Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Idaho for his leadership on this issue and for yielding time. I rise in strong support of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and in opposition to these amendments that will be offered this afternoon, all of which are designed to gut the underlying legislation.

It has been noted throughout the course of this debate that prosecutions are up, crime is down. That should be the fundamental focus of our efforts--protecting people from crimes committed by firearms.

I come from a State where we view these issues as a part of our personal freedoms, part of the rights that are guaranteed under the Constitution, the opportunity to possess and own firearms. It is a part of the culture of our State, a belief in personal freedom, also coupled with personal responsibility, which is why every year thousands of young South Dakotans take the firearm safety course and learn the responsible use of firearms and then go out and have the opportunity to hunt and recreate and enjoy the great outdoors in our great State.

That was the opportunity I had as a young 12-year-old. I have taught my teenage daughters responsible use of firearms. It is part of our history. It is part of our tradition. It is part of our culture.

The bill before us today would end many of the abusive lawsuits that are often filed, largely with the intent to bankrupt the firearms industry. Contrary to the assertions by some, this

bill is not about the NRA. This bill is about law-abiding gun owners, it is about law-abiding gun dealers, it is about law-abiding gun manufacturers who are having that second amendment right infringed upon by those who are trying to destroy an industry that, for a couple of centuries now, has provided quality workmanship in accordance with Federal and State laws.

This bill is about reestablishing some of the fairness and justice, getting it back into our judicial system. This bill attempts to remedy a system that allows innocent parties--in this case, gun manufacturers and gun dealers--who have abided by the law to become victims of predatory lawsuits.

Furthermore, we are protecting American workers who are in danger of losing their jobs due to the enormous amount of money that must be spent to defend against unfounded lawsuits.

I also support this legislation because it would take the first step in ending what has been now a decades-long trend of using the courts to effect social change. For far too long, the American judicial system has been used as a conduit around the legislative process in an attempt to make public policy or implement social change outside the democratic process.

The aim of this bill is clear: to allow legitimate lawsuits against a manufacturer when the legal principles to do so are present. The bill allows suits against manufacturers who breach a contract or a warranty, for negligent entrustment of a firearm, for violating a law in the production or sale of a firearm, or for harm caused by a defect in design or manufacture.

These are not arbitrary standards, nor are they an approved NRA wish list. They are established legal principles that apply across the board to all industries. People who misuse firearms should pay for their crimes and answer to those they injure. However tragic, a death or an injury caused by a firearm should not create a windfall at the expense of the manufacturer if the manufacturer followed the law.

The manufacturer should not be held responsible for intentional and unforeseen acts of unrelated third parties.

The firearms industry has spent over $200 million in lawsuits. Many of these cases are not filed by injured parties but by city and municipal governments and special interest groups simply looking for the deepest pockets and not the guilty party. This bill would not allow manufacturers in the firearms industry to act as recklessly as they please, as some have asserted.

The firearms industry is one of America's most regulated industries. For example, a firearm is one of the few consumer goods that requires a waiting period or a background check. Unfortunately, some ultimately hope to drive America's gun manufacturers into bankruptcy and eventually out of business. The firearms industry is not only part of our tradition of outdoor and hunting sports, it is an integral part of our military manufacturing base. We cannot allow this industry to be bankrupted by unfounded lawsuits and endless litigation.

S. 397, this underlying bill, is good policy. It is a bipartisan bill with over 60 cosponsors and it mirrors legislation that already exists in 33 States around this country. By supporting this bill we are sending a message that Congress is committed to protecting American jobs and providing further security against predatory lawsuits. I encourage my colleagues to support the underlying legislation and to resist these amendments--these are killer amendments, gutting amendments that would undermine the entire purpose behind this legislation--and allow this legislation to pass and be put in place so the gun manufacturers and dealers of this country can operate in a fair, sensible, and just environment with the goods they produce for American firearms owners.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as if in morning business and I be allowed to speak for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. President, last week I offered an amendment to suspend the 45-day congressional review of the President's final BRAC recommendations pending completion of several vital studies pertaining to long-range security needs in the implementation of BRAC and redeployment of many units presently deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan back to bases in the United States.

I also introduced a similar amendment yesterday that would allow Congress discretion to remove individual bases from the closure list based upon the findings of these studies and results of the redeployments.

There are two separate options, one of which I hope comes to the Senate for a vote. I underscore the assertions I made last week. The underlying purpose of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission, or BRAC, is not only good for our Armed Forces, it is good for American taxpayers. We all want to eliminate waste and reduce redundancy in the Government, but when Congress modified the BRAC law in December of 2001 to make way for the 2005 round of base closings, it failed to envision this country involved in a protracted war involving stretched manpower resources and the burden of large overseas rotational deployments of troops and equipment. This is not the time to begin a new round of domestic base closures and massive relocations of manpower and equipment.

I am aware, hearing that coming from a Member of Congress with a major base on the chopping block, that assertion may sound like another pitch to defend a home State parochial interest. Regardless of the outcome for my base, I am very concerned about how this BRAC round will affect our Nation's overall military posture, not only in South Dakota but around the country and around the world. This BRAC, in particular, has serious implications both in the short term, because we are engaged in a war, and in the longer term because of the need to preserve critical infrastructure as we enter a very uncertain future.

In essence, we cannot lose sight of the imperative of, in addition to saving money, perhaps the most critical goal of BRAC should be to maximize our Nation's warfighting capability. If we fail to follow that fundamental principle, the BRAC process will fail us and ultimately put this country at risk.

This BRAC, in particular, not only has serious implications, it raises serious questions, especially in terms of its timing. In the short term, our war in Iraq and Afghanistan has put great logistical strain on our Active military

and Reserve Forces in terms of both manpower and resources. The rotational deployment of personnel and assets to overseas areas of operation has disrupted normal training and maintenance cycles and left military families with uncertainty.

The drain of resources also raised questions as to our ability to respond to additional flashpoints if a crisis should arise elsewhere in the world. Yes, the military is performing its ongoing missions remarkably well under the circumstances, but is this the time to add to those commitments by initiating a massive reshuffle of personnel, equipment, and missions between bases all over the country?

