Floor Statements

Mr. President, I commend our colleagues from Oregon and North Dakota for this amendment. They have put their finger on a very significant problem in Iraq which is symptomatic. They would be the first to acknowledge this is a deeper problem. That is, we have reduced the number of our acquisition workforce.

The chairman of the committee and other members of the Armed Services Committee, including myself, every year for the past I don't know how many years have been to conference with the House of Representatives. They have tried and successfully achieved reduction to the acquisition workforce despite our opposition to those efforts. They have made major cuts in the acquisition workforce. They call it bureaucracy. We have fought against some of the cuts. We have been able to reduce the size of the cuts. Nonetheless, over time, there have been significant reductions in the acquisition workforce, including people to oversee contracts, which is what we are talking about here.

Our good friends from Oregon and North Dakota have identified a real problem. I congratulate the Senators for doing it. It is a problem reflective of a deeper problem we have now in the Defense Department.

There has been an amendment offered by Senator Byrd which we have accepted which gradually increases the size of the acquisition workforce. That would help get to the underlying systemic cause of this problem. We are going to go to conference, hoping we will be able to add some people to our acquisition workforce who can do the very oversight which is so essential to avoid the very conflicts of interest which the two Senators have identified.

The fact that the Byrd amendment has been adopted and we have added people on this side will put us in a better position, as well as this amendment, of course, of the Senators from Oregon and North Dakota.

I commend them. It will help us not simply to hopefully avoid this kind of absurd situation where nongovernmental employees are overseeing the operations of Government contracts, frequently with inherent conflicts of interest involved, but where we are going to be able to cure the cause of this situation as well on a long-term basis.

I commend them and thank them for the modifications they have made which I think will put us in a stronger position to defend this action in conference.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, has our modification to the second-degree amendment been sent to the desk yet? We will send up a modification to the second-degree amendment, and then I understand, as modified, Senator Allard will be accepting the second-degree.

Madam President, very briefly--and I thank Senator Allard and our staffs for working this out--we have expressed some real concerns in terms of the proliferation challenges in terms of the ballistic missile technology which is at issue.

Technology can be called defensive technology, but it also can be used offensively. The line between offensive and defensive missile technology is not a perfect line and, indeed, some of the technologies are both offensive and defensive. So it is important that the concerns we had expressed, and do express, in our second-degree amendment relative to the technology and the proliferation of these technologies be expressed in the underlying amendment, and that would remain.

What we have removed from our second-degree amendment is the elimination of what amounts to, I guess, that 30-day either goal or deadline,

which is waiveable by the Secretary of State. So what we have in our second-degree amendment now, as modified, is that we have left that 30- day goal in place--and Senator Allard had it in his amendment--but the efforts to try to address some of the proliferation concerns will remain in the second-degree amendment.

I understand, as modified, that Senator Allard is willing to accept the second-degree amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, first let me comment on what I think is the heart of the amendment the Senator from Connecticut has offered, and that has to do with the interrogation function and whether that ought to be performed by private contractors.

It seems to me abundantly clear that we cannot hire private contractors to perform a function that is inherently governmental, inherently sensitive, indeed inherently explosive, and on which there must be accountability, such as the interrogation of prisoners. We have treaty obligations. We have to live up to those treaty obligations, not because they are treaty obligations, although that should be enough, but also because the safety of our own troops is directly involved if we fail to abide by treaty obligations.

The stakes are absolutely huge and we must have people performing these functions who are accountable to us, where there is accountability.

Now the chairman has pointed out a problem with so-called subparagraph 1(b). I do think that is going to require additional exploration, and the Senator from Connecticut is perfectly happy to take a look at that additional exploration.

As the Senator from Connecticut points out, there may indeed already be law on the books that this simply would reinforce. If that is true, it is possible we may not even need this provision, but that is something which the exploration of law can tell us. We may not need, or the Senator from Connecticut more properly may not need, the provision 1(b) if the current law already addresses that issue. But that is something we ought to explore when we lay this amendment aside.

I will tell my friend from Virginia, the chairman of the committee, that the heart of this amendment, as I read it, is not section 1(b) but section 1(a). I think the Senator from Connecticut can speak most directly to that issue, but it is a question of whether we are going to contract out the interrogation function, where there is no accountability in something as grave as this procedure. Interrogating people who are captured in war has ramifications that are so significant to the security of our own troops, I think we must have the full accountability, which is only achievable when we have this performed by our own governmental operations, our own forces, our own governmental employees. So I think 1(a) is right on target.

It is possible, and I think there is another reason to lay this aside, that according to at least an article which I read over the weekend there already is an Army policy directive on this subject, when I read this article----

On the subject of (a).

I thank my chairman. This is what the article reads, and because I have a reprint of it I am not sure what paper I read it in, but this is the computer reprint of an article by Joe Brinkley, which says the following: That the use of private contractors as interrogators at Abu Ghraib and other prisons violates an Army policy that requires such jobs to be filled by Government employees because of the risk to ``national security,'' among other concerns, the Army acknowledged on Friday. An Army policy directive published in 2000 and still in effect today, the military said, classifies any job that involves the gathering and analysis of tactical intelligence as inherently governmental functions borrowed from private sector performance.

Now if we are going to set this amendment aside, there is an additional reason to do so. In addition to taking a look at whether 1(b) is necessary, the issue raised by the chairman, we should also take a look at what current Army policy is relative to the hiring of contractors to perform the interrogation function. I have tried in the last few minutes to get a copy of that Army policy, and I have been unable to do so in the last few minutes, so I could actually check it out myself. So

if this amendment is laid aside, I would seek to do exactly that.

One other comment, and that is this so-called Department of Interior. What is the Department of Interior doing here? Talk about lack of accountability. This is a contract which the Department of Interior entered into with private contractors to do interrogation. We talk about lack of responsibility, lack of accountability. The Army has lost control of its own contractors. These are not Army contractors, they are Department of Interior contractors. And why? Because they have engaged in a so-called offloading mechanism, where they use a contract of another agency to pay for the performance of functions which they, the Army, want.

That is an area which I would hope our committee would look into because, to me, we have laws against this kind of offloading. The subcommittee of which I am ranking member, the Permanent Subcommittee of Investigations, has had hearings on these offloading abuses. We have passed law to try to prohibit these offloading abuses. We have language, as a matter of fact, in this bill that would prevent some of the abuses the GSA was involved in in terms of offloading. If we had known about this particular problem, we would have included that in our committee consideration of this issue.

