Floor Statements

I understand the leadership requests the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

I thank the distinguished majority leader and the Democratic leader and all others who made possible that we will now have a Defense authorization bill, a strong bill, a good bill. The UC just propounded by the distinguished majority leader requires that the Iraq amendments be laid down tonight.

Amendment No. 2518

On behalf of the distinguished majority leader and myself, I now send to the desk the Iraq amendment as required by the UC. My understanding is the amendment by the distinguished Senator from Michigan on Iraq is at the desk; is that correct?

Mr. President, by way of preliminary debate on the Iraq amendment, I would simply advise my distinguished colleague from Michigan and other Senators that we were given, in a timely manner, the amendment that has just been sent to the desk by the Senator from Michigan, known as the leadership Iraq amendment. Senator Frist, I, and others have simply taken that amendment and amended it in several ways, and that then becomes the Warner-Frist amendment.

So I just inform colleagues, basically, we are dealing with the basic amendment as provided by the Senator from Michigan, the distinguished Senator from Nevada, and others. We have modified our leadership amendment in a manner which we think is consistent with the strong needs of our country to achieve the objectives that we have in Iraq.

Having said that, I think we have pretty well concluded business for the day on this bill.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I do believe it is very wise for the Senate to have this debate. We are prepared for that debate.

I would simply advise colleagues--and the leadership later will in wrap-up give more specifics--my understanding is there will be a vote at 5:30, preceded by 1 hour of debate on that vote, which is on one of the appropriations bills. That is my understanding. Can the Presiding Officer advise me as to what the vote is that is scheduled on Monday at 5:30?

I am advised it is the Energy and Water Conference Report. Am I reasonably correct in preliminarily informing the Senate that vote will take place at about 5:30, and the 1 hour prior to it will be reserved for debate on that? I interpret that to mean that from the time the Senate comes in on Monday up until 4:30, that would be available for the important debate on the respective Iraqi amendments.

I wonder if the distinguished Senator from Michigan and I can visit here for 1 minute.

The Senator from Michigan and I desire to accommodate colleagues. Again, the hour from 4:30 to 5:30 is on the appropriations bill. The time from whenever the Senate convenes on Monday up until 4:30 is subject to debate on the Iraqi amendments; indeed, if Senators want to comment on the bill and such amendments as may be filed in connection with the Graham issues.

I think we would urge our colleagues to try to contact our respective offices as to their needs for time to vote on these matters so the Senator from Michigan and I can try to accommodate them. But I also wish to remind colleagues that presumably the vote on the appropriations bill starts at 5:30, and by all measures should be completed sometime after 6. Then, subject to leadership, I would think there would be time that evening, Monday evening, to continue votes for those Senators whose travel plans otherwise do not enable them to get here before 4:30. So the same framework for debate that can take place prior to 4:30 can take place after 6:30.

Mr. President, may I pause momentarily.

Mr. President, I think our respective staffs can incorporate in the wrap-up document such that the Senator from Michigan and I will share equally the time before 4:30, after leadership, and in that way be able to work more effectively with our colleagues.

Mr. President, I again thank all Senators. I thank our staff. I thank the professional staff of the Senate, who in many ways have made possible the completion of this bill. We are owing a debt of gratitude to many to get where we are.

In a way we are. We have charted the course.

Mr. President, I say to my colleague, we have some cleared amendments we can do.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the previously agreed-to amendment 2485 be modified with a technical correction. I send that modification to the desk. I understand it has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. President, I ask the previously agreed-to amendment 1550 be modified and I send the modification to the desk.

That is correct. It was cleared on both sides. Has the vote been taken?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 10, 2005 at 9 a.m. in 328A, Senate Russell Office Building. The purpose of this committee hearing will be to consider the nominations for Chief Financial Officer and Administrator of the Rural Utilities Service at the United States Department of Agriculture.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 10, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``The Development of New Basel Capital Accords.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 10 at 10:30 a.m. The purpose of this meeting is to consider the nominations of Jeffrey D. Jarrett to be Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, DOE; and Edward F. Sproat, III to be Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, DOE.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet in open Executive Session during the session on Thursday, November 10, 2005, at 10 a.m., to consider an original bill that will include the Committee's budget reconciliation instructions pertaining to expiring tax provisions and also additional incentives for hurricane affected areas.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, November 10, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. in Senate Dirksen Office Building Room 226.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, November 10, 2005, for a committee hearing to examine the rebuilding of VA assets on the Gulf Coast. The hearing will take place in room 138 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Aviation be authorized to meet on Thursday, November 10, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., on the Wright Amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Why the Government Should Care about Pornography: The State Interest in Protecting Children and Families'' on Thursday, November 10, 2005 at 2 p.m. in SD226.

Witness List

Panel I: Pamela Paul, author of Pornified, New York, NY; Dean Rodney Smolla, Dean, University of Richmond School of Law, Richmond, VA; Jill Manning, Social Science Fellow, Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC, Sociologist, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT; Leslie Harris, Senior Consultant and Incoming Executive Director, Center for Democracy and Technology, Washington, DC; and Richard Whidden, Executive Director and Senior Counsel, National Law Center for Children and Families, Fairfax,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety be authorized to hold a hearing on November 10 at 9:30 a.m. regarding the implementation of the existing particulate matter and ozone air quality standards.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Science and Space and Subcommittee on Disaster Prevention and Prediction be authorized to meet on Thursday, November 10, 2005, at 2:30 p.m., on S. 517-Weather Modification.

Mr. President, I commend our colleague. This is a very significant and important step that he has taken. I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor on the amendment.

The Senator from Kansas asked for a moment or two to speak. I shall yield the floor at this point and then follow with my remarks. I first ask the Presiding Officer with regard to the time remaining for the proponents of the amendment.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, before the distinguished Senator from Kansas leaves the floor, I want to speak to him about another matter. I ask unanimous consent to go off this amendment for a brief period and charge the time to me from the bill time so I may have a colloquy with my good friend and colleague from Kansas.

The Senator has submitted to me an amendment which is in our allocation of 12 amendments regarding the notification that you deem important with military families, should they seek to access a military hospital for the performance of an abortion by a young person in that family. Am I generally correct about that?

In studying the amendment over the night--now it is not the pending amendment, but I want to bring these issues to the attention of the Senator, in fairness. The Senator, though, appreciates that so many of these families, particularly those abroad, are often separated because a spouse, male or female, as the case may be, the serving member in uniform, could be detached from the family homesite and sent into other areas of the globe for periods of time to

perform missions. For example, there is a number of families resident in Europe whose spouses are then part of cadres of individuals going into the Iraq situation, some into the Afghan situation. That poses some difficulty, as I see it, in trying to work out a communication between family members, which communication is relative to life and death, and very important.

I am concerned that we are reaching down to a very small number of individuals, i.e., the military families, and could be imposing upon them, should this amendment be adopted and become law, a difficult situation. I am of an open mind, but I am concerned about having that type of legislation on this bill.

And then if the Senator would address also the issue of the U.S. Federal district court being a participant in this situation.

Mr. President, if I could interject at this time, personally, my own philosophy is in agreement with the objective. My only concern as manager of the authorization bill of the Department of Defense is that I cannot let my personal beliefs override my judgment as to how best to treat these families of our military.

Mr. President, again, I strongly support the principle and the goals the Senator is seeking, but I have to be mindful of the practicalities of military life. It is so different than the families who are in our several States, wherever they may be, and that, of course, brings up another question. Suppose this particular military family's members are residents of a State, which State thus far has not addressed this issue. This State has no requirement for the parental consent in that State, yet they are now being subjected to a Federal law which, of course, would have supremacy over the State law. But is that not an invasive practice in the States rights?

Mr. President, I engaged my colleague to set forth my concerns to other Members who are trying to evaluate their positions on this amendment, should it come forward, and I anticipate at the appropriate time the Senator will be introducing it. I question is there any precedent in Federal law for requiring parental notification, for example, in Medicare, Medicaid, or Federal employee health programs?

I have to move on to this amendment, but it is a series of very important fundamental questions that has to be addressed in the context of the Senator's amendment, despite my own personal view that I associate myself with the Senator about the parental consent. Consistently I have voted for that here, but I have an overriding responsibility for the men and women in the military, and this is very unique.

So I put this aside at this time, Mr. President, and return to the Inhofe amendment. I thank my colleague.

I thank my colleague. We are going to move swiftly today, and issues could be brought up with very short time limitations on debate. That has allowed me the opportunity to express my serious concerns that I will have to address in the context of this amendment as the day progresses.

