainees. It is a huge area which needs to be focused on.

No. 2, the Government policy on renditions, there has been no review of this.

No. 3, the role of contractors, there has been no investigation of the role of contractors.

No. 4, the legality of interrogation techniques, there has been no assessment of the legality of interrogation techniques.

There are two memos we have not been able to obtain that an independent commission with subpoena power could obtain, the second so- called Bybee memo and the March 3 memo from Mr. Yoo to the Department of Defense. They set forth what is allowed in terms of interrogation techniques. We cannot get those memos. An independent commission, a bipartisan commission based on the 9/11 model, could get those memos. They are critically important. And there are additional outstanding document requests which have been ignored.

This matter cannot be swept under the rug. No matter how many hearings have been held, there are major gaps that exist in reviewing this matter. We owe it to our troops, the men and women who wear the uniform for the United States, that we get the full picture and get it behind us. That is what is essential to restore the credibility of this Nation as well as to support the men and women who someday may be captured by our enemy, and we sure don't want any enemy of ours to ever cite that we ignored the violations that apparently have existed.

I now yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Illinois and then 2 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.

There is an objection.

We reversed the order, No. 1, and there needs to be time for debate before one of those amendments. I urge there be a unanimous consent agreement entered into now that after this vote we proceed immediately to a vote on the Byrd amendment, and between this vote and the vote on the Byrd amendment, we work out an agreeable unanimous consent.

The vote on my amendment immediately as we agreed upon, and then we go immediately to the Byrd amendment. Between the vote here on my amendment and the Byrd amendment, we work on a unanimous consent relative to the other amendment.

I hope not, but we have not agreed with that yet. We have to clear that with our leader.

I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to the Byrd amendment, and I congratulate him on trying to address a problem which is endemic. It seems perpetual. I believe it is going to take all the energy of this body and the other body to force them to make the kind of changes this could lead to. I congratulate the Senator.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

First, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his amendment, for working to modify that amendment. We think it is a prudent and useful amendment and that it addresses a very significant issue which is how do we obtain more support from other countries to be effective in our effort against terrorism. So we want to thank the Senator from Oklahoma.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I wish to clarify a question the chairman of the committee asked. I think I heard the answer, but I was not 100 percent sure.

Is the amendment intended to state the current policy of the United States? When it says on line 1 of page 1, ``It is the policy of the United States,'' is that intended to reflect the current policy of the United States?

Is it the intention of the amendment, then, to state the policy of the United States as reflected in Executive Order 11850?

So there is no effort, no intent in the statement of policy on line 4 on page 1 through line 6 on page 2, to in any way modify the policy set forth in that Executive Order 11850?

So this restatement of policy is not intended to modify this in any way. But as I understand it, what the good Senator from Nevada is saying is that some people in the Government have interpreted Executive Order 11850 differently from the way the policy is stated in section 1073?

I thank my friend from Nevada.

Mr. President, we will reserve the time. We are not necessarily at all in opposition, but we would like to review this overnight. We thank the Senator from Nevada.

I have no objection.

Is it the intention that the packages be adopted one package at time?

I am sure we can work it out whether the action has been taken. Have not the four packages been acted upon and approved en bloc?

I am trying to understand what the unanimous consent request was. Was it the amendments be considered en bloc and agreed to en bloc?

No objection.

I lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Virginia. We have on our side disposed of six amendments. We are trying to boil down the balance of the amendments. We have to boil down to six. We have not yet done that. I don't want to identify which ones other than to say we know there will be a Dorgan amendment on the Truman Commission which we hope will come immediately after lunch tomorrow. There is still a surplus of amendments we have to work out.

To be more helpful, the Dorgan amendment has been filed.

There is a likelihood there will be a Durbin amendment on Guard and Reserve which also has been filed. I don't want to lock that in as one because we are still juggling. That has been filed. It is likely that will be one of the six.

I don't think it is, but I am not certain.