Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am very proud to join Senator Bunning, who many know is a Major League Baseball Hall of Famer. Not many know he was a founding member of Major League Baseball's Players Union. He brings to this issue impeccable credentials and an enormous amount of passion. I am pleased to be supportive of his leadership in this effort.

It is my hope this legislation would not be necessary. Senator Bunning and I both come to this legislation with great reluctance. But as Senator Bunning pointed out, the Major League Baseball players said they would, by the World Series, come up with an agreement. That has not happened.

The legislation is an effort to set minimum standards that have proven effective in Olympic sports and would also introduce independence--and this is crucial--into the drug testing programs of professional leagues.

Without an independent entity, such as the U.S. Anti-doping Agency that establishes and manages a testing and adjudication program, the fox will continue to guard the henhouse. That is exactly the problem that the U.S. Olympic movement faced several years ago, and they brought integrity back to American Olympic sports by putting the responsibility for testing in the hands of an independent entity.

There are some who argue that Senator Bunning and I have no business legislating an issue which is basically a labor-management issue. We agree. We agree. We do not want to have to legislate. We do not want to have to force both entities to do something they otherwise should have done, but we have no choice. As the Senator from Kentucky has so eloquently pointed out, our obligation is not to the people who are making millions of dollars this year. Our obligation is not even to those who are members of professional sports. Our obligations are to the families of the young people who believe the only way they can make it in the major leagues is to inject these substances into their bodies.

Anybody who followed the hearing on the House side, where there was testimony from parents of young men who had committed suicide as a result of the use of these substances, knows this issue has now transcended a labor-management issue. Senator Bunning and I come to this floor more in sorrow than in anger that we have had to take this extraordinary step. But we will take it; we will take it for the benefit of young Americans who believe the only way they can make it in the major leagues is by using these substances and to give hope to others who refuse to do it and want to make it on their own merits.

Mr. President, I again thank the Senator from Kentucky, who has been a role model to so many millions of young Americans for so many years, for his involvement in this effort.

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, the amendment would do one very simple thing: It would move the DTV transition date forward by 1 year, making the completion date April 7, 2008, rather than April 2009. This would accomplish the crucial goal of providing first responders with critically needed spectrum one year sooner than is required in the reconciliation bill. This amendment, if adopted, could provide a greater benefit to the American public than perhaps any other provision in this bill.

We know that first responders' ability to communicate during times of tragedy can be literally a matter of life and death for them and the victims of natural and manmade catastrophes. This is a lesson that has been presented to us over and over again, well before Katrina and even several years after 9/11. Yet to this date, we have not made a commitment to allocate the needed spectrum as soon as possible.

Almost 10 years ago, a coalition of public safety groups issued a report asking Congress and the Federal Communications Commission for additional first responder spectrum. In 1996, Congress promised first responders would be provided with adequate spectrum for communications by December 31, 2006. However, shortly thereafter, Congress effectively reneged on that promise and set a bar for its fulfillment that would be unobtainable for decades. During a hearing held just last year by the Senate Commerce Committee, then-chairman of the FCC, Michael Powell, predicted it could be even ``multiple decades'' before the turnover of spectrum to first responders under existing law. That provision, which required 85 percent of homes to be available for high-definition television, would have effectively prevented the analog spectrum from ever being returned, and that provision was never run through the Commerce Committee that I was chairman of at the time. It was never debated or discussed. It was snuck into a bill by individuals at the request of the National Association of Broadcasters. It could have been no one else. That is a terrible way to do business. Unfortunately, more and more we are doing business by adding little lines into appropriations bills which never see the light of day.

I am sick and tired of it, and the American people are sick and tired of it. We are sick and tired of all the earmarks, and we are sick and tired of the billions of dollars of pork-barrel spending that occurs. We are sick and tired of mortgaging our children's futures.

I am, most of all, sick and tired that the National Association of Broadcasters is able to prevent this transition from taking place at the risk of American lives, our bravest Americans, our first responders.

I will tell you what the Fraternal Order of Police say:

As Hurricane Katrina so clearly demonstrated, the ability

to communicate and transmit information can often mean the

difference between life and death. Congress should no longer

delay public safety access

to this spectrum. Every year we wait is another year too

late. We cannot wait any longer for Congress to deliberate

over this issue. Therefore, we ask you to support a

transition date as close to December 31st, 2006, as possible.

That plea comes from the Congressional Fire Services Institute, the International Association of Arson Investigators, International Association of Firefighters, International Fire Service Training Association, National Fire Protection Association, the National Volunteer Fire Council, the North American Fire Training Directors, and the International Association of Fire Chiefs.

Every day police, fire, and emergency personnel face

communications problems due to dangerously congested radio

communications systems. We need Congress to pass legislation

to complete the transition to digital TV and free the

spectrum for public safety use. The lives of first responders

and the citizens we serve are at risk.

That is signed by Chief Mary Ann Viverette, president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

Here we are, the lineup again, our first responders, the brave men and women who put their lives on the line in defense of the lives of their fellow citizens who have already given their lives, who have performed so magnificently, who want to be able to talk to each other, who want the spectrum freed up. And what do we do here in Congress? We delay it as long as possible. It is disgraceful conduct on our part.

Let me tell you what the NAB says, the National Association of Broadcasters:

On behalf of America's local television broadcasters, I am

writing to urge your support for the digital transition

provisions included in the Senate reconciliation package. In

particular, we are concerned about floor amendments that

would harm television VIEWERS by either moving forward the

hard date or reducing the revenue allocated to assist

consumers in making this transition.

Get it? ``We are concerned about floor amendments that would harm television viewers.'' They are worried about harming television viewers when the heads of the policemen, the firemen, all of the first responders, everybody is worried about saving lives. So we are going to decide, again, whether the National Association of Broadcasters carries the day or whether we take care of those men and women who literally are putting their lives on the line every single day.

I have a quote here from Tom Kean, Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, concerning his frustration and that of the 9/11 Commission, probably one of the most respected persons in America:

What's frustrating is it's the same thing over again. I

mean, how many people have to lose their lives? It's lack of

communication, our first responders not being able to talk to

each other. . . . Basically it's many of the things that,

frankly, if some of our recommendations had been passed by

the United States Congress, could have been avoided. But on

the ground, the people that get there first can't talk to

each other because radio communications don't work. They

haven't got enough of what's called spectrum. So there is a

bill in Congress to provide first responders spectrum. The

bill has been sitting in Congress, nothing has been happening

and, again, people on the ground--police, fire, medical

personnel--couldn't talk to each other. That's outrageous and

it's a scandal and I think it costs lives.

I will repeat what Tom Kean, Chairman of the 9/11 Commission says:

That's outrageous and it's a scandal and I think it costs

lives.

I would like to have it earlier than 2008. I would prefer to offer an amendment to set a date of 2007, as I did during the Commerce Committee's executive session on this matter. Prior to that session, the Congressional Budget Office expressed concerns about the revenue impact of that earlier 2007 date. By the way, I don't begrudge the Congressional Budget Office for expressing fiscal concerns about perhaps not as much revenue as they can get. But is it revenue we are worried about or people's lives? The amendment failed very badly in the Commerce Committee. However, I am informed that a date of April 2008 would likely generate considerably more revenue than the committee's reconciliation instruction of $4.8 billion, much closer to the level of revenues expected under the April 2009 date than the January 2007 date that I proposed in committee.

As such, this amendment's 2008 date should not raise any potential violation of the budget rules. It is the best option we have at this time.

I have a memorandum from the following organizations in support of establishing a firm DTV transition date as soon as possible to clear the megahertz ban for public safety use nationwide, the 700 megahertz ban: Association of Public-Safety Communication Officials, International; Congressional Fire Services Institute; International Association of Chiefs of Police; International Association of Fire Chiefs; the Major Cities Chiefs Association; Major County Sheriffs' Association; and the National Sheriffs' Association.

Their memorandum is to Members of the U.S. Senate, dated November 2, 2005. Subject: DTV transition.

The Senate Commerce Committee, in addressing DTV

transition, has set a hard date of April 7, 2009 by which

television broadcasters must vacate the 24MHz of spectrum and

the 700MHz band allocated to public safety. We applaud the

efforts of the Commerce Committee to address this critical

issue. Now, Senator John McCain will introduce an amendment

to set the date one year earlier--April 2008.

In 1997, as part of budget reconciliation, Congress set

December 31, 2006 as the date for broadcasters to vacate the

four television channels allocated to public safety. The

above listed organizations have sought ever since to assure

that date. Senators are well aware of the urgent need for

this spectrum to be made available, nationwide, to public

safety and our quest for the earliest transition date

possible. Senator McCain's amendment is an improvement in

that regard, and it has our support.

