Floor Statements

Mr. President, last Tuesday evening, the University of Michigan presented Paul Rusesabagina with its 15th Annual Wallenberg Medal. As my colleagues may remember, Mr. Rusesabagina was the subject of the movie ``Hotel Rwanda.''

The Wallenberg Medal is named for University of Michigan alumnus and humanitarian Raoul Wallenberg. After receiving his degree in architecture in 1935, he spent time in several jobs in South Africa and Palestine before moving to Sweden in 1941 to work for a Jewish Hungarian businessman named Kalman Lauer. Lauer operated an export- import firm which did business in Central Europe, a large portion of which took place in Hungary. As the Nazis continued to gain power in Europe, Lauer found it increasingly difficult to travel and turned over control of his foreign division to Wallenberg. In 1944, Wallenberg was approached by the American War Refugee Board to take part in a plan to assist Jews in Budapest who were in danger of falling victim to the holocaust.

Wallenberg agreed to take part in the project and was sent to Budapest as a representative of the Swedish Government. In Budapest, Wallenberg hired several hundred Jews to staff his office, bringing them under the diplomatic protection of Sweden. Additionally, he created a new official looking Swedish passport, known as the ``Schutzpass.'' Wallenberg gave the Schutzpass to thousands of Hungarian Jews and said that it granted the holder immunity from Nazi deportation. The Schutzpass deceived the Nazis and may have saved the lives of as many as 20,000 Jews.

Wallenberg is also known to have rented 32 buildings in Budapest, which he declared to be under the diplomatic protection of the Swedish Government. Using his architectural education from the University of Michigan, he took space designed to hold no more than 5,000 people and turned it into housing for more than 35,000 Jews. These ``safe houses'' provided a refuge of last resort for thousands who would have otherwise disappeared into Nazi death camps.

There are numerous stories of Wallenberg's courage and heroism throughout the last few years of World War II. Despite repeated threats and attempts on his life, he persevered and continued his work to save as many Jews as possible. Wallenberg is best known for skillful negotiation and fearless confrontation of Nazi soldiers who threatened the safety of those he was working to protect. Tragically, Wallenberg disappeared soon after Soviet soldiers took control of Budapest.

While the circumstances surrounding Wallenberg's disappearance are still unclear, the tens of thousands of Jews he saved from certain death will never forget his brave actions. The University of Michigan created the Wallenberg Medal in 1990 to honor his memory and recognize other outstanding humanitarian leaders. Each year the Wallenberg Medal is presented to an individual who has exhibited extraordinary respect for human rights on behalf of those subjected to persecution. Medal recipients are chosen to honor their self-sacrifice, integrity, and courage in standing up to an oppressive majority. Following the presentation, the Wallenberg Medal recipient is invited to address an audience of students, faculty, and members of the community regarding their experiences and humanitarian work. Past Wallenberg Medal recipients include the Dalai Lama, Nobel-laureate and holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, civil rights leader and Congressman John Lewis, and other extraordinary humanitarians.

This year's Wallenberg Medal recipient Paul Rusesabagina has certainly exhibited qualities worthy of such a high honor. Rusesabagina was the manager of the Hotel des Mille Collines in Kigali, Rwanda in 1994 when the assassination of Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana pushed an already tense situation in the country over the edge. Radical ethnic Hutus began rounding up and murdering their Tutsi rivals as well as other moderate Hutus who did not support their actions. It is estimated that nearly one million people

were killed in the violence in only 100 days.

Paul Rusesabagina did not stand by and watch as his countrymen were murdered. As a well-connected Hutu, Rusesabagina was spared persecution. However, his wife, a Tutsi, and his children were not safe. He moved them from his home to the Hotel des Mille Collines where he believed they would be safer. As the violence intensified, he opened the hotel to hundreds of other Rwandans, Hutu and Tutsi alike, who were seeking to escape the violence outside. In the following months, there were numerous attempts to force those at the hotel out into the streets of Kigali. Each time, Rusesabagina used his international connections through the hotel or with the Rwandan military in combination with keen negotiation skills to spare the lives of those he was caring for. Amazingly, no one who took shelter inside the hotel was killed in the violence. In all, Paul Rusesabagina and the Hotel des Mille Collines protected the lives of more than 1,200 people during the genocide.

Prior to the award ceremony last Tuesday, Paul Rusesabagina was reunited with one of the many who took shelter at the Hotel des Mille Collines. According to reports, Thomas Kamilindi was working as a journalist in Kigali when violence broke out in 1994. Kamilindi, his pregnant wife and young daughter stayed at the hotel for a month and a half until they were evacuated. Kamilindi credits Paul Rusesabagina with saving his life and the lives of his family. The meeting last Tuesday was the first since Kamilindi and his family were evacuated more than 10 years ago. Following their meeting, Kamilindi said, ``It was very emotional for him and for me. I am still alive because Paul was there.'' Kamilindi is currently a Knight-Wallace Journalism Fellow at the University of Michigan where he is studying representations of violence in the media.

Paul Rusesabagina's courageous actions closely resemble those of Raoul Wallenberg 50 years before. Both men stood in the face of great adversity to protect those who were not able to protect themselves. Like Wallenberg, Rusesabagina provided a shelter of last resort to innocent civilians facing persecution, many of whom he did not know personally prior to the violence. In addition, both men fought off potential violence not by meeting force with force, but by using persuasion, influence, and negotiation instead.

I thank the University of Michigan for adding to the legacy of Raoul Wallenberg by recognizing the contributions of other great humanitarians like Paul Rusesabagina. I know my colleagues will join me in congratulating Paul Rusesabagina on this great honor.

Reserving the right to object.

Reserving the right to object. May I ask a question?

