Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 8, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on Kosovo--A Way Forward.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 8, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on Nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Saudia Arabia: Friend or Foe in the War on Terror?'' on Tuesday, November 8, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 226.

Witness List

Panel I: Daniel Glaser, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC.

Alan Misenheimer, Director of Arabian Peninsula and Iran Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC.

Panel II: Anthony Cordesman, Co-Director, Middle East Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, DC.

Nina Shea, Director, Center for Religious Freedom, Washington, DC.

Steve Emerson, Terrorism Expert and Executive Director, Investigative Project on Terrorism, Washington, DC.

Gulam Bakali, Islamic Association of North Texas, Board of Trustees, Richardson, TX.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Executive Nominations'' on Tuesday, November 8, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Witness List

Panel I: The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison, U.S. Senator, R-TX; The Honorable John Cornyn, U.S. Senator, R-TX.

Panel II: Carol E. Dinkins to be Chairman of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; Alan Charles Raul to be Vice Chairman of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Research, Nutrition and General Legislation be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 8, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. in SDG-50, Senate Dirksen Office Building. The purpose of this Subcommittee Hearing will be to discuss the Pet Animal Welfare, PAWS, statute.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for a hearing entitled, ``Strengthening Hurricane Recovery Efforts for Small Businesses'' on Tuesday, November 8, 2005, beginning at 10 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 8, 2005 at 10 a.m. to hold a closed business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Superfund and Waste Management be authorized to hold an oversight hearing at 2:30 p.m., on Tuesday, November 8, on the impact of certain government contractor liability proposals on environmental laws.

Yes. I thank my distinguished colleague, who is a very valued member of our committee. We are anxious this afternoon to pursue amendments. I will review at an appropriate time what we have achieved so far and what we have planned for the day. But it would be the managers' preference that as you speak to the bill, you do so in morning business because we are on a rather tight time constraint. I thank the Senator for his courtesy.

Madam President, I thank our distinguished colleague. He has taken an active role in a number of issues and that, together with his work on the Judiciary Committee, gives him a special insight into the issue of detainee matters.

The distinguished ranking member has arrived. I had hoped that Senator Cornyn could speak for 15 to 20 minutes, if that is agreeable, and then following that, perhaps the Senator from Michigan and I will have some matters to address the Senate on. For the benefit of all Members, the bill is open for amendment at this time.

I thank my distinguished colleague. I say, with a sense of modesty, that we are making good progress on the bill.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, we have certainly no objection to that. At this juncture in the bill, it does not impair our ability to manage. I ask the Senator to please proceed.

Mr. President, I do have the privilege of being an ex officio member of the Intelligence Committee. I served 8 years on that committee, and my concluding years was as ranking member. I have a very high respect for that committee and find, from my participation, together with others on it, under the leadership of Chairman Roberts and Senator Rockefeller, that the committee does a very good job.

Mr. President, I wish to speak in opposition about this question of the need for this country to establish an independent commission to investigate the detention and interrogation operations conducted by the Department of Defense and other elements of the Government in conjunction with the war on terrorism.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business.

Mr. President, in my judgment, a further investigation is simply unnecessary. The Department of Defense has conducted 12 major investigations. Over 400 criminal investigations and hundreds more informal investigations have been or are being conducted to determine the responsibility and, if appropriate, culpability and accountability.

The combined investigations are unprecedented in scope. The CIA and the Department of Justice are also conducting investigations into the actions of their employees related to detention and interrogation activities.

Responsibility and accountability have been assessed. Over 400 criminal investigations have been conducted and 168 remain open; 95 military personnel have been criminally charged with misconduct, and 75 have been convicted to date. In addition, 177 military personnel have been administratively disciplined. Almost 20 percent of those disciplined have been officers.

Congress has held 30 open hearings, received over 40 closed briefings, and countless staff briefings. The Department has been very forthcoming, providing complete investigations that include over 2,800 interviews and over 16,000 pages of related documents.

The combined investigations have made 442 recommendations, over 300 of which have been implemented, and the rest are in progress, including standardization policy and procedures for detention and interrogation operations, revising policies regarding the International Committee of the Red Cross visits and reports, improved training and clear policy guidance for interagency detention activities.

Investigations have universally concluded that there was no policy of abuse and that no policy led to abuse. As the Schlesinger report stated--that was a commission established by the Secretary of Defense, indeed at the urging of the Congress and our committee, but it was Secretary Schlesinger and Secretary Harold Brown, both former Secretaries of Defense, one a Republican and one a Democrat, men who have had extraordinary reputations throughout their lives. I feel that was one of the major landmark investigations connected with this ongoing problem. They stated:

No approved procedures call for or allow the kind of abuse

that, in fact, occurred. There is no evidence of a policy of

abuse promulgated by senior officials or military

authorities.