Here we are again, as we have been in the past. All of the brave men and women who don't stand to make a penny from this transition. There is no revenue that accrues to the National Association of Chiefs of Police, to the sheriffs, to all of the medical personnel. They are not going to make a dime out of this. What they are going to do is carry out their mission, which is to save lives.

It is their view and that of the 9/11 Commission and, frankly, that of any objective observer that these people are unable to save people's lives because of a lack of ability to communicate with each other, and the National Association of Broadcasters is again flexing its muscles to the point where it can very likely cost people's lives. So I hope for once when we go home and talk about how much we support all these great public servants and what a great job they do--our chiefs of police, our sheriffs, all of the people who guard us every day--maybe the best way we can show our appreciation to them is to approve this amendment and get them the spectrum they need in order to be prepared to save lives in the event of another disaster.

I do not have a lot more to say on this except that I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Then I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would be prepared to set aside the pending

amendment until such time as anyone else wants to come and talk on it or that my time expires so the other Members may proceed with Senate business.

I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be set aside pending the arrival of another Senator who may want to speak on this amendment. In the meantime, other Senators may be recognized.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to reauthorize the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act. This bill is intended to reauthorize appropriations for child sexual abuse prevention and treatment grants, to identify the scope of child abuse and family violence in Indian country by requiring annual comprehensive data gathering, to encourage inter-agency coordination between the Indian Health Service and public and private medical or treatment organizations in the treatment and examination of children through the use of telemedicine, and to conform the Act to other Federal child abuse reporting and confidentiality laws. The bill provides a 4-year reauthorization of appropriations for the Act.

The Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act was enacted in 1990 to address findings of the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs and the Special Committee on Investigations as it examined the Federal trust relationship with Indian tribes. Through public hearings, these Committees found that, at the time, Indian country was a safe haven for child abuse perpetrators. I will not forget the testimony of parents whose children fell prey to the notorious cases of multiple child sexual abuse that occurred on the Hopi, Navajo, and Cherokee reservations over the course of many years. The Federal investigation and prosecution of these crimes revealed that child abuse perpetrators were aware that the conditions of reporting, investigating, and preventing crimes upon children were in such a sorry state that their crimes would rarely be detected. Needless to say, the consequences proved tragic to hundreds of child victims, their families and their communities.

We enacted this law to give the Federal Government an opportunity to meet its responsibility to Indian children and families by establishing policies and programs to prevent child abuse and family violence. To accomplish this, appropriations were authorized to establish prevention and treatment programs within the BIA and IHS. The Act also authorized the BIA and IHS to assist tribes in establishing on-reservation child abuse prevention and treatment programs. The Act also provided criminal sanctions for professionals who failed to report acts of abuse or suspected abuse and prescribed a child abuse reporting process for law enforcement.

I don't believe that the possible benefits of the Act have been fully realized.

Neither the BIA nor the IHS have successfully requested or received appropriations to fully implement the programs envisioned by the Act. Today, tribal governments rely on special appropriations, congressional earmarks and piecemeal grants. And, we still do not have a firm idea of the extent to which child sexual or physical abuse is occurring in Indian communities or the degree of success that we are having in treating victims of child abuse. Surely, we can do better than this.

This bill provides for a comprehensive approach to gathering this information on child abuse in Indian country. Under current law, the FBI is responsible for gathering this data. At the time, the FBI was primarily responsible for investigating acts of felony child abuse in Indian country. Today, we know that many Indian tribal police agencies, operating under Indian Self-Determination and Educational Assistance Act compacts and contracts, jointly investigate these felony crimes and that they are also responsible for responding to and investigating tribal offenses. The bill requires a comprehensive sharing of numerical data by all Federal, tribal and State law enforcement agencies.

In addition, the Act requires all local law enforcement agencies to document incidents of child abuse and to submit this documentation to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Act, however, does not provide for use of this valuable information. This bill permits the FBI to continue to gather conviction data and to make this information available, on a limited basis, to specific agencies requiring such information in the course of their professional duties. It permits agencies to access information in the course of conducting background checks on those who seek employment in an area involving children.

Finally, the bill authorizes the Indian Health Service to use advances in telemedicine to bring expert advice and training to the examination and diagnosis of child abuse. This new provision recognizes that children, when victimized, require immediate and expert diagnosis and treatment.

This section will help supplement stretched or unavailable IHS resources in the most isolated Indian communities. This body recently sent a clear message on domestic violence and sexual predators. This bill furthers that message by continuing to protect Indian children and families and ensuring that they continue to receive prevention and treatment resources to address the impact of these crimes in their own communities. I look forward to receiving the comments from the Administration and working with my colleagues toward final passage of this bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to reauthorize the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act. This bill is intended to reauthorize appropriations for child sexual abuse prevention and treatment grants, to identify the scope of child abuse and family violence in Indian country by requiring annual comprehensive data gathering, to encourage inter-agency coordination between the Indian Health Service and public and private medical or treatment organizations in the treatment and examination of children through the use of telemedicine, and to conform the Act to other Federal child abuse reporting and confidentiality laws. The bill provides a 4-year reauthorization of appropriations for the Act.

The Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act was enacted in 1990 to address findings of the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs and the Special Committee on Investigations as it examined the Federal trust relationship with Indian tribes. Through public hearings, these Committees found that, at the time, Indian country was a safe haven for child abuse perpetrators. I will not forget the testimony of parents whose children fell prey to the notorious cases of multiple child sexual abuse that occurred on the Hopi, Navajo, and Cherokee reservations over the course of many years. The Federal investigation and prosecution of these crimes revealed that child abuse perpetrators were aware that the conditions of reporting, investigating, and preventing crimes upon children were in such a sorry state that their crimes would rarely be detected. Needless to say, the consequences proved tragic to hundreds of child victims, their families and their communities.

We enacted this law to give the Federal Government an opportunity to meet its responsibility to Indian children and families by establishing policies and programs to prevent child abuse and family violence. To accomplish this, appropriations were authorized to establish prevention and treatment programs within the BIA and IHS. The Act also authorized the BIA and IHS to assist tribes in establishing on-reservation child abuse prevention and treatment programs. The Act also provided criminal sanctions for professionals who failed to report acts of abuse or suspected abuse and prescribed a child abuse reporting process for law enforcement.

I don't believe that the possible benefits of the Act have been fully realized.

Neither the BIA nor the IHS have successfully requested or received appropriations to fully implement the programs envisioned by the Act. Today, tribal governments rely on special appropriations, congressional earmarks and piecemeal grants. And, we still do not have a firm idea of the extent to which child sexual or physical abuse is occurring in Indian communities or the degree of success that we are having in treating victims of child abuse. Surely, we can do better than this.

This bill provides for a comprehensive approach to gathering this information on child abuse in Indian country. Under current law, the FBI is responsible for gathering this data. At the time, the FBI was primarily responsible for investigating acts of felony child abuse in Indian country. Today, we know that many Indian tribal police agencies, operating under Indian Self-Determination and Educational Assistance Act compacts and contracts, jointly investigate these felony crimes and that they are also responsible for responding to and investigating tribal offenses. The bill requires a comprehensive sharing of numerical data by all Federal, tribal and State law enforcement agencies.

In addition, the Act requires all local law enforcement agencies to document incidents of child abuse and to submit this documentation to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Act, however, does not provide for use of this valuable information. This bill permits the FBI to continue to gather conviction data and to make this information available, on a limited basis, to specific agencies requiring such information in the course of their professional duties. It permits agencies to access information in the course of conducting background checks on those who seek employment in an area involving children.

Finally, the bill authorizes the Indian Health Service to use advances in telemedicine to bring expert advice and training to the examination and diagnosis of child abuse. This new provision recognizes that children, when victimized, require immediate and expert diagnosis and treatment.

This section will help supplement stretched or unavailable IHS resources in the most isolated Indian communities. This body recently sent a clear message on domestic violence and sexual predators. This bill furthers that message by continuing to protect Indian children and families and ensuring that they continue to receive prevention and treatment resources to address the impact of these crimes in their own communities. I look forward to receiving the comments from the Administration and working with my colleagues toward final passage of this bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I appreciate the concern of my friend from North Dakota, who is a vigilant guardian of taxpayer dollars. I point out that the Armed Services Committee is doing work literally every day and every week on this issue. We also have Appropriations Committee oversight on much of this, and I believe that under the existing structure we have today, including the excellent leadership of our chairman and vice chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, that this amendment is not necessary.