I object.

Mr. President, we have before the Senate the fiscal year 2006 Department of Defense appropriations bill, H.R. 2863. This legislation makes a valuable contribution to our Nation's efforts to enhance the quality of life for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines as well as their families, while continuing to transform our military forces to ensure that they are capable of meeting the threats to America's security now and in the future.

As the Senators from Michigan and South Dakota have noted, many soldiers returned from the gulf war with a variety of symptoms that have no discernible cause. Although environmental exposure in the gulf war cannot be ruled out as a cause, many believe that stress is a factor that may have contributed to these illnesses. I hope that efforts will be made

to ensure that this bill provides adequate funding to ensure the continuation of this important research.

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to explain an amendment which I am going to ask the majority leader to accept as part of this unanimous consent request, and that I be allowed to proceed for 4 minutes to explain what this amendment does.

Mr. President, we have all gotten up on this floor and talked about the urgent necessity of helping the people of Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas. We have all been on this floor talking about the uniqueness of the disaster which is called Katrina. Every one of us goes back home. We received into our homes, our churches, our synagogues people who have been displaced by Katrina. Our people have responded magnificently to this disaster, to this catastrophe back home.

Now the question is whether we in the Congress are going to be helpful to the victims in a way which we have been helpful in so many other disasters of a smaller magnitude by providing a loan so that operations can continue, or whether we are going to incorporate a provision in this loan which has never been incorporated before in any loan ever made to a community that obtained a loan under this law.

We have never imposed this restriction that is in this bill on any community in this country. We have lent money to Ricksburg, ID; we have lent money to Johnstown, PA; we have lent money to Clifton, AZ; we have lent money to Albian Borough, PA; we have lent money to Vassar, MI, in my home State.

There are occasions when those loans have been forgiven, and in the ones I just listed--and I want the majority leader to understand the depth of the feeling on this issue because it can happen to any of us-- the loans I just listed, including one to my home State, have been forgiven when they met the conditions of the Stafford Act for forgiving loans.

But now we are telling the victims of the worst disaster we have had in this country that the Stafford Act provisions, which, under certain circumstances, could permit the forgiveness of a loan, will not be available to them. My amendment does not turn this loan into a grant.

If my amendment is accepted, it would provide that the same terms and conditions under which this loan is made will be the terms and conditions that have been applied to other loans.

To discriminate against these people who have been so victimized, to me, is unthinkable--that we would single them out for discriminatory language. I don't believe we can operate this way, and I don't believe the House would reject our language if my amendment is accepted.

The Senator from Delaware and I went over to the House last night. We talked with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and he indicated that the language which I am going to suggest would be acceptable to him. He didn't speak for the whole House, obviously, and if the Senator from Delaware chooses to comment on this, I think he will restate what I just stated as being accurate.

My request, my plea, is that we adopt language which strikes the discriminatory provision which allows the Stafford Act forgiveness to be considered with these loans the way it has been considered with all other loans. That is my plea. And my plea is incorporated in an amendment.

My amendment, which I ask the majority leader to consider, would strike the word ``not'' in the bill where it says:

. . . that loans may not be canceled.

Strike the word ``not'' and substitute the words ``may be canceled pursuant to the Stafford Act,'' and with an additional requirement, ``with the approval of the Congress.''

I suggest we add an additional safeguard, the safeguard of the Stafford Act, which has been applied to all other loans, but in addition to that, add a requirement that if there is forgiveness, it could only happen with the approval of the Congress. That is a double safeguard. That still would single them out as no others have been singled out, but at least it would keep the possibility explicit in the bill that under the circumstances that are provided for every other loan, that these loans might be forgiven should Congress so choose.

I have been told we can always do that; we always have that power, and we do. It is implicit. But I think we should make it explicit to give people the assurance that in addition--it is bad enough to be victims of this hurricane; it is doubly bad to be victims of discriminatory language. And we are not going to walk down that road. We are going to hold our hand out to you and not insult or offend at the same time.

I ask the leader whether he would amend his unanimous consent proposal to strike the word ``not'' on page 2, line 10, and substitute the words ``only with the approval of the Congress''?

Parliamentary inquiry.

Does the Senator from Delaware or any other Senator not have the right to reserve the right to object?

Mr. President, we owe it not only to the people who live and work in Washington, DC and the millions who visit, but to all Americans to do what we can to prevent gun violence in our nation's capital. It is important that we also respect the wishes of DC residents as they work to address the

problems of gun violence in their own communities. Unfortunately, legislation introduced earlier this year would undermine both of these objectives.

Among other things, the misnamed District of Columbia Personal Protection Act would repeal local laws in Washington, DC that ban the sale and possession of unregistered firearms, require firearm registration, impose common sense safe storage requirements, and ban semiautomatic weapons.

Elected officials and community leaders throughout Washington, DC, have made clear their opposition to this bill and any other attempt to roll back Washington's local gun safety laws. In recent months, many groups around the country working to end gun violence have also expressed strong opposition to the proposed repeal of local gun safety laws in Washington, DC. In July, 44 national, state, and local organizations issued an open letter to Congress opposing the so called District of Columbia Personal Protection Act. Among the groups who signed the letter were the United States Conference of Mayors, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the National Black Police Association, Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. Their letter said:

The citizens of the District of Columbia should have the

power to decide by democratic means whether and how firearms

are regulated in the city where they live. DC's current gun

laws were passed almost 30 years ago by an elected city

council, and these laws continue to enjoy broad support among

business executives, law enforcement officials, health care

professionals, civic organizations, and ordinary citizens.

When legislation to repeal DC's gun laws was introduced last

year, it generated widespread opposition--and attracted

virtually no support--among DC residents.