In the long term, these recommendations may pose an even more serious risk to our security. As the DOD itself points out in the National Defense Strategy, published earlier this year:

Particularly troublesome is the nexus of transnational

terrorists, proliferation and problem states that possess or

seek WMD, increasing the risk of WMD attack against the

United States.

We simply do not know what dangers may emerge from military powers such as North Korea, China, Iran, or various rogue states in the next 20 years or more. The threat of terrorism directed against targets in this country should be indisputable after September 11.

There have been four prior BRAC rounds in the last 20 years. I believe it is readily apparent that the Pentagon's 2005 BRAC recommendations go beyond reducing excess infrastructure and would, instead, reduce critical infrastructure needed to fight the wars of the 21st century.

Prior rounds have been successful in pulling much of the low-hanging fruit and in reducing waste.

This round begins to cut into the muscle. I want to show you a chart from 1958, for example. You see there was a large number of Air Force bases in the northern region of this country. Air Force bases were dotted all across the northern tier of the United States: Up in the Northeast, North Central Plains, areas such as that--1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10--a dozen Air Force bases or more in the northern tier of this country.

Today, take a look at how that has changed. One can plainly see how dramatically that number has been reduced and will be further reduced in the 2005 BRAC round.

You saw the previous chart from 1958. All those bases have been wiped out. There are three left in the northern tier of the country. This BRAC round would eliminate Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota and make Grand Forks Air Force Base essentially a ``warm'' base, hopeful of an emerging mission but for all intents and purposes removes the principal mission that has been housed there for some time and leaves literally only one major Air Force base in the northern tier of this country.

Of course, one of the flaws I see in this BRAC is not only the stripping of our air and naval bases in the northern tier, but I seriously question what I believe to be one of the Pentagon's most apparent errors in judgment; and that is to consolidate high-value assets in fewer locations.

In light of the potential threats we face, I wonder whether we really want to discard a tenet of military doctrine that we have lived by for the past 60 years. It is called ``strategic redundancy.'' Put simply, it is the doctrine of dispersing high-value assets at different locations in order to prevent their complete destruction in a single attack.

If you look at the statement here, this is from the Air Force doctrine document, dated November 9, of 2004. It says:

. . . it is easier and more effective to destroy the enemy's

aerial power by destroying his nests and eggs on the ground

than to hunt his flying birds in the air.

If you look at what the potential threats are we face going forward, and what it means to this Nation to have strategic redundancy, to have those assets dispersed in several locations around the country, and if you look at how that fits in with the Defense Department's own military strategy, you have to ask a question about some of the decisions that have been made in this particular BRAC round.

Let's look at what it says right here. Again, this is the Department of Defense, in its March 2005 National Defense Strategy, when it stated its goal of ``developing greater flexibility to contend with uncertainty by emphasizing agility and by not overly concentrating military forces in a few locations.''

I want to put up another chart. It has to do with principles and imperatives. Even in the Pentagon's deliberative briefing materials that outline those ``principles and imperatives'' of this BRAC round, it stated that the Department needed secure installations optimally located, that support power projection, sustain the capability to mobilize and ``that ensure strategic redundancy.''

Now, unfortunately, Secretary Rumsfeld's recent BRAC recommendations to consolidate some of the Nation's most valuable U.S. air and naval platforms at single installations would apparently abandon that basic tenet in favor of cutting costs.

Hopefully, we have not forgotten the shortsightedness we once had as a Nation before Pearl Harbor. Now, folks might dismiss such lapses as distant events from another time and another place that are not applicable to today's threats. See on this chart a scene from Pearl Harbor that took place 60-some years ago. Even in the DOD's Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support, released a few weeks ago--and, incidentally, this is a partial completion of one of the amendment's conditions--it notes that ``a significant element of mission assurance is continuity of operations--maintaining the ability to carry out DOD mission essential functions in the event of a national emergency or terrorist attack.''

It also goes on to state that ``an attack on DOD facilities could directly affect the Department's ability to project power overseas.'' One well-positioned crater in a runway could ground the entire fleet of this Nation's B-1 bombers during an emergency, if they are all stationed at one location. It should always come back to the intuitive logic possessed by most Americans, and that is that we simply cannot allow analytical cost models to trump sound and proven security precautions.

Strategic redundancy, obviously, still has a place in our planning, as demonstrated in the Pentagon's own planning documents. Why was it not reflected in its BRAC recommendations?

Additionally, the risk of natural disasters is a constant reminder that we should not put all our assets in a single location. This chart shows a tornado that passed within 1,000 feet of the F-16s and B-1 bombers stationed at McConnell Air Force Base back in 1991. Tornadoes have wreaked havoc on Air Force bases in the past. The one I am going to show you in a moment is Carswell Air Force Base in Texas. We simply cannot afford to risk our Nation's security on the whims of a single deadly tornado that could destroy or damage an entire fleet of aircraft.

Finally, the GAO has also questioned the potential for cost savings estimated by the DOD, calling into question whether we want to risk our national security for questionable cost savings. want to read to you what it says from the GAO study:

There are clear limitations associated with DOD's

projection of nearly $50 billion in savings over a 20-year

period. Much of the projected net annual recurring savings

(47 percent) is associated with eliminating jobs currently

held by military personnel. However, rather than reducing

end-strength levels, DOD indicates the positions are expected

to be reassigned to other areas.

As this implies, much of these cost savings are apparently illusory. To quote the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, during his testimony before the BRAC Commission, he said:

Since 32 percent of BRAC savings come from personnel

reductions, this calls into question the entire savings

estimate--particularly since we are not reducing any

meaningful force structure.

I want to show another GAO chart. The GAO questions, one, the lengthy payback periods; inconsistencies in how DOD estimated costs for BRAC actions involving military construction projects; and uncertainties in estimating the total costs to the Government to implement.

GAO estimates upfront costs of an estimated $24 billion to implement this round of BRAC. To again quote the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee before the BRAC Commission, he said this:

My observations are consistent with the testimony of

witnesses and Congressional

delegations around the country to date who have presented the

Commission firm evidence supporting similar observations of

questionable data and an internal collapse of the

quantitative analytical foundation in lieu of other guidance

provided by senior defense officials. These observations are

also consistent with issues raised by the Government

Accountability Office in its July I, 2005, report to the

Commission and to Congress.