I understand the concern of the Senator from North Dakota. I just do not believe it is necessary at this time.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a measure with Senator Dorgan to amend P.L. 107-153, which deems that certain reports prepared for the Department of the Interior relating to Indian tribal trust accounts were received by the tribes no earlier than December 31, 1999. The intent of this law was to eliminate contentions that the tribes received notice of potential claims against the United States prior to that date for purposes of the statute of limitations. This amendment changes the date set forth in P.L. 107-153 to December 31, 2005, in order to facilitate discussions and negotiations between the Indian tribes and the United States regarding potential claims without pressure on the tribes to file lawsuits out of concern that the statute of limitations will run out on their claims. It is my understanding that this measure has support both among the Indian tribes and the administration.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a measure with Senator Dorgan to amend P.L. 107-153, which deems that certain reports prepared for the Department of the Interior relating to Indian tribal trust accounts were received by the tribes no earlier than December 31, 1999. The intent of this law was to eliminate contentions that the tribes received notice of potential claims against the United States prior to that date for purposes of the statute of limitations. This amendment changes the date set forth in P.L. 107-153 to December 31, 2005, in order to facilitate discussions and negotiations between the Indian tribes and the United States regarding potential claims without pressure on the tribes to file lawsuits out of concern that the statute of limitations will run out on their claims. It is my understanding that this measure has support both among the Indian tribes and the administration.

Mr. President, the pending measure, H.R. 2863, the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006, will provide our men and women in uniform with the equipment, benefits, and programs they need to carry out their critical missions at home and overseas. Having said that, I must again voice my dismay at the Senate's inability to authorize these appropriations. Critical programs and benefits have not been authorized. The authorizers layout the priorities, and the appropriators fund. Unfortunately, this time honored practice is not being upheld.

As I look over the bill, I see that, as reported in the Senate, it trims $7 billion from the administration request, leaving that amount available for nondefense appropriations. I am pleased that the cuts are reductions for programs that were underexecuted in the last fiscal year. Unfortunately, and not surprisingly, the bill also includes a large number of unauthorized and unrequested provisions. I hope that the sponsors will carefully reconsider these damaging provisions as the bill works its way through the legislative process. While I appreciate the hard work and the laudable intentions of the members of the Committee, we must all be alarmed at these appropriations earmarks. They limit the ability of our Defense Department to expend needed resources according to its funding priorities.

I have already spoken at length during debate on this bill, so I will not take up much more of the Senate's time again. I am pleased that the Senate recognizes the importance of America's greatest strength, the acknowledgment that we are different and better than our enemies. We are Americans, and we hold ourselves to humane standards of treatment of people no matter how evil or terrible they may be. To do otherwise would undermine both our security and our greatness as a Nation. The Senate spoke with a strong voice this week, and I urge the conferees to include the detention-related amendment in the conference report that will be sent to the President.

With Americans deployed across the globe fighting terror, deployed at home in recovery of Hurricane Katrina, and with looming budget deficits, the Senate faces some tough choices. We must maintain our fiscal responsibility while providing for our military needs. The cost of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq demand a new fiscal sanity in our appropriations bills. A half-a-trillion dollar budget deficit means we simply cannot afford business as usual. We simply cannot continue the binge of pork barrel spending that consumes an ever growing proportion of our federal budget. While the cost of an individual project may get lost in the fine print of lengthy bills, together, they all do real damage. Collectively, these earmarks represent a significant burden to American taxpayers.

Some of the more egregious examples of earmarks, either in the bill or in the accompanying report, include:

The bill includes language to provide $10 million for the Joint Interagency Training Center-East and the affiliated Center for National Response at the Memorial Tunnel in West Virginia.

The bill includes language to provide $3.5 million above the President's budget request to procure aircraft and aviation equipment for the Civil Air Patrol.

The bill includes language to provide $19,000 above the President's budget request to procure vehicles for the Civil Air Patrol.

The bill includes language to provide $3 million to support the National Museum of the United States Army at Fort Belvoir, VA.

The bill includes language to provide $2 million for the installation, repair, and maintenance of an on-base and adjacent off- base wastewater/treatment facility at Naval Computer Telecommunications Area Master Station, NCTAMS, in Hawaii.

The bill includes language to prohibit the procurement of foreign ball and roller bearings. This ``Buy America'' restriction with regard to the procurement of ball and roller bearings may cost the taxpayers more than purchasing ball and roller bearings from a foreign source.

The bill includes language to direct the Secretary of the Army to fully plan, budget, program finance the Non-Line of Sight Future Force cannon and re-supply vehicle program, NLOS-C, in order to field this system in fiscal year 2010. Furthermore, the bill language directs that if the plan to field the Future Combat System, FCS, in fiscal year 2010 is delayed then it directs the Secretary of the Army to develop the NLOS-C independent of the broader FCS development timeline to achieve fielding by fiscal year 2010. Moreover, the bill directs the Army to deliver 8 combat operational pre-production NLOS-C systems by the end of calendar year 2008, in addition to those systems necessary for developmental and operational testing. Section 8103 to H.R. 2853 Separating the Non-line-of-sight cannon, NLOS-C, program from the Future Combat System, FCS, will increase costs and program risk because it invalidates one of the key underpinnings of the FCS program which is to have a family of systems based on equipment commonality. The original concept for the development of the manned ground vehicle was to design and produce a common chassis for all manned ground vehicles. Separating NLOS-C from FCS fundamentally changes this principle and further complicates the development of this already complex and yet critical Army weapons system. Furthermore, bisecting FCS will increase development and sustainment costs and negatively impact systems interoperability. The AirLand Subcommittee on the Senate Armed Services Committee is the appropriate subcommittee of jurisdiction in this matter. Although we had hearings on FCS in the subcommittee this year, we did not hear expert testimony in support of this specific provision. As a result, I intend to offer legislation to repeal this provision in the Defense Authorization bill at the appropriate time.

The bill includes language that authorizes the Secretary of the Air Force to spend $32 million to make upgrades, repairs, and build additions to buildings and other types of infrastructure associated with military ranges in Alaska.

The bill includes language to provide $12.9 million in grant money and directs the Secretary of Defense to spend the money for the following: $850,000 to the Fort Des Moines Memorial Park and Education Center; $2 million to the American Civil War Center at Historic Tredegar; $3 million to the Museum of Flight, American Heroes Collection; $1 million to the National Guard Youth Foundation; $3 million to the United Services Organization; $2 million to the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission; and $1 million to the Iraq Cultural Heritage Assistance Project.

Section 8062 of the General Provisions. The text states that, ``each contract awarded by the Department of Defense during the current fiscal year for construction or service performed in whole or in part in a State which is not contiguous with another State and has an unemployment rate in excess of the national average rate of unemployment as determined by the Secretary of Labor, shall include a provision requiring the contractor to employ, for the purpose of performing that portion of the contract in such State that is not contiguous with another State, individuals who are residents of such State and who, in the case of any craft or trade, possess or would be able to acquire promptly the necessary skills.'' I am not making this text up. Let's call a spade a spade. This provision directly protects the jobs of only Hawaiians and Alaskans.

And 2.2 million for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial celebration. You don't need to have the exploration skills of Lewis and Clark to see that this is a path to higher deficits.

And $65 million for the Additional Procurement of F-15s. The Air Force has decided to procure the F-22 to replace the F-15. Yet this earmark keeps the F-15 production line open, so I question the necessity of the F-22 procurement in the numbers of aircraft and at the funding levels requested by the Air Force. Apparently we just decided to pay for both.

And $2 million for the Air Battle Captain Program at the University of North Dakota. This provision sends students from West Point to North Dakota for their flight lessons. Instead of letting flight schools compete for the ability to train these cadets, we have earmarked their training to North Dakota. We are putting parochial interests over the necessity to provide the best training possible for the best price to our Army cadets.

And $8 million for repairs to a specific building at Rock Island Arsenal. I can think of 8 million reasons why the military, not the Senate should allocate funds to fix their priorities.

And $10 million for repairs to utility tunnels at Fort Wainright. The tunnels aren't broken, mind you, but the owners would like new doors put on them. This appropriation looks to me like an open door to fiscal irresponsibility.

The damage these earmarks do is deadly serious. They pull money away from legitimate funding priorities and they waste taxpayer dollars. Each year, many of the same earmarks appear in appropriations legislation, and each year I come to the floor and point them out to my colleagues. Some of the appropriators' favorite projects include:

The $25 million for the Hawaii Federal Health Care Network. I remember only 2 years ago when this particular project was given $23 million dollars. Some things never change.

And $2 million for the brown tree snakes. Once again, the brown tree snake has slithered its way into our defense appropriation bill. This funding does not belong in the Defense Appropriations Act.

There are many earmarks that funnel dollars to worthy medical research programs, such as breast cancer research, but there is no compelling national defense reason for these items to be in this piece of legislation. This type of critical research should be funded through the Labor/HHS Appropriations bill. Our soldiers and sailors need to be provided with the best equipment, housing, and support possible. Scarce defense dollars should be used for these defense purposes, not others.