I ask unanimous consent we go back to the amendment by the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe.

Mr. President, I want to again thank my colleague from Oklahoma. I think it is a very important amendment.

Mr. President, this is an issue that must be carefully balanced, the constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion and the constitutional prohibition against the establishment of religion. But it is a longstanding tradition at these academies, and I think the amendment is carefully drafted to strike a balance in those two important considerations.

Moreover, this amendment deals with the particular circumstances and environment that exist at our service academies, those honored institutions with long and storied traditions that have the mission of training our next generation of military leaders. A part of that mission is now and always has been the development of moral character and the appropriate respect for religious beliefs and needs of others who are entrusted with their leadership.

I must draw a little bit on my modest experience in service on active duty in periods of two wars. I can tell you my own observation of the importance of religion to individuals, particularly those serving overseas, and the hardships they endured either from family separation or combat situations or other difficult problems. It is a very deep feeling these many individuals have about their respective religious traditions and family traditions in religion, and it has often been a matter of life and death to some individuals. Clinging to those strong beliefs has

pulled them through difficult situations.

I also stop to think about our academies. I have had the privilege over the years to visit all of them. I think particularly of the Naval Academy and its magnificent chapel. People come from all over the world to see the chapel at the U.S. Naval Academy. Just this year I was privileged to be the keynote speaker at the dedication of a new small entrance at the Naval Academy where those of the Jewish faith can go and quietly exercise their religion and share their prayers. I encourage anyone in that area to go and look at these two edifices. To me they symbolize the importance of religion in our military life.

I commend the Senator from Oklahoma.

I have been informed by the distinguished ranking member that there could be an amendment in the second degree and that individual who would bring it forth is due here in about 20 or 30 minute is my understanding, at which time I hope we could finish addressing this amendment such that the Senate could vote presumably on the second- degree amendment and then the underlying amendment prior to the noon period, although we will not stop consideration of the bill at the time but would continue. But I hope that amendment could be agreed to.

I see the distinguished ranking member.

Mr. President, before we depart, I hope the Senator could share with me and the Republican leadership, with the understandable impediments our two leaders have, with regard to votes and scheduling them. We want to try to----

And the Ensign amendment.

I have. It is such that you and Senator Craig can discuss that amendment.

Mr. President, we have a technical problem we have to address with regard to the UC request; that is, we are operating this bill under a UC, 12 amendments each side. This is not 1 of the 12.

Therefore, I think we could go on the bill time for the purpose of discussing the Senator's amendment in the hopes what differences remain could be reconciled so this amendment could be included as part of the managers' agreed-upon package.

Mr. President, let the record reflect we are not calling this amendment up within the context of the UC which controls the overall procedure of this bill but that the two Senators are simply having a colloquy, which is fine.

Mr. President, may I inquire of the proponent of the amendment, I heard him use the term ``military cemeteries.'' There are State and Federal cemeteries. This amendment is directed at Federal cemeteries?

Mr. President, I would like to join Senator Craig as a cosponsor on this amendment.

This is an example which other Senators may wish to access as to how the

two managers are willing to work in open colloquy on areas where there are amendments outside the framework of the 12 on each side which could possibly be reconciled, and a part of that reconciliation process would be the need for an open colloquy. This is a format the Senator from Michigan and I are pleased to entertain where there are other amendments that a colloquy in open session would be helpful in trying to reach a reconciliation.

Mr. President, it is also important, with my colleague on the floor, that we are bound by this UC, 12 amendments on each side, and as we bring up amendments, I carefully designate, as the Senator from Michigan does, that they are within the 12 each side has.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Texas inquired of the managers if he could address an issue that is tangential to our national security. I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to speak as in morning business, thereby not taking time off the bill, and that would be for not to exceed 10 minutes.

Madam President, we need to inquire as to the issues of the proponent of the amendment, as to the allocation of time. What is his desire on that?

Madam President, that sounds like a reasonable request. Can the Senator from Rhode Island advise the Senate?

That would be the desire of the manager.

I wish to inquire of the proponent. Does he agree to the course of action?

Madam President, I thank my two colleagues.

Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I am about to propound a unanimous consent request which I understand is cleared on both sides.

I ask unanimous consent that at 2:45 today, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Inhofe amendment No. 2440, as modified, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Ensign Amendment, No. 2443; provided that there be 6 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form prior to the first vote and 6 minutes equally divided for debate prior to the second vote, with no second degrees in order to either amendment prior to the vote.

I think we are cleared.

I think everything has been cleared.

Madam President, I presume there will be an opportunity. We are making progress. But there are junctures at which time Senators can address various aspects of the bill, including the distinguished Senator from Nevada.

Madam President, I am willing to accede to that. Would that time be equally divided?

Fifteen minutes between now and 2:45 be reserved for a debate on the Ensign amendment, 15 minutes equally divided.

I ask the Presiding Officer if that is in place, as modified with the 15 minutes?

I thank the Chair.

Amendment No. 1563, As Further Modified

I ask unanimous consent that the previously agreed to amendment No.

1563 be further modified. I send that modification to the desk. There was a technical error in the preamble. There is no change in the substance of the amendment.

Madam President, we are making progress on this bill. I thank all Senators for their cooperation. It is my hope that in the intervening period between now and the hour of 2:45, subject to the unanimous consent of 15 minutes, that other Senators can come to the Chamber and address the managers regarding the timing of the remaining amendments under the unanimous consent providing 12 amendments on each side.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, in consultation with the distinguished Senator from Michigan and leadership, I propound this unanimous consent request, which I understand has been cleared on both sides. I ask unanimous consent that the 2:45 votes be delayed to begin at 3:20, and further that at 5:30 the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Chambliss amendment No. 2433, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Durbin amendment No. 2473, with the instructions modified to change it to a first degree, with no second degrees in order to either amendment prior to the vote; further, that there be 2 minutes equally divided between each of the stacked votes.

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

Mr. President, I say to my colleague, I recall that period very well. There were times when the Nation's capital had blackouts. At that time my father was a doctor actively practicing medicine in this city, and he had to take the headlights on his car and put a black screen over the headlight with about a 1-inch slit so he could respond to emergency measures during the blackout. Where our home was at that time we had blackout curtains. We regularly went out to make sure there was no leakage of the light because at that time the city lights, if they had been on, silhouetted U.S. and other allied shipping such that they were the target of then German submarines off the coast. Indeed, it is hard to believe this, but the coastline from Florida all the way up to New England was strewn with the damage of ships that were torpedoed.

I remember well that period of time, and I remember the phrase. I am surprised you, as an Army man, used a Navy phrase that loose lips sank ships. But we have a very serious amendment here, deserving of equally serious attention. It has just been handed to us. I am sure the Senator would appreciate that we would need some time to study this to determine exactly how we should respond.

I am reading the first paragraph: ``No person who knowingly violates,'' that would mean he would have to know that, A, his material is classified, and, B, that he has to have a knowledge of the law and regulation? Are those the two elements of that?

I understand what the consequences are. But I want to make certain the Senator was trying to draw this up in such a way that, no matter how misfortunate, if it is unintentioned, then that would not be a violation.

I find it difficult to believe anyone who has a security clearance would not understand the basic law and regulation prohibiting or controlling its use. You can almost impute to the person knowledge of the statute and law.

Let me interrupt. I want to make certain that time used during the colloquy is divided equally, that when I speak, it is charged to my time, and the Senator from New Jersey, as he speaks, the time will be charged to him; is that agreeable?

The standard you have is ``could have a significant adverse impact.'' Do you have any criteria for ``significant''? As you and I both know, having dealt in these areas for many years, we often look at things that are classified and we say to ourselves: Why in the world would they be classifying this document? Unfortunately, the broad brush of classification sometimes is utilized on things that I don't think need to be classified.

Would the Senator be able to supply for the record the references that he says would define further the word ``significant''? You said it is defined in law. Could you cite those laws upon which you rely?

I think I still have the floor.

Mr. President, again, this amendment has just been given to the majority side. We will, in due course, have further response to the Senator. At this time it becomes the pending amendment.

Fine. I thank my colleague.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, are we not at this point in time guided by the standing order we just entered?

Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

May we now proceed with the vote.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that we have a second vote as ordered.

Amendment No. 2443

Mr. President, I wish to indicate to my colleagues that I have carefully studied this. I support the Ensign amendment. I defer to my colleague, Senator Levin.