Last week, when I was offering my amendment, the distinguished chairman, Senator Warner, made what I believe was a reasonable argument, that by suspending the 45-day review period until these conditions are met would cause anxiety among some communities by not knowing their ultimate fate or delaying the process of redeveloping the base to civilian use.

Now, this may be the case for some communities, but I believe most communities desperately want to retain their bases because they are the lifeblood of their local economy. They would do anything--exhaust every possibility--to have these bases remain open. If anything, knowing that this Congress has done all it could to have all the answers before making such a decision I think is tremendously important to these communities.

I also challenge the perception made by many that these communities will have many opportunities to develop these closed bases and quickly restore their economy. This will probably not be the case in rural areas around bases like Ellsworth Air Force Base and Cannon Air Force Base.

Some communities may actually prosper from a base closing, where land for business or home development comes at a high premium and sells for thousands of dollars per square foot. Bases like Oceana, in Virginia, will have no difficulty putting the land to profitable use.

As you can see in this picture, Oceana is surrounded by a sea of development and prosperity. The base is up here. The entire area around it is completely developed. The land is worth lots of money.

But other bases, like Ellsworth, in my State, as you can see in this aerial photograph, are surrounded by miles and miles and miles of empty rangeland and have scant hopes of a booming development taking hold of the former base. There is little doubt that the nearby community of Rapid City would have no problems with the delay if it means ensuring the right decision has truly been made.

There are too many unanswered questions regarding our Nation's long- term security needs and the circumstances in which our military may have to operate in the future to make irreversible decisions for which we could pay a terrible price later. We will not be able to easily replace or position these installations and units once this BRAC is fully implemented and we discover we have made a colossal mistake.

Let's take a breath and slow down. My two amendments, offered as options, merely allow this Nation to have the full benefit of all the information we need before moving ahead to implement BRAC. The risk is too great.

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

Mr. President, I also compliment the Senator from South Carolina for his leadership on this issue, and also the Senator from New

York. I know they have worked together on this, but I will say that one of the first issues that the Senator from South Carolina talked to me about when I first arrived in the Senate was this very issue. It is important for a lot of reasons, important in my State of South Dakota because we have a number of people who have been called up. Over 1,700 of our National Guard men and women have served in the deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, and as I have traveled my State and attended many of the events as they have been deactivated and come home, I looked into the eyes of their children and their loved ones and assured those people that the job they are doing is important to freedom's cause, that the work they are doing is important in bringing freedom and democracy to places such as Iraq and Afghanistan and thereby also making our country more safe and secure.

It is important that we put in place the appreciation for the good work that our guardsmen and reservists are doing and important that we recognize that by offering them access to affordable health care. This legislation is important because we do have a challenge as we go forward with the continuing duration of the deployments, with the need to call up our Guard and Reserve on a more frequent basis, to ensure that we put the incentives in place so that we can recruit and retain the men and women who continue to fill those very important roles.

And so I am happy to cosponsor this amendment to offer my support to the Senator from South Carolina and to urge our colleagues on the floor of the Senate to support this important legislation, to send a strong, clear message to the men and women who are serving our country in the Guard and Reserve that we support them. This is no longer a 1-weekend- a-month, 2-weeks-a-year deployment. That is a thing of the past. The longer deployments and the heightened responsibilities are taking an unforeseen toll on the families and members of the Guard and Reserve. If Congress is going to call on our Reserves to do more, we have a responsibility to provide them with more. By offering TRICARE to Guard and Reserve, we are helping to mitigate the effects of the burden we are asking Guard and Reserve to shoulder in the war on terror. No soldier should be deployed to fight for his country only to have his thoughts consumed by the welfare of his family.

So I thank Senator Graham for his leadership on this issue. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. President, is there an amendment pending?

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I have an amendment that I send to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I ask that the amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, this amendment to S. 1042 that would delay implementation of the 2005 round of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment. This amendment does not seek to nullify the Department of Defense recommendations, nor does it seek to halt the work of the BRAC Commission now well underway. Nor do I seek to block the presentation of the BRAC Commission's final recommendations to the President. To the contrary, I believe the BRAC commission to be an integral and indispensable check on this process and I value their analysis and demonstrated independence.

The amendment would essentially extend the congressional review period for any final recommendations approved by the President until certain conditions are first met. This proposed suspension of the ``45 day'' review period would thus delay ``implementation'' by the Department of Defense until one year following the last condition is met. These conditions center on certain events that are anticipated to occur and which have potentially large or unforeseen implications for our military force structure. Therefore, implementation of any final BRAC recommendations should not occur until both the DoD and Congress have had a chance to fully study the effects such events will have on our basing requirements. I will say more about those conditions in a moment.

But first, I want to make my position perfectly clear. I do not oppose the BRAC process. The underlying purpose of BRAC, as written by this body, is not only good for our armed forces, it is good for the American taxpayer. We all want to eliminate waste and reduce redundancy in the government. But when Congress modified the Base Realignment and Closure law in December 2001, to make way for the 2005 round of base closings, it failed to envision this country involved in a protracted war involving stretched manpower resources, ever-evolving threats and the burden of large overseas rotational deployments of both troops and

equipment. I do, therefore, question the timing of this round of BRAC.

The amendment identifies several principal actions that must occur before final implementation of the 2005 BRAC recommendations. First, there must be a complete analysis and consideration of the recommendations of the Commission on Review of Overseas Military Structures. The overseas base commission has itself called upon the Department of Defense to ``slow down and take a breath.'' It cautions that we should not move forward on basing decisions without knowing exactly where units will be returned, and if those installations are prepared or equipped to support units returning from garrisons in Europe, consisting of approximately 70,000 personnel.

Second, BRAC should not occur while this country is engaged in a major war and rotational deployments are still ongoing. We have seen enough disruption of both military and civilian institutions due to the logistical strain brought about by these constant rotations of units and personnel to Iraq and Afghanistan without, at the same time, initiating numerous base closures and the multiple transfer of units and missions from base to base. This is simply too much to ask of our military, our communities and the families of our servicemen and women, who are already stretched and overtaxed. Frankly, our efforts right now must be devoted to winning the global war on terrorism, not packing up and moving units around the country.