The Senator from Connecticut is pointing out something which is vitally important to us, and that is people who do interrogations on behalf of our Nation, relative to prisoners of war, must be accountable. We must be able to deter abuses of the rights of prisoners under treaties, or else when our people are captured, we are going to find we are in the same position as these prisoners. We need accountable people. That requires the people who are doing the interrogation be Government employees, at a minimum, hopefully uniformed employees, secondly.

We have two problems that are sort of parallel. We have this offloading problem where the Department of Interior contract is used to hire contractors. By the way, this also goes back in part to the reduction of the acquisition workforce. It goes back to the same issue we addressed on the prior subject. The chairman of our committee, of which the Presiding Officer is an extremely valued member, will remember the last conference, and the conference before that, and the conference before that with the House of Representatives. Every year we face this effort to reduce the amount of people who are working in our acquisition workforce. We are paying the price for those cuts.

We tried to stop those cuts, and we succeeded in at least reducing the scope of the cuts year after year, but as conferences work out, there are compromises on this. So there have been cuts, against our wishes, in the acquisition workforce. This again is a price we are paying for the reductions in the acquisition workforce which have occurred in prior years.

I commend the Senator from Connecticut for identifying an issue. We must make sure the interrogation of prisoners, detainees, or combatants, as he puts it in his amendment, at any U.S. military installation or any installation under the authority of the U.S. military or civilian personnel must be carried out by people who are responsible to us, who are part of the U.S. Government. If they are not in the military, or at least governmental employees, and not simply contractors, where the accountability is much less, where is the accountability for contractors? Where is the accountability? We passed a law recently which provides the criminal accountability if you can make out a crime, but it is very difficult at times to prove crimes.

I am happy to yield, but I encourage us to lay aside this amendment.

Would the Chairman add 10 minutes of discussion on the amendment prior to the vote?

Madam President, if that is out of the way, I will yield the floor----

I support the suggestion that the pending amendment of the Senator from Connecticut be laid aside to hear two issues.

I am sorry. I want to support the suggestion that the pending amendment of the Senator from Connecticut be laid aside so that two things can be carried out: One is that we look at section 1(b) relative to the combat language, both in terms of the points that the chairman has made and also in terms of the current law relative to combat. Also, that would give us an opportunity to check out this reported Army policy directive which has been referred to in this newspaper article to see what the current law is, at least what the current policy----

----regulations of the Army are relative to this particular issue. I think it is important we at least know that before we act on the amendment. I leave this up to our friend from Connecticut, but I think the heart of this amendment relates to the interrogation of the prisoners, rather than 1(b).

Will the Senator yield on this issue?

I very much support his effort to codify what should be the rule relative to the use of outside people when it comes to carrying out such a critical function as interrogating prisoners of war.

The same article says--this is the exceptions reference the Senator made--according to the public affairs officer, military commanders in Iraq, and I presume otherwise, ``retain the right to

make exceptions.'' That is the reference the Senator from Connecticut made.

The paragraph after that said the rule does not authorize exceptions involving collection or analysis of tactical intelligence. That is not in quotes. I think it really is important that we see exactly what that policy currently provides, not because it will take the place of a law--it will not, for the reasons given by the Senator from Connecticut. I think we must codify what is right in this area. Whether the policy that exists now is correct or not, we should put this into law because we have to make this point about how significant this is. That means the highest possible level of requirement, which is law--not policy, which can easily be changed or ignored, but law which cannot be ignored--is appropriate here.

I think for a lot of reasons we should try to take a look at what the exact wording of the policy is, not because it will substitute for what the Senator is doing, which is essential, but because we ought to know precisely what the current provisions are.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I know Senator Kennedy cosponsored this bill and has a major interest in this bill. We are trying to determine whether he wishes to speak at this point.

For the reasons given by our chairman, I gather this amendment will be laid aside until other colleagues who wish to have something to say on it have that opportunity. We are checking also with Senator Kennedy.

I don't know whether it is possible to enter into a time agreement. The chairman would have a better feel for that.

I am a strong supporter of this amendment and this effort of Senator Smith and Senator Kennedy. From my perspective, the sooner we vote on this, the better. It is long overdue that it become law. I commend the Senator on this amendment and Senator Kennedy for his tenacity as well. I hope the chairman can work out with other colleagues who want to speak on it in relation to some time agreement.

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

Mr. President, I think now the order of business is that we have 2 minutes, as I remember, equally divided on the Dodd amendment. Then we will proceed to a vote at 5:30.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Byrd, I call up amendment No. 3344 which would modify the Report on the National Technology and Industrial Base required by section 841 of the bill.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, that amendment has been cleared on this side.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3314

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Landrieu, I call up amendment No. 3314 which would authorize the Army to convey the inactive Louisiana army ammunition plant to the State of Louisiana in return for an agreement that the State would guarantee that the Army and the Army Guard can continue to use it as a training site and the State would also assume cleanup responsibilities after 5 years.

The Senator is correct.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on this side.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Kennedy, I call up amendment No. 3257 which would codify certain requirements for public- private competition for the performance of the Department of Defense functions, and also on behalf of Senator Kennedy I send a modification to the desk.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on this side. I am a proud cosponsor of this amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3340

Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Feinstein, I call up amendment No. 3340 which would give authority to the Navy to settle a claim related to property associated with a former naval hospital in Oakland. This settlement has been agreed to by, I guess, all of the parties.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

The amendment has been cleared and very strongly cosponsored by many Members on this side of the aisle, as well as I think probably everyone if they had the opportunity which they can, of course, do at a later time.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3221

The amendment has been cleared on this side.

On behalf of Senator Bill Nelson, I call up amendment No. 3376, which will set forth the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of Defense should provide support for reduced launch costs and enhanced technical capabilities at space launch ranges through additional safety systems, and on behalf of Senator Nelson I send a modification to the desk and ask that the modification be considered.

I move to reconsider the vote.

The amendment has been cleared on this side.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Sarbanes, I call up amendment No. 3296, which would grant a Federal charter to the Korean War Veterans Association, Incorporated.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Harkin, I call up amendment No. 3316, which expresses a sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Defense should develop appropriate methods of oversight of the American forces radio and television service system to ensure presentation of all sides of important public questions, and on behalf of Senator Harkin, I send a modification to the desk and ask unanimous consent the modification be agreed to.

I move to reconsider the vote.

The amendment has been cleared.