Mr. President, as I stated on the floor yesterday, I am able to support Senator Ensign's amendment because it now includes several important modifications that were requested by the administration. As a result of those modifications, the amendment more accurately reflects current U.S. policy and law regarding the use of riot control agents by members of the Armed Forces. I thank Senator Ensign for agreeing to those modifications. I will take into account the views and recommendations of the administration as we continue our work on this issue and the bill in conference.

The resolution of ratification for the Chemical Weapons Convention, CWC, passed by this body contained a condition requiring the President to certify that the United States is not restricted by the CWC in its use of riot control agents in certain specified circumstances. In addition, the condition required the President not to eliminate or alter Executive Order 11850, which prohibits the use of riot control agents in war ``except in defensive military modes to save lives.''

In response to questions from myself and Senator Levin on the floor yesterday and today, Senator Ensign confirmed that he does not seek through this amendment to amend, expand or reinterpret Executive Order 11850 in any way. It is on that understanding that I can support his amendment.

The Senator from Nevada has raised the question of whether the U.S. Armed Forces currently have sufficiently clear authority with respect to riot control agents. I have looked into this matter and consulted with representatives of the Department of Defense, including representatives of our commanders in the field.

They have informed me and my staff that, in their view, the use of riot control agents is a very complex matter. It is not clear that commanders in the field want to use ``RCAs'' widely. However, there are a number of cases where RCAs could be very useful to avoid unnecessary loss of life. I have been assured that, consistent with the Executive Order, U.S. Armed Forces have authority to use riot control agents. Furthermore, I am informed that DoD will examine whether any confusion exists about RCA use, and will take all steps necessary to ensure that U.S. Armed Forces have the clear guidance that they need and deserve.

I am confident that the DoD and the administration will ensure that our men and women in uniform have every tool available to them consistent with U.S. and international law.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, we remain on the bill, but a colleague has a unanimous consent.

Is there not a pending amendment that must be laid aside first?

I thank the Presiding Officer.

The Lautenberg amendment is the pending amendment on the Defense authorization bill.

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

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

Mr. President, the need for a quorum call at this time is because there are a number of Senators who had to depart Capitol Hill for a meeting. Therefore, it is beyond the control of either manager. We need to keep in reserve our time on the bill. So I ask unanimous consent that the time expended in the quorum call up to just a minute ago, when I withdrew it, as well as the time that will ensue in the following quorum call not be charged to either side.

I thank the Presiding Officer and I thank the Parliamentarian.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the previously agreed to amendment No. 1526 be modified. I send that modification to the desk. The amendment has been cleared by the other side and is merely a technical correction.

Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from Louisiana allow me to propound a question to the distinguished Senator from Illinois before he departs the floor?

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, I have just gotten this amendment and I am looking it over. It is not unlike similar provisions that have been before the Senate. As a matter of fact, it has been passed by the Senate but dropped in conference.

Here is the problem based on, again, very modest military experience of my own, but a lifetime of association with the men and women in the military. I have come to learn the importance of

pay. Pay to an individual is a tremendous symbolism. I remember when we advanced from private to private first class or, in my case, from seaman to seaman second class, seaman first class, and so on. I got $4 a month in one pay increase, I remember, in World War II. And then the wife at home often is struggling to make ends meet. Boy, that pay is important.

Picture that today we have a total force concept. It is not Reserves serving over here and regulars serving over here. Fortunately, we mix. The units are merged together. When we go to Iraq, as all of us go now, we will find Reserves and regulars performing the same duties commensurate with their rank and their technical experience. Reserves and regulars are subject to the same threat to life and limb from an IED, from the missiles coming in, subject to the same arduous hardships and living conditions both in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Then along comes this amendment, no matter how well-intentioned, and suddenly the Reservist gets a significant amount of money in addition to his monthly pay to the regular who is serving right with him, living in the same tent, eating the same food, and taking the same risks.

For those of us who have had the opportunity to serve in the ranks, that begins to breed tension and inequities. You don't want those types of tensions as these young men and women are courageously performing their military duties. This is my concern.

Yes, of course.

I am No. 2 for life.

Mr. President, I think we have different perspectives. But pay is a very significant thing in every military person's life. We have to adjust. We certainly have to recognize.

What you are in a sense doing, Sears has opted as an employer to do as you state, not let their employee accept the consequences, and there is a category of persons coming in from the Reserve and Guard who simply do not have employers such as Sears Roebuck; for whatever reason their employer won't do it.

I don't know, I am concerned about building tensions into these young people in these units.

Mr. President, the Senator is absolutely correct. I could even take it a step further. If we didn't have the Guard and Reserve, we would have to carry in peacetime, as well as wartime, a much larger active force. We are fortunate that in wartime conditions, we have these men and women who will respond, and do so willingly and subject their families. The Senator from Illinois is correct on that point.

I have to dwell on this amendment. I just read it. I wanted to have this colloquy, and I appreciate the courtesies the Senator always extends.

The Senator from Louisiana has the floor.

I will be here when the Sun comes up tomorrow.

Mr. President, I point out, yes, the Senate has passed it, but for various reasons, conferences have not accepted it, so it is not in law today.

We do not have any of these.

Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Louisiana had the floor. She very graciously allowed me to intervene. I am happy to take a question.

Mr. President, the Senator raises a very interesting historical perspective. During World War II, the National Guard was mobilized early on and amalgamated with the regular forces. The Reserves likewise were brought in. So everybody was in World War II for the duration.

The next major conflict was Korea, in which I had minor participation, modest though it may be. The units I served in were quickly made an amalgamation of Reserves and regulars. I remember vividly the squadron I served in as a ground officer. The Reserve pilots, even though they had been called, some of them had only been on active duty 60 days, barely getting retraining and were flying missions with the regulars who had been on active duty for a number of years. There was no distinction between any of us. We were all treated the same. I was a Reservist called up at that time.

Then along came Vietnam, and for whatever reasons, when I was Secretary of the Navy, we didn't employ the Guard and Reserve. We relied on the draft. I would have to research some of the reasons why we didn't do it.

This country has fluctuated back and forth. But in direct answer to the Senator's important question, in this conflict, more than ever before, we have relied on the Guard and Reserve. I believe about 60 percent of the uniformed personnel in Iraq tonight, some 150,000 plus, 60 percent of them are Guard and Reserve.

So the Senator from Louisiana is very correct in her observation.

Mr. President, first I commend all Senators who have participated in this debate. Each time I listen to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, I say to my ranking member, she was a very valued member of our committee before she went AWOL.

Yes, proceeding to the Appropriations Committee, where some think all power resides in the Senate.

Nevertheless, to think that the Senator found time to work on this amendment, as she has on a number of personnel issues through the years--I remember the last authorization bill. Does the Senator from Michigan remember that?

One of the last amendments we were dealing with was on personnel issues. Anyway, the Senator from Louisiana found time to be here, given the tremendous burdens that she has in connection with the tragic suffering in her State, past, present, and possibly the future. I point out to my colleagues a provision comparable to this is in the House bill now in conference, therefore, that we go to.

I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I say to my colleagues, this is a matter that we will carefully review in conference. It has failed to survive in previous conferences, but I think this time it may, particularly because of the question of recruiting and the difficulty of the Reserves and Guard and the adjustment to family life. As the Senator pointed out, hundreds upon hundreds of thousands--700,000 I believe--have been involved in this conflict.

If I can make one comment before our distinguished colleague from Louisiana leaves the floor.

There comes a time every now and then to reflect on the past with a sense of humor. When I was a young Senator many years ago, one of the Senator's predecessors was Russell Long. His expertise was in the area of taxes. How many times, I ask my good friend from Michigan, would I hear him in these vigorous floor debates come over and say: We will drop it in conference; accept it?

With his arm around you shaking you like a tree. But we are not saying that.

I just thought maybe that little bit of color might remind Louisianans of his proud record in the Senate.

Mr. President, this is another example of how the managers, in the course of colloquies, can work out amendments. I strongly urge colleagues to come forward because we are getting down to the few amendments that are remaining in the hopes that this bill can be acted on for final passage tomorrow, as early as possible in the day.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to say to my colleague at the present time I am drafting an amendment in the second degree. As soon as I have it, I will be prepared to debate it on the floor and let the matter go to a vote.

I would propose to do it. I would have to check. There are three amendments, and actually the fourth is the pending amendment. I will see if he cannot possibly bring up his amendment right after the two votes.