Our amendment would delay implementation of BRAC until the Secretary of Defense determines that substantially all major combat units and assets have been returned from deployment in the Iraq theater of operations, whenever that might occur.

Third, it seems counterintuitive and completely out of logical sequence to attempt to review or implement the BRAC recommendations without having the benefit of studying the Quadrennial Defense Review, due in 2006, and its long-term planning recommendations. Therefore, the amendment requires that Congress receive the QDR and have an opportunity to study its planning recommendations as one of the conditions before implementing BRAC 2005.

Fourth and Fifth: BRAC should not go forward until the implementation and development by the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security of the National Maritime Security Strategy; and the completion and implementation of the Secretary of Defense's Homeland Defense and Civil Support Directive--only now being drafted. These two planning strategies should be key considerations before beginning any BRAC process.

Finally, once all these conditions have been met, the Secretary of Defense must submit to Congress, not later than one year after the occurrence of the last of these conditions, a report that assesses the relevant factors and recommendations identified by the Commission on Review of Overseas Base Structure; the return of our thousands of troops deployed in overseas garrisons that will return to domestic bases because of either overseas base reduction or the end of our deployments in the war; and, any relevant factors identified by the QDR that would impact, modify, negate or open to reconsideration any of the recommendations submitted by the Secretary of Defense for BRAC 2005.

This proposed delay only seems logical and fair. There is no need to rush into decisions, that in a few years from now, could turn out to be colossal mistakes. We can't afford to go back and rebuild installations or relocate high-cost support infrastructure at various points in this country once those installations have been closed or stripped of their valuable capacity to support critical missions.

Frankly, some of the recommendations made by the Department of Defense seem more driven by internal zeal to cut costs, than by sound military judgment. Several recommendations involving the consolidation of high value military air and naval assets at single locations seem to violate one of the most basic tenets of national security--that of ensuring strategic redundancy. Yes, the Cold War may no longer be a factor in military basing requirements, but after 9/11 is there any question in anybody's mind whether the threat to our country or our military installations has diminished--particularly as rogue countries and terrorist groups continue their quest for weapons of mass destruction?

The GAO, in its report of July 1, 2005, has even questioned whether this BRAC will achieve the savings that DoD contends it can achieve. GAO calculates the upfront investment costs of implementing this BRAC to be $24 billion and reveals that DoD's estimated savings of $50 billion NPV over 20 years is largely illusory--incorrectly claiming 47 percent of the savings from mi1itary personnel that are not eliminated at all from the services, but only transferred to different installations.

There are many questions I and many of my colleagues have about the wisdom of the timing of this BRAC round and the prudence of some of its recommendations and I will return to the floor to speak to many of these as this amendment is considered. Again, I am not opposed to the BRAC process. But I do question whether this is the right time to begin a new round of domestic base closures and massive relocations of manpower and equipment.

I, therefore, offer this amendment today and call upon my colleagues to join us in this debate and support its passage.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

That is correct.

If that is the chairman's wish, we could make that arrangement.

Mr. President, the first criteria that deals with the Overseas BRAC Commission's findings and report would suggest that until those recommendations, until the analysis is complete, until that report has been carefully analyzed, and then ultimately it says implemented, ``where appropriate,'' by the Secretary of Defense is the condition to be met. It does not specify a specific date when that happens.

I think the answer, through the Chair, to the chairman's question is that the notion of having a domestic round of closures occur before decisions are made with respect to the basing needs overseas and some of the recommendations that have been brought forward by the Overseas BRAC Commission--that process would be completed prior to the implementation of the domestic BRAC recommendations.

Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the Chair giving me an opportunity to respond to the question. I think what the Senator from Virginia is asking is if there is a definitive timetable in the amendment. The answer is no, there is not. This does not involve a timetable. We are not suggesting in this amendment that there be any timetable. All we are simply saying is that the Secretary of Defense can determine at what point the return from deployment of personnel who are stationed in Iraq as a result of some drawdown of the operation there is substantial. That is a determination which, as you can see, we leave to the Secretary of Defense.

I thank you, Mr. President.

I say to the Senator from Virginia, if you are looking for, again, a specific timeline on this, I think these were probably condition (D) and condition

(E) you were referring to. It may be more easily defined if you are looking for a specific time, although I do not think that is specified here. But these are conditions. These are not specific timelines. We are not saying that the BRAC shall be delayed until March of 2006, although with the QDR that becomes a little more clear.

But these are conditions in the same way that I think our military leadership and the President have said the withdrawal from Iraq ought to be condition-based. These are conditions that would have to be met before the domestic BRAC recommendations would be implemented.

Mr. President, again, the Senator from Virginia is correct in that the timeline you gave me, the current BRAC timeline, is not impacted until the President would act and make the recommendation to the Congress.

Mr. President, if I could respond to the very distinguished chairman of our committee. And I do appreciate his leadership on our committee. I appreciate his sensitivity to the impact that these decisions are going to have on communities all across this country.

But I would also submit that when the conditions are met, a timeline should not be a prerequisite where national security is involved. This is the exact same argument we are now making with respect to our involvement in Iraq, that we cannot subscribe to a specific timeline. It is a conditions-based approach that we are adopting there. This would simply say that these are conditions that, when they are met, would trigger that next step in the BRAC process, which ultimately is the approval by this body. It comes back to the Congress.

The Congress would have an opportunity, then, after they have evaluated the recommendations in the QDR, after they have gotten a better handle on that and the Defense Department has had a chance to review the recommendations with respect to overseas basing needs and we have gotten a better idea about what our domestic needs are going to be when these troops start returning to this country. I think those are conditions for which at this point in time it is unwise for us to be moving forward at this fast pace.

I would simply add what the Overseas Basing Commission in their recommendations said; and that is, if the Congress moves too quickly on domestic basing decisions, it could weaken our global posture and, furthermore, that we need to proceed with caution. I believe that the conditions we have included here are things that, as a Congress--as a Member of the Senate--I would want to know before I make a vote on a final list of recommendations.

Now, the Senator is correct, it is fair to say there will be communities, after August 22, perhaps--which I think is when the markup is--that will know whether they are on or off the list.