While this bill has not yet been considered in the Senate, the citizens of Washington, DC, continue to face attempts to roll back their local gun safety laws. During consideration of the fiscal year 2006 District of Columbia appropriations bill, the House of Representatives adopted an amendment strongly supported by the National Rifle Association which would prohibit funds in the bill from being used to enforce a local requirement that District residents keep their firearms unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock in their homes. Fortunately, the current Senate version of the bill does not include a similar provision and I am hopeful the House-passed language will not become law.

The Senate should respect the will of the people of Washington, DC, with regard to local gun safety laws. I hope the Senate will focus its efforts on legislation that will help make communities across our Nation safer, not on steps which would make our Nation's Capital less safe.

I ask unanimous consent that the above-mentioned letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to address the nomination of Stewart Baker to be Assistant Secretary for Policy at the Department of Homeland Security.

Last week, when Mr. Baker's nomination came before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, I voted no. That is my position today.

Mr. Baker is an intelligent and accomplished man, but he does not have the experience necessary to fill this important post at this important time. Mr. Baker is a lawyer with experience in national security, trade, and technology. He has been widely published on topics such as cyber-security and civil liberties. I understand that he performed capably as the general counsel of the Silverman-Robb Commission on WMD intelligence capabilities. Mr. Baker might be well qualified for many positions at DHS, but he is not qualified to be Assistant Secretary for Policy.

During his confirmation hearing before our committee, Mr. Stewart testified that he expected to be the ``central player'' at DHS on ``lessons learned'' from Hurricane Katrina, to develop emergency response policy, and to be a key player on immigration reform, among other matters. Yet when asked at his hearing if he had emergency response experience, he said ``no.'' He also admitted to having little expertise on immigration issues.

While no one could be expected to be an expert on all of the issues addressed by DHS, it makes little sense to me to appoint a person with no emergency response experience to be the central player on lessons learned from Katrina, or to appoint a person with little immigration expertise to articulate Federal immigration policy, especially when, over the next few years, both issues--emergency response and immigration--will be so prominent at the Department. As we have learned from the Katrina disaster, we cannot afford to have inexperienced people in senior positions at DHS for on-the-job training.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side?

If the Senator is seeking recognition on his time, I have no objection.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma. I do so with some reluctance, actually, because I have great admiration for the Senator from Oklahoma and his efforts to curtail waste in the Government. I have joined him on a number of those efforts. As a matter of fact, I very much admire his efforts and the efforts of the subcommittee he chairs to go after waste. I think he is going too far in this particular case, and he is going after an effort to try to integrate the thousands--literally thousands--of financial management systems in the Department of Defense.

We had a chart a few years back with a box for each financial management system in the Department of Defense, perhaps half the size of the curtain behind the Presiding Officer. There were thousands of boxes on that chart. We told the Department of Defense: You have to get your house in order; you have to get some financial management in the Department of Defense so that we can tell whether your expenditures--so that you can tell and then we, as oversight people, can tell--are those expenditures authorized; do your managers know how much you are spending on what; is the payment automatic when these expenditures are made?

For instance, for travel, when a ticket is purchased, is that ticket paid for automatically the way it should be by a computer if it is authorized or is there going to have to be someone, as the status quo provides, cutting a check for the travel? That costs money. It may not appear in the cost of the ticket of the one transaction that may be the ``cheapest'' transaction, according to some system, but there is a cost to pay for that transaction.

We want the payment to be automatic when the transaction is authorized. We want the ability of managers to know what is being spent, is the travel authorized, can you go back and track the travel automatically?

Now we have thousands of systems out there, with thousands of managers, not integrated into a system, where the kind of management that is so essential in the Pentagon can occur.

That is the problem with the amendment. It goes back to a focus on individual transactions to purchase tickets rather than to make a system to buy the travel part of an integrated management system.

Look, we put a lot of pressure on the Pentagon. We have put a huge amount of pressure on it to come up with some

financial management capability. They have been a failure at it. Now they are trying to do it--they have not succeeded, by the way. This system has plenty of bugs in it. As the Senator from Oklahoma properly points out, there are bugs in this system. But we don't kill the effort to try to get integrated financial management so there is some accountability for the funds that are spent by the Pentagon.

We do not want to go back to ground zero. We want to try to make this work. And the problem with this amendment is that it goes too far because it says:

None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be obligated

or expended for further development, deployment, or operation

of any web-based, end-to-end travel management system, or

services under any contract for such travel services that

provides for payment by the Department of Defense to the

service provider--

Except for a fixed-fee transaction payment.

That puts us back to millions of individual transactions which are unaccountable and for which we cannot have proper oversight. That is the problem.

I admire the Senator's goal in trying to come up with a system which is better than the one we are now proceeding to acquire. We are going to work out the bugs, hopefully, in that system. But I disagree to going back to ground zero because we have to get some integrated financial management at the Pentagon. That is the purpose of this DTS system.

It has not yet been achieved. I agree with the Senator from Oklahoma, it has not been achieved, but I don't think we ought to blow up the effort and go back to ground zero.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Mr. President, again, I thank my friend from Oklahoma. This is a prohibition on spending any additional money to operate any Web-based, end-to-end management system. That is what is in the language. It says you cannot spend any more money. We can't get the bugs out, which is what we should do if you can't spend any more money to improve this system.

The Senator from Oklahoma goes back to an individual transaction system which does not provide the ability to determine whether travel is authorized, does not permit the people who are responsible to pay for the travel to know whether it is authorized and to pay for it by computer automatically. We have millions of transactions that are going to have to be paid for individually instead of part of the end-to-end system.