The amendment has been cleared on this side.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3307

Mr. President, I call up an amendment on behalf of Senator Harry Reid. I believe it is No. 3307.

Mr. President, this amendment provides for parallel compensation for our POWS from the first gulf war. I think the language is at the desk.

Mr. President, let me add my thanks to the Senator from Nevada for, as always, looking out for the interests of our troops, the men and women in the Armed Forces. Where it is necessary to make up for failures, he is the first to find ways to do that. It is a very important function of this Senate. I commend the Senator.

I ask to be added, also, as a cosponsor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, 3 months from yesterday is the expiration date for the assault weapons ban. Despite Senate passage of a bipartisan amendment that would have reauthorized the ban, it appears that this important gun safety law will be allowed to expire. The House Republican leadership opposes reviewing the law and President Bush, though he has said he supports it, has done little to help keep the law alive.

In April of this year, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence joined hundreds of local elected officials and senior law enforcement officials to urge President Bush to push for reauthorization of this critical piece of gun safety legislation. I commend them for their efforts and continue to support this commonsense gun safety legislation.

The 1994 law banned a list of 19 specific weapons, as well as a number of other weapons incorporating certain design characteristics such as pistol grips, folding stocks, bayonet mounts, and flash suppressors. The assault weapons ban also prohibited the manufacture of semiautomatic weapons that incorporate at least two of these military features and which accept a detachable magazine.

I support the efforts of the law enforcement community and local leaders who are calling for legislation extending the law. In 1994, I voted for the assault weapons ban and, in March of this year, I joined a bipartisan majority of the Senate in voting to extend the assault weapons ban for 10 years.

Law enforcement support for the assault weapons ban is broad. It includes the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Police Foundation, the Police Executive Research Forum, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the National Association of School Resource Officers, the National Fraternal Order of Police, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, and the National Black Police Association.

In addition, mayors and police chiefs from Detroit, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami, Seattle, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. have joined over 200 other local leaders in urging Congress to immediately pass a 10-year extension of the current ban.

Despite broad support for this law, the National Rifle Association fought against passage of the assault weapons ban in 1994 and continues to oppose it to this day. The ban is a major public safety measure that protects citizens and police officers and I urge the President and the Congress to act immediately to reauthorize the law.

Mr. President, S. 1887, which the Senate adopted yesterday, ensures that all appropriately trained group practice physicians may prescribe and dispense certain recently approved drugs for the treatment of heroin addiction. It addresses the unintended effect of the Drug Addiction and Treatment Act of 2000, DATA, that hinders access to new treatments for thousands of individuals who seek such help.

When Congress passed DATA as Title XXXV of the Children's Health Act of 2000, Public Law 106-310, it allowed for the dispensing and prescribing of Schedule III drugs, like buprenorphine/naloxone, in an office-based setting, for the treatment of heroin addiction. As a result of DATA, access to drug addiction treatment is significantly expanded; patients no longer are restricted to receiving treatment in a large clinic setting, but now may receive such care from specifically trained physicians in an office-based setting.

DATA limits qualified individual physicians to treating no more than 30 patients at a time. This same 30-patient limit applies to medical groups as to individual physicians. For example, the physician members of the Duke University Medical School faculty practice plan may treat only 30 patients at one time, even though they may have 10 individual physicians trained and willing to treat patients and more than 30 patients would benefit from newly available treatment. The difficulties that have arisen, including the dashed hopes for treatment of many, due to the patient limitation on group practices, are detailed in a May 30 article in the Boston Globe, by Peter DeMarco. I would like to share a few excerpts from that article with my Colleagues, as follows:

When buprenorphine became available as a treatment for

OxyContin and heroin addiction 18 months ago, many medical

professionals and addicts hailed it as a miracle drug,

bringing addicts back from the brink and helping them lead

normal lives when all else had failed. But for many addicts,

buprenorphine remains one of the hardest drugs to obtain.

Approved by the Federal Food and Drug Administration in 2002,

buprenorphine is an opiate like heroin or the painkiller

OxyContin. Unlike those drugs or methadone, the prescribed

drug it's meant to replace, buprenorphine doesn't cloud the

minds of patients, allowing them to work or study as if

they're not on any drug at all. Nearly all who take

buprenorphine, meanwhile, say they lose all physical cravings

for street drugs.

But a combination of federal limits on the distribution of

buprenorphine, and reluctance on the part of some physicians

to offer it to patients has kept thousands of opiate addicts

from receiving the drug in Massachusetts and across the

country. At the heart of the issue is federal legislation

passed in 2000--two years before the drug was approved by the

FDA--that restricts individual clinical practices from

treating more than 30 patients with buprenorphine at a time.

While many substance-abuse experts say the 30-patient

figure is too low for some practices, their main quarrel with

the Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 is its failure to

differentiate single-physician practices, hospitals, and

health care organizations. For example, all the doctors who

work for Tufts Health Plan can treat a combined 30 patients--

the same total as can be seen by a physician practicing

alone.

Boston health officials, along with their counterparts in

the State and Federal governments, say the Federal

legislation erred on the side of caution, and needs to be

changed to allow wider access to buprenorphine.

Boston Medical Center's main practice has 200 or more

general internal-medicine doctors, and within that practice,

we can only treat 30 people. It's the craziest loophole,''

said Colleen Labelle, nurse-manager of the hospital's Office-

Based Opioid Treatment Program. ``We get 20 calls a day from

across the state. People are begging, desperate to get

treated, who we can't treat.''

The Federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration has begun an internal process to increase the

30-patient cap. But because any proposed change would be

subject to the public-review process, approval could take as

long as two years, said

Nick Reuter, a senior public health analyst with the agency.

It clearly was not the intention of DATA that individuals seeking treatment have less access to new medications simply because they receive care from a physician practicing in a group, or from a group- based or mixed-model health plan. Nevertheless, this is the effect it is having and it is a severe effect. The problem is addressed by removing the 30-patient aggregate limit on medical groups. The patient limitation would remain on individual treating physicians. This is achieved in the bill, S. 1887, which I introduced along with Senators Hatch and Biden. It simply removes the statutory limit on the number of patients for whom doctors in medical groups may prescribe certain newly available, FDA-approved medications to treat heroin addiction.