I thank my partner, who has been most helpful in getting this bill passed. We are going to try and facilitate that.

Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Indiana has had a lot on his mind here recently with the tragic natural disaster in his State, and I thank him for finding the time to come to the Chamber and offer this amendment. I recall, during the markup of the Armed Services bill, he, being a very valued member of the committee, had this general concept in mind. The Senator advised the committee as a whole in the markup session that at the time this bill reached the floor, he would have formulated his thoughts and done his research and gathered his colleagues and would present this bill. That he has done, and in that he has succeeded. This is a matter we will take up in conference with careful consideration.

I thank our colleague.

Mr. President, it is just a matter of minutes before we start the votes. Perhaps the distinguished Senator from Georgia would like to make some explanation about the vote coming up?

Amendment No. 2433

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote be delayed by 5 minutes so the Senators may have a minute or 2, I can have a minute or 2, and the Senator from Michigan can have a minute or 2.

Mr. President, I likewise ask to be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. President, I strongly support the Chambliss amendment.

I want to bring to the attention of colleagues that a minute ago we accepted another amendment which will go to conference, and I am quite confident that out of that conference will come a package of further compensation to the men and women for the Guard and Reserve for other reasons. But in this bill we are adding enormous benefits for the men and women in the Armed Forces, all of which are justified in many areas. The Senator has picked out an area which has been under consideration for some period of time. But I point out that the cost of the Durbin second degree, which vote will follow this one, must be considered in the area of $1 billion for their 2006 and $10 billion over the next 10 years. That is 10 times, according to my calculation, the cost to the Federal taxpayer of the amendment of the Senator from Georgia.

Am I correct?

So I urge my colleagues we must show some restraint as we are going through a number of valid and important increments in pay and benefits for the men and women in the Armed Forces. In essence, the Chambliss amendment is an adaptation of the Durbin amendment but at one-tenth the cost because I think you are more equitably treating those who have served in periods of active service.

I thank the Senator.

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

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

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, we have this vote. We are making great progress on this bill. I will be consulting with the leadership. There is a

possibility we would like to continue tonight, but with regard to further rollcall votes, we will have to consult our respective leaders to determine that. We will do that as quickly as possible so as to convenience Senators. But this bill will go on tonight. It may well be we debate amendments and stack them for the morning.

Well, I have to get my leader, I have to tell you. I know he came on and off the floor.

Mr. President, the managers wish to advise the Senate that this will probably be the last rollcall vote tonight. But we will continue to debate amendments and stack them for a time agreed upon by the two leaders for tomorrow morning.

Amendment No. 2473, as Modified

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Connecticut. This is one of the amendments in the 12 on this side of the aisle. I would like to have this amendment move forward.

Mr. President, I strongly endorse the amendment by our colleagues, both the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Connecticut. They have carefully discussed with us the process by which they arrived at this conclusion. I must say, putting aside a little modesty, years and years ago, I was the one who on several occasions worked with others in this Senate to save the C-17 from even coming into being. We could see the needs into the future.

This plane has been an absolute, rock-solid performer in our inventory of airlift. I think this amendment comes at a critical time, expressing the desires of the Congress. It gives flexibility to the Secretary of the Air Force and the Secretary of Defense to proceed. I strongly support it.

At this time, it may be necessary to put in a quorum call so the matter can be discussed. Is that correct?

Mr. President, do I understand the Senators desire a rollcall vote?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

We will schedule this vote at a time in consultation with our respective leaders. There may be some other matters that we have.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

The Senate is now in session on the bill; is that correct?

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, my understanding of the parliamentary situation is that the ruling of the Chair is correct, that a Senator may send an amendment in the second degree. But under the underlying unanimous consent agreement on which we are operating on this bill, all time has to be yielded back before the second-degree amendment may be offered.

Objection.

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

Mr. President, in consultation with the distinguished Senator from Michigan, I send a managers' package of some 40 amendments to the desk which have been cleared by myself and the ranking member.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate consider those amendments en bloc, the amendments be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that any statements relating to any of these individual amendments be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that time until 11:30 a.m. tomorrow be equally divided in the usual form, and that at 11:30 the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Dorgan amendment No. 2476, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Talent amendment No. 2477, with no second degrees in order to those amendments prior to the votes; further, that there be 3 minutes equally divided between the votes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer and all members of our Senate staff who are assisting managers and other Senators in the completion of a good deal of work on the bill today. I look forward to tomorrow and completion of this bill. I express my profound gratitude to our leadership and all those who made it possible.

I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1988 introduced earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

I must say to the distinguished Presiding Officer, the war reserves stockpile for Korea, I don't know if that includes me with it or not. I did spend a period of time over there in 1951 and 1952 in the winter with the Marines. Likely I will be here again tomorrow morning to pursue the authorization bill.

I now ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, November 10; I further ask, following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then proceed to a period for morning business for up to an hour, with the first 30 minutes under the control of the majority leader or his designee and the final 30 minutes under the control of the Democrat leader or his designee; further, that the

Senate resume consideration of S. 1042, the Defense authorization bill as under the previous order.

Tomorrow, we will complete action on the Defense authorization bill. I firmly hope that, as does Senator Levin, and our respective leaders. Senators can expect votes throughout the day and tomorrow and should plan accordingly. We will finish this tomorrow.

I remind my colleagues we will also consider three appropriation conference reports ready for action before we leave this week.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. President, this is a little bit of a complex situation. We are anxious to get started on the bill. We want to honor the 9 minutes on the other side of the aisle. I am wondering if the Senator from Oklahoma could proceed as in morning business until such time as there is recognition sought on the other side to utilize the remaining 9 minutes.

Mr. President, I wish to be supportive of this amendment of my colleague from Oklahoma. But at the same time, I do believe the amendment by Senator Harkin is deserving of consideration. I say to my colleague, my concern, is--and I wish to have the record reflect this-- is it your understanding, having carefully examined how this is done by the Armed Forces Network, that in no way are they directly or indirectly trying to impose any censorship?

That we simply cannot have.

I say to the distinguished Senator, let me read section 2 of his proposed amendment: The American Forces Radio and Television American Forces Network provide a ``touch of home'' to members of the armed forces, civilian employees of the Department of Defense and their families stationed in bases, embassies, and consulates in more than 179 countries, as well as the Navy, Coast Guard, and Military Sealift Command ships at sea.

So it reaches an entire family, and it is a very important function. This Senator wants to make sure that audience, irrespective of whether they are conservatives or liberals, whatever the case may be--I am not sure that is the right criteria we should be using--does get a touch of home, which is a very wonderful expression that you have included here, by providing the same type--reading on--and quality of radio and television programming, including news, information, sports, and entertainment, that would be available in the continental United States.

To me, if you impose a certain market criteria, even though they may not hit a certain number of listeners, you are not getting the full spectrum that this amendment calls for. In other words, I would prefer to have just this amendment that you have here be the decision by the Senate and then leave it up to the 33 stations to ensure that is done. Maybe we shouldn't condone a marketing policy that just cuts off a whole lot of programs at the bottom because they don't have enough listeners.

You would prefer what.

Well, I don't see anything in the language you use here because you are very explicit. By providing the same type and quality of radio and television programming, including news, information, sports, and entertainment, that would be available in the continental United States--that is what we should follow.

I don't know that we condone a marketing tool by which a certain category--and it so happens that category perhaps has the preponderance of things which people would consider liberal. I am not sure we can escape totally the use of that word. It is better that we let the 33 stations themselves decide what it is.

If a program hasn't hit a million, well, there may be some audience within the family of people you discuss here, all of the various listeners and families and embassies and consulates, maybe they would like to hear something even though it hasn't hit the 1 million mark.

It is that operative phrase of ``reach that criteria.'' It seems that reaching that criteria has the effect of excluding a lot of programming, albeit they don't have quite the audience that others do, but nevertheless, there may be some individuals

within this family that is set forth in the amendment that would like to hear it.

That assurance to me is important. So what you are saying is it would not be any indirect censorship of any particular philosophical category of programming under your proposal?

So your proposal does not bind them to this market criteria.

I find that helpful. I think you have dispelled any thought that this amendment would impose any censorship.

And the variety of news services--again, there are obviously certain news services that have a proclivity to go to a more conservative side and some to the liberal side, but again, are news services given an equal opportunity to be heard?

For example, I happen to like NPR, and I like to hear FOX News. I like to have the juxtaposition of the different viewpoints.