So if the Senator had allowed for the correction of this system to work out the bugs, that would be one thing. But it does not. This says you cannot spend any more money on a Web-based system, and that is the mistake of this amendment. That is why it goes too far, although it is well intended.

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

In terms of the content of the package----

Without losing his right to the floor, I want to see if I can clarify what I understand to be in the package which was sent to the desk. My understanding is on the underlying amendment which the Senator filed and which I cosponsored that the sections of our Defense authorization bill relating to energy and to military construction have been removed.

And that the purpose of this package is to remove any amendments relating to those two subjects from the managers' package.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for an inquiry without losing his right to the floor?

I wonder if I could inquire----

If the Senator will yield for a question without losing his right to the floor, my understanding of the amendments which have just been printed is those are amendments to the Senator's amendment, not to the bill.

Is my understanding correct that the amendment which was just sent to the desk to be printed are amendments to Senator Warner's amendment, not amendments to the bill itself?

Will the Senator yield?

To try to clarify this, what the Senator from Virginia calls part 3 is a skinned-down version of 1 and 2, eliminating from 1 and 2 those provisions which might violate the understanding which existed that there would not be any provisions in this package that related to the energy piece and to the MILCON piece. The effort being made by the Senator from Virginia, as I understand it, is not to add something into this part in violation of an understanding, but is to make sure that parts 1 and 2--that this modification complies with the understanding that the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Virginia had; is that correct?

I apologize for that statement.

But in terms of the representation of what was in the package, it did not contain in packages 1 and 2 anything relative to the Energy and MILCON bills. The effort of this printed package is to make sure the proposed amendments to your amendment comply with your representation.

I thought the unanimous consent request would be a colloquy.

I assure the Senator from Alaska I will be brief. I simply join in the plea.

I join the Senator from Virginia in making a plea to our appropriators here, the managers on the bill, to understand the situation in which we find ourselves. That is, we had a bill in the Senate which the Republican leader decided for reasons which were very clear at the time that the bill would be pulled down. It was left in limbo. And the request is whether we will now have an opportunity to vote on a bill which does so much for the men and women in the military. We cannot think of any other way we can bring up the authorization except by offering it as an amendment to the appropriations bill, which is pending.

It has met the threshold of germaneness, we are assured. The Senate will decide whether it is germane. But the Parliamentarian has advised the Senator from Virginia that it meets the threshold.

So now with the provisions in this bill--the pay provisions, the special pay provisions, the bonuses, the death gratuity enhancement, the increased life insurance, the health care provisions, the TRICARE provisions--we could go on and on--there are critically important provisions in this bill to the men and women in the military.

We have men and women in the military with their lives at risk in Iraq and Afghanistan and now we have an additional responsibility in the gulf. We have so much at stake. Usually appropriators and the authorizers have been able to work together. I hope that will continue now. Somehow or other I hope we will be able to figure out a way----

If I can finish the sentence.

I hope we can find a way consistent with the wonderful relationship which has existed between appropriators and authorizers in the defense area, that we can find a way to get this authorization bill before the Senate. We have tried to get it freestanding, without success. This is an opportunity to bring this bill to the Senate.

As the Senator from Virginia said, we have over 100 items which have been cleared. That is not done for any sinister reason. That is done for a very simple way to expedite this bill so that the appropriators are not confronted with 100 amendments. The appropriators should not be confronted with an authorization bill where there are 150 amendments pending.

The Senator from Virginia and this Senator have tried very hard to accommodate Senators on both sides of the aisle so we could help the appropriators, so we could represent to the appropriators that we would not be confronted with 100 or 150 amendments, but that a managers' package would be able to resolve most of those amendments. That has been done. It has been done in good faith.

I hope that somehow or other the managers of this bill can find a way to help us bring this bill to the floor. There will not be more than perhaps a dozen amendments that would be offered to this bill, we think, because we believe we can work out most of the other amendments. That is my plea to the appropriators and to our good friends, the Senators from Alaska and Hawaii.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent I be listed as a cosponsor of the McCain amendment relative to the treatment of detainees.

Mr. President, I support the McCain amendment on interrogation standards because it protects our troops. Major General Fay, in his investigation into the role of military intelligence in the prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib, found that DoD's development of multiple policies on interrogation operations for use in different theaters or operations confused Army and civilian interrogators at Abu Ghraib.'' This confusion over what standards applied contributed to the horrific abuses of detainees. This confusion has put our troops at risk of being subjected to abusive treatment should they ever be captured.

Senator McCain's amendment would protect our troops by establishing a single, uniform standard for interrogations. This is consistent with the recommendations of Major General Fay. Senator McCain's amendment also requires that detainees in U.S. custody shall not be subjected to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment. This is consistent with the high standards to which our military is trained, with how we expect our soldiers to be treated if they fall into enemy custody, with our international obligations, and with our cherished values as Americans. I urge my colleagues to support the McCain amendment.

I object.

Mr. President, the only way we are going to be able to consider the Defense authorization bill, apparently, this year is if we offer this as an amendment and then amend it. You heard from the Senator from Alaska earlier today that this would open up the bill, the appropriations bill, to amendments, that they would be unlimited. We heard the opposite argument from our dear friend from West Virginia that this would restrict amendments on the authorization. The only way we are going to be able to have debate on amendments on the authorization bill is if we consider the authorization bill now.

The leader, in his wisdom, pulled down the authorization bill when it was pending. As far as I know, there is not a decision on his part to bring that authorization bill back to the floor. How I dearly wish we could have a separate authorization bill. But we are not going to get it, except in this process.

It is amendable. I assure my friend from West Virginia that the only way we are going to debate the authorization bill on the floor of the Senate and offer amendments is if we follow this process. It is amendable. It is debatable. It is free speech at its utmost. The alternative is the absence of debate on the authorization bill.