I would like to close with another excerpt from Mr. DeMarco's article regarding the positive impact buprenorphine treatment has had on an individual who sought help with his addiction, and was fortunate enough not to be turned away. It is as follows:

Timothy Tigges says his addiction began after he wrenched

his back and bummed a few Percocet pills, a prescription

analgesic, from a friend to dull the pain. Before he knew it,

he was hooked on opiates, alternating between OxyContin and

shooting up heroin as his life went to pieces.

In October, Tigges, a 27-year-old East Boston carpet

installer, began taking buprenorphine, placing an orange pill

the size of a dime under his tongue until it dissolves, four

times daily. He hasn't touched an illegal drug since the day

he started the program, has put on 80 pounds from lifting

weights at the gym, and has yet to miss a day of work. For

the first time in three years, Tigges hopes to see his 5-

year-old daughter, whose mother has refused to let him visit.

I've had clean urines, 100 percent, for nine months now.

There's nothing I'm prouder of than that,'' he said, choking

back emotion. ``What I read on the front page of the paper

every day is 18- and 20-year-old kids dying of garbage drugs.

There's just no need for it. I would take every ounce of

heroin off the street and give them this stuff. You watch the

crime rate go down.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their wisdom in adopting this much-needed legislation.

Mr. President, today I invite my colleagues to join in recognizing a wonderful celebration that will take place in my hometown, Detroit. On Sunday, June 13, 2004, the Church of the Precious Blood will celebrate its 75th Anniversary.

Founded in 1929 by Father William Hermes with a congregation of only 94, the church grew to a membership of nearly 900 families. Its numbers are moderately lower today, but the work performed in the community by the active members has never waned and is no less vital.

The Church of the Precious Blood, under the outstanding and accomplished leadership of Father Hermes, succeeded by Father Marvin Young, succeeded by Father Leo Priemer and then Father Donald Clark, followed by Father Ronald Kurzawa, succeeded by Bishop Moses Anderson and now led by Deacon Wyatt Jones, has experienced great transition, encountered enormous challenges, overcome monumental obstacles and celebrated wonderous victories to become the oasis, the Hidden Treasure, in Detroit's northwest community.

For 75 years, the Church of the Precious Blood has been committed to ministering to a diverse community, ethnically, culturally, socially, economically, providing the kind of support and encouragement necessary to confirm the spirit of faith and hope in humankind and our ability as nurturing and loving individuals to make this world a better place. Sunday's celebration is a major milestone on Precious Blood's committed journey on the path of fostering spiritual and economic growth, raising educational standards and providing a multitude of services to the women, men and children in the area.

It is an honor and a pleasure for me to ask my colleagues to join in extending our congratulations and the sincere wish for even greater victories over the next 75 years for the members and community of the Church of the Precious Blood.

Mr. President, this legislation, S. 1887, ensures that all appropriately trained group practice physicians may prescribe and dispense certain recently approved drugs for the treatment of heroin addiction. It addresses the unintended effect of the Drug Abuse and Treatment Act of 2000, DATA, that hinders access to new treatments for thousands of individuals who seek such help.

When Congress passed DATA as Title XXXV of the Children's Health Act of 2000, Public Law 106-310, it allowed for the dispensing and prescribing of Schedule III drugs, like buprenorphine/naloxone, in an office-based setting, for the treatment of heroin addiction. As a result of DATA, access to drug addiction treatment is significantly expanded; patients no longer are restricted to receiving treatment in a large clinic setting, but now may receive such care from specifically trained physicians in an office-based setting.

DATA limits qualified individual physicians to treating no more than 30 patients at a time. The interpretation of the law results in the same 30-patient limit on physician groups. For example, the physician members of the Duke University Medical School faculty practice plan may treat only 30 patients at one time, even though they may have ten individual physicians trained and willing to treat patients and more than 30 patients would benefit from newly available treatment. The difficulties that have arisen, including the dashed hopes for treatment of many, due to the patient limitation on group practices, are detailed in a May 30 article in the Boston Globe, by Peter DeMarco. I would like to share a few excerpts from that article with my Colleagues, as follows:

When buprenorphine became available as a treatment for

OxyContin and heroin addiction 18 months ago, many medical

professionals and addicts hailed it as a miracle drug,

bringing addicts back from the brink and helping them lead

normal lives when all else had failed. But for many addicts,

buprenorphine remains one of the hardest drugs to obtain.

Approved by the Federal Food and Drug Administration in 2002,

buprenorphine is an opiate like heroin or the painkiller

OxyContin. Unlike those drugs or methadone, the prescribed

drug it's meant to replace, buprenorphine doesn't cloud the

minds of patients, allowing them to work or study as if

they're not on any drug at all. Nearly all who take

buprenorphine, meanwhile, say they lose all physical cravings

for street drugs.

But a combination of federal limits on the distribution of

buprenorphine, and reluctance on the part of some physicians

to offer it to patients has kept thousands of opiate addicts

from receiving the drug in Massachusetts and across the

country. At the heart of the issue is federal legislation

passed in 2000--two years before the drug was approved by the

FDA--that restricts individual clinical practices from

treating more than 30 patients with buprenorphine at a time.

While many substance-abuse experts say the 30-patient

figure is too low for some practices, their main quarrel with

the Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 is its failure to

differentiate single-physician practices, hospitals, and

health care organizations. For example, all the doctors who

work for Tufts Health Plan can treat a combined 30 patients--

the same total as can be seen by a physician practicing

alone.

Boston health officials, along with their counterparts in

the State and Federal governments, say the Federal

legislation erred on the side of caution, and needs to be

changed to allow wider access to buprenorphine.

``Boston Medical Center's main practice has 200 or more

general internal-medicine doctors, and within that practice,

we can only treat 30 people. It's the craziest loophole,''

said Colleen Labelle, nurse-manager of the hospital's Office-

Based Opioid Treatment Program. ``We get 20 calls a day from

across the state. People are begging, desperate to get

treated, who we can't treat.''

The Federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration has begun an internal process to increase the

30-patient cap. But because any proposed change would be

subject to the public-review process, approval could take as

long as two years, said Nick Reuter, a senior public health

analyst with the agency.

It clearly was not the intention of DATA that individuals seeking treatment have less access to new medications simply because they receive care from a physician practicing in a group, or from a group- based or mixed-model health plan. Nevertheless, this is the is the effect and it is having a severe effect. The problem is addressed by removing the 30-patient aggregate limit on medical groups. The patient limitation would remain on individual treating physicians. This is achieved in the bill, S. 1887, which I introduced along with Senators Hatch and Biden. It simply removes the statutory limit on the number of patients for whom doctors in medical groups may prescribe certain newly available, FDA-approved medications to treat heroin addiction.