At the same time, what we are saying is, those communities may or may not stay on that list. In fact, when the Congress has had an opportunity to review some of these conditions that are included in this legislation, they may decide not to vote in favor of those recommendations. I don't think the door is closed, I say to the Senator from Virginia, at the time when the list is approved by the BRAC Commission and submitted to the President.

Will the Senator yield on that point?

If I could make one comment, I understand what the chairman is saying with respect to some of these communities. I think a lot of these communities would welcome the opportunity to keep fighting for a couple of years. I also know firsthand, because I have a community that is involved, about the costs that are associated with a long, drawn-out, protracted campaign. Many of these communities have been in that process literally since the last round in 1995. Much of that expense concludes when the BRAC makes its recommendation. For all intents and purposes, what you are left with, once the recommendations are out there, is final approval by the President and the Congress. My assumption would be that in terms of the cost for consultants and all the costs

associated with analyzing data and making presentations to the BRAC, many of those costs are now sunk. Those are costs that are going to be concluded, by the time August 22nd rolls around and these recommendations are out there.

I hear what the chairman is saying. I don't think that is an issue that many of these communities that are fighting to keep their bases are most concerned with. I think they would welcome the opportunity to keep the fight going.

I am not sure I fully understand the question except that it seems to me if what you are suggesting is that somehow they are going to continue, once the BRAC Commission makes its final recommendations, to have to appeal this to the Secretary of Defense, I don't understand the process to work that way. Ultimately, what they are left with is a decision by the President and final subsequent approval by the Congress. It seems to me, once you get past this point in the process, when August 22nd is reached and those recommendations are made by the BRAC Commission, it then becomes a function of the President.

What our bill would do is trigger the BRAC period moving forward, going forward from the time the recommendations are submitted to Congress, the 45-day period. So most communities would then be lobbying members of their congressional delegation, if they are on the list, I suspect, to vote no when that final vote would come.

Mr. President, one final observation. My expectation would be that if we get this, if there is a download of information as a result of QDR and some of these other conditions that we impose, that Congress would hold hearings. The public would have an opportunity, through a congressional process, through their elected representatives, to be heard on the subject that the conditions would address.

I yield the floor.

The Senator from Michigan is correct.

That would be correct.

If the Senator from Virginia would yield, the response to your question is that you are correct. The House did have a vote on an amendment. There was a BRAC amendment. But it was not this amendment. It was an amendment that would essentially do away with or delay the entire BRAC process. In other words, the BRAC Commission would not be able, under the House amendment, to complete its work. This allows the BRAC Commission to continue with their work product and respects the BRAC process, but simply slows down the implementation of those recommendations until these certain conditions are met.

And with respect to the question of the Senator from Michigan regarding the so-called illogic of having the President weigh in on this, frankly, this Senator would like to know this type of information before we cast votes on whether we are going to close bases. I, frankly, don't know, nor does anybody on the floor this evening, what is in the QDR. I have some assumptions about that, but I happen to believe we may be surprised by some of the findings, some of the strategies that are going to be laid out when that

QDR comes out, and what some of the weapon systems needs are and what some of the basing needs are. We are the elected representatives of the people. We represent the people of our respective States. In my view, we should be the ones who review this type of information before we make votes on shuttering bases across the country. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, and my chairman and distinguished ranking member are here, I think we have a responsibility before we make decisions of this consequence and this magnitude about bases that may never be able to be opened again. Once we shut these things down, they are shut down for good.

There are a lot of questions that remain unanswered about the QDR, about basing needs overseas, about what our needs are going to be when those troops start coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan from other theaters.

I appreciate and respect the leaders of this committee on their thoughts. I understand their opposition to this amendment. Frankly, I would urge my colleagues who look at these issues and are concerned about moving forward too quickly on decisions that have enormous and major consequences, not only for the communities that are impacted but for the national security of the United States of America, that without having this kind of information, it seems to me at least that many of the decisions are, at a minimum, very premature.

I will, and I welcome the opportunity to come to the floor and speak to it as well.

I thank the chair.

Mr. President, yesterday the Senate, again, acted in a unified bipartisan manner when it voted 95 to 0 to add an additional $1.5 billion to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Although a family medical emergency unfortunately prevented me from being able to vote on the Murray amendment, I fully support the measure and would have gladly voted in favor of it. Even though the VA could provide some health care to veterans until fiscal year 2006, it would have to do so by taking funds from other accounts and slashing other projects. This is simply unacceptable.

I am proud the Senate chose to emphasize our position that the VA needs an additional $1.5 billion to properly carry out its mission of caring for America's veterans.

Thank you Mr. President.

Mr. President, today I offer my congratulations to the town of Bridgewater, located in McCook County, SD. The town will celebrate the 125th anniversary of its founding this year.

The town was originally named Nation City for its founders, Robert and John B. Nation. However, it was renamed Bridgewater and moved to the northern side of the railroad tracks in 1880.

Once again, I congratulate Bridgewater on their anniversary and wish them the best of luck in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Stickney, SD. The town of Stickney will celebrate the 100th anniversary of its founding this year.

Located in Aurora County, the land for Stickney was turned over to John O. Wallace and officially became a town on August 17, 1905. The town is named for the oldest railroad agent in the United States, John B. Stickney.

I offer my congratulations to Stickney on their anniversary and I wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Mr. President, I applaud my colleagues for coming together in a bi-partisan manner to fix the budget shortfall at the VA. I proudly cosponsored the amendment and believe it was the best thing and the right thing to do. The amendment will provide $1.5 billion in badly needed funds. Although the VA could limp along until fiscal year 2006, it would have to do so by raiding other accounts and cutting back on other projects. This is simply unacceptable.

I am proud the Senate chose unity over division to make sure that the shortfall at the VA does not affect veterans. I applaud the Senate leadership, Republican and Democratic, for both decisive and effective action.

The importance of adequately funding the VA cannot be understated. Along with our existing veterans, our men and women returning from Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom need a VA that can support them and care for them.

Mr. President, today I rise to congratulate the McCrossan Boys Ranch of South Dakota. McCrossan Boys Ranch is a nonprofit organization that provides mentoring services to troubled boys and helps guide them into becoming responsible and balanced adults.