Any discussion of detainee abuse must be kept in perspective. Substantiated cases of abusive conduct by DOD personnel are small in comparison to the 70,000 persons who have been detained and the hundreds of thousands of interrogations that have been conducted humanely, safely, and effectively over the past 4 years.

An independent commission would send potentially the wrong message to our Armed Forces of our lack of confidence in their conduct and would seriously undermine ongoing intelligence-gathering activities.

On a daily basis, we collect intelligence from detainees that provides valuable information to our troops in the field, whether it is Iraq or Afghanistan or other farflung posts. Simply put, this information saves American lives, certainly of the men and women in uniform, and I firmly believe it has helped prevent further serious attack, such as 9/11, on our Nation.

The investigative process has reassured the American people, strengthened the Armed Forces, and demonstrated to the world that we are a nation of laws. Last month, 90 Senators voted in the affirmative for an amendment that required civilized treatment of prisoners at detention facilities. That is the McCain amendment, and I have been a partner with him in the very initiation of those efforts.

The amendment banned cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment. That vote sent a strong signal. Who among us was not affected when Senator McCain said that he and fellow prisoners in Hanoi knew and took great strength from the belief that ``we were different from our enemies, that we were better than they, that we, if the roles were reversed, would not disgrace ourselves by committing or countenancing such mistreatment of them.''

Move on we must to win this war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Replaying these dreadful and inexcusable instances again in public forum will bring no remarkable insights and no lessons learned, nor will it do anything to reduce the fighting. It will, in fact, draw resources from the war effort by placing a heavy burden on senior commanders and key civilian leaders.

The Committee on Armed Services held over half a dozen hearings on this issue. We still have these matters under review. Still, the question of accountability remains, but we have to wait until there is a conclusion of more of the military cases before I think we probably will do our final work on this chapter, a chapter that I characterize-- that is Abu Ghraib--as one of the most serious I ever witnessed in my many years of public service, either in the Pentagon or in the Senate as a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Georgia. For that purpose, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on that point, I suggest that we now go to the bill. I believe there is a pending amendment which requires a UC to be laid aside; am I not correct?

I so ask at this time.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia. We are studying this amendment very carefully. I am anxious to get the views of my distinguished colleague, the ranking member, and his group.

As I listened carefully to the Senator's remarks, I was reminded by my own experience--I had a very modest career in the military--I think I spent a total of 14 years in the Marine Corps Reserve and witnessed and participated in a callup of the Reserves in connection with the war in Korea. I recall very vividly that war hit us out of the blue in the summer of 1950. The then-Secretary of Defense, Louis Johnson, under President Truman, was cutting and slashing the military right and left. It was down to the raw bone. Suddenly this war engulfed the United States and there were thoughts in the beginning that it would be fairly simple to end the war.

I remember MacArthur was commander in chief of the forces at that time, and he made a famous statement--I think it was in late September or October--that this war will be over and everybody will be home by Christmas.

Well, that was the fall of 1950, and action did not end until 1953, which had many names from the ``forgotten war'' to a ``police action,'' but it did cause over 50,000 casualties.

The point I wish to make is I witnessed with my own eyes the Reserves being brought in. I was with a group that was called up on 30 days' notice. Most of them had been in World War II. I had brief service at the end of World War II in the Navy. We were all basically former World War II veterans and just beginning to reestablish ourselves. It was only an interval of about 4 years since most had been released then in 1946 and, whammo, in 30 days we were in it.

At first I remember in the training detachments down in Quantico there was a decided feeling among the old regulars of the Marine Corps that we were second-class citizens, but once our folks hit the battlefield, whether it was on the ground or in the air--I was assigned to an air unit as a ground officer--Reserve pilots flew right along with the regular pilots, and one could not tell the difference. They pulled equal missions together, took equal risks. I do not know how the casualties bear out, but I know a lot--not a lot, but a number of our Reserve squadron lost their lives, wounded.

So I say to the Senator, as I listened, I thought back of those days and how

in the ensuing years that was the first time in the Korean War that we really involved the number of Reserves that were needed, and our regular forces then, not unlike now, had been pared down in numbers. As a consequence, today I believe 60 percent of the persons serving in Iraq are Reserves at this very moment. I use the term ``reserves'' to apply to the Guard as well. So they are full partners.

Then, fast forwarding, I remember serving in the Pentagon during Vietnam, and we decided to have, under the leadership of an extraordinary Secretary of Defense, Melvin Laird, the concept of a total force; in other words, whether one is Guard, Reserve, or regular, they are a total force. The total force concept moved on through the years.