Mr. President, if I might ask the Senator one last question. He makes reference to the ombudsman. How does your coverage of the subject of an ombudsman differ from the amendment offered by the Senator from Iowa?

Fine. So that clarifies the sole technical distinction, which is an important one, between your second degree and the underlying first degree. Therefore, it is up to the Secretary, but once an ombudsman is selected, assuming the Secretary opts to do so, in no way is that individual chartered or directed to do his work or her work different than what the Senator from Iowa desires?

I think that is important. So could that ombudsman be among the existing people in the Department of Defense, have it as an additional duty, or should that person be brought in from the outside and have the sole responsibility of ombudsman work?

Mr. President, I think that is an important flexibility. I am certain that within the Department, there is an individual or an individual with objectivity and a background that could perform this work.

I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if I may clarify what the situation is, 2 minutes in morning business is left, and that is being allocated to the Senator from Massachusetts, fine, no problem there. But as I understand, the Senator from Massachusetts also wishes to address the Levin amendment; am I correct?

At which time is the expiration of the 2 minutes. Then the time is charged to the Levin amendment; is that correct?

I hate to interrupt the Senator from Massachusetts, but if you have to do it, you have to do it.

Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer for advising that the bill is now up and the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts will continue his framework remarks on behalf of Senator Levin, whatever time the Senator desires.

Mr. President, I would like to reply to my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts. It is a very strong belief within the Senate that simply this is not the time nor is there the need to establish another 9/11 type commission. First, it would duplicate the thorough investigation into the matter that has already taken place by a number of committees of the Senate. And as stated by my distinguished ranking member yesterday, he acknowledged that our committee has had a very major role in the matters and has conducted a number of hearings.

The Department of Defense on its own initiative has conducted 12 probes of detainee operations in the last 18 months. I wish to draw the attention of the Senate to one of those probes because it was conducted by individuals who in my judgment--and I say this with no restriction whatsoever--have just about as high a credibility that I know of any public or former public servant; that is, James Schlesinger, former Secretary of Defense; Harold Brown, former Secretary of Defense; General Hoerner, four star general of the U.S. Air Force who conducted the air operations during the first gulf war, a man whom I have known very well; and our distinguished and much beloved late Member of the Congress of the United States, Tillie Fowler. I would like to, for the benefit of my colleagues, quote directly from their report. On page 5, they find as follows:

There is no evidence of a policy of abuse promulgated by

senior officials or military authorities.

On page 66:

Despite the number of visits and intensity of interest in

actionable intelligence, however, the panel found no undue

pressure exerted by senior officials.

Mr. President, the McCain amendment, which has been adopted now twice by this body, is the subject of a conference now with the appropriations conferees. It is also on our bill, the first amendment accepted. This was a bipartisan call to the best instincts of our American character. I call on the Senate to use that powerful statement of American values, not another commission, as our instrument of change.

Mr. President, I would like to ask at this time the time remaining on the Levin amendment----

Yes, I would be happy to do so.

Mr. President, I will answer and charge my time to my side. The time of the Senator from Massachusetts will be charged to the Levin amendment on his side. That is my understanding; is that correct?

Mr. President, I should like to reply. If I can get clarification, I am not sure I understood one word that I think is important. Did the Senator mean ``absolved'' or ``absorbed''?

Mr. President, do I understand this document is in the archives of the Judiciary Committee; is that correct?

Is it a matter that is subject to classification?

So, Mr. President, the document speaks for itself?

I simply say, I don't have firsthand knowledge of all of the important oversight that was conducted by the Judiciary Committee. The Senator does raise fundamental questions about this policy, but I will only say, as recently as in the past few days, our President has reassured our Nation that we do not tolerate or permit torture. I would have to believe that is a consistency of the policy of the administration. Not having examined this document, I would hope there would be a continuity of that throughout the administration.

Mr. President, I hope my colleague will concur that the McCain amendment, which has been adopted by this Chamber on two occasions, would be dispositive of any confliction as to the definitions as to the future; would I not be correct on that assumption?

Mr. President, I say to my colleague and distinguished member of the Armed Services Committee, to avoid it in the future, that is precisely the objective of the McCain amendment, to prevent any recurrence. I am not suggesting I corroborate that there have been deviations; I simply say that is a landmark piece of legislation with regard to the future. And it would be, as I said in my remarks a few minutes ago, the guidepost for the future to resolve this issue.

Our military has had a great history of correcting through its lessons learned the procedures for the future. The Department of Defense has already implemented substantial reforms in response to its interactions with Congress on these investigations. The areas of concern involving the intelligence community, ghost detainees, and renditions are more appropriately addressed, of course, in the Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. President, I simply ask that all Senators be informed as to the time remaining on the Levin amendment on both sides.

Mr. President, I indicate to my colleagues that I would be prepared to, at a future time, to yield back our time so we can move to a vote on the Levin amendment as early as possible. So there is 3 minutes remaining, as I understand, under the control of the Senator from Michigan?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of Senator Inhofe to modify his proposed second-degree amendment. It is at the desk and being filed in relation to Senator Harkin's amendment. This is a technical change.

I realize that, but can we at this time substitute a revised document for the one that is being held at the desk? The Parliamentarian brought it to the attention of Senator Inhofe, and it is my understanding he followed the guidance of the Parliamentarian on this technical modification.

I thank the Presiding Officer and the Parliamentarian and other staff who facilitated this.

Mr. President, we are anxious to continue to work on this bill. I wonder if the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island can indicate what hopefully will occur this afternoon from his side of the aisle? One of his distinguished staff members handed us a sheet.

Mr. President, also, the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island has an amendment with regard to missile defense. Might I inquire as to the remainder of time on each side on that issue?

I thank the Presiding Officer. It is our intention that the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, will utilize largely the remainder of the time on this side, and then I hope we can bring that important amendment to a vote.

Mr. President, I hope to be joined by my colleague from Michigan this afternoon. We will do our very best to keep the Senate moving without quorum calls to conclude the amendments, each side having 12, and also the managers approving a number of reconciled amendments on both sides. I anticipate a vigorous procedure this afternoon on behalf of this bill, moving toward third reading at the earliest possible date, which is the decision that the majority and Democratic leaders will eventually make.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Will the Senator yield for a question? Could he put the chart back up?

I will be recognized and would hope that the reply of the Senator could be brief.

How much time do I have remaining?

The zero on the chart, I want to make very clear my position. I do not want any censorship imposed by the Department of Defense in utilizing taxpayer dollars to promulgate this programming, which is so important. The Inhofe second-degree amendment sets forth the wide range of recipients. It is uniformed people. It is their families. It is embassy people. It is their families. It is consulates. Quite a spectrum is served by this important outlet.

If the Senator can point to where there is any censorship, I would like to address it. I have engaged my distinguished colleague in this colloquy as well. Does anyone make an assertion that there is censorship taking place?

Mr. President, I think the Senator is endeavoring to answer while it may not be direct and overt, indirectly there could be factual situations that would constitute some sort of censorship. For example, I happen to listen to a wide spectrum--I am sure each of us in this body does. I enjoy programs from Rush Limbaugh to NPR, but NPR has always been associated with, should we say, a bit of the left side.

I understand NPR is broadcast on AFR, and yet the zero percent would indicate that program is not considered to be somewhat counterbalancing of the others.

Yes.

Mr. President, I did not mean to engender the ire of my good friend. I am simply stating factually, to me, NPR is a very balanced--I have often been on it myself and they have this sort of a format, the modulation of the voices is always quite subdued on NPR. Now, Rush Limbaugh, indeed--occasionally, I listen to him and it is certainly not a modulated voice. He is very forceful in getting his points across, but it is not for the Senate to arbitrate the voice intonation between the different programs. I am simply talking about content, putting aside the means by which it is delivered.

It seems to me it is a question of content, and it seems to me NPR is a very--I would use the words ``reasonably balanced'' but a little bit on the left side of the equation more than on the right side of the equation. I find it somewhat misleading that the Senator puts a zero up there, which applies to the NPR.

Mr. President, it seems to me that I have engendered a spirited debate that I had no intention of doing. So I would drop the issue. I do not intend to be an expert on the political content. Clearly, Rush Limbaugh does have a strong preference for the more conservative issues, but I cannot believe that there are not some programs that have a strong bent for issues which are other than conservative, call them what one wishes. It seems to me that zero percent is something that is indefensible, and we will leave it at that.

I see the distinguished Senator from Iowa on the floor.

It is his amendment. I yield the floor at this time.