I would like to close with another excerpt from Mr. DeMarco's article regarding the positive impact buprenorphine treatment has had on an individual who was fortunate enough to seek and help and not be turned away. It is as follows:

Timothy Tigges says his addiction began after he wrenched

his back and bummed a few Percocet pills, a prescription

analgesic, from a friend to dull the pain. Before he knew it,

he was hooked on opiates, alternating between OxyContin and

shooting up heroin as his life went to pieces.

In October, Tigges, a 27-year-old East Boston carpet

installer, began taking buprenorphine, placing an orange pill

the size of a dime under his tongue until it dissolves, four

times daily. He hasn't touched an illegal drug since the day

he started the program, has put on 80 pounds from lifting

weights at the gym, and has yet to miss a day of work. For

the first time in three years, Tigges hopes to see his 5-

year-old daughter, whose mother has refused to let him visit.

``I've had clean urines, 100 percent, for nine months now.

There's nothing I'm prouder of than that,'' he said, choking

back emotion. ``What I read on the front page of the paper

every day is 18- and 20-year-old kids dying of garbage drugs.

There's just no need for it. I would take every ounce of

heroin off the street and give them this stuff. You watch the

crime rate go down.''

Madam President, I have long been concerned about a new .50 caliber handgun manufactured by Smith and Wesson Corporation declared the ``most powerful production revolver in the world today.'' Now, the Violence Policy Center reports that these handguns can blast through the body armor of our nation's law enforcement officers. This should disturb all Americans and all who care about the safety of our law enforcement personnel.

This new weapon fires a .500 Smith and Wesson Magnum bullet packing a muzzle force of 2,600 foot-pounds. The bullet is half an inch wide and is more powerful than comparable ammunition because it is much longer and contains more gunpowder. According to the Violence Policy Center's analysis, the .500 Smith & Wesson Magnum round far exceeds the protection level of the highest grade of concealable body armor normally used by law enforcement officers.

Body armor has saved the lives of countless numbers of law enforcement officers because of its ability to stop handgun rounds. The .500 Smith & Wesson Magnum round is more powerful than some rifle rounds. According to data compiled by the Violence Policy Center, during the 1990 to 1999 period, 20 officers were killed by gunshot wounds as a result of rounds penetrating their body armor. A rifle fired each one of these rounds. However, the .500 Smith & Wesson Magnum takes pistol power to rifle-power level and presents a deadly challenge to the life-saving record of law enforcement's body armor.

The decision to produce the .50 caliber handgun represents a great step backward in efforts to improve gun safety. Instead of sensible steps to make guns safer and keep guns from getting into the wrong hands, this moves in the opposite direction, creating a handgun that is reported to have double the power of most assault rifles.

I am a cosponsor of the Military Sniper Weapon Regulation Act, a bill which would change the way .50 caliber sniper rifles are regulated by placing them under the requirements of the National Firearms Act. This bill would subject the sniper rifles to the same regimen of registration and background checks as other weapons of war, such as machine guns. The new Smith and Wesson .50 caliber handgun should be included in this legislation.

Will the Senator yield me 10 minutes?

Mr. President, the Department of Energy has over 100 million gallons of high-level radioactive waste stored in 177 underground storage tanks, many of which are leaking. The Department of Energy and its predecessors have been generating and storing this high- level radioactive waste for 50 years.

The high-level radioactive waste is stored basically at three sites-- Idaho, South Carolina, and Washington. It was generated by years of reprocessing nuclear reactor fuels to recover plutonium and highly enriched uranium for use in nuclear weapons and other defense purposes.

The DOE has a small amount of highly radioactive waste stored in two tanks in New York that was generated as a result of a failed effort to process spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power reactors.

At the time the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was debated, the Department of Energy wanted the ability to reclassify high-level radioactive waste, including sludge, to low-level or waste incidental to reprocessing, for example. Congress denied this authority to the Department of Energy when the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was adopted.

The high-level radioactive waste that is stored in the Department of Energy tanks is highly radioactive. According to the State of South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Quality, the 37 million gallons of high-level radioactive waste at the Savannah River site contain 426 million curies of radioactivity.

The Department of Energy was required under its obligation to clean up the nuclear weapons complex to pump the liquid waste out of those tanks. The layer of sludge, semihard material that was generated over the years as solids in the waste that sank to the bottom of the tanks, was included. It is to be left if the DOE has its way. They would like to leave that sludge in the tanks forever. They want to cover the solids with grout and declare the tanks are cleaned up. But by law, by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, that sludge is high-level radioactive waste and, as such, must be disposed of as high-level radioactive waste.

This sludge accounts for only 8 percent of the volume of material in the tanks, but it accounts for over half of the radioactivity. So under the DOE plan, over half of the radioactivity in the tanks at Savannah River would remain in the ground, covered by grout, presumably forever.

Again, this sludge is high-level radioactive waste as defined in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. So for the Department of Energy to succeed in leaving the sludge at the bottom of the tanks, the waste has to somehow or another be redefined. So they issued an order to DOE under which it gave itself the authority to reclassify high-level radioactive waste. That way it could leave the sludge in the tanks.

Under that order, the Department of Energy would have reclassified the high-level radioactive waste in the tank--the sludge--either as low-level radioactive waste or as waste incidental to reprocessing activities. By issuing that order, the Department of Energy sought to give itself what Congress had previously denied it, which was the authority to reclassify high-level radioactive waste.

So the lawsuit began with the Natural Resources Defense Council suing the Department of Energy in Federal district court in Idaho, claiming that the Department of Energy did not have the authority to reclassify high-level radioactive waste and that the sludge, as high-level radioactive waste, had to be disposed of in an NRC licensed geologic depository. The States of South Carolina, New York, Washington, and Idaho, the States where the waste is stored, and other States, filed friend-of-the-court briefs on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council. The Federal district court in Idaho ruled in favor of the States and against the Department of Energy. The Department of Energy has appealed that decision.

The Department of Energy, in an effort to force States to accept the notion that it should be allowed to reclassify waste, has determined in its budget request to hold hostage the funds that were to be used to pump the liquid waste from the tanks until the States resolved the lawsuit in the DOE's favor or that there would be legislation giving the DOE the authority to reclassify the high-level radioactive waste.