I think the Senator is right on target. If the Senator will bear with us a little bit, we are trying to determine exactly how we are going to treat this amendment. At the moment I am very impressed with the Senator's objective. I ask forgiveness for taking the time of the Senate to dwell on what I actually saw years ago and have seen, as the Senator has, on our visits to Iraq, one cannot distinguish between the Guard and the Reserves. They are all amalgamated into the regulars. Actually, many Guard and Reserve units are functioning as units, somewhat augmented, I suppose, with some regular officers, and vice versa some of the regular units are augmented with the Reserve and Guard officers. But it certainly is a total force and a magnificent force we have serving today.

The Senator is right, all of these trends with regard to personnel, they begin to--it is like the awakening of the dawn. The sun does not break through, and one begins to wonder what about this cloud cover, and there is some cloud cover associated with the recent statistics regarding the introduction of new Guard and Reserve persons.

I will say I think the retention has been pretty good in many areas of our Guard and Reserves, but nevertheless we need an inducement. I think this amendment has the beginnings of something that is very important.

The Senator is a valued member of our committee. The Senator fought hard for this one. Give us a little time to work it around.

Mr. President, just to add a note, the Senator touched on this, but we cannot and do not--and I do not think this will--erode the base of pay and benefits given to the regular force. Those individuals have committed to a career in the military. In a career of 20 years, they will move 10 or 12 times. On the other hand, the reservist is at home, most of them, in a status where there is an ever-present risk of being called up. For that, I think they should be given some special recognition.

I believe the Senator has that embraced in these valuable ideas that the Senator has in this amendment.

That is because they are ready to respond and they have to, not just move on a set of orders, but they have to try to keep their families in place in their homes; they have to try to work out some relationship with their employers so they can go back. They have a whole set of problems that are quite different than those in the regulars.

I do not think in any way this legislation encroaches on the important category of benefits for the regular forces, but does things that recognize the importance of the Guard and Reserve.

I see another distinguished colleague on the floor.

Mr. President, if I might add, last year an amendment somewhat similar to this, but considerably more extreme in its reach, was considered by the Senate. At that time I, along with others, established the Commission on the National Guard and Reserve. It was included in our Defense Authorization Act. That commission is now in operation. As a matter of fact, the distinguished Senator from Georgia and I attended the opening meeting here just days ago. It has an extraordinary list of members. I ask unanimous consent to have a fact sheet and a list of membership printed in the Record.

They have begun their work and they will examine issues related to your amendment and to other structural missions and compensation of the Guard and Reserve Forces in the coming years.

I do not believe this commission, which is underway, should be used as a deterrent for the Senate to consider at this time the Senator's amendment. I point out that the subject he raised, that is intrinsic to this amendment, is under careful study by an extraordinary group of individuals appointed by myself, Senator Levin, our leaders, and others. That will be part of the Record.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senator from Maine has an amendment. It is one of the 12 amendments we have under the unanimous consent agreement. There is a time limit on it, of which the Senator is aware.

Mr. President, first, I wish to recognize our distinguished colleague from Maine, former member of the Armed Services Committee. We deeply regret that the Senator moved on, but she is now on the Tax Committee. As someone said, that is where the money is.

It is with great reluctance that I say to my good friend that we will have to very strongly oppose this. She makes an equitable argument, persuasive argument. But we have to take a look at the broad picture.

This is the fifth BRAC round. When the original legislation was written, there was quite an analysis put into that bill as to what happens to the properties if the BRAC Commission declares it to be closed. That framework of laws has guided four previous BRAC Commissions.

Let us step back and think. While this particular base, Brunswick-- and I know it well, having been Secretary of the Navy--served the Nation magnificently, I was somewhat surprised to see it was closed, but the decision was made. And believe me, BRAC also hit my State severely. The decision was made to close it. That is over. We can't repeal that. But this base property does not just belong to the citizens of Maine but all Americans. It is Federal property. As such, it is owned by all Americans. All Americans, through their tax collections, provided the funds to improve this base over the years and to maintain the base.

We have to be careful as the BRAC Commission lays down a matrix of closure adjustments all over America. In some instances, some communities would benefit enormously. Mind you, this bill governs BRAC decisions, wherever it was in the United States of America on BRAC round 5, the one currently being administered.

When Congress enacted the first BRAC law, they very carefully assessed that there would be so many different locations, different circumstances that we had to put down a series of steps that the BRAC Commission and subsequently those that are entrusted with the closing-- namely, the DOD--must follow by law.

For example, when a facility such as this is closed, the first thing to determine is, is there another military operation that could utilize this base? This was primarily a Naval base. It could well be needed by the Army or other departments of the military. That is the first thing. Are there other DOD missions? Second, other Federal agencies are constantly relocating and reestablishing areas. The Federal Government is disbursing a lot of it out of Washington. Could not this property, owned by all citizens of America, be utilized by another Federal agency?