I could go on and on--and on and on and on--listing all of the examples of pork in this legislation. We simply need to reassess our priorities.

This year's bill also includes a number of ``Buy America'' provisions. For example, it prevents the foreign purchase of welded shipboard anchor and mooring chain four inches in diameter and under. Another provision ensures that all carbon, alloy or steel plates are produced in the United States. Whew. I know we'll sleep better at night knowing that all of our carbon plates are manufactured in the U.S. Yet another section prohibits the Department of Defense from purchasing supercomputers from a foreign source.

I continue to be very concerned about the potential impact on readiness of our restrictive trade policies with our allies. Every year, Buy America restrictions cost the Department of Defense and the American taxpayers $5.5 billion. From a philosophical point of view, I oppose these types of protectionist policies, and from an economic point of view they are ludicrous. Free trade is both an important element in improving relations among nations and essential to economic growth. From a practical standpoint, ``Buy America'' restrictions could seriously impair our ability to compete freely in international markets and also could result in the loss of existing business from long- standing trade partners.

Some legislative enactments over the past several years have had the effect of establishing a monopoly for a domestic supplier in certain product lines. This not only adds to the pressure for our allies to ``Buy European'' but it also raises the costs of procurement for DOD, and cuts off access to potential state-of-the-art technologies. In order to maintain our troop strength and force readiness, the DOD must be able to be equipped with the best technologies available, regardless of country of origin. This would ensure both price and product competition.

Defense exports improve interoperability with friendly forces-- increasingly necessary as we operate in coalition warfare and peacekeeping missions. Exports lower the unit costs of systems to the U.S. military, and provide the same economic benefits to the U.S. as all other exports--well paying jobs, improved balance of trade, and increased tax revenue. These are really issues of acquisition policy, not appropriations matters. There is no justification for including these provisions in the Appropriations Act.

This bill spends money on Lewis and Clark and funnels cash into military museums. It protects the mooring chain industry and ensures that we only buy American ball bearings. There is enough pork in this bill to feed an army--if only that we used our defense appropriations to do that. I suppose it is more important to appease local constituencies and special interests.

I wish it were not necessary for me to come to the Senate with every appropriations bill to criticize the amount of unrequested spending in the legislation. I do so because I believe it is critical for American taxpayers to understand where the money in their pockets is really going. I urge my colleagues to stop ``porking up'' our appropriations bills. In a time of huge spending deficits and scarce dollars, it is long past time to stop feeding at the trough.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. President, from my conversations with the Senator from Alaska, the chairman, I believe he agrees we will move forward; therefore, I call up amendment No. 1977, which is filed at the desk.

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

Mr. President, this amendment would do two things: one, establish the Army Field Manual as the uniform standard for the interrogation of Department of Defense detainees; and, two, prohibit cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment of prisoners in the detention of the Government. It is pretty simple and straightforward.

Mr. President, I regret, of course, as all my colleagues do, that this amendment has to be brought up on an appropriations bill. We are only doing so because so far we have been unable to get sufficient agreement to bring up the Defense authorization bill. I have made it very clear, over a long period of time, my feeling about how important it is to take up and complete the authorization bill, but that is a subject for another day. I know good-faith efforts are being made on both sides to try to get the authorization bill up. But that has not happened so, therefore, we are addressing this issue.

By the way, I have had a preliminary ruling that this amendment is germane because there is reference made to it in the House version of the appropriations bill.

The Senate has an obligation to address the authorizing legislation, as it has an obligation to deal with the issue that apparently led to the bill being pulled from the floor, which is America's treatment of its detainees.

Several weeks ago, I received a letter from CPT Ian Fishback, a member of the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, and a veteran of combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a West Point graduate. Over 17 months, he struggled to get answers from his chain of command to a basic question: What standards apply to the treatment of enemy detainees? But he found no answers.

In his remarkable letter, he pleads with Congress, asking us to take action to establish standards to clear up the confusion, not for the good of the terrorists but for the good of our soldiers and our country. Captain Fishback closes his letter by saying:

I strongly urge you to do justice to your men and women in

uniform. Give them clear standards of conduct that reflect

the ideals they risk their lives for.

This comes from a young captain in the U.S. Army who has served his country both in Iraq and Afghanistan and who says it in a far more eloquent fashion than I have ever been able to. By the way, I thank God every day that we have men and women the caliber of Captain Fishback serving in our military. I believe the Congress has a responsibility to answer this call, a call that has come not just from this one brave soldier but from so many of our men and women in uniform. We owe it to them. We sent them to fight for us in Afghanistan and Iraq. We placed extraordinary pressure on them to extract intelligence from detainees, but then we threw out the rules that our soldiers had trained on and replaced them with a confusing and constantly changing array of standards. We demanded intelligence without ever clearly telling our troops what was permitted and what was forbidden. And when things went wrong, we blamed them, and we punished them. I believe we have to do better than that.

I can understand why some administration lawyers might have wanted ambiguity so that every hypothetical option is theoretically open, even those the President has said he does not want to exercise. But war doesn't occur in theory, and our troops are not served by ambiguity. They are crying out for clarity. The Congress cannot shrink from this duty. We cannot hide our heads, pulling bills from the floor and avoiding votes. We owe to it our soldiers during this time of war to take a stand. So while I would prefer to offer this amendment to the DOD authorization bill, I am left with no choice but to offer it to this appropriations measure. I would note that I am offering this amendment in accordance with the options afforded under rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate.

The amendment I am offering combines the two amendments I previously filed to the authorizing measure. To fight terrorism, we need intelligence. That much is obvious. What should also be obvious is that the intelligence we collect must be reliable and acquired humanely, under clear standards understood by all our fighting men and women. To do differently would not only offend our values as Americans but undermine our war effort, because abuse of prisoners harms, not helps, in the war on terror.

First, subjecting prisoners to abuse leads to bad intelligence, because under torture, a detainee will tell his interrogator anything to make the pain stop. Second, mistreatment of our prisoners endangers U.S. troops who might be captured by the enemy--if not in this war, then in the next. And third, prisoner abuses exact on us a terrible toll in the war of ideas, because inevitably these abuses become public. When they do, the cruel actions of a few darken the reputation of our country in the eyes of millions. American values should win against all others in any war of ideas, and we can't let prisoner abuse tarnish our image. Yet reports of detainee abuse continue to emerge, in large part, I believe, because of confusion in the field as to what is permitted and what is not. This amendment will go a long way toward clearing up this confusion.

The first part of the amendment would establish the Army Field Manual as the uniform standard for the interrogation of Department of Defense detainees. The Army Field Manual and its various editions have served America well through wars against both regular and irregular foes. It embodies the values Americans have embraced for generations, while preserving the ability of our interrogators to extract critical intelligence from ruthless foes. Never has this been more important than today in the midst of the war on terror. The Army Field Manual authorizes interrogation techniques that have proven effective in extracting lifesaving information from the most hardened enemy prisoners. It is consistent with our laws and, most importantly, our values. Let's not forget that al-Qaida sought not only to destroy American lives on September 11, but American values, our way of life, and all we cherish.

We fight not just to preserve our lives and liberties, but also American

values. We will never allow the terrorists to take those away. In this war--that we must win, that we will win--we must never simply fight evil with evil.

This amendment would establish the Army Field Manual as the standard for interrogation of all detainees held in DOD custody. The manual has been developed by the executive branch for its own uses, and a new edition, written to take into account the needs of the war on terror and with a new classified annex, is due to be issued soon. This amendment would not set the field manual in stone. It could be changed at any time.

The advantage of setting a standard for interrogation based on the field manual is to cut down on the significant level of confusion that still exists with respect to which interrogation techniques are allowed. The Armed Services Committee has held hearings with a slew of high-level Defense Department officials, from regional commanders to judge advocate generals to the Department's deputy general counsel. A chief topic of discussion in these hearings was what specific interrogation techniques are permitted, in what environments, with which DOD detainees, by whom and when. The answers have included a whole lot of confusion. If the Pentagon's top minds can't sort these matters out, after exhaustive debate and preparation, how in the world do we expect our enlisted men and women to do so?

Confusion about the rules results in abuses in the field. We need a clear, simple, and consistent standard, and we have it in the Army Field Manual on interrogation. That is not just my opinion but that of many more distinguished military minds than mine. I refer to a letter expressing strong support for this amendment signed by 28 former high- ranking military officers, including GEN Joseph Hoar, who commanded CENTCOM; GEN John Shalikashvili, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; RADM John Hutson and RADM Don Guter, who each served as the Navy's top JAG; and LTG Claudia Kennedy, who served as Deputy Chief of Staff for Army Intelligence. These and other distinguished officers believe the abuses at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and elsewhere took place in part because our soldiers received ambiguous instructions which in some cases authorized treatment that went beyond what the field manual allows, and that had the manual been followed across the board, we could have avoided the prisoner abuse scandal.