Mr. President, the parliamentary situation is--how much time remains in opposition?

And the Senator from Iowa?

Senator Inhofe was on the floor earlier today. It was his intention to offer a second-degree amendment. I wonder if I can make a unanimous consent request that I now raise that second-degree amendment, put it on your underlying amendment, and then 30 minutes is now allocated, 15 to the distinguished Senator and 15 more to this side. That would enable you to have more time within which to debate. So you would not lose the minutes that you have.

I now make a unanimous consent request. I offer the Inhofe amendment in the second degree at this time with the understanding the time remaining on both sides would be added to the 30 minutes additional time.

Mr. President, I want to follow the regular parliamentary procedure. The unanimous consent--we have a perfect right to put the second-degree on, but I am trying to keep the continuity of the debate going rather than you extinguishing your 3 minutes. I prefer we continue with the amendment at this time, being the pending amendment, with the understanding that the 3 minutes remaining on Senator Harkin's time be added to his 15, giving him 18; our 17 be added to the 15 that we have.

I thank the Chair.

Amendment No. 2439 to Amendment No. 2438

Mr. President, if I might ask my distinguished colleague, we debated the Inhofe amendment at some length this morning. Could the Senator, for purposes of helping Senators who are following this debate, describe exactly what the difference is? There is one rather significant and technical difference, and that is the sense-of-the- Senate amendment by the Senator from Oklahoma would allow the ombudsman to be at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense, as opposed to your amendment, which would make it mandatory. Am I correct in that?

Putting aside the procedure on which the ombudsman is put in place, is there any distinction between what the duties of the ombudsman would be under the Inhofe second-degree and the underlying first-degree?

Let's make certain the Senator does have a copy.

It was simply a technical correction to an earlier amendment, I say to the Senator.

Yes.

Does your amendment permit the Secretary to select the ombudsman within the current personnel structure of the Department of Defense or must he go outside the Department to get that individual?

I thank the Senator. One last question. I am still troubled by the chart you put up showing zero. My understanding is that the Department of Defense has added the following three programs to the body of programs that each of the 33 individual stations can select from. I am not that familiar with the details of each. Perhaps the Senator from Iowa can help me. The ``Ed Shultz Show,'' that is new this month; the ``Al Franken Show,'' which is new this month; and the ``Sean Hannity Show,'' which is new this month, where would they fall in the context of the zero which is on this chart which you have shown to the Senate?

Sean Hannity.

In the interests of moving forward on the floor, Senator Inhofe will be available following the recess we are going to take for purposes of the respective caucuses. I wonder if we, given that there is significant time remaining now on the Inhofe amendment, might go to another matter in such a way that we could engage Senator Inhofe more directly, on behalf of his amendment, with the distinguished Senator from Iowa?

I thank the Senator. I see the distinguished Senator from Alaska at this time.

I yield the floor.

amendment no. 2427

Mr. President, I thank our distinguished colleague and member of the committee, the Senator from Maine. The Senator has fought hard on behalf of her interests in that State. Indeed, the BRAC process, in some respects due to your efforts, was modified in the end to the interests of the State.

While I am not going to be able to support the Snowe-Collins amendment, nevertheless, in other areas the Senator made some progress. I thank the Senator for her work on the committee given her work on the Government Operations Committee. Nevertheless, the Senator finds time to attend our meetings and be an active participant. I thank my colleague.

I ask unanimous consent at the hour of 2:45 the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Inhofe amendment No. 2439, followed by a vote in relation to the Harkin amendment numbered 2438. I further ask that the Inhofe amendment be modified so it is a first-degree amendment, and that no second-degree amendments to the amendments be in order prior to the votes; provided further that the time from 2:15 to 2:45 be equally divided between Senators Inhofe and Harkin. I further ask on an unrelated matter that Senator Stevens be recognized for up to 10 minutes of morning business following the two votes.

Mr. President, under the previous order, the time between 2:15 and 2:45 is equally divided between the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from Iowa for the purposes of discussing the underlying amendment by the Senator from Iowa and a second degree that I put on on behalf of Senator Inhofe. My understanding is that Senator Inhofe will be here momentarily. But under the order, the Senate is now in session and open to hear comments on this legislation.

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

Mr. President, in consultation with the ranking member, I say that there are three amendments in which, speaking for the majority, I would yield back time in our possession in the hopes we could move to the amendments for voting purposes.

The first one, of course, would be the amendment, as I just discussed with the distinguished Senator from Michigan, regarding the desire to have a Presidential commission regarding the detainee issues. I ask the Chair to inform the Senate as to the amount of time that is under the control of the majority and minority on that amendment.

A little louder, Mr. President.

Amendment No. 2430.

That is the question before the Chair on amendment No. 2430.

Fine. Then we would like to move to the amendment by the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, regarding missile defense. Again, I would inquire as to how much time is remaining on the amendment, which is amendment No. 2427.

Well, I am prepared to yield back time on that if we can get some indication from Senator Reed as to his desire. I am hopeful we will have that vote up.

Then there is an amendment by the distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe, amendment No. 2436. Will the Chair advise the Senate as to the time remaining on that amendment?

Well, with regard to the time in opposition, I am opposed to the amendment, but I am prepared to yield back the time on that amendment. This, hopefully, alerts Senators that any one and hopefully all three of those amendments could be up for votes very shortly.

Yes.

Mr. President, 2424 is the number on that amendment.

If the Senator will withhold for a minute.

The inquiry is in to the desk as to the time left on the Nelson amendment.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, the time remaining on behalf of the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma is?

Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa talked about the two programs which I discussed earlier, Ed Schultz and Al Franken. He mentioned that his check indicated they

haven't been contacted. I immediately went back and checked with the Department of Defense. The Department of Defense, I assure the Senator from Iowa, is taking steps to implement the inclusion of those programs. The Department is dealing with the agents who presumably control the time. Therefore, the proffer that I made earlier about these two programs being included, it may be just a question of the tense of the verb, but I am assured by the Department that they are now taking steps to implement the inclusion or option to include these two programs throughout the American Forces Network.

Yes.

Well, I am not in a position to rebut that.

All I can say is----

Within the past 15 minutes, I received the assurance.

Has all time expired, Mr. President?

Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

I so make that request for both amendments, Mr. President.

And I so make that request, the underlying amendment and the Inhofe amendment.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the use or the yielding back of the debate time on the Byrd amendment, the Senate proceed to a series of stacked votes in relation to the following amendments: The first is the Byrd amendment; the second is the Nelson amendment, No. 2424; the third is the Snowe amendment, No. 2436; provided that no second degrees be in order to the amendments prior to the votes; finally, that there be 2 minutes equally divided between the votes and that the second and third votes be limited to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, further I hope, working in consultation with the distinguished ranking member, to have more votes. There is an outstanding Reed amendment and there is an outstanding amendment by the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin. I hope those votes will be addressed by the Senate not too long after the conclusion of this series of votes.

Mr. President, under the order of the Senate that I asked for earlier, the Senator from Alaska is to be recognized.

Mr. President, if the Senator would yield, we have already scheduled Senator Byrd's amendment at this point in time, so it is quite in order and timely.

Amendment No. 2442

(Purpose: To establish the position of Deputy Secretary of

Defense for Management.)

Mr. President, one of the great pleasures of those of us who serve on the Armed Services Committee is to have the opportunity to work with Senator Byrd, an individual for whom I have the greatest respect and whose corporate knowledge of the institutions of Government, most particularly the institution of the U.S. Senate, is second to none.

I have listened carefully to this presentation by our distinguished colleague from West Virginia, and I think he cites, with relative accuracy, points that should be taken into consideration. But I would like to say to my friend, I wonder if you might consider an alternative approach.

We stop to think that the Department of Defense was envisioned by the Key West Conference in 1947, when Harry Truman--I might say one of my favorite Presidents--saw the need to bring together the Departments of the Navy and the Army and the emerging Air Force from the glorious days of the Army Air Corps and put them all together, unify them, and eliminate, thereby, certain frictions, and so forth, that normally exist between the military Departments. The Department of Defense as we know it today was born, and James Forrestal was our first Secretary.

This Department has served this Nation very well in the ensuing years since 1947. And yet, as Mr. Byrd has said very eloquently, he has pointed out problems associated with the enormity of the growth of responsibilities, the enormity of the growth of appearances required by the senior members of the Department before the Congress and the like.