It is rather interesting. Through the years, there has crept in a doctrine that the next priority should be, for example, maybe the Indian tribes. Oftentimes, there are agreements that go back years and years regarding Federal property that was once occupied by the Indians. Sometimes it might revert to the Indians. Maybe the Senator would seek to advise the Senate. I understand that the Senator recently amended the amendment to protect the interests of the Indians. But the Indians are only one small segment. A number of base installations, through the 16 years of BRAC, have been provided as shelters for the homeless.

Then we move down to the public benefit conveyances. Sometimes it was determined that these Federal facilities should be transferred to local transportation or to airport authorities or veterans centers.

In other words, there is another whole category of not quasi-Federal but certainly uses paralleling what the Federal Government provides people--that whole category.

Then they have economic redevelopment conveyances; again, as the Senator said, either at fair market value or DOD can determine certain circumstances so they could follow the very narrow provisions of the Senator's bill, turn it over to the local LRA. That is established maybe at no cost.

It is important that we don't take a carefully crafted, a carefully time-tested framework of laws regarding how the properties are to be used following a closure and suddenly wipe it off the books.

There are a number of old deeds. For example, one installation I have--Fort Monroe, which has been in business for a very long time-- under the deed, if BRAC were to close it--and indeed this time BRAC did close it--then it reverts to certain community interests.

This amendment, as I read it, would wipe out that deed.

I am not speaking from a selfish point of view. I am simply saying that there are other Senators who should very quickly, if they are inclined to support Senator Snowe's amendment, check with your local State to make sure that if you are affected by this round, the fifth round of BRAC, there may be some old deeds, conveyances, and agreements, with a facility having been closed in your State, as to how that facility then reverts to other interests.

This is not a very simple thing. You pull at the heartstrings when you talk about, yes, Maine can use it. I don't doubt that Maine can use it. It is a first-class facility. But it belongs to the taxpayers. They have paid for the construction of it. They have paid for years and years of maintenance.

I suggest the framework of laws which has been in existence these 16 years remain intact and this closure be conducted in a manner consistent with the closures that have taken place in the several States represented in this Senate over a period of some 16 years.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senator talks about cleanup, but over the years $1.4 billion has been recouped by the Department of Defense. That money simply goes to the Treasury to an account earmarked for precisely what the Senator from Michigan said, for cleanup and other expenses.

Again, the Federal taxpayers who once owned the land now do not have to add additional burdens out of their pockets for cleanup as a consequence of this existing framework of laws that has been there for 16 years that enable some properties to bring about money for the Federal Government, but it goes precisely into that account for the cleanup, to save Federal taxpayers the added burden of cleanup expenses. The Senator made a key point.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:30 today, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Allard amendment No. 2423, with no amendments in order to that amendment prior to the vote. My understanding is this request has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. President, the bill is open for further amendment, as Senator Levin and I are here.

Mr. President, first I want to clarify one thing. The distinguished Senator from Michigan, as the ranking member of our committee, participated in all of the hearings of the Armed Services Committee. There were many hearings on the issue of the detainees, Abu Ghraib. Then we went through the series of analyses by the Army inspector general. And on and on we went.

I do hope when he made a reference to sweeping things under the rug-- I do not think our committee ever tried to sweep anything under the rug.

Mr. President, I say to the Senator, when you use the term ``we,'' let's be more specific. You mean the Congress in its various oversight capacities? Maybe the Intelligence Committee, which basically has primary jurisdiction over intelligence issues, like you point out the intelligence aspects of this? The Foreign Relations Committee has held hearings on this issue. Indeed, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee has held some hearings. So I judge that the ``we'' you refer to is the broad responsibilities of the several committees in the Congress?

Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to make certain.

In our committee, you have sat side by side through almost every minute of the many hours of hearings we have had on this subject. While there may be areas which our committee may yet probe on this matter--as a matter of fact, I do not think the whole series of hearings we have had has come to a conclusion. We still have the issue of the overall accountability. So there may be some point in time--but I have always felt we should allow more of the court-martial and various Uniform Code of Military Justice prosecutions, which are underway, to be completed. I will be discussing that further with the Senator. But I just did not want it indicated that our committee had brushed anything under the table.

Mr. President, I see our distinguished colleague from Iowa has taken the floor on a matter relating to the bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we are going to take this amendment and study it. Senator Inhofe, who is quite interested in this subject, is unable to be here at this time, but tomorrow we will have further opportunity to debate it.

I am advised that the Department does not try to manage these programming agendas in such a way as to exclude, I am told, any particular political bent or bias. Rather they go out and use nationally known and presumably credible organizations that establish ratings and select programs which have very high ratings. In other words, people want to listen to them.