We have been able to clear about 100 amendments, plus. We do that in the ordinary process. We do that every year on the authorization bill. We try to accommodate our colleagues. We have gone through that process. There are another dozen or so amendments which we would have to consider that we know about.

Let us follow that process. There is so much in this bill that is needed. There is a health provision in this bill and a lot of other provisions.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.

Could the Presiding Officer tell us how many amendments have

been filed and how many of them would fall as nongermane? Could the Chair just give us some idea, some estimate?

Can we have an idea as to how many are filed? Can we get that information?

I thank the Chair.

I cannot vote for cloture on this bill because it would make it impossible to consider highly important amendments for our troops and their families and amendments to enhance our Nation's security.

One hundred twenty amendments are filled. The Parliamentarian can't tell us even how many are relevant but, because they are not technically germane, will not be permitted to come to a vote if cloture is invoked.

The stakes for our security in the middle of war are too great not to take an extra few days to consider important relevant amendments.

I vote to take those extra few days rather than to prematurely end debate. I will vote against cloture.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, I join the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee in filing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, as an amendment to this bill. I also join the chairman in filing a managers' amendment incorporating many of the amendments that Members are offering to our bill. We and our staffs are working hard, and hope to clear more amendments as we move forward.

This is not our preferred approach to this issue. We have always brought up and completed action on the Defense authorization bill as a freestanding bill in the past, and we would prefer to do so this year. Indeed, we have made and are continuing to make every effort to do so. I remain optimistic that we will be able to reach agreement to proceed to and complete action on the Defense authorization bill and that it will not be necessary to take up this amendment.

This bill was unanimously reported out of the Armed Services Committee all the way back in May. It was brought to the Senate floor 2 months later, at the end of July. In the last week before the August recess, we attempted to enter a unanimous consent agreement which would have concluded debate on the bill in less that 2 days.

Unfortunately, the Republican leadership rejected this proposal and pulled the bill off the floor before action could be completed, so that the Senate could instead consider the gun manufacturers' liability bill.

Since that time, we have made every effort to bring the bill back up as a freestanding measure, but without success. We have repeatedly asked the Republican leadership for floor time. We have offered to enter into agreements regarding the relevance of amendments, and the number of amendments, so as to limit the amount of time that would be taken by debate. So far, none of these efforts have borne fruit.

Mr. President, more than 4 months have now passed since this bill was reported out of the Armed Services Committee. The fiscal year covered by the bill began last week. The Senate truly needs to consider this bill, and if bringing it to the floor as an amendment is the only way to get that consideration, we have an obligation to try.

At a time when members of our Armed Forces are performing heroically, both at home and overseas, to make our country safer and stronger, our military both needs and deserves all of the support that this Congress can provide. More than 70,000 active duty and National Guard troops have been sent to the gulf coast to assist in the recovery from Hurricane Katrina. These troops are playing a critical role in conducting search and rescue missions, evacuating displaced persons, providing security in impacted areas, delivering essential food, water and medicine, and rebuilding damaged infrastructure throughout the region.

At the same time, roughly 138,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are engaged in taking on an aggressive insurgency in Iraq, another 17,000 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 also continue to bear the brunt of the continuing effort to keep the peace in Kosovo and the Sinai, and contain the threat of North Korea--while remaining prepared to execute other missions in support of the national military strategy.

Some of these troops deployed overseas are from the gulf coast area. Some will soon return home to find that Katrina has damaged or destroyed their homes. Some will have nothing left. Passage of the national Defense bill will improve their quality of life while they remain on active duty and when serving on hurricane recovery duty. It will send an important message to them and to their families that we, as a nation, understand their loss and appreciate their service. Failure to pass the Defense bill would send the opposite message.

At a time when members of our Armed Forces are performing heroically, both at home and overseas, to make our country safer and stronger, it would be unconscionable to give the Defense authorization bill less than top legislative priority. Our military both needs and deserves all of the support that this Congress can provide.

First and foremost, the Defense authorization bill would support our troops by improving compensation and quality of life for our service men and women and their families as they face the hardships imposed by continuing military operations within the United States and around the world. For instance, the bill would provide funding for a 3.1 percent across-the-board pay raise for military personnel; a $70 million increase in childcare and family assistance services for military families; and $50 million in supplemental educational aid to local school districts affected by the assignment or location of military families.

The bill would also provide needed funding for the continuation of our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. For example, the bill would authorize a $50 billion supplemental for continued operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, add hundreds of millions of dollars to the President's budget needed for force protection gear, up-armored vehicles, and a Joint Improvised Explosive Device Task Force, increase the Army's active-duty end strength by 20,000, and authorize the continuation of the Commanders' Emergency Response Program.

If we fail to enact this bill in a timely manner, we will hurt our men and women in uniform. The military's authority to pay bonuses and special pays to our men and women in uniform would expire, exacerbating an already troublesome problem we are facing with recruitment and retention. The enhanced death gratuity of $100,000 and the increased life insurance benefits that we enacted for servicemembers earlier this year would lapse and substantially lower benefits would be reinstated. More than $6.0 billion in military construction and family housing projects to improve the conditions in which our servicemembers work and live would be unable to proceed.

The Senate obviously has a lengthy agenda for the rest of the year. Some of the items on this agenda are undoubtedly important, but we should not pursue them at the expense of our men and women in uniform. If we truly value the contribution that our Armed Forces have made and continue to make every day at home and abroad, we should take up and pass a Defense authorization bill--preferably as a freestanding bill but, if not, as an amendment to the pending legislation.