Senator Cantwell's amendment would strike the section in the bill that would allow the Department of Energy to ignore the law. The law says it is high-level radioactive waste.

Section 3116 in the bill has many important provisions, but there are not six more important words in this section than the words ``notwithstanding any other provision of law.'' What that means is that notwithstanding the Nuclear Waste Policy Act or perhaps a number of other environmental laws, the Department of Energy is allowed to enter into contracts and agreements such as they have with the State of South Carolina.

Now, one can quibble as to whether that is an amendment of the law. I believe it has been argued on the floor of the Senate today that this language in 3116 does not amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. One can perhaps argue that, but it is a quibble because the law or the section we are talking about by its very words allows the Department of Energy to ignore the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Whether that constitutes an amendment is not the point. It is an effective amendment of the law for another law to come along and say one can ignore the first law. That is what this language does. It says:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, with respect to

material stored at a Department of Energy site at which

activities are regulated by the State pursuant to approved

closure plans or permits issued by the State, high-level

radioactive waste does not include radioactive material

resulting from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel that

the Secretary of Energy determines . . .

Then they go 1, 2, 3, 4, which obviously the Secretary of Energy has already determined. That is what the issue is all about. It is whether we are going to maintain language in the bill which says that the law which exists as to what constitutes high-level nuclear waste can be ignored and that the Department of Energy is authorized to spend all the money in this bill--$350 million--in carrying out activities which would be in violation of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, except for the fact that section 3116 says, ``notwithstanding any other provision of law.''

The heart of this matter is that this language in the bill, unless it is stricken, authorizes the Department of Energy to spend all of the money we provide on activities which are inconsistent with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. We should not be authorizing the Department of Energy to ignore the Nuclear Waste Policy Act by spending money pursuant to an agreement with South Carolina which is inconsistent with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, activities which are not allowed by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

So those words, which sound awfully legalistic--and I guess they are--``notwithstanding any other provision of law,'' tell the Department of Energy they are hereby authorized to ignore the law that Congress wrote.

The Department of Energy and its predecessor tried to get the very authority that it now would have by contract if we approve that contract, notwithstanding the provision of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act which this Congress adopted and adopted very consciously to make sure that the waste--sludge--was included in high-level nuclear waste.

Finally, this language was debated quite heatedly in our markup at committee. There were a couple of close votes that were cast. In my judgment, the Senate Armed Services Committee is not the place where we either should be amending the Nuclear Waste Policy Act or authorizing the Department of Energy to ignore the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. I, therefore, support the Cantwell amendment and hope that this Senate adopts the amendment.

Mr. President, how much time do both sides have?

I just have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. President, as I understand it, this is going to be a unanimous consent that is going to be entered formally, but it has not yet been entered; is that correct?

Reserving the right to object, to clarify, is it 20 minutes on top of the 15 minutes?

Mr. President, first, let me commend my good friend, the chairman of our committee, for this amendment. This amendment is very much needed, first of all. We know we are going to need these funds for the operations we are planning in the next fiscal year.

The budget that was submitted to us in January did not have the extra funding which we knew would be required because of our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many Members pointed that out. Indeed, I wrote a letter to the Budget Committee on February 24th pointing out the budget request for Defense represented a reasonable estimate of the cost for supporting the normal operations of the activities, but that the request does not include any request to support the incremental costs of our military forces for continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

At that point, the administration indicated it would not seek any additional funds, supplementally, to pay for these incremental costs this calendar year. It was their intention at that time to wait until the next calendar year to do that. I, and many others here, thought that was not a responsible way to budget. There was a political tone to it because it delayed paying the piper for the costs of this war until after the election, and there was no point in being that disingenuous about what we all know is going to be required.

I very much support--and I think every Member of this body supports-- paying for the needs of our troops, regardless of what one's position is as to how we got to Iraq, how we are doing in Iraq, whether we ought to be doing things differently in Iraq. Regardless of the difference of position of Members of this body on those subjects, when it comes to the support of the operations of our forces and their pay and benefits and needs, I think there is overwhelming if not total unanimous support for funding those troops.

The recent approval by the Department of Defense of increased force levels in Iraq has made this need even more urgent. Even before the Department approved the additional 30,000 troops, approximately, for Iraq, there was an acknowledgement by the uniformed military leaders that the additional costs of ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are approximately $4 billion to $5 billion per month. So there was no reason, in terms of sound budgeting, for us to hide that fact from the American people.

Just to give one example of that, a recent headline, which perhaps says the whole thing, from the May 5 Washington Post read: ``138,000 Troops to Stay in Iraq Through 2005.'' Well, that kind of says it all. We need this supplemental because we know there is going to be that many troops--more than planned at the time this budget was submitted to us--staying in Iraq through 2005.

The fact that we do not know the exact, precise amount for the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is not an excuse to do nothing. Of course we do not know precisely the cost, but we know approximately the cost from our experience there. We have estimates of these costs from our uniformed and civilian leadership now that the civilian leadership is committed to this course of action.

One thing we do know for certain: We know, for certain, the amount in the

President's budget--which was zero--is the wrong number. We don't know whether the right number is going to be $4.8 billion or $4.9 billion per month, but we know the approximate number, and we know what is $4 billion to $5 billion short per month, which is what the President's budget was.

Both the House and the Senate, in their budget resolutions, advanced the ball on this issue. The Senate made $30 billion available on a contingent basis if the President requested the additional funds, as he now has. That was intended to be approximately half the year so we would not have to use funds forward from accounts early in the year, leaving those accounts short later in the year.

It was my belief that if we added just 6 months of what we knew would be the supplemental amount needed, that would be enough for us to then, early next year, adopt a supplemental appropriations bill for the balance. The amendment that Senator Warner and I and Senator Stevens are now offering authorizes the level requested by the President, which is $25 billion, which is within the Senate-passed level of $30 billion.

Again, we know this money is not going to be enough to cover all of fiscal year 2005, but it will cover at least, we expect, October 1--the beginning of the fiscal year--through January 31. Since Congress is scheduled to be out of session during that entire period, we would not be in a good position to act then. We are in a position to act now, and we should do so.

The budget request from the President was really a blank check. We have amended it, changed it, modified it in many ways. First of all, it is more detailed. We assign money from two various accounts, such as operation and maintenance, such as personnel.

The amendment we are offering also does not allow the administration to move money around as it wanted to with total flexibility. We have put limits on their ability to move money within that account, as we should in terms of carrying out our responsibility as the appropriating and authorizing body.