Some of the valuable services they provide are education and GED classes, help with chemical dependency, individual and group therapy, psychiatric care and moral development.

They will be celebrating their 50th anniversary on June 29 and I would like to recognize the valuable service they have provided to the many boys and families they have helped over the years.

Mr. President, today I rise in honor of two exceptional women. Hazel Hanon and Grace Siers, both of Britton, SD, are the last two active charter members of Marshall Post No. 3507 Ladies Auxiliary in Britton for the Veterans of Foreign Wars Lady Auxiliary.

Hazel, now 87 years old, joined for her husband and brother who both served during World War II in the U.S. Navy and Air Force respectively.

Grace, now 90 years old, has many family members who served in the military. Her husband served in World War I, and her three brothers in World War II. She has also had five sons, a grandson, and a granddaughter serve our country.

Hazel and Grace have devoted their time and energy to the group by holding banquets, selling poppies, and even compiling a dessert cookbook. It is a privilege for me to honor them today for their past dedication and their continuing support of our veterans of foreign wars.

Mr. President, I congratulate the leadership of the Energy Committee, the leadership of the Environment and Public Works Committee, coming to an agreement on this particular amendment we have under consideration here today. This, as my colleague from South Dakota noted, is an issue of great importance to the energy security of our Nation and to our economy.

We have an opportunity here today to put together a bill and meld on the floor of the Senate a couple of different provisions that have come out of different committees of the Senate. The Energy Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee, on which I serve, dealt with the renewable fuel and ethanol provisions that we reported out this year. What this does is enable us to reconcile, here on the floor, the conflicting or competing, if you will, jurisdictions between those committees. It puts into place an 8-billion-gallon renewable fuel standard.

We are at this point, we are here, and it is long overdue. This Energy bill has been kicking around for several years. Back when President Bush was first elected, the task force was composed, they met, came up with recommendations submitted to the Congress. The Congress subsequently acted in the last session of Congress, only to have the wheels fall off toward the end of the Congress in an environment that probably was more highly politically charged than anything else.

However, the reality is we are here today in the Senate--after the House having passed an Energy bill--with an opportunity to pass an Energy bill in the Senate, to get it into conference, and to come out with a conference report that we can send to the President to be signed into law.

This is an important piece of legislation for a lot of reasons, one of which is the JOBS bill. This is about creating economic opportunity for people in this country. We passed a comprehensive Energy bill which is long overdue. We will have the opportunity to create a lot of jobs for Americans across the country with the various provisions in the bill by adding to the supply of existing energy sources we have, creating new energy sources and diversifying our energy supply in areas I am very interested in, such as renewable fuels. The conservation incentives in this bill are good for America, both for people who purchase cars and for manufacturers who produce cars. There are a lot of things about this bill that are necessary, if we are going to get our country back on track toward the path of energy independence.

Having grown up 30 years ago now, I remember going through an energy crisis, with everyone wringing their hands about how dependent we are on foreign sources of energy. At that time, we were over 50-percent reliant on foreign sources of energy, saying we have to do something about it. Here we are, 30 years later, at 55-percent dependent upon foreign sources of energy.

We still have to get much of our energy supply from other places around the world, places that are very unstable, which create tremendous pressures on us not only in terms of our economy but also our military commitments that are necessary in order to protect those areas of the world that are primary conduits of energy for our country.

It is about the economy. It is about energy security. It is about jobs and about reducing the cost of energy for Americans. Look where gas prices are today. That is why we are where we are. This is a time we have the impetus for getting an Energy bill passed because people are frustrated and are looking to the Congress to act. They go to the pump, and pay over $2 a gallon--in some places well over $2 a gallon-- for gasoline. They are looking for Congress to take action that will help address the long-term supply problems we face as a Nation, which are creating this demand today for energy that continues to push prices higher and higher.

This comprehensive Energy bill is an approach which I believe addresses many of the components. Parts of this bill address many of the needs out there, one of which, of course, is additional supply. Not too long ago I had the opportunity to join with a number of my colleagues in the Senate and travel to the North Slope of Alaska. Earlier this year, during debate of the budget, we authorized exploration for energy in Alaska. In my view, when we have a million barrels a day of additional production we could bring online with ease, which will reduce the pressure we have on oil supplies in this country and continue to lessen our dependence upon foreign sources of energy, it is an important part of this debate. So additional supply is part of this discussion.

More particularly, what this amendment deals with, is the comprehensive need for diversifying our energy supply in this country and moving more toward renewable sources of energy. In my State of South Dakota, in the State of Minnesota, in the State of Iowa, and all across the Midwest, we have rows and rows and rows of corn and rows and rows and rows of soybeans. I look at that as a food source, and it is. We feed it to cattle. We use it in a lot of different ways. However, it can also be converted to energy. A bushel of corn can be converted to 2.5 gallons of ethanol. That puts energy in the pipeline for this country that will lessen our dependence upon foreign sources of energy.

What this amendment does is create a market. It says we are going to have, phased in over a 7-year period, an 8-billion-gallon market opportunity for ethanol producers in this country. That is good for the farmers of the Midwest, the farmers of South Dakota. It puts more money in their pocket. They can take their corn down to an ethanol plant and receive 10 or 15 cents a bushel more for it than they would if they put it on a rail car headed to some terminal elevator somewhere. That is good for the economy and for the farmers of this country. It is good for the consumers of this country, the people who have to buy energy.

Ours is a State with long distances. We are very reliant upon tourism and reliant upon the farm, ranch, and agricultural economy. We are very reliant upon our small businesses who have to get to their destinations. We are a State which is very energy dependent and energy intensive. Our State, similar to many others in the Midwest, spends a lot of money on energy. When gas skyrockets to well over $2 a gallon, it has a profound impact on the ability of our State to attract economic development, to bring the tourists to our State, and to support the economy there. So this is an important issue not only for those who are producing the crops that can be converted into energy but also for those people across this country, those families, those small business people, those farmers, and those ranchers who are faced with higher and higher energy costs. This is an issue that is about our economy.