Mr. President, earlier this week the Violence Policy Center released its annual study of homicide data titled ``When Men Murder Women.'' This year's study analyzed homicide data from 2003, the most recent available, that involved one female victim and one male offender.

The VPC found that in 2003, the majority of women who were murdered were killed with a firearm. In the overwhelming majority of these cases, 77 percent in fact, the male offender used a handgun. The VPC report also revealed that more than ten times as many females were murdered by a man they knew than were killed by a stranger. Of these, 62 percent were in an intimate relationship or married to their killer. According to the report, ``Most often, females were killed by males in the course of an argument.'' These statistics illustrate the tragic role firearms play in domestic violence disputes that escalate into murder.

As my colleagues know, since 1968 it has been illegal for convicted felons, illegal aliens, individuals involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, individuals who have renounced their citizenship, drug addicts, those dishonorably discharged from the military, and fugitives to possess or purchase a firearm. In 1996, we extended the law to the prohibition on firearms to individuals who were under a domestic violence restraining order and those who had previously been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor.

Unfortunately, these efforts continue to be undermined by Congress' failure to close the ``gun show loophole.'' Under current law, when an individual buys a firearm from a licensed dealer, there are Federal requirements for a background check to insure that the purchaser is not prohibited by law from purchasing or possessing a firearm. However, this is not the case for all gun purchases. For example, when an individual wants to buy a firearm from another private citizen who is not a licensed gun dealer, there is no requirement that the seller ensure the purchaser is not in a prohibited category. This creates a loophole in the law, providing prohibited purchasers, including those who have previously been convicted of domestic violence crimes, with potential easy access to dangerous firearms. Such firearms could later be used to murder a wife or girlfriend in a moment of rage or jealousy.

The VPC demonstrates that the Congress should do more to help protect women from gun violence. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of funding for domestic violence prevention programs as well as legislation to close the gun show loophole.

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Mildred Light Aldridge, an educator and administrator for many years and the wife of the late Reverend Dr. Avery Aldridge, who passed away at the age of 77 on September 22, 2005. She was an important member of the Flint community, and she will be sorely missed by many.

Mildred Light Aldridge was born in 1928 in Earle, AR. She received her bachelor's of art degree in elementary education from the University of Michigan-Flint and her master's degree in guidance and counseling from Eastern Michigan University. She taught on the elementary school level and worked as a guidance counselor in several middle schools before serving as principal of the Doyle Ryder Community School until her retirement in 1986. After retirement, she remained active by founding and serving as the director of the Eagle's Nest Child Care and Development Center. She also served for the past 23 years as an instructor of the adult ladies fellowship class at Foss Avenue Baptist Church.

Mildred Light Aldridge participated in various civic and community organizations, including the Flint Chapters of the NAACP and the Urban League, the Visually Impaired Center of Flint, and on the advisory board of the Mott Community College Foundation. She was also affiliated with the National Association of Elementary School Principals and the Flint Congress of School Administrators. In addition, Dr. Aldridge held honorary doctorate degrees from Arkansas Baptist College and Selma University.

Dr. Aldridge is mourned by many in the Flint community and is survived by her two children, Derrick Aldridge and Karen Aldridge- Eason, and by her 10 grandchildren. This is, indeed, a great loss to all who knew her, and I know my colleagues will join me in paying tribute to the life of Mildred L. Aldridge.

Madam President, earlier this month, the emerald ash borer was positively detected in the Upper Peninsula of my home State of Michigan for the first time. Officials believe that this may be an isolated outbreak, and hope that it can be successfully contained.

Unfortunately, this is an aggressive pest that we in Michigan have been fighting for years, however we have had only limited success in containing the infestation in the past. It is believed that the ash borer was brought to Michigan about 6 years ago through the channels of international trade. What started as a local infestation in a few counties in southeastern Michigan has grown to infest the entire Lower Peninsula. This find in a State park in Michigan's Upper Peninsula is significant because it shows that efforts and the resources provided until now have not been adequate to contain the pest.

While even as we speak, research is being conducted by some of our State's best experts on ways to kill the bug while saving our ash trees, a lack of funding is hampering these efforts. Whatever funding is available must be balanced between research efforts and eradication and containment. For now, that means removing our ash trees. In Michigan alone, we are nearing 10 million trees removed. I cannot tell you how distressing it is for communities which have been forced to remove trees and have little or no funding to replace them. Ann Arbor, near the heart of the infestation and known for its beautiful downtown tree-lined streets, is increasing devoid of foliage, as is the case with too many of our cities and towns.

The State of Michigan anticipated $30 million in Federal funding last year for activities related to eradicating emerald ash borer. Unfortunately, they only received a third of that. This has severely affected our ability to do what is necessary to eradicate this pest. Chipping of these downed trees has ground to a halt, and funding to enforce the State's wood quarantines has been strained. We cannot continue to hold back the spread of the ash borer on our own with such meager funding.

This year, recognizing the serious threat that the ash borer poses to the Nation, the administration requested $32 million for eradication efforts. However, the Senate bill before us provides only $5.96 million for the efforts. This is simply far too inadequate.

The House of Representatives approved $14 million for emerald ash borer-related activities in their Agriculture appropriations bill. While this is still far below what is required, I believe it is a positive first step to providing the desperately needed funding to slow the spread of the ash borer.

We must recognize that this is a nationwide problem that is unfortunately not receiving the recognition or support that it should. A handful of States where EAB has been detected cannot be expected to contain the bug on their own forever. We have seen how quickly the ash borer has infested my State of Michigan, taking only 5 years to spread throughout the Lower Peninsula. Without adequate resources, we face a serious threat to our ash stock. The further spread of the emerald ash borer would be economically devastating to my State, and possibly to much of the rest of the Nation.