Why wouldn't any of us do whatever we could to have prevented that?

By passing this amendment, our servicemembers can follow the manual consistently from now on. Our troops deserve no less.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter from 29 retired military officers be printed in the Record.

The second part of this amendment should not be objectionable to anyone since I am actually not proposing anything new. The prohibition against cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment has been a long-standing principle in both law and policy in the United States. Before I get into why the amendment is necessary, let me first review the history.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states simply:

No one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or

degrading treatment or punishment.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the United States is a signatory, states the same. The binding Convention Against Torture, negotiated by the Reagan administration and ratified by this body, prohibits cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. On last year's DOD authorization bill, the Senate passed a bipartisan amendment reaffirming that no detainee in U.S. custody can be subject to torture or cruel treatment, as the U.S. has long defined those terms. All of this seems to be common sense, in accordance with longstanding American values. But since last year's DOD bill, a strange legal determination was made that the prohibition in the Convention Against Torture against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment does not legally apply to foreigners held outside the United States. They can apparently be treated inhumanely. This is the administration's position, even though Judge Abe Soafer, who negotiated the Convention Against Torture for President Reagan, said in a recent letter that the Reagan administration never intended the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment to apply only on U.S. soil.

What all this means is that America is the only country in the world that asserts a legal right to engage in cruel and inhuman treatment. But the crazy thing is, it is not even necessary because the administration has said it will not engage in cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment as a matter of policy. What this also means is that confusion about the rules becomes rampant again. We have so many differing legal standards and loopholes that our lawyers and generals are confused. Just imagine our troops serving in prison in the field.

The amendment I am offering simply codifies what is current policy and reaffirms what was assumed to be existing law for years. In light of the administration's stated commitment, it should require no change in our current interrogation and detention practices. What it would do is restore clarity on a simple and fundamental question: Does America treat people inhumanely? My answer is no. And from all I have seen, America's answer has always been no.

I travel a lot around the world, usually at taxpayers' expense. Everywhere I go, I encounter this issue of the treatment of prisoners and the photos of Abu Ghraib and what is perceived in the world to be continued mistreatment of prisoners. It is harming our image in the world terribly. We have to clarify that that is not what the United States is all about. That is what makes us different. That is what makes us different from the enemy we are fighting. The most important thing about it is not our image abroad but our respect for ourselves at home.

Let me close by noting that I hold no brief for the prisoners. I do hold a brief for the reputation of the United States of America. We are Americans. We hold ourselves to humane standards of treatment of people, no matter how evil or terrible they may be. To do otherwise undermines our security, but it also undermines our greatness as a nation. We are not simply any other country. We stand for something more in the world, a moral mission, one of freedom and democracy and human rights at home and abroad. We are better than these terrorists, and we will win. The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don't deserve our sympathy. But this isn't about who they are; this is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, first I thank my friend and colleague from South Carolina for his comments in support of this amendment. He does occupy a unique position in this body, having served 20 years--6\1/2\ years on active duty as an Air Force lawyer and member of the JAG Corps, and remains in the Reserves to this day. He obviously brings a perspective to this issue which is very important.

I think the Senator from South Carolina described the confusion that existed over a period of time about this whole issue of treatment of prisoners. There was a set of instructions issued which were in effect for a couple of months, which were strongly objected to by the uniformed legal corps in the Pentagon. Yet their concerns were overridden.

The Senator from South Carolina quoted one of them. Another one was by RADM Michael Lohr, the Navy's Judge Advocate General. He said the situation at the American prison in Guantanamo, Cuba, might be so legalistically unique that the Geneva Conventions and even the Constitution did not necessarily apply. But, he asked,

Will the American people find we have missed the forest for

the trees by condoning practices that, while technically

legal, are inconsistent with our most fundamental values?

General Rives said if the White House permitted abusive interrogations at Guantanamo Bay, it would not be able to restrict them to that single prison. He argued that soldiers elsewhere would conclude that their commanders were condoning illegal behavior. And that is precisely what happened at Abu Ghraib after the general who organized the abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo went to Iraq to toughen up the interrogation of prisoners there.

I think it is clear that the White House ignored those military lawyers' advice a couple of years ago. We now have, thanks to the yearlong effort of the Senator from South Carolina, those communications of deep concern to every uniformed JAG in the Department of Defense, about the issuance of instructions which basically violated our commitment to the Geneva Conventions.

In order to have the record complete, a couple of months later those were rescinded and different orders were issued at that time. But what if you are at the end of the chain and you get these kinds of mixed messages?

So I thank the Senator from South Carolina for pointing out from his unique perspective how important this is, since it is the men and women who are in the JAG Corps who are responsible for prosecuting those who violate Geneva Conventions, and they need clear guidance; or defending someone who is accused of violating them, as our men and women of the military are entitled to defense just as they are subject to prosecution.

Again, I thank the Senator from South Carolina. I appreciate the defense of the Senator from Alaska of the administration's position on this issue. I do not think he has been well informed by the administration, particularly concerning the Army Field Manual.

The Army Field Manual has a classified section which would not be available to anyone except for those who have a need to know. The Army Field Manual has been used for decades. The Army Field Manual is being revised as we speak to try to meet the new challenges we face. But the Army Field Manual, I am confident, will be in keeping with the fundamental commitments we have made.

All my career I have supported the rights and prerogatives of the Commander in Chief. We need a strong President, and in wartime this is more important than ever. I understand the administration would want to preserve the President's flexibility and wartime powers, and I do not believe that we can afford to have 535 Secretaries of State, Secretaries of Defense, or even Presidents of the United States.

I would like to point out the Congress not only has the right but the obligation to act. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States, clause 11:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and

make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water[.]

I repeat:

. . . make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water[.]

Someone is going to come down to the floor and say that applied back in the time of the Framers of the Constitution; it didn't apply to today. At least from my point of view, unless there is an overriding need to change the Constitution of the United States--if that clause of the Constitution no longer applies, then lets amend the Constitution and remove it; otherwise, lets live by it.

The Congress has the responsibility:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and

make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water[.]

I do not see how anyone could view this as an unwarranted intervention in an issue such as this. The courts, as the Senator from South Carolina pointed out so well, are asking us--that well-known liberal judge, Justice Scalia, has said we need the Congress of the United States involved in this issue. We, the courts, cannot do it ourselves.

As the Senator from South Carolina pointed out, if we do not fulfill our constitutional role, we are negligent. We owe it to our troops and our country to speak on this issue.

I very much respect my friend, the Vice President of the United States, Vice President Cheney. He and I have been friends for many years. I respect the way that he carefully guards the prerogatives of the President. But on this issue, I hope he and others would understand that we are dutybound to take action.

I would like, again, to refer back to Captain Fishback. He is what I view as the tip of the iceberg that exists in the military today. They know how important this war on terror is. They are the ones who are fighting it. Captain Fishback served in Afghanistan and in Iraq, and the ones I hear from are men and women in the military who have a very strong commitment to winning the war on terror. They have laid their lives on the line to win it. But they want clear, unequivocal guidelines as to how to treat prisoners of war.

I would like to believe that this is the last war in which the United States will ever be involved. I would like to believe that from now on, after we win this war on terror, we will have peace and the United States will never send its men and women in harm's way again.

History shows me otherwise. What happens in the next conflict when American military personnel are held captive by the enemy and they make the argument, with some validity, that we have violated the rules of war? What happens to our men and women in the military then?

There are some who will say they wouldn't respect the rules of war, anyway. If they are not sure they are going to win, as the Germans weren't in World War II, they might treat our prisoners according to certain standards if we insist upon those standards.

I think there is a lot at stake. I respect the position of the administration, that these should be under the authority and responsibility and would erode the flexibility of the President of the United States. I don't believe so.

This amendment basically restates what we have been practicing for certainly all of the 21st and the 20th centuries.

I think we owe it to the people, these brave young Americans such as Captain Fishback, who want and deserve a clarification in the way they can carry out their responsibilities and duties as they travel into harm's way.

I thank the Senator from New Hampshire, the Senator from Tennessee, the Senator from Illinois, and my friend from South Carolina for their eloquent statements on this issue.

I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

Does the Senator know how many detainees have been brought to trial in Guantanamo Bay?

If the Senator will yield, aren't there two different Court decisions now that are in direct contravention of each other as to the disposition of these cases?

Could the Senator describe those.

If the Senator will yield further for a question, I guess my fundamental question is, aren't things in one heck of a mess?

Madam President, who has the floor?