I would also say that when an ethanol plant is created, it brings a whole new vitality to rural areas. There are a lot of rural areas of our country and many in my State of South Dakota. We have a number of ethanol plants in my State. Each time another comes online, and every time we build another ethanol plant that produces 40 million, 50 million, or 80 million gallons of ethanol a year, it creates 40, 50, or 60 new direct jobs. It also creates a lot of ripple-effect jobs throughout the economy, indirect jobs that help restore and revitalize rural areas of this country, which are struggling for their very survival every day.

This is about the economy of rural areas. It is about the economic impact that passage of this legislation could have on consumers in this country. It is about the jobs that are going to be created in America. That is why, from so many different perspectives, this is

good policy. This is something we, as a Congress, ought to be doing. We ought to be looking at those rows and rows and rows of soybeans and those rows and rows and rows of corn and the renewable things we grow every year.

We have a finite petroleum-based product--hydrocarbons and fossil fuels--that compose our energy supply today, but every year we can grow, because of the good work of the farmers in this country. We can continue to grow these products, these commodities, that can be converted into energy sources that will make America more secure going into the future.

An 8-billion renewable fuel standard--and as my colleague from South Dakota mentioned earlier, the House is at 5 billion gallons in their bill--it is important. I would like to see a 12-billion or 15-billion gallon threshold, maybe to the chagrin of some of my colleagues in the Senate who maybe are not as favorably disposed to renewable energy. However, the reality is this is good, clean energy. This is energy that lessens our dependence upon foreign sources of energy that makes our country more energy independent. That is good for the economy of the Midwest.

With all the jobs involved with this, with all the impacts I have mentioned--I also add that it is good for the environment in this country--this is good policy in creating a permanent 8-billion-gallon renewable fuel standard market for ethanol in this country that will put us on a path toward energy independence. It is something we ought to have a lot more of in this country.

I hope, as this legislation moves forward in this process, the 8- billion-gallon renewable fuel standard will be adopted by the Senate and will be part of the bill we send into conference with the House. And when we get to the negotiations with the House, I hope we will be able to retain that level of renewable fuel standards because it is important to America's future.

I urge my colleagues, not only on this amendment but as the bill moves forward, to support this amendment and to resist other amendments that could lessen, in any way, the commitment we are going to make to 8 billion gallons of ethanol for America's future.

It is about jobs. It is about the economy. It is about more dollars in rural areas that will help our farmers and ranchers survive. It is about keeping our small communities going. It is about energy independence for America's future. It is about a stronger, cleaner, and better environment. For all those reasons, I support this amendment.

I am happy to be a part of bringing this to the floor and working with our leadership on the two committees--on the Energy Committee and on the Environment and Public Works Committee--with Senator Inhofe, Senator Jeffords, Senator Domenici, and Senator Bingaman, and with our leadership in the Senate to get to where we are today.

I hope we can push this bill forward, get a bill through the conference, on the President's desk, and signed into law so that the American people will have what they have needed for some time and what this Congress has failed to deliver--and it is high time we did deliver--and that is a comprehensive energy policy for America's future.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to speak on a matter of great importance, the state of care received by America's veterans. On April 28. I proudly introduced the Veterans' Healthcare and Equitable Access Act of 2005, which will honor America's veterans with the dignity and respect they have earned. This legislation was inspired by my work on the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs. I have had the privilege to come face to face with real heroes, like injured veterans returning from the battlefield and grieving survivors who proudly and bravely carry the memory of a fallen soldier with them as they struggle to move on. I have been moved by this experience and I offered this bill to honor their sacrifice and their struggles.

The Veterans' Healthcare and Equitable Access Act of 2005 takes a comprehensive approach to fix some of the major problems facing veterans today. Since I was a member of the House of Representatives, I have supported mandatory funding, and the legislation I have introduced underscores that commitment. The widening gap between demand for care and funding is a problem that must be faced head on and dealt with before it spirals out of control. The Veterans' Healthcare Eligibility Act and the Veterans' Millennium Healthcare Care and Benefits Act changed the nature of the VA, but did not change the manner in which the VA was funded. That is why I support mandatory funding for veterans' healthcare, so the VA can finally provide care to those who cared for us.

This bill will also end another problem that has plagued veterans in my home state for years: access to quality healthcare and equitable reimbursement for travel expenses. My legislation will allow rural veterans who are enrolled in the VA to obtain health care at local medical facilities closer to home or to travel to a VA facility and recelve travel reimbursements at the same rate as Federal employees.

The veterans population is aging and we are losing great men and women every day. Today, the GI's who fought in Vietnam are reaching the age of retirement and Medicare eligibility. It is therefore unfair to ask the VA to shoulder a cost that Medicare should help pay for. Aging veterans are seeking care at the VA because it is one of the best care providers in the country. As I see it, the VA and Medicare need to share this cost in order to provide excellent care to those who need it most.

In March, I met Major Tammy Duckworth, an Army pilot who lost both of her legs after a rocket propelled grenade hit the Black Hawk helicopter she was in while flying in the skies above Iraq. Although now a double amputee, she is determined to both walk and fly helicopters again. Major Duckworth has my full support, but needless to say her life has been changed forever. That is why the legislation I introduced would require that a service member who has lost a limb from a service- connected injury receive

a disability rating of not less than 50 percent. This is our way of saying thank you and helping our veterans achieve their dreams.

Some of the hardest hit victims of this war are not soldiers or veterans, but survivors of the fallen. These brave men and women need our help. This year I voted to extend survivor benefits from $12,000 to $100,000 and to extend military housing privileges from 6 months to 1 year. To complete our support for survivors, my bill will extend childcare privileges for survivors from 6 months to 2 years in any Federal childcare program, giving surviving family members the help they need to grieve, heal, and move on from a painful loss.

Mr. President, legislation such as this is not without costs and it will require the Senate to make difficult choices. Sending troops into harm's way is a difficult choice, even when that choice is clearly justifiable, like it is in Iraq and Afghanistan. But taking care of veterans and their families is not a difficult choice, it is one we must embrace. As General Omar Bradley once said: ``We are dealing with veterans, not procedure--with their problems, not ours.''

Scripture tells us there is a time for everything, a time for peace and a time for war. America is facing a time of war, and we are fighting an evil and determined enemy. We have to ensure that the men and women who are bearing the burden of this war are cared for and are confident they can count on their government in their hour of need.