This amendment is more structured, more stringent and, I believe, more responsible from a legislative point of view than was the proposal that was given to us by the administration. We allocate the $25 billion: $14 billion, for instance, for operation and maintenance armor, which is the biggest chunk of money needed. And everybody acknowledged that was the biggest chunk. But the administration proposal provided that after we listed all these allocations between Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and so forth, that--and this is what their proposal read:

In addition to the transfers authorized in the previous

proviso, after consultation with the director of Office of

Management and Budget, the Secretary of Defense may transfer

the funds provided herein to any appropriation or fund of the

Department of Defense or classified program.

So after looking as though it was allocating the $25 billion to various accounts, the language which was submitted to us, which we are now deleting, would have in effect given the administration and the Department of Defense a blank check because it said, in addition to the numbers enumerated, they can, after consulting with themselves--that is, the Department of Defense consulting with the OMB Director--move the funds provided to any appropriation or fund of the Department of Defense.

Again, that was the definition of the blank check. We have eliminated that language from the proposal that was submitted to us by the administration. It was the responsible thing to do.

Our amendment basically reflected the same numbers that the administration proposed. For instance, the Army's operating funds, which were the primary reason that we need these funds this year, are now guaranteed, if we can, of course, get this passed in the Senate, get it passed in the House, signed by the President. This will be guaranteed to the Army for their operating cost this year. That will avoid some of the real problems which we would have had otherwise in spending next year's money this year, borrowing huge amounts of money, disrupting normal activities in the Army and the other services in order to cash-flow expenditures.

If we did not provide more funding when needed, there would have been a very real chance that the Army, possibly the Marine Corps Special Operations Command, could be out of funds by the time the Congress would be ready to act next February.

So this is the right thing to do, to act now for our men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan who need and deserve the support, for those serving in the United States and in other locations around the world from whose budgets funds would have been borrowed to provide the support if we do not act.

Finally, the Secretary of Defense is now authorized the additional 30,000 extra Army personnel. What this budget does is to recognize that fact. It was appropriate that the administration acknowledged that those troops were going to remain in Iraq. That is a fact of life. And that being a given--that is the reality--it seems to me we are now carrying out our responsibility to our troops by reflecting that reality with the funds that we are hereby authorizing this year and not simply delaying until next year when a number of undesirable effects could have been felt and surely should be avoided. Our troops deserve a lot better than our stealing from next year's funds to pay their costs this year, when we should be budgeting this year for this year's cost. That is precisely what we are doing now.

I thank particularly our uniformed leadership. General Abizaid appeared in front of us. He was very direct when we asked him what the additional funding needs were. He indicated that, after accounting for the extra approximately 20,000 troops then, he expected the monthly rate of spending to be even higher than it had been up until then.

And it is because we were able to get such testimony from our uniform leadership that I think that spurred us on and encouraged us to insist that we be responsible in the authorizing bill this year rather than simply saying, well, we will steal from next year's funds and take up a supplemental next year. We are going to need the money. This isn't the final answer. It is the first installment. Again, I emphasize this is just the first 5 or 6 months. There is going to have to be a supplemental next year. But we will be able to pass that when we come back in the beginning of next year and not force our services to steal from future funding in order to pay for the needs that are going to exist at the end of this year.

So it is a foreseeable problem. We are acting now to avoid it. It is the responsible way for this body to act. I commend Senator Warner, again, for his leadership on this amendment, Senator Stevens, and the willingness to put this together on a bipartisan basis.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter I wrote to Senators Nickles and Conrad be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, while the Senator from Alaska is in the Chamber, I thank the Senator for his work on the Appropriations Committee relative to this subject. As I indicated, I think the testimony before his committee indicated--I believe this morning--that we know it is about $4.7 billion or $4.8 billion at the current level of spending that we will need above what was in the budgeted amount. This provides that additional funding. It is the responsible thing to do. It has strong support on this side of the aisle as well as his. That is the way it should be when we have men and women in harm's way.

Amendment No. 3258

Madam President, I know my good friend from Virginia is going to have to leave the Chamber in a moment, but before I make some remarks in general about our colleagues who are World War II veterans, while he is here I want to say what a privilege it has been for me, for 26 years now almost, to serve with John Warner of Virginia. I cannot think of a person who is more decent, civil, and gentlemanly, and the way in which he runs our committee is truly a model. He is part of a great tradition of committee chairmen whom he has noted many times whom he and I have served with, and whom he knew long before I did. He serves as chairman of the committee that represents our Armed Forces in this country and he does it with extraordinary diplomacy.

So even though it is not the Foreign Relations Committee, it is the committee of our Armed Forces. He is noted for his gentleness and civility. I am sure he learned some of this modesty as a member of the ``greatest generation,'' because they do not talk about what they did in World War II. As a matter of fact, this last Memorial Day I spent a lot of time with our veterans, their kids, their grandkids, and their great-grandkids, urging those kids and grandkids to get those veterans to share their histories because they are not going to volunteer it. They are not going to initiate any discussion about the events of World War II; they are too modest.

I do not know whether that is where my dear friend from Virginia got that wonderful modesty of his, that self-effacement, but from wherever he got it, it is treasured by every Member of this body and on this occasion I address him as a World War II veteran. Before I make my remarks about all of our other colleagues, I want to tell him what a treasured relationship this has been, and I thank him for his service.

I thank my friend.

I want to add one other thing, and that is the way in which he was able to modify the amendment is typical of the way Senator Warner works. I will not go into the details because it is probably not even appropriate, but there were some differences on the wording of this amendment. He worked with some real giants in this Senate--Senator Byrd, Senator Stevens, Senator Inouye--to find a way to work through this difference. To the outside world, it would look like a very minor modification and in the scheme of things it probably is a modest modification, but it took some real effort, some real diplomacy, and some real willingness to look for the path through the bramble, and the Senator from Virginia found it. It was very typical. He sent an amendment to the desk and in about 4 seconds it is done, but it took a lot more than 4 seconds. It took the special character and the special approach of my dear friend from Virginia.

I thank him for his service as a World War II veteran, as well as all of our other colleagues.

This past weekend, the Memorial Day weekend, the Nation paused to dedicate the newly completed World War II Memorial and pay a long overdue tribute to the 16 million Americans who served in the Armed Forces During World War II, the more than 400,000 who died, and the millions who supported the war effort here at home.