Madam President, first, I thank the Senator from Alaska for his cooperation. I thank the Senator from South Carolina for his unique and very important perspective on this issue. But I also point out it is very unfortunate--very unfortunate--the Senator from South Carolina has to put this on an appropriations bill. I do not want to get off the subject too much, but there is something wrong with our process here that I have to, for my amendment, find some narrow germaneness in order to get around my commitment to not authorize on an appropriations bill. Technically, I am not authorizing on an appropriations bill.

It is very unfortunate the Senator from South Carolina has to authorize on an appropriations bill. There may be some objection from someone in the minority. There may be some question. That is because we are not going through an orderly process. This should have been as an amendment on the authorization bill, and that should have been taken up. If someone did not like it, they could have voted to take it out. Now we are in a process where the Senator from South Carolina has to put it in.

Our system here is broken, and we need to properly authorize. I certainly am not blaming the Senator from Alaska. He has his responsibility to get the appropriations bill done. But there is something wrong when we are in a war--in a war; Americans' lives are on the line as we speak--and somehow we do not have room in our agenda to authorize the training, the equipping, the benefits, the pay, all of the things that go with an authorization bill, including the amendment of the Senator from Carolina.

A lot of us have repeatedly decried that this process of legislating is so badly broken today that we cannot even take care of the men and women in the military in an orderly fashion. It cries out for fixing. I would hope at some point we, as a body, would fix this system so we authorize before we appropriate funds. Again, this is meant as no criticism of the Senator from Alaska. He is playing the hand he is dealt. But there is something very badly wrong when we are in a war and somehow we cannot find time in our agenda and ought to authorize the much-needed pay raises, equipment, training, and all of the other things that go along with the authorization of our Nation's defenses.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I know the Senator from Rhode Island is waiting, and I will be very brief. First, it is not a happy day for this body when we are in this kind of imbroglio where we are unable to accept as an amendment on an appropriations bill the authorization for the men and women who are fighting in our Nation's defense around the world. It seems to me the least we can do, however this is sorted out, is to have the distinguished leaders--Senators Stevens, Inouye, Levin, and Warner--sit down and see if there is a way to work this out. It may require the participation of the respective leaders. But we should not be in a situation where the best option is to attach an entire authorization bill as an amendment to an appropriations bill. It is a sad commentary on the way we do business.

Amendment No. 1977

Mr. President, if I can ask the indulgence of my friend from Rhode Island for 1 minute, I would like to read a statement into the Record.

It reads:

GEN Colin L. Powell, USA (Retired),

Alexandria, VA, October 5, 2005.

Dear Senator McCain: I have read your proposed amendment to

the Defense Appropriations Bill concerning the use of the

Army Field Manual as the definitive guidance for the conduct

of our troops with respect to detainees. I have also studied

your impressive statement introducing the amendment.

I fully support this amendment. Further, I align myself

with the letter written to you by General Shalikashivili and

a distinguished group of senior officers in support of the

amendment.

Our troops need to hear from the Congress, which has an

obligation to speak to such matters under Article I, Section

8 of the Constitution. I also believe the world will note

that America is making a clear statement with respect to the

expected future behavior of our soldiers. Such a reaction

will help deal with the terrible public diplomacy crisis

created by Abu Ghraib.

Sincerely,

Colin Powell.

I hope my colleagues will pay very careful attention to our former Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I do not have to tell any of my colleagues of his outstanding and superb record of service to this Nation and the depth of his knowledge as it pertains to this and many other national security issues.

I am very grateful he has come forward with this statement, and I hope my colleagues will pay attention to it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I understand. I rise in an attempt to modify the unanimous consent agreement, with the agreement of the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for not longer than 4 minutes, to be immediately followed by the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. President, I have had to come to this Chamber many times and have had the privilege of doing so since 1987 when I entered this body. I never thought I would have to come to the Senate floor to defend the integrity and the reputation of a brave young American who has put his life on the line for his country defending the freedom of Afghan and Iraqi people.

The remarks of the Senator from Alabama concerning his allegations of abuse and his disparagement of his word and his conduct is unacceptable. This young man, Captain Fishback, served in Afghanistan and Iraq, is a member of the 82nd Airborne, was highly decorated, and had the courage to come forward because of his deep-seated dedication to this Nation and his desire to see that we do the right thing in the treatment of prisoners of war.

He says very eloquently:

. . . Do we sacrifice our ideals in order to preserve

security? Terrorism inspires fear and suppresses ideals like

freedom and individual rights. Overcoming the fear posed by

terrorist threats is a tremendous test of our courage . . .

Captain Fishback is a noble, brave young American. He does not deserve to be disparaged on the Senate floor by any Senator, and the Senator from Alabama owes him an abject and deep apology.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Reserving the right to object, I will not object. I do not know if I have seen that amendment.

I do not object. I think we have already seen that. Thank you.

Mr. President, war is an awful enterprise and I know that. I do not think I am naive about how severe are the wages of war and how terrible are the things that must be done to wage it successfully. It is a grim, dark business, and no matter how noble the cause for which it is fought, no matter how valued their service, many veterans spend much of their subsequent lives trying to forget not only what was done to them and their comrades but some of what had to be done by their hand to prevail.

I do not mourn the loss of any terrorist's life, nor do I care if in the course of serving their noble cause they suffered great harm. They have pledged their lives to the intentional destruction of innocent lives, and they have earned their terrible punishment in this life and the next.

What I do regret, what I do mourn, and what I do care very much about is what we lose, what we, the American service man and woman, and the great Nation they defend at the risk of their lives, when by official policy or by official negligence we allow, confuse, or encourage our soldiers to forget that the best sense of ourselves, that which is our greatest strength, that we are different and better than our enemies, that we fight for an idea, not a tribe, not a land, not a king, not a twisted interpretation of an ancient religion but for an idea that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights.

I have been asked before where did the brave men I was privileged to serve with in Vietnam draw the strength to resist to the best of their ability the cruelties inflicted on them by our enemies? Well, they drew strength from our faith in each other, from our faith in God, and from our faith in our country.

Our enemies did not adhere to the Geneva Convention. Many of my comrades were subjected to very cruel, very inhumane, and degrading treatment, a few of them even unto death. But every single one of us knew and took great strength from the belief that we were different from our enemies, that we were better than them, that if the roles were reversed, we would not disgrace ourselves by committing or countenancing such mistreatment of them. That faith was indispensable not only to our survival but to our attempts to return home with honor. Many of the men I served with would have preferred death to such dishonor.

The enemies we fight today hold such liberal notions in contempt as they hold in contempt the international conventions that enshrine them, such as the Geneva Conventions and the Treaty on Torture. I know that. But we are better than them, and we are stronger for our faith, and we will prevail.

I submit to my colleagues that it is indispensable to our success in this war that our service men and women know that in the discharge of their dangerous responsibilities to their country they are never expected to forget that they are Americans and the valiant defenders of a sacred idea of how nations should govern their own affairs and their relations with others, even our enemies.

Those who return to us and those who give their lives for us are entitled to that honor. Those of us who have given them this onerous duty are obliged by our history and by the sacrifices, the many terrible sacrifices, that they have made in our defense. We are obliged to make clear to them that they need not risk their honor or their country's honor to prevail; that through the violence, chaos, and heartache of war, through deprivation and cruelty and loss, they are always Americans, and different, better, and stronger than those who would destroy us. God bless them as He has blessed us with their service.

Mr. President, this amendment would prohibit for 1 year the transfer.

Mr. President, this amendment would prohibit, for 1 year, the transfer of $23 million in cash to the Government of Uzbekistan.

Just this year, the government of President Islam Karimov has taken a number of actions so alarming, that one would think this body would be considering sanctions, not how to transfer millions of taxpayer dollars to this government.

In May, the government massacred up to 1,000 people, mostly unarmed men, women, and children protesting the government's corruption, lack of opportunity, and continued oppression. The government has rejected all calls for an independent international inquiry and blamed a foreign conspiracy for the protest. It even placed blame on the United States for the events, saying that rebels received money from the U.S. embassy in Tashkent.

The Uzbek government launched a campaign of anti-American propaganda after its massacre, staging rallies to denounce the United States. President Karimov suggested that the U.S. was behind not just the event in Andijan but also served as the ``scriptwriters and directors'' of the ``colored revolutions'' in other countries.

In July, Karimov's government announced that the U.S. will no longer have access to the K2 base in Uzbekistan, and evicted all U.S. troops from the country. In addition, his government has terminated counterterrorism cooperation with the United States.

This week the EU announced that it will impose sanctions against Uzbekistan. But the Pentagon wants to send $23 million to pay past bills. Paying our bills is important. But more important is America standing up for itself; avoiding the misimpression that we overlook massacres; and avoiding cash transfers to the treasury of a dictator just months after he permanently evicts American soldiers from his country.