I ask unanimous consent that this statement be entered into the Record as if read.

Mr. President, today I rise to congratulate two outstanding men from South Dakota, Staff Sergeant Eric Borah of New Underwood and Sergeant Daniel Iverson of Madison. Both men have been honored this year for their unwavering dedication to our country.

Eric, a Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic in the South Dakota Army Guard's 235th Military Police Company from Custer, has been named Non- Commissioned Officer of the Year.

Daniel, an Army Bandsman with the South Dakota Army Guard's 147th Army Band from Mitchell, was named Soldier of the year.

Eric and Daniel will be recognized in Washington, DC two of the Outstanding Soldiers and Airmen of the Year for the National Guard. It is with great pleasure that I offer my congratulations to these two men not only for their admirable achievements but also for the great name that they bring to the State of South Dakota.

Mr. President, today I rise with my distinguished colleague from New York, Senator Clinton, to introduce legislation that will provide a surviving spouse with two years of child care eligibility on any military instillation or Federal facility with a child care center. The legislation was inspired by our work on the Senate Armed Services Committee. In February the committee held an important hearing on improving survivor benefits and the government's role in helping survivors cope with the loss of a loved one. All too often surviving spouses are forced to make difficult, life changing decisions alone. Both Senator Clinton and I are determined to provide as much help as possible to those who must bear the burden of loss, particularly those with young children. By providing two years of child care eligibility, our goal is to ensure that a surviving spouse has the time and tools necessary to make a healthy adjustment to life after the servicemember's death. Many decisions face survivors, most importantly, how to make a living. Often that means having to re-enter the work force after years of being a working mother. The question of how to adequately care for young children while trying to find employment or restart a career should not be an issue. Further, we have expanded this eligibility to include access to child care centers in other Federal facilities. This will aide surviving spouses with children if they are in the process of relocating to an area of the country without a military base nearby, but in the proximity of a local Federal building. I am honored that Senator Clinton is working with me on this legislation and I encourage my colleagues to support this important measure.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would delay the implementation of the 2005 round of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment report issued by the Department of Defense on May 13, 2005. The bill would postpone the execution of any decisions recommended in the report until certain anticipated events, having potentially large or unforeseen implications for our military force structure, have occurred, and both the department and Congress have had a chance to fully study the effects such events will have on our base requirements.

The bill identifies three principal actions that must occur before implementation of BRAC 2005. First, there must be a complete analysis and consideration of the recommendations of the Commission on Review of Overseas Military Structures. The overseas base commission has itself called upon the Department of Defense to ``slow down and take a breath'' before moving forward on basing decisions without knowing exactly where units will be returned and if those installations are prepared or equipped to support units that will return from garrisons in Europe, consisting of approximately 70,000 personnel.

Second, BRAC should not occur while this country is engaged in a major war and rotational deployments are still ongoing. We have seen enough disruption of both military and civilian institutions due to the logistical strain brought about by these constant rotations of units and personnel to Iraq and Afghanistan without, at the same time, initiating numerous base closures and the multiple transfer of units and missions from base to base. This is simply too much to ask of our military, our communities and the families of our

servicemen and women, already stretched and over-taxed. And frankly, our efforts right now must be devoted to winning the global war on terrorism, not packing up and moving units around the country.

Our bill would delay implementation of BRAC until the Secretary of Defense determines that substantially all major combat units and assets have been returned from deployment in the Iraq theater of operations, whenever that might occur.

Third, to review or implement the BRAC recommendations without having the benefit of either the Commission or Congress studying the Quadrennial Defense Review, due in 2006, and its long-term planning recommendations seems counter-intuitive and completely out of logical sequence. Therefore, the bill requires that Congress receive the QDR and have an opportunity to study its planning recommendations as one of the conditions before implementing BRAC 2005.

Fourth and Fifth: BRAC should not go forward until the implementation and development by the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security of the National Maritime Security Strategy; and the completion and implementation of Secretary of Defense's Homeland Defense and Civil Support Directive--only now being drafted. These two planning strategies should be key considerations before beginning any BRAC process.

Finally, once all these conditions have been met, the Secretary of Defense must submit to Congress, not later than one year after the occurrence of the last of these conditions, a report that assesses the relevant factors and recommendations identified by the Commission on Review of Overseas Base Structure; the return of our thousands of troops deployed in overseas garrisons that will return to domestic bases because of either overseas base reduction or the end of our deployments in the war; and, any relevant factors identified by the QDR that would impact, modify, negate or open to reconsideration any of the recommendations submitted by the Secretary of Defense for BRAC 2005.

This proposed delay only seems logical and fair. There is no need to rush into decisions, that in a few years from now, could turn out to be colossal mistakes. We can't afford to go back and rebuild installations or relocate high-cost support infrastructure at various points in this country once those installations have been closed or stripped of their valuable capacity to support critical missions. I, therefore, introduce this legislation today and call upon my colleagues to join us in supporting its passage.

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

Mr. President, today I rise with my distinguished colleague from New York, Senator Clinton, to introduce legislation that will provide a surviving spouse with two years of child care eligibility on any military instillation or Federal facility with a child care center. The legislation was inspired by our work on the Senate Armed Services Committee. In February the committee held an important hearing on improving survivor benefits and the government's role in helping survivors cope with the loss of a loved one. All too often surviving spouses are forced to make difficult, life changing decisions alone. Both Senator Clinton and I are determined to provide as much help as possible to those who must bear the burden of loss, particularly those with young children. By providing two years of child care eligibility, our goal is to ensure that a surviving spouse has the time and tools necessary to make a healthy adjustment to life after the servicemember's death. Many decisions face survivors, most importantly, how to make a living. Often that means having to re-enter the work force after years of being a working mother. The question of how to adequately care for young children while trying to find employment or restart a career should not be an issue. Further, we have expanded this eligibility to include access to child care centers in other Federal facilities. This will aide surviving spouses with children if they are in the process of relocating to an area of the country without a military base nearby, but in the proximity of a local Federal building. I am honored that Senator Clinton is working with me on this legislation and I encourage my colleagues to support this important measure.