I think he also has in mind the British system, for which all of us who have dealt with that system through the years have a certain degree of admiration. They have a civil service sort of permanent under secretary structure, so as there is turnover in the top positions through the years, there is someone to come in and say: Well, I was here under the previous two secretaries and, indeed, the facts are such and so. It has its virtue. But I think the complexity of the problems you raise requires some careful study.

Now, a subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, under the distinguished chairmanship of Senator Ensign, has looked at this question. He will succeed me here momentarily to give his thoughts.

I come down to this point, I say to my good friend from West Virginia. You start with the proposition there is no other Government agency or Department of our Federal system, other than the FAA--and I did not know that until I was prompted by your amendment to do the research--which has the two Deputy Secretaries or Under Secretaries, as the case may be. That, to me, indicates that throughout the formation of our Government, whether it has been under Democrat control or Republican control, it is a concept that has not been tried. But it merits careful study.

I am wondering if the Senator from West Virginia would think of converting his amendment to provide for a study. Now, I do not mean to kick the can down the road for a year and let it disappear as a concept. Let's have a tight study of 90 or 120 days. Let's have it done by one of the Federal research centers, not the GAO because the GAO, frankly, has an opinion, maybe have it done by two of them, require two of them to do it, and report back to the Congress early next year, say in the February-March timeframe, such that we could hold a hearing in the Armed Services Committee and perhaps the Government Operations Committee, which has sort of plenary jurisdiction over Government agencies and Departments, and take a look at it. It might take root, and as such we would put it in as a part of next year's authorization bill. We could then go to our colleagues in the Senate and our colleagues in the other body and say: Look, we have carefully analyzed and studied, and this is our conclusion. I say to my good friend--not that I could teach him anything--knowing where the votes are, I am inclined to think there is probably a sufficient structure of votes here not to carry your amendment, and I would hate to see it lost, to be honest. And should it pass here, there is nothing in the House. And as you well know from more experience than I, that conference produces unpredictable results.

This is a good idea. This idea merits very careful attention and study. I would be the first to cosponsor with you if you were so desiring of amending your pending amendment to provide for a framework by which this concept is studied step by step before the Congress is called upon to render its judgment.

I say that with the greatest respect.

At this point, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my dear colleague. I suggest, indeed, as Senator Ensign has looked into this, the Senate would benefit from his perspective. I suggest we make this the pending amendment, lay it aside such that the Senate can proceed to the votes on the other two amendments. I don't know that there is any urgency. As long as it is the pending amendment, it can be brought up at any time the Senator from West Virginia so desires, either to be amended or voted in its present framework. I would be happy to yield the floor for the purposes of the distinguished Senator from Nevada addressing the Senate on this important subject and confer with the Senator from West Virginia briefly. I have an appointment with the British Minister of Defense. He is in my office. I would like to keep that for a brief period and then return to the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent then that the Senator from Nevada be recognized for such time as he wishes to take on the Byrd amendment in its present configuration at the desk and then, at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Nevada, we proceed to the scheduled votes under a previous order. Then immediately following the last vote, this becomes the pending amendment.

Mr. President, may I suggest the Senator go first, and then I would seek the opportunity for recognition to indicate that it is acceptable on this side. But if the Senator from Florida desires, I think there is good reason to have a rollcall vote as opposed to a voice vote.

Mr. President, I again join my colleague from Michigan and our distinguished colleague, a member of the committee. As the Senator says, it is all about veterans, and this is a most deserving class. This is the group that has done a minimum of 20 years, and a loyal spouse that has gone through all of the challenges that face families in career military service.

This is something that has been studied in the Congress for a very long time. It is the subject of a study now. As a matter of fact, it is going to be the centerpiece of a study. As you know, Mr. President, we have the commission on the future of the Guard and Reserve and retirees, and so forth, constituted by the Congress, which has now had its first meeting.

So I urge colleagues on this side of the aisle to follow my lead and support the amendment of the Senator from Florida.

There was a time in which I thought I would try to work on a second- degree amendment. In consultation with a wide range of my colleagues who have expressed strong support, as I have, we decided not to do that. And then there was the thought about, you know, it is a technical thing under the Budget Act. But I don't think it is appropriate to go through that exercise.

So I suggest to all Members of the Senate to give a ringing endorsement to this amendment, and I will be among those to cast the first ``yea'' vote.

Again, I congratulate my colleague.

Mr. President, under regular order, if the yeas and nays have not been ordered, I ask for the yeas and nays.

We do.

I think perhaps we should ask for the yeas and nays on the Snowe amendment at this time.

That will be a 10-minute vote on that amendment.

Under the original order, we were to have the Byrd amendment which would experience the full length of time for an amendment. This was subject to 10 minutes. I think we had better reconstitute that UC to say that this amendment will be given the full 15 minutes, the Snowe amendment to have the 10 minutes.

It is laid aside temporarily to come up at the conclusion of the Snowe amendment. And then, of course, prior to the Senate addressing a vote on the Snowe amendment, there will be 2 minutes for each side to address that amendment. I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, there is no objection. We have examined the amendment. It is a technical amendment that is needed by the Department of Defense to administer this program and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, we will now return to the vote on the Snowe amendment, am I correct?

Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. President, I speak in strong opposition to this amendment. I thank the Senator from Maine for accepting a number of the problems that I described yesterday, but there still exists an enormous number of problems associated with this amendment.

For 16 years and five BRAC rounds, we have tried, in an equitable way, to work with the communities and return these properties. On occasion, they have been sold and funds given to the Department of Defense, put in an escrow account in the Treasury for expenditure of cleanup of other sites and associated costs connected with the transfer of properties and the conclusion and implementation of the BRAC decisions. This would wipe out that whole framework of legislation that has been passed by this body and has effectively worked for the communities for all of these years. We simply cannot, at this point in time, accept this type of change in our statutory framework as a matter of equity.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I understand we will now proceed to a brief colloquy between colleagues on both sides of the aisle with regard to the Levin amendment. That colloquy should, in total, not exceed about 10 or 11 minutes, and then we will proceed to a rollcall vote. At this time, shall we ask for the yeas and nays on the Levin amendment?

Mr. President, may I remind colleagues we will try to maintain this as a 15-minute vote because thereafter we have a vote on the amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island and we want not to inconvenience several Members who have very legitimate reasons to not be present after these two votes.

On our side, we would be happy to accommodate that vote following the vote on the amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island.

I want to make it known now that the Senator from West Virginia has substantially revised his amendment in accordance with recommendations, if I may say with a

sense of humility, that I made. He fully adopted those. I am going to support the amendment strongly, so it should be a very swift vote. No further debate would be required except for maybe a minute for you and a minute for me.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the 10-minute vote on the matter raised by the Senator from Rhode Island that we proceed to a third vote of 10 minutes on the amendment of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia.

I have no objection.

I stand in opposition to the amendment for many reasons which I have stated on three previous occasions, including early this morning addressing this amendment.

The distinguished Senator from Delaware talked about looking forward to our troops. I draw the attention of colleagues to Defense Department directive No. 3115.09 issued on the 3rd of November of this year in which they set forth the new regulations and rules with regard to treatment of prisoners. The directive provides overarching policy to the Department. It codifies existing departmental studies, including the requirement for humane treatment of captured or detained persons during intelligence interrogation and questioning, assigns responsibilities for interrogation planning and training, and establishes requirements for reporting violations of the policy regarding humane treatment.

Section 3443 is a directive addressing some specific abuse detailed in past investigations. The directive specifically requires the Central Intelligence Agency interrogation must follow Pentagon guidelines when questioning military prisoners and that a DOD representative be present. Further, this release should be followed by the revision of the Department of the Army Field Manual which is the subject of the McCain amendment, which I strongly support, on interrogations which this Senate overwhelmingly directed become the U.S. standard as part of the amendment proposed by Senator McCain.

Our Government collectively is moving in the right direction to correct the problems of the past, clearly, such that the whole world knows how our Nation stands against this type of abuse that occurred in the past. I strongly urge our colleagues not to start up another commission in the middle of our war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for the next year or 18 months begin to go over the material which this Senate time and time again has addressed in debates, on which our Committees on Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, and Armed Services have reviewed this question with some dozen investigations conducted by our

Government, largely the Department of Defense.

I yield the floor.

Order of Procedure

I have an agreement regarding future votes so Senators can make their plans. I ask consent following debate on the Levin amendment, which is now concluded, Senator Reed be recognized to speak for not more than 5 minutes in relation to his amendment; further, that following the statement, the Senate proceed to a series of stacked votes in relation to the following amendments: Levin amendment 2430; Byrd amendment 2442, as modified; and the Reed amendment 2427.