We should postpone the cash payment to the Government of Uzbekistan for 1 year, at which point the Congress can decide whether to renew the prohibition or make the payment. If it had not been authorization, I would have said until a complete and thorough investigation of the massacre was conducted.

I would be pleased.

Mr. President, last evening, S. 1197, ;the Violence Against Women Act, was passed out of the Senate. I commend the Judiciary Committee for including Title 9, Safety for Indian Women, in its bill to reauthorize the act. Title 9 focuses on the needs of Indian tribes to enable them to reduce and treat incidents of domestic violence in Indian country. Among other things, it would authorize the creation of tribal criminal history databases to document domestic violence convictions and protection orders and it creates a new Federal criminal offense authorizing Federal prosecutors to charge repeat domestic violence offenders before they seriously injure or kill someone. S. 1197 also would authorize the Bureau of Indian Affairs police and certain tribal officers to make arrests for domestic violence assaults committed outside of their presence.

Since 1999, the Department of Justice has issued various studies showing that Indian women experience the highest rates of domestic violence compared to all other groups in the United States. These reports state that one out of every three Indian women are victims of sexual assault; that from 1979 to 1992, homicide was the third leading cause of death of Indian females between the ages of 15 to 34; and that 75 percent of those deaths were committed by a family member or acquaintance. What we don't know, however, is the impact of these violent acts on law enforcement, judicial, mental or medical services in Indian country. I am, therefore, pleased to see that this bill would authorize a comprehensive study of domestic violence in Indian Country to gauge the impact of these acts to Indian tribes and their resources. The findings of such a study will help the Congress and the administration to better focus resources to areas with the greatest need.

Earlier this Congress, Senator Dorgan and I introduced the Restoring Safety to Indian Women Act. We worked closely with the Senate Judiciary Committee to ensure that the provisions of this bill, some of which I mention here, were given due consideration. Throughout the more comprehensive S. 1197, Indian tribes would be eligible for various grants to enhance their victim services, judicial function, and law enforcement service capacity to the same extent as State and local governments are eligible.

Domestic violence is a national problem and not one that is unique to Indian country. Yet, due to the unique status of Indian tribes, there are obstacles faced by Indian tribal police, Federal investigators, tribal and Federal prosecutors and courts that impede their ability to respond to domestic violence in Indian country. Title 9 of this bill goes a long way toward removing these obstacles at all levels and to enhance the ability of each agency to respond to acts of domestic violence when they occur. These critical changes to the current law will greatly curb violence against Indian women, and perhaps even save lives.

Again, I thank the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for their thoughtful consideration in drafting a bill that includes an often forgotten segment of our population, the Nation's Indian tribes.

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

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1978, which is at the desk.

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

Mr. President, this amendment is a pretty simple one. It would prohibit for 1 year the transfer of millions of dollars in cash to the Government of Uzbekistan; I believe $22 or $23 million.

I am pleased to be joined by Senators Biden, Graham, Leahy, and DeWine, who have cosponsored the amendment. The Pentagon notified the Congress this summer that it intends to pay $23 million in ``coalition support funds'' to Uzbekistan, designed to cover past costs associated with the use of the K2 base there. If you have seen this base in the news lately, it is because it is the location from which the Government of Uzbekistan recently evicted all U.S. personnel. Uzbekistan was at one point a partner in the war on terror. It is no longer. And turning over ``coalition support funds,'' at this point, debases the meaning of the term ``coalition.''

The amendment I am proposing would prohibit this payment for 1 year at which point the Congress can decide whether to renew the prohibition or make the payment.

America keeps its promises to our coalition partners, but we also expect our partners to keep their promises to us. We are not in the business of paying dictatorial, repressive, brutal governments.

Let me review a few of the more egregious examples of Uzbekistan's relationship with us and their abuse of human rights. In May, the Government launched a brutal crackdown in the city of Andijan after protestors stormed a prison and local government headquarters. Eye witnesses estimated the dead at somewhere between 500 and 1,000 and said that the vast majority were unarmed men, women, and children protesting the Government's corruption, lack of opportunity, and continued oppression. In addition to those killed, many others were wounded, and at least 500 fled across the border into Kyrgyzstan.

The Government has rejected all calls for an independent international inquiry into the massacre. The entire European Union has demanded an investigation into the massacre. Tashkent has put the official death toll at just 187 and blamed a foreign conspiracy for the protest. It even placed blame on the United States for the events saying that rebels received money from the U.S. Embassy in Tashkent.

The Uzbek Government launched a campaign of anti-American propaganda after its massacre, staging rallies to denounce the United States and accusing the United States of fomenting Islamic extremism in the guise of promoting democracy.

President Karimov--and I use the term ``president'' loosely-- President Karimov suggested that the United States was behind both the events in Andijan and the ``colored revolutions'' in other countries.

I remind my colleagues that Uzbekistan agreed to host U.S. forces on its soil to support continuing coalition combat efforts in Afghanistan. Our troops in Afghanistan are still fighting the Taliban. Insurgents have killed hundreds of people, including dozens of Americans, in the last few months. Yet with this going on and with our mission clearly unfinished, in July Uzbekistan ordered the United States to leave the country.

Just last week, the Washington Post ran an article entitled ``Uzbeks Stop Working With U.S. Against Terrorism,'' which describes how Tashkent has decided to abridge its 2002 agreement with President Bush and terminate its counterterrorism cooperation with America. One sentence in this article bears particular notice: ``The Bush administration,'' the article reads, ``has concluded that Karimov fears democracy more than terrorism, officials said.''

This is the same country that Pentagon officials were describing quite recently as a ``very valuable partner and ally in the global war on terror.'' But Uzbekistan is not a valuable partner and ally; it is part of the problem. This week, the European Union announced that it will impose sanctions

against the Uzbek Government for its refusal to accept an international inquiry into the Andijan massacre. This is the kind of response we should be considering to these outrageous actions, not the best way to transfer $23 million in funds from the U.S. Treasury.

The Pentagon wants to pay Tashkent on the principle that America pays its bills for services rendered. I support that principle, but so, too, do I support America standing up for itself in the world and spending taxpayers' money wisely, avoiding the misimpression that we overlook massacres, and avoiding cash transfers to the treasury of a dictator just months after he permanently evicts American soldiers from his country.

I intend to have printed in the Record the assessment of every human rights organization in the world of this brutal, oppressive dictatorship. This is a person who just orchestrated a massacre of somewhere, estimates are, around 1,000 of its citizens. This is a government that is illegitimate in that Karimov keeps himself in power through edict. This is a corrupt government in that there is continued repression and oppression of human rights.

Mr. President, I suggest that if the Government of Uzbekistan allowed a full-scale investigation by the European Union and the results are known, then maybe at that time it would be appropriate to give them this money.

Also, let's keep in mind what this brutal and oppressive dictator will do with $23 million of American money. His prisons are full. There is no free press. There is no freedom of movement. It is an oppressive, repressive regime of the old Stalinist style.

I am not saying the United States should not pay its bills. What I am saying is that we should demand at least an investigation of what happened in Andijan some months ago when hundreds, if not a thousand, of its citizens innocently gathered to protest the policies of their government: they were fired on and killed in the most wanton fashion.

The Washington Post article reads:

The government of President Islam Karimov, one of the most

authoritarian to emerge from the collapse of the Soviet

Union, has made a broader strategic decision to move away

from the 2002 agreement made with President Bush after the

Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and is cooling relations with Europe

as well. . . .

The move follows tough criticism from Washington--

I might say not the Pentagon--

and the European Union over Uzbekistan's crackdown on

protests in May in the Andijan province, where human rights

and opposition groups say hundreds died. Uzbekistan has

charged that terrorists initiated the violence.

As tensions deepen, Karimov is shifting his strategic

alliance toward Russia and China. . . . In July, Tashkent

banned U.S. troops and warplanes from what is known as the

[K2 airbase] which was used for counterterrorism, military

and humanitarian missions.

The European Union is not renowned to take the lead on some issues. I am proud that the European Union imposed sanctions on Uzbekistan today seeking to punish, according to the New York Times, October 3, 2005:

. . . seeking to punish the Central Asian nation for its

refusal to allow an international investigation into the

bloody crackdown of an uprising in May in the northeastern

city of Andijon.

The sanctions against Uzbekistan impose an embargo on

exports of arms and equipment that might be used for internal

repression and suspend meetings between the European Union

and Uzbekistan that were aimed at accelerating the former

Soviet state's rapprochement with the West. They will also

forbid the travel of Uzbek officials directly involved [in]

the crackdown to the 25 European Union states.