That is the procedure, as I understand it, that is being followed by the Department. I think Mr. Di Rita, who was trusted with this recently, made a statement to the effect that is the process. I will read from at this juncture a letter to Senator Levin from Lawrence Di Rita, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. It says:

Thank you for your October 19th letter to Secretary

Rumsfeld concerning the radio programming distributed by the

Armed Forces Radio and Television Services on its American

Armed Forces Network.

The [Armed Forces Radio] attempts to make available to

forces stationed overseas a breadth of programming that

reflects the quality and diversity that would be available to

servicemembers and their families if they were in the United

States.

AFRTS provides 105,000 hours of programming choices per

year to programmers at 33 stations around the world.

I understand we have 33 stations geographically around the world so that the beam can reach even the most remote of men and women in the Armed Forces. I am paraphrasing my own thoughts at this time. They are the ones, the 33 stations, that make pretty much the decision as to their region and the consumer interest among the uniform people in certain programs. So they provide 105,000 hours of programming at 33 stations around the world.

Programmers at individual stations choose from the . . .

mix of content they wish to air on their multiple broadcast

channels.

So there is a mix of Armed Forces Radio and Television Services programming, and then each of the 33 has a certain degree of autonomy. They go into that list and pick those programs they think their listeners will enjoy and utilize.

I am advised that the Armed Forces Radio and Television

Service managers are updating the programming mix and have

decided to include additional programs, including the Ed

Schultz Show, that apparently meet the criteria for that

[Armed Forces Radio and Television Service] managers apply to

such decisions.

As is the practice, these programs will be made available

to local [Armed Forces Radio and Television Service]

programmers. Local

programmers decide which programs are broadcast. These

programmers typically are military or civil servants who have

the best insights into the interests and preferences of their

local audiences.

[Armed Forces Radio and Television Service] managers will

continue to monitor the programming mix and do their best to

provide a broad, high quality range of choices for local

station managers.

I think the Senator's points are well taken, but it appears that this system is working well at the moment. But I judge the Senator has views to the contrary. The Senator from Iowa can respond on my time.

I certainly do not want the Senator to feel that we are trying to control these stations in such a manner as to preclude members of the Armed Forces and their families from having an opportunity to hear opinions that differ. So in the course of the evening, I and others will look into this. We thank our friend from Iowa.

Mr. President, I do not object, but we do have a 5-minute request from the other side of the aisle, I say to my distinguished colleague. We have the proponents of the amendment of the Senator from Colorado and others. I ask unanimous consent that the proponents of the amendment and those in opposition have at least 5 minutes each in addition to that. So that is 15. That would leave time for further debate by others on this amendment. So I would say at the hour of 5:15 that 5 minutes be allocated to Senator Salazar; is that correct?

To be followed by Senator Allard, to be followed by those of us who oppose the Allard amendment.

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

At this time, the Senator from Alabama will speak to the Allard amendment, which is the subject of a vote in 20 minutes. I give him 5 minutes, plus 2 or 3 other minutes. I thought he was right behind me.

The Allard amendment is rather a technical one. It requires our colleagues to be informed on this amendment. I am opposed to it, but I was asked to provide to the Senator from Alabama the time needed to speak to this amendment.

Will the Chair advise the managers with regard to the remaining time?

Basically there is 2 minutes left?

My colleague from Alabama has basically stated the case. But I must say this is a unique amendment among those I have encountered. You could induce laborers to have a slowdown at work so as not to finish it and so attenuate this right or some other benefit, while at the same time they were taking inducements for expediting the work.

I commend my good friend from Colorado. I know he fights hard for his constituents. But were we to see this type of precedent distributed to other situations in Government contracting across America, we would be opening up a very interesting line of arguments by a number of contractors and employees. So regrettably I have to oppose the amendment of my good friend from Colorado.

I yield the floor.

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

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, my understanding is that the majority leader and minority leader have determined that we will not have further votes tonight, but I advise colleagues we have a number of amendments which are almost completed and ready for a vote tomorrow. We anticipate--and I will, hopefully, be joined by my ranking member here--we can, during the course of business tomorrow, hear out the remainder of the amendments. I would hope so.

Mr. President, my understanding is that the clerk will require a period of time within which to compile this list.

Given that, Mr. President, I suggest that this bill now be laid aside, and I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, informally, I have been advised that tomorrow morning, in all likelihood, there will be a period for morning business, and that this bill will be brought up somewhere in the area of around 11 o'clock in the morning. So again, I am joined by my colleague from Michigan in urging Senators to complete the remainder of the debate time, an hour being given to each amendment. There are several amendments which have been debated in part. We will provide for the Record tonight the list of those amendments and the time remaining. Quite frankly, I am of the opinion we will have been able to have had the full hour of debate on all of the 12 amendments each side has had by the close of business tomorrow.