I am hopeful that the Senate conferees to this bill will accept the House's level of $14 million for EAB eradication efforts.

Mr. President, today we mourn the passing of a great man whose name has become synonymous with the pursuit of justice, Simon Wiesenthal. Mr. Wiesenthal dedicated his life to finding and prosecuting Nazi war criminals, and he was extraordinarily successful at doing so. He was a passionate, courageous man waging an often lonely yet critical fight.

Born 96 years ago in what is now the Ukraine, Mr. Wiesenthal barely survived the unimaginable horrors of the Holocaust, emerging from a concentration camp at the end of the war weighing less than 100 pounds. Though the Nazis had not succeeded in taking his life, he had lost 89 members of his family.

Simon Wiesenthal took this incomprehensible grief and turned it into action, embarking on a lifelong quest to find Nazi war criminals and secure justice for their victims. He had already begun this work in the concentration camps, committing to memory details of his captors. After the war, he worked first for the U.S. Army's War Crimes Office and then opened the Jewish Historical Documentation Center in Linz, Austria in 1947, to continue that work on his own. The Center later moved to Vienna, where Mr. Wiesenthal worked every day in a small office building, surrounded by files, meticulously documenting and tracking the guilty. He worked in that office until last year, when his health would no longer permit it.

In his most prominent success, information from Wiesenthal led Israeli agents to capture Adolf Eichmann, the architect of Hitler's extermination campaign, in Argentina in 1960. Wisenthal's other high- profile arrests include Anne Frank's captor, Karl Silberbauer, and the commandant of the Treblinka and Sobibor camps, Franz Stangl. The vast majority of his work, though, was pursuing lesser-known and unknown Nazis and demanding accountability for their roles. In all, he is credited with bringing more than 1,100 Nazi war criminals to justice.

Those prosecutions not only brought punishment to the guilty but also affirmed to the world that justice, even when delayed, must always be done.

As we honor and thank Mr. Wiesenthal for the results of his work, we owe him a special debt for the way he went about that work. Despite his personal tragedy and despite the staggering scale of the atrocities, Mr. Wiesenthal sought, as he said, ``justice, not revenge.'' He broke the cycle of hate and elevated us all. Indeed, one of his strongest hopes was that his work would help us to rise above our history. As he said:

The history of man is the history of crimes, and history

can repeat. So information is a defense. Through this we can

build, we must build, a defense against repetition.

The 11 million victims of the Holocaust had no finer, more dedicated, more capable advocate than Simon Wiesenthal. The living had no finer example of a hero. Our only solace in his passing is that the 11 million Simon Wiesenthal spoke for can finally say to him today: ``Thank you for remembering us.''

Mr. President, I have been a strong supporter of the Community Oriented Policing Services, or COPS, program since its creation in 1994. Nationwide, the COPS program has awarded more than $11 billion in grants, resulting in the hiring of 118,000 additional police officers. In Michigan, 514 local and State law enforcement agencies have received more than $220 million in grants through the COPS program. These grants have improved the safety of communities by putting more than 3,300 law enforcement officers on Michigan streets.

In the past month alone, the COPS program has awarded nearly $2 million in grants to Michigan communities. One COPS grant program, the Secure Our Schools Initiative, recently awarded more than $1 million in grants to nine Michigan communities to provide enhanced security for public schools. These grants help our schools pay for security assessments, security training for students and personnel and the installation of metal detectors, locks, lighting, and other important security measures. Another COPS grant program, the Tribal Resources Grant Program, awarded more than $800,000 in grants to eight Native- American communities in Michigan. These funds will strengthen the police departments in these communities by helping tribes hire and train police officers and modernize their equipment. COPS grants like these are critical to Michigan communities that are working to prevent and respond to violent crimes, especially those involving guns.

Unfortunately, authorization for the COPS program was permitted to expire at the end of fiscal year 2000. Although the program has survived through the annual appropriations process, it has received significant funding cuts under this administration. In fact, the fiscal year 2005 Omnibus Appropriations Act included only $606 million for the COPS program, $142 million below the amount appropriated in 2004. During consideration of the fiscal year 2006 Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill last week, I supported an amendment that would have provided $1 billion for the COPS program. Unfortunately, this amendment was defeated and the majority in the Senate voted to cut the COPS program further to $515 million for fiscal year 2006.

I have cosponsored the COPS Reauthorization Act introduced by Senator Biden. This bill would continue the COPS program for another 6 years at a funding level of $1.15 billion per year. This funding would allow State and local governments to hire an additional 50,000 police officers over the next 6 years. In addition, the bill would modernize the COPS program by authorizing $350 million in Law Enforcement Technology Grants to assist police departments in acquiring new technologies for the analysis of crime data and the examination of DNA evidence, among other uses. The COPS Reauthorization Act would also build upon the accomplishments of the original COPS program by authorizing $200 million in Community Prosecutor Grants. These grants would be used to hire community prosecutors trained to work at the local and neighborhood level to prevent crime and improve relations with residents.

The increased threat of terrorism as well as the continuing epidemic of gun violence underscores the need to devote more resources for our law enforcement agencies. The safety and security of our communities depends upon our local police departments, most often the first responders, being adequately staffed, trained, and equipped. I hope the Senate will do more to support the efforts of our local law enforcement officials by adequately funding programs such as COPS.