The World War II Memorial is inscribed with many poignant quotes, including the words of President Harry S Truman: ``Our debt to the heroic men and valiant women in the service of our country can never be repaid. They have earned our undying gratitude. America will never forget their sacrifices.'' These words reflect the sentiments of countless Americans. All of us owe a tremendous debt to this ``greatest generation'' which sacrificed so much to protect our freedom and liberty.

Over this past weekend, I was privileged to meet with hundreds of these

veterans and their families who made the journey to Washington, D.C., from Michigan for the dedication of the monument. I heard many inspiring personal stories of these men and women. Nearly all spoke of the memory of those who did not return.

Those who were in Washington represented thousands and thousands of veterans who died in war, and those who were unable to make this journey and those who did not live to see the memorial constructed.

It was particularly moving to witness the pride that the sons and daughters, and the grandchildren, of these veterans took in their service. America will remember.

We in Michigan, in particular, are also mindful of the tremendous effort made ``back home'' by those who supported the war effort. Our State became known as the ``Arsenal of Democracy''. From jeeps to tanks to bombers to artillery, and even ambulances, the industrial strength of Michigan turned to production of the tools needed by those on the front lines. As National Geographical Magazine noted in 1944: ``It does not take long, in Michigan, to realize you are on a real battle front. The industrial sections roar with machinery.''

We, in the Senate, are fortunate to serve with six of these heroic veterans. These are my friends and colleagues and I value each of them for the many important contributions they have made to the Nation in this body. But, today, I salute them for their courage and for their sacrifice as young men in World War II and because they collectively represent millions of Americans who did their duty in their Nation's hour of need. Senator Akaka of Hawaii, Senator Hollings of South Carolina, Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey, Senator Inouye of Hawaii, Senator Stevens of Alaska, and Senator John Warner of Virginia--you have my admiration, my respect and my thanks.

We cannot ever repay the debt we owe to those who fought in our defense during World War II and those who supported their efforts on the homefront. This week, we have taken an important step in assuring that America will never forget their valor and their sacrifice. And, even as we do so, we think of and we honor the courage and commitment of our armed forces today in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting the enemies of freedom and democracy. These men and women, too, like the millions of Americans before them, have answered the call.

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 for the yeas and nays.

I would be happy to do that, of course.

Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from--the committee chairman would yield for one minute.

I was kind of surprised when I walked in a few minutes late on the floor to hear we are going off this bill. I don't quite understand the logic. I missed the majority leader's statement and I apologize for that. But we have to pick up this bill at some point. I don't know why it is assumed we are going to have any more or less trouble when we get back on this bill than we do right now continuing this bill. We are going to have to resolve the Graham issue and we will. It can be done in a few hours. To just set this bill aside, I am not sure I understand what the reasoning is. It is unusual in the middle of the Defense bill to set it aside for some other less important bill. I missed the explanation of the majority leader. I am surprised.

We have troops in the field. There are many important issues. The chairman knows better than any Member in the Senate. He is the chairman, an incredibly effective chairman of this committee, and he knows what the provisions of this bill are. They include provisions not just on all of the quality of life issues, pay issues, and family issues, but they also include a very important issue on troop strength and the signal we send on that matter. At this moment it seems to me it is one of the most important issues to resolve. We are going to resolve that issue. We will figure out a way to resolve it. The chairman is fully on board with the direction in which this Congress is going. He is certainly aware and understands the importance of dealing with this.

I am really surprised. I will express that surprise. This means we are derailed for at least a week. I cannot imagine the urgency of the bill on class action suits.

I will ask our deputy minority leader as to what the estimate is for that bill. It will take, I assume, the whole week, will it not?

I wonder if the Senator from Hawaii wishes to speak this morning and whether it would be all right if we sequenced Senator Akaka immediately after Senator Allard, and we will put that in the Record. I suggest we make that a unanimous consent.

The amendment has been cleared on this side.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3227

The amendment has been cleared on this side, Mr. President.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3171

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Landrieu, I offer an amendment that would authorize the veterans service organizations to participate in preseparation counseling provided to service members and to brief members of Reserve units after release from active service regarding VA benefits.

I move to reconsider the vote.

The amendment has been cleared on this side, Mr. President.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3241

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, I offer an amendment which would increase funding for neurotoxin research.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I thank my friend. The amendment has been cleared on this side.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3243

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Feinstein, I offer an amendment which would authorize the Air Force to convey a parcel of property at March Air Force Base to the local redevelopment authority at fair market value.

I move to reconsider the vote.

The amendment has been cleared on this side, Mr. President.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, earlier this month, the Nation marked National Suicide Prevention Week. Suicide takes the lives of more than 30,000 Americans each year and is the eighth leading cause of death in the United States.

According to a 2001 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study, suicide is the fourth-leading cause of death among children aged 7 to 17. Between 1981 and 1998, the period of the study, 20,775 people in that age group committed suicide, compared with 24,000 in that age group who died of cancer.

Suicide has long been considered an individual mental health issue, but experts are starting to view suicide as a broad public health issue. In 2001, the U.S. Surgeon General released a report citing suicide as a ``national public health problem,'' and announced a national strategy for suicide prevention. Central to that strategy is promoting awareness that suicide is, indeed, preventable.

The same CDC study also highlighted the role of guns in both youth suicide and homicides. During the study period, youth suicides increased by 44 percent, with gun-related suicides making up 80 percent of that increase. At the same time, the number of youths who committed murder with a firearm tripled, even as the total number of murders remained constant. This shows, according to the CDC, that suicide is linked to other social ills, like gun violence.

One of the Surgeon General's recommendations for preventing suicide is to reduce access to guns or other lethal means of suicide. His national suicide prevention strategy recommends not only a public campaign to reduce gun accessibility, but also urges the gun industry to improve firearm safety design.

Suicide is a national problem that demands our attention. Congress should do its part to help prevent suicide by encouraging the manufacture of safer handguns and by closing the loopholes that allow young people easy access to handguns.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I say to my good friend from Virginia, he is absolutely not only correct but I would join his plea to our colleagues that we make good use of time tomorrow. If Senators are not here, their staff can deliver amendments so at least we can begin to consider them. We can make good use of tomorrow so when we come back we will have to use up less of the Senate's time.

So I join the chairman's plea that Members on both sides of the aisle, who have not filed amendments or given our staffs amendments, do that tomorrow. Let us try to work through some of them. We could clear them tomorrow and, even if we do not have contested amendments tomorrow, we could make some progress on this bill.