Now, ``close of business'' leaves a little bit to definition. We will certainly receive some recommendations from our joint leadership, but I would hope we could complete this bill tomorrow night.

Mr. President, I might suggest the Harkin amendment, which was debated very thoroughly today. The Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, desires to speak to that amendment and might possibly have an amendment in the second degree. So that one, in all likelihood, could be concluded. The Chambliss amendment is another amendment that I think will not require a great deal of further debate. It is a very strong amendment. It appears to me at this point to be one which I will recommend colleagues support.

Coming from your side?

Well, then, let's work together with a priority to try to have that done.

Mr. President, at this time, my understanding is the parliamentary situation is the bill is no longer before the Senate, to be brought up again tomorrow morning, and that at this point we are in morning business; is that correct?

Mr. President, seeing no one seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that MAJ Alison Thompson, a marine fellow on Senator Dole's staff, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the consideration of S. 1042.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Is the Senate now on the Defense bill?

Mr. President, now that we are on the bill, it is my intention to eventually deliver an opening statement, but in courtesy to our colleague from Florida--and I believe he will be followed by Senator McCain to be followed by Senator Allard--I think we ought to proceed immediately to the amendments. Senator Levin and I will be on the floor to assist all Senators who wish to bring any matters to the attention of the Senate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson, be recognized for 15 minutes, to be followed by the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, for such time as he requires, to be followed by the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Allard, to be followed on this side of the aisle--we are trying to alternate--with such amendments as Senator Levin may recommend.

Mr. President, I am opposed to Senator Bill Nelson's amendment, and I intend to introduce a second degree amendment that would give the Commission on Veterans' Disability Benefits, which Congress established to study survivor benefits, the opportunity to complete its work before further changes are made to the Survivor Benefit Plan, or SBP.

I oppose Senator Nelson's amendment, because this blue ribbon Commission on Veterans' Disability Benefits has been established, is currently at work examining this issue, and, I believe, will provide vitally needed facts and recommendations regarding veterans' benefits.

The commission includes two Medal of Honor winners, two Distinguished Service Cross winners, and 6 winners of the Silver Star. They can be relied on to provide a comprehensive study. The commission was established to help the Congress, DOD, and the Veterans Administration determine what steps should be taken to best assist disabled veterans and their families. We should not implement another change to the SBP until the Commission completes its work.

Let's remember that in last year's Defense Authorization Act, the Senate significantly improved benefits provided under the SBP. Congress directed the elimination of the so-called ``2-tier'' system which reduced the monthly SBP annuity when the survivor reached age 62. This was a significant change that works to the benefit of military retirees and their spouses. We should stop and allow an assessment by the commission of the effect of that change before we conclude that the SBP is in need of change.

Here is another consideration: Senator Nelson's amendment does not take into account the great improvements in death benefits for military survivors that have been enacted this year. There has been an increase in the death gratuity--from $12,000 to $100,000--and an increase from $250,000 to $400,000 in the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, or SGLI. These changes clearly are substantial, and

they have improved the quality of life for many of the survivors who my friend, Senator Nelson, advocates for today. There have been various other benefits implemented for retirees and their survivors since 2001.

I ask unanimous consent to have a list of these legislative improvements printed in the Record.

Mr President, the Department of Defense has opposed Senator Nelson's proposal.

I ask unanimous consent that the DOD points of opposition be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, finally we can't ignore the cost of this amendment. CBO estimates the cost of Senator Nelson's changes to the SBP as $903 million in Fiscal Year 2006 and $9.3 billion over 10 years. This is all mandatory spending for which there is no provision in the budget resolution and no offset in the legislation before us.

I urge my colleagues to support my second degree amendment and look to the Commission on Veterans' Disability Benefits before we implement any further changes to the Survivor Benefit Plan.

Will the Senator yield?

I ask unanimous consent to be an original cosponsor, as I have been consistently on the Senator's amendments. He will recall that our first meeting was when I was Secretary of the Navy when he returned from Vietnam. So our relationship on this issue has a long history, and I firmly believe it is in the best interest of the Department of Defense that this manual be the guide for our men and women of the U.S. military. I commend the Senator.

Mr. President, I think the Record should also reflect that in the course of my service as Under Secretary and Secretary of the Navy, I had the great privilege of working with the Senator's father, a naval officer without peer, distinction and achievement. He was commander in chief of all forces Pacific during several of those critical years in Vietnam when the Senator was incarcerated.

Mr. President, with regard to the McCain amendment on which I spoke in favor, I have an obligation as manager of the bill to present views of those who differ in some respects with Senator McCain and myself.