Mr. President, I would like to call my colleagues' attention to a distinguished religious leader in Michigan, Reverend Dr. Vahan H. Tootikian. Dr. Tootikian will be honored at a special testimonial banquet on Sunday, September 25, 2005, in Troy, MI. The tribute will mark his retirement from active parish ministry and will recognize his 30 years as pastor of

the Armenian Congregational Church of Greater Detroit and his 46 years of Christian ministry. Since accepting his call to the ministry in 1959, Dr. Tootikian has used his talents and unique skills to encourage and enlighten people around the world. He has earned the respect and admiration of the Armenian and the greater religious community in Michigan, throughout North America, and around the world for his pastoral leadership and his commitment and devotion to service.

Born in Kessab, Syria in 1935, Dr. Tootikian received his primary education at the Armenian Evangelical schools in Syria and his secondary education in Beirut, Lebanon. He simultaneously earned a bachelor of art degree with honors and a bachelor of theology degree with honors from the American University of Beirut and the Near East School of Theology, respectively. He then served as pastor of Armenian Evangelical Churches in Syria and Egypt before coming to the United States in 1965 to pursue religious studies at Hartford Seminary, Harvard Divinity School, and Andover Newton Theological Seminary. While serving as minister of the Armenian Memorial Church in Watertown, MA, Dr. Tootikian earned a master of sacred theological degree in 1970, and a doctor of ministry degree cum laude in 1973.

In 1975, Dr. Tootikian was welcomed into the pastorate of the Armenian Congregational Church of Greater Detroit. Under his spiritual guidance, the Church has flourished and undergone expansion, which has included a new Christian Education Building, the founding of an Armenian library, and the organizing of the Armenian Heritage Committee to preserve and perpetuate the Armenian Christian Heritage.

Over the years, Dr. Tootikian has also provided leadership to numerous organizations, including the Armenian Evangelical Union of America, Armenian Missionary Association of America, and the Armenian Evangelical World Council--AEWC. During his tenure with AEWC, the 1700th Anniversary of Armenian Christendom was celebrated by all Armenian Evangelical Unions in Yerevan, Armenia, and the first Armenian Evangelical Pastors' Conference was held in May 2003 in Evian, France. As a scholar and lecturer, Dr. Tootikian has provided instruction at the University of Michigan and at the Lawrence Technological University. Dr. Tootikian has authored 27 books, with 6 of them currently in use as college textbooks. In addition, he has been a frequent contributor to many magazines and papers, and currently writes bilingual articles for 12 Armenian papers and periodicals. His efforts in support of various educational, philanthropic, religious and cultural organizations have been recognized through many awards and the establishment of endowment funds in his honor.

I know my colleagues join me in congratulating Dr. Tootikian on his service to the community, and on his many achievements in the pastoral ministry. I am pleased to offer my best wishes to him on his retirement, and for many more years of good health, happiness, and contribution to the spiritual well being of many people around the world.

Mr. President, I have consistently supported commonsense legislation to help stop the flow of guns to the black market. Unfortunately, the failure of Congress to act on several commonsense bills has allowed criminals and terrorists continued potential easy access to guns. In addition to endangering our families and communities here in the United States, congressional inaction may also be helping to fuel international trafficking of powerful firearms.

Earlier this year, the CBS news program ``60 Minutes'' aired a segment about the activities of an arms merchant who legally purchased high-powered weapons here in the U.S. and smuggled them to the Kosovo Liberation Army to be used in their fight for independence from Serbia. According to him, the weapon of choice for the KLA was the .50-caliber sniper rifle.

Published reports indicate that .50-caliber sniper rifles are capable of accurately hitting a target more than 1,500 yards away with a bullet measuring a half inch in diameter. In addition, these thumb-size bullets come in armor-piercing, incendiary, and explosive varieties that can easily punch through aircraft fuselages, fuel tanks, and engines. Under current law, .50-caliber sniper rifles can be purchased by private individuals with only minimal Federal regulation. In fact, these dangerous weapons are treated the same as other long rifles including shotguns, hunting rifles, and smaller target rifles.

``60 Minutes'' pointed out that this one individual made use of his easy access to .50-caliber sniper rifles and other high-powered weapons to help outfit the KLA. He said: Anything you need to run a small guerrilla army, you can buy here in America. You have all the guns you need here to fight a war.

He continued: All the rifles which U.S. soldiers use in every war, you can buy them in a gun store or a gun show.

While he would not discuss the total number of .50-caliber rifles he shipped out of the country, the author of a book about the subject estimated the number to be several hundred. The author told ``60 Minutes'' that on one occasion, the arms merchant and his associates hid nearly one hundred .50-caliber sniper rifles in a shipment of humanitarian aid to Albanian refugees.

For their report, ``60 Minutes'' also interviewed Joe Vince, a former senior official at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. He commented on our Nation's gun laws by saying: We are the candy store for guns in the world. And it's easy for people to acquire them here.

During his interview, Mr. Vince called for computerized records of gun sales that would allow law enforcement officials to look for patterns of buying activity for high-powered firearms including .50- caliber sniper rifles. This approach may be helpful for identifying the gun trafficking operations that arm criminals in our country as well as those that support militants in other parts of the world, including terrorists.

I have cosponsored the Fifty-Caliber Sniper Weapon Regulation Act introduced by Senator Feinstein. This bill would reclassify .50-caliber rifles under the National Firearms Act, treating them the same as other high powered or especially lethal firearms like machine guns and sawed off shotguns. Among other things, reclassification of .50-caliber sniper rifles under the NFA would subject them to new registration requirements. Future transfers or sales of .50-caliber sniper rifles would have to be conducted through a licensed dealer with an accompanying background check. In addition, the rifle being sold would have to be registered with Federal authorities.

We have a responsibility to those we represent as well as to other nations to help stop dangerous firearms from falling into the hands of people who seek to use them for violence. I am hopeful that the Congress will recognize the danger of inaction and pass legislation to require registration of military style firearms like the .50-caliber sniper rifle.