There is no time here for Senator Byrd. I amend this to allow 2 minutes by Senator Byrd and a minute by the Senator from Virginia who intends to support Senator Byrd.

Further, provided that no second degrees be in order to the amendments prior to the votes. Finally, there be 2 minutes equally divided between the votes.

We will now proceed to the debate on your amendment.

In no event would we lose the opportunity to have the votes.

I will restate the unanimous consent request in the hopes it can be agreed to.

I ask consent that following debate on the Levin amendment--that debate has taken place--we go to the Byrd amendment. That would require 2 minutes by the Senator from West Virginia, 1 minute by the Senator from Virginia, following the vote on the Levin amendment, and then we proceed to the Reed amendment with 5 minutes on both sides with regard to debate prior to the vote on the Reed of Rhode Island amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Under the previous order, the Senate turns its attention to the amendment by the Senator from West Virginia, with 2 minutes of debate on either side, a 10-minute vote, to be followed by the Reed amendment, 5 minutes by the Senator from Rhode Island, and 2 or 3 minutes to the Senator from Virginia. Then that is a 10-minute vote.

Amendment No. 2442, as Modified

Mr. President, I strongly urge colleagues to support the Byrd-Warner amendment. I am the principal cosponsor. I commend my distinguished colleague from West Virginia. The Department of Defense was established in 1947, over a half century ago. It has served the Nation well, but there have been many changes. This will give the Armed Services Committee, the Government Operations Committee, perhaps other committees of Congress, a chance to take a good look at that Department and how best, if necessary, to restructure it to meet the future challenges before us.

I thank the Senator from West Virginia. I urge all Senators to vote in favor of the amendment.

My understanding is the yeas and nays have been ordered on the amendment, as modified.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, under the regular order, the Senate will now proceed with the Reed of Rhode Island vote, with 5 minutes for the Senator from Rhode Island and 3 to 4 minutes for the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. President, in opposition to the amendment, I bring to the attention of our colleagues that the CTR Program, of which our distinguished colleague from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, was the principal author and sponsor, is fully funded at the budget request of $415.5 million. There still remains an unobligated balance of $107 million from the 2005 funds. So this category of our important work is fully funded and moving ahead on its schedule of expenditures.

In contrast, the Missile Defense Program this year took a $1 billion cut as part of the internal DOD budget deliberations, and missile defense is also reduced by $5 billion over the period 2006 to 2011. By adopting the Reed amendment, we would have a fracture in the long-lead funding, resulting in a production break which, on the assumption it would be restarted, would cost the taxpayers another $270 billion.

Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, I have a sheet here that shows how three consecutive times this

Chamber has voted basically on this amendment and defeated it. A $500 million cut by Senator Levin was defeated in June of 2004 by 56 votes, followed by a Boxer amendment limiting deployment of ground-based interceptors, defeated by 57 votes, and a Reed amendment again defeated by 53 votes--incidentally, all of those having some measure of bipartisan support. So we are revisiting the same issue.

I strongly recommend to my colleagues that this amendment not be adopted.

Have the yeas and nays been ordered, Mr. President?

I so request the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, in concurrence with the ranking member, the Senator from Oklahoma wishes to lay down an amendment which I am going to recommend be accepted by a voice vote. I believe that is with the concurrence of my ranking member.

Mr. President, I strongly recommend to colleagues the acceptance of this amendment. It has been carefully thought through. It is a policy that has been joined in jointly by the Secretaries of State and Defense. It is the expectation that to the extent we are successful with these programs, it likely will go to the deployment of our troops abroad in various situations we deem necessary to protect our own national interests.

I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Subject to the concurrence of the ranking member, I ask the Senate to turn its attention to the Senator from Nevada, who has an amendment which I personally strongly endorse and so recommend to other colleagues. It could well be the subject of a rollcall vote sometime tomorrow. I thank him for his consideration of laying down the amendment tonight such that colleagues have the time within which to study it.

Mr. President, I want very much to support my colleague from Nevada, but I would like to have some clarification. I tried to listen very carefully to what the Senator said. I want to see if my interpretation of the amendment is correct.

I begin by saying the question of whether and how the use of riot control agents would be limited by the Chemical Weapons Convention became a major issue when the treaty was considered by the Senate for ratification in 1997. The resolution of ratification for the CWC contains a condition requiring the President to certify that the United States is not restricted by the CWC in its use of riot control agents in certain specified circumstances. The condition also required the President not to eliminate or alter Executive Order 11850--which I have before me; it was signed by President Ford on April 8, 1975--which prohibits the use of riot control agents in war except in defensive military modes to save lives.

Now, I turn to the Executive Order 11850 and specifically ask the Senator, is his interpretation of his amendment consistent with the objectives as stated in Executive Order 11850, signed by President Ford April 8, 1975?

I thank my colleague. If I could further propound a clarification, reading from the preamble to 11850, the Executive order, it says:

The United States renounces, as a matter of national

policy, first use of herbicides in war except use, under

regulations applicable to their domestic use, for control of

vegetation within U.S. bases and installations or around

their immediate defensive perimeters, and first use of riot

control agents in war except in defensive military modes to

save lives such as--

and these are the examples--

(a) Use of riot control agents in riot control situations

in areas under direct and distinct U.S. military control, to

include controlling rioting prisoners of war.

(b) Use of riot control agents in situations in which

civilians are used to mask or screen attacks and civilian

casualties can be reduced or avoided.

(c) Use of riot control agents in rescue missions in

remotely isolated areas, of downed aircrews and passengers,

and escaping prisoners.

(d) Use of riot control agents in rear echelon areas

outside the zone of immediate combat to protect convoys from

civil disturbances, terrorists and paramilitary

organizations.

Regarding the ground operations as we are reading about daily in the Anbar Province, in Fallujah--I visited up in Fallujah several weeks ago. How would they, under your amendment, be deployed, assuming this amendment is adopted, in a manner differently than what they are doing today?

I want to make clear I presume the amendment of the Senator clarifies some ambiguity, which ambiguity acts as a deterrent on our forces today from using it. Once the ambiguities are set aside, then we can proceed to utilize these agents, provided it is consistent with the Executive Order 11850? Have I correctly stated that?

I thank my distinguished colleague. We will have, perhaps, opportunity in the morning to further debate this amendment. I do want to posture myself so I can support your amendment.

Mr. President, subject to the order by the majority and Democratic leader as to the sequence of events tomorrow, the Ensign amendment would remain the pending business at such time as the leadership directs the Senate return to this bill; am I correct in that?

At this time, I ask unanimous consent the Ensign amendment be laid aside for the purpose of the distinguished Senator from Michigan and I clearing some amendments.

Mr. President, there are four packages of amendments at the desk being held subject to action by the Senate. I ask the Senate consider those amendments en bloc, the amendments be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and I ask any statements relating to these individual amendments be printed in the Record.

All four. And the Chair has acted.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I thank my colleague from Michigan for working together with colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We achieved a substantial amount of work. Tomorrow we will return, and my rough calculation with regard to the amendments is of the 12 on the majority side, we have the Chambliss amendment, which might be subject to a second degree; we have the Ensign amendment, which is now the pending amendment; there is an amendment by Senator Talent, Senator Graham, Senator Inhofe that involves prayer at the service academies; Senator Frist in recognition of our troops and others participating in the war against terrorism; and consent to Brownback which is an amendment regarding personal notification relating to the men and women of the Armed Forces in cases where he deems parental consent is appropriate. And the Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner, has an amendment.

I have the list of the Senator from Michigan. Six of the 12 amendments have been acted upon by the Senate. To the extent the Senator can advise the Senate of the remaining amendments, it would be helpful.

I bring to the attention of my good friend and colleague, we have provided the Senator with copies of the amendments by Senator Chambliss, Senator Ensign, Senator Talent. The amendment by Senator Graham is still under work. Senator Inhofe, you have that amendment. Senator Frist's amendment we have not as yet distributed. The Brownback amendment will be provided to you tonight. And we have not as yet provided you with the one of the Senator from Virginia.

That would not be the proposed second degree to the Chambliss amendment? The Chambliss amendment is Guard and Reserve, too.

This is helpful to colleagues as they are doing their work tonight in support of what we are trying to achieve with final passage tomorrow.

amendment no. 2423

I ask unanimous consent that there be a period of morning business not to exceed 10 minutes.