I ask unanimous consent that the remarks made by Mr. Stephen Hadley, National Security Adviser to the President, on Wednesday, November 2, be printed in the Record. The material is taken directly from a transcript, which I presume is authentic.

Mr. President, before we move to a vote, I see another colleague who may wish to speak to this issue, the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, who has been very much a part of the integral working group of Senator McCain, myself, and the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. President, I followed that statement with great care. I commend the Senator. I think he articulated the key issues. He used the word ``compromise'' and keeping an open mind.

I wish to assure those who are following this that our group that supports Senator McCain's amendment have taken careful consideration of the continuing need to collect our intelligence, first and foremost to protect our troops and, of course, first and foremost to protect our citizens back here in this Nation from terrorists or other attacks.

It is a balanced approach that we have tried to take on this, a careful one, thoughtfully moving each step of the way and entertaining carefully the views of others who have views different from our own.

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, we had announced earlier--I see my distinguished colleague, a member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Reed--that we would move to Senator Allard and then follow with the Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Reed.

Amendment No. 2423

Mr. President, I will speak in opposition to this amendment, but to accommodate a colleague who has remained on the floor, I yield such time as the distinguished Senator from Colorado, a former member of our committee, former expert on our committee on this subject, needs.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for bringing that point up. He is on that committee.

Therefore, you were participating at the time this took place.

And were the Senate to accede to the Reed amendment, it would, in effect, be overruling or reversing what the Appropriations Committee, through the conference report, will presumably bring before the Senate in a matter of days.

Mr. President, we thank our former member, the Senator from Colorado.

Would the Chair kindly advise the managers as to the time remaining on both sides for this amendment?

Mr. President, at this time I would like to grant time to our distinguished colleague from Alabama, a member of the Armed Services Committee, bearing in mind it is the desire of the manager to leave time for Monday. There are other colleagues on our side who wish to speak in opposition. We are pleased he will take the time to join us.

Mr. President, speaking on my time under my control on this amendment, I wish to express my opposition to this Levin-Reid amendment would transfer $50 million from the Ground-based Midcourse Defense, GMD, program to the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. The impact of this amendment would be, first and foremost, to delay the fielding of ballistic missile defense capabilities to protect the U.S. homeland against the threat posed by long-range ballistic missiles; and secondly, to cause a break in the production of ground-based interceptors, GBIs--a production break that would cost the government $270 million to restart.

While I agree with the sponsors of this amendment that the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program is an important national security initiative, the defense of our homeland against the growing threat of long-range ballistic missiles is equally, if not more, important.

Asking us to choose between missile defense protection and CTR is a false choice: we need to do both. And, in fact, this bill fully funds the President's requested amount for both programs.

The bill before the Senate authorizes the requested amount of $415.5 million for CTR programs within the Department of Defense, and $1.6 billion for other non-proliferation efforts in the Department of Energy. There is no current need for extra CTR funds; in fact, the CTR program has an unobligated balance of some $100 million. With a backlog in spending, it is hard to understand why the proponents of this amendment think that more money is needed at this time for the CTR program.

The President's budget for missile defense, on the other hand, has already

taken its share of cuts. Due to last minute decisions made at the Pentagon as the fiscal year 2006 budget was being finalized, the missile defense budget request was reduced by $1 billion in fiscal year 2006, and $5 billion overall between fiscal year 2006 and 2011.

Sponsors of this amendment argue that we should not provide long-lead funding for GBI missiles 31-40 because of recent test failures. I am mindful of the recent difficulties encountered by the GMD system test program, but in my view--and that of independent test authorities-- these difficulties do not represent serious technological hurdles for the GMD program. Indeed, such problems are to be expected during the research and development phase of complicated weapon systems.

To get at the root cause of these testing problems, the Director of the Missile Defense Agency, to his great credit, commissioned an independent review team, IRT, to examine these recent GMD test failures. The IRT found no fundamental GMD system design flaws related to the recent test failures. Moreover, the IRT found no evidence that major modifications of the current system hardware or software will be required. In other words, it is unlikely that future testing will find some major fault in the system that will require a costly retrofit to fielded GBIs.

For those of my colleagues concerned about testing, I point out that this bill before you contains a provision--developed in a bipartisan fashion during the committee's markup--which requires the Missile Defense Agency, the service operational test agencies, and the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation to plan and conduct tests that demonstrate the operational capability of the ballistic missile defense system. The bill also reallocates $100 million from longer term development efforts to GMD testing, consistent with the recommendations of the independent review team.

The current and growing threat posed to our country by long-range ballistic missiles argues for proceeding without delay with the Department's approach of concurrent testing and fielding of ballistic missile defense capabilities for the homeland.