Survivors and independent organizations claim--

This is survivors, their actual statements--

and independent organizations claim that hundreds of people

were killed, almost all of them unarmed. Uzbekistan, an

autocratic state that had been an ally with the Bush

administration's counter-terrorism efforts, has argued that

the crackdown was a necessary counter-terrorism operation,

and said only 187 people, principally Islamic terrorists,

were killed. It has stubbornly resisted calls for an open

investigation of its crackdown of the uprising.

As criticism over the violence mounted in the spring and

summer, Uzbekistan sharply shifted its foreign policy,

aligning itself more closely with Russia and China and

trimming its relations with the West. In July, it ordered the

United States to leave an airbase it has been using since

2001, an eviction now scheduled for early next year.

Last month, Uzbekistan hosted a small joint military exercise with Russian troops, signaling its new allegiances.

Meeting in Luxembourg, the foreign ministers of European

Union states approved the sanctions an initial period of one

year, allowing for a review in 2006 of Uzbekistan's

willingness to ``adhere to the principles of respect for

human rights, rule of law, and fundamental freedoms.''

A fundamental pillar of this administration's policy and previous administrations is the adherence to principles of respect for human rights, rule of law, and fundamental freedoms, all of which are routinely violated by this thug Karimov and his government.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times article, the Washington Post article I just cited, an article from Defense News, an article from Reuters, and an article entitled ``Andijan Show Trial Proceedings'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, let me tell you what the Uzbek Government did. They arrested some people. Here is what happened. This is Reuters:

Uzbekistan: Defendants in Andijon Trial Reiterate Guilt,

Blame Others. The defendants allegedly behind the May

uprising in the eastern Uzbek town of Andijon are confessing

to the charges and saying foreign countries initiated the

revolt.

One of the defendants, Tavakkalbek Hojiyev, said yesterday

that the U.S. Embassy in Tashkent financially supported the

uprising.

Mr. President, here is the old Stalinist trial where they beat the defendant into submission, have him confess, and then blame the U.S. Embassy in Tashkent, and we are going to give them 23 million bucks?

As I said:

. . . that the U.S. Embassy in Tashkent financially supported

the uprising. He did not provide any evidence but said he was

informed about the fact by another man . . . whom the Uzbek

government has accused of helping instigate the violence.

``He told me that the U.S. Embassy has allocated the money

[for the uprising,]'' Hojiyev said. ``And if our action in

Andijon would not succeed we had to leave for Kyrgystan. He

said that this was

the plan. . . .

Parpiev was among the protesters who seized the regional

administration building in Andijon on 13 May. He escaped when

Uzbek forces fired on protesters. . . .

It goes on and on. It is the age-old Stalinist tactic: Take somebody, torture them, and force them to confess. And they are blaming the United States of America.

This is the Karimov Government that we are going to give $23 million and that is now alleging that the United States of America not only was responsible for this uprising in Andijon, but the ``colored revolutions'' all over the world--Lebanon, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine.

Former hostages and other witnesses testified Wednesday in

the trial of 15 alleged participants in a May uprising that

was brutally suppressed by Uzbek government troops. . .

.Former hostage Rakhimjon Kurbonov, a van driver, said he was

shot in the back and leg when rebels used him as a human

shield. He also said he had been beaten up by relatives of

some of the 23 religious businessmen. . . .

On and on and on.

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of State denounced the

accusations that the U.S. Embassy in Uzbekistan had allegedly

orchestrated and financed the May revolt in Andijon.

Defendants standing trial for participation in the revolt

announced the conspiracy against the Uzbek authorities had

been arranged by the Americans, journalists, and human rights

activists.

This is an echo of the days of the Cold War, Mr. President. This is when the Stalinists were in charge.

Finally:

Upwards of 1,000 civilians may have been killed in Andijon

on 13 May, according to some human rights groups, when

security forces opened fire on protesters demonstrating

against the government of President Islam Karimov, who has

ruled Central Asia's most populous state since the collapse

of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Despite international pressure, Tashkent has rejected all

requests for an independent international inquiry, placing

the official death toll at 187.

The 15 men--

Guess what--

have pleaded guilty . . .

Is that a surprise that the defendants have all pleaded guilty, condemning themselves to life sentences or death?

The 15 men have pleaded guilty to trying to overthrow the

Uzbek Government and create an Islamic state in a violent

uprising that prosecutors maintain was stoked by Western

media. More than 100 people face charges that include murder,

fomenting mass arrest and an attempted coup.

Mr. President, I will curtail my remarks and just say to my friend from Alaska--I know he has a very busy agenda--if I were able to authorize on an appropriations bill--which I am not--I would say at the completion of a thorough investigation of the massacre of Andijon. I cannot do that because this is an appropriations bill, so the amendment basically says no money shall be spent in 2006.

My whole purpose in this is to have the investigation by an international organization, find out who is guilty, and recognize we are dealing with a very brutal, repressive, old-time Stalinist regime.

I thank the chairman for his courtesy.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

At a time to be determined by the distinguished chairman.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, this Thursday the Senate will have the opportunity to vote on the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States. Few decisions made by this body are as consequential as this one. If Judge Roberts is confirmed by the Senate--and I believe he will be confirmed--he will be the youngest Chief Justice in more than 200 years. With the blessing of a long tenure on the Court, his influence as Chief Justice will not just affect us and our children but also several generations to come.

In nominating Judge Roberts, the President clearly was mindful of the serious and lasting nature of the vote before us. He respected the Senate's advice and consent role and engaged in a thorough, deliberate, and fair nomination process. The President and his staff consulted with more than 70 Members of the Senate, and the President reviewed the credentials of many well-qualified candidates. The President also met personally with a number of potential nominees. I believe that this is the process envisioned by the so-called Gang of 14, and that it resulted in an excellent nominee.

Judge Roberts has impeccable legal credentials and a strong reputation and record as a fair- and sharp-minded lawyer and jurist. The American Bar Association and many others of all political stripes agree that his distinguished career as a lawyer and a jurist makes him very well qualified for the position of Chief Justice. Indeed, some observers have pointed out that if one were to imagine the perfect training to be a Supreme Court Justice, Judge Roberts's career would be the model. I could not agree more.

As an appellate judge, Judge Roberts has built a record of measure, control, and fair-mindedness--all crucial characteristics for a member of our Nation's highest court.

Prior to his tenure as a Federal judge, John Roberts was a widely respected appellate lawyer. The Washington Post recently characterized him as ``among the country's best-regarded appellate lawyers, both in private practice and as deputy solicitor general during the administration of George H.W. Bush.''

The Senate Judiciary Committee has engaged in an extensive review of Judge Roberts' record. During his nomination hearings, the judge acquitted himself with dignity and honesty, answering directly questions that he believed he could address without hindering his ability to carry out his functions on the Supreme Court or in his current position on the DC Court of Appeals. The editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle wrote some days ago that Judge Roberts ``passed the key tests before the Senate Judiciary Committee. His command of the law is impressive. He carries no trace of ethical taint. His ability to stay calm and on point in the face of exhaustive questioning from a panel of highly inquisitive--and occasionally posturing--U.S. senators was indicative of judicial temperament.''

The committee has voted to recommend that the full Senate confirm Judge Roberts as the Chief Justice of the United States. Several Democratic members of the committee joined in that recommendation, and rightly so--this nominee's exceptional credentials and temperament should place him well above the fray of partisanship.

I agree wholeheartedly with the nomination of the President and the recommendation of the Judiciary Committee. I will vote for John Roberts, a man who has proven to be an extraordinarily talented lawyer and judge who approaches the law with modesty and a deep respect for the Constitution and our Nation's laws.

Mr. President, I am in the Senate to mention that there is ongoing discussions between the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Finance, and a number of Members who have been concerned about S. 1716, the Emergency Health Care Relief Act of 2005. I fully support the desire of the Senator and members of the Committee on Finance to provide health care relief for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. We have noted that it has about a $9 billion price tag, and we have been in ongoing discussions which I believe will bear fruit with the Senator from Iowa.

It is important to know that the administration also objects to S. 1716, and I ask unanimous consent the letter from Secretary Leavitt be printed in the Record.

I say again to my friend from Iowa, I think he does a tremendous job as chairman of our Committee on Finance. He continues to distinguish himself in that role. But I do believe--and we had, I think, a very productive meeting with the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Sununu, and Senator Lott, who, obviously, has a very deep and abiding interest in this situation, as well as the Senator from Iowa. I hope we can work out the objections that the administration has, as well as the concerns that others of us have on this issue.

Again, I thank the Senator from Iowa for his diligent efforts in trying to get this legislation done and, at the same time, satisfy the concerns of many who are concerned about the scope of it, as well as his efforts to attempt to satisfy the concerns of the administration.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.