Some of my colleagues suggest that because the current system is not fully proven, we should not procure additional missile interceptors. To this I would respond that General Cartwright, Commander of U.S. Strategic Command--the senior military official charged with advising the Secretary of Defense and the President on missile defense matters-- has testified, with respect to the current GMD system, that ``in an emergency, we are in fact in the position that we are confident that we can operate and employ it.''

In addition, the Pentagon's chief independent weapons tester, the Director for Operational Test and Evaluation, noted in his most recent Annual Report to Congress that ``the test bed architecture is now in place and should have some limited capability to defend against a threat missile from North Korea.''

In my view, it is a good thing that we have some capability--albeit limited--to defend the homeland against long range missiles. For as General Cartwright testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in April, ``we have a realistic threat here; we have an imperative.''

General Cartwright is referring to CIA and DIA estimates that the North Korean Taepo-Dong 2 ballistic missile is capable of reaching the United States with a nuclear warhead--and that North Korea could resume flight testing of the Taepo-Dong 2 at any time. The Defense Intelligence Agency also estimates that Iran will have the capability to develop intercontinental ballistic missile, IBCM, by 2015.

We simply can't wait until the threat is upon us to deploy missile defenses; we can't wait until the GMD system is fully and completely tested before we start providing some measure of protection against this threat. It is our responsibility to field what capabilities currently exist, even while we continue to test and improve the system. By continuing to field missile defenses today, we send a message to potential adversaries that we will not be deterred or coerced by their possession of long-range ballistic missiles.

In summary, I ask my colleagues to reject the amendment offered by Senator Levin. This amendment would needlessly delay the fielding of a ballistic missile defense capability to protect the homeland. As the Commander of STRATCOM warns, the threat is real. We must continue on the current path of fielding available capabilities--even while testing continues to improve the system over time.

Mr. President, at this time I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will yield a few minutes to me before he departs the floor?

There are evolving aspects with regard to the underlying goal of this amendment, as he and I speak, on information which is circulating which goes to how the administration dealt with these issues.

I am going to reserve until Monday exactly the approach the Senator from Virginia is going to take. I wish to consult with a number of my colleagues in that connection. But I wish to point out two things.

The Senator from Michigan said we should face--speaking, of course, to the committee but also the United States and colleagues in the Senate--this issue square on. I know my distinguished friend and colleague of so many years would say, by virtue of him and me being the two principal cosponsors of the McCain amendment, that we are within the rights of this committee facing certain aspects of this issue head on as it relates to the future conduct of this country.

I also hope at some point in our debate that we can address the very valuable contribution that two individuals, together with the staff and a third member of the commission--namely, former Secretary of Defense Schlesinger and former Secretary of Defense Harold Brown. Each of those extraordinary men--and I have been privileged to know and work with each of them quite closely through the years. Actually, I served under three Secretaries of Defense when I was in the Navy Department as Secretary, and one of them, the last, was Secretary Schlesinger. He remains to this day one of my closest confidantes and advisers on a wide range of issues.

Harold Brown, my colleague, the Senator from Michigan, will recall, I sponsored--and I think the Senator from Michigan joined me when I was on the Intelligence Committee in an overall review of our intelligence. The first chairman of that commission was a distinguished former Member of Congress, Les Aspin, and then, following his untimely death, Harold Brown. I

was the one who recommended he take over the work on that commission, on which I was privileged to serve as a member.

A lot of things have been done to address the issue, which is the goal of this amendment. Again, I am going to reserve until Monday just how I am going to further approach this issue, but I wanted to bring those two points up should the Senator from Michigan wish to comment on either.

The order has it that the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island will now continue his contribution to the Levin amendment.

Mr. President, this amendment is one of great importance and has far-reaching consequences. As I said, as we speak, there are some facts coming into the public domain. I have no idea of evaluating their authenticity, but it does, in my judgment, bear on this issue. Therefore, speaking for myself, we will have further statements regarding this amendment Monday and quite likely Tuesday before we vote.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am delighted my distinguished colleague, a member of the committee, would like to contribute his thoughts on this very important issue and take such time, I think up to 5 or 6 minutes.

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

Mr. President, we have had a very good and productive morning on the Defense authorization bill, a continuation by the Senate of that important legislation.

Matters relating to the bill are concluded. I will now await the directions of the majority leader as to the concluding of today's proceedings before the Senate.

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 further ask unanimous consent there now be a period of morning business with

Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Major Ken Casey, an Army fellow on Senator Chambliss' staff, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the consideration of S. 1052, the fiscal year 2005 national Defense authorization bill.

Mr. President, under rule XIV, I understand there is a bill at the desk that is due for a second reading.

In order to place the bill on the calendar under provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceeding.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on today's Executive Calendar: Nominations 422, 423, 427, 429, 430, 431 and 434 and all nominations on the secretary's desk.

I further ask unanimous consent the nominations be considered en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.