Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today in support, once again, of America's teachers by joining with Senator Collins in introducing the Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2005.

Senator Collins and I have worked closely for some time now in support of legislation to provide our teachers with tax relief in recognition of the many out-of-pocket expenses they incur as part of their profession. In the 107th Congress, we were successful in providing much needed tax relief for our Nations' teachers with passage of H.R. 3090, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002.

This legislation, which was signed into law by President Bush, included the Collins-Warner Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2001 provisions that provided a $250 above the line deduction for educators who incur out-of-pocket expenses for supplies they bring into the classroom to better the education of their students. These important provisions provided almost half a billion dollars' worth of tax relief to teachers all across America in 2002 and 2003.

In the 108th Congress we were able to successfully extend the provisions of the Teacher Tax Relief Act for 2004 and 2005.

While these provisions will provide substantial relief to America's teachers, our work is not yet complete.

It is now estimated that the average teacher spends $521 out of their own pocket each year on classroom materials--materials such as pens, pencils and books. First year teachers spend even more, averaging $701 a year on classroom expenses.

Why do they do this? Simply because school budgets are not adequate to meet the costs of education. Our teachers dip into their own pocket to better the education of America's youth.

Moreover, in addition to spending substantial money on classroom supplies, many teachers spend even more money out of their own pocket on professional development. Such expenses include tuition, fees, books, and supplies associated with courses that help our teachers become even better instructors.

The fact is that these out-of-pocket costs place lasting financial burdens on our teachers. This is one reason our teachers are leaving the profession. Little wonder that our country is in the midst of a teacher shortage.

Without a doubt the Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2001 took a step forward in helping to alleviate the Nation's teaching shortage by providing a $250 above the line deduction for classroom expenses.

However, it is clear that our teachers are spending much more than $250 a year out of their own pocket to better the education of our children.

Accordingly, Senator Collins and I have joined together to take another step forward by introducing the Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2005.

This legislation will build upon current law in three ways. The legislation will: (1) Increase the above-the-line deduction, as President Bush has called for, from $250 allowed under current law to $400; (2) allow educators to include professional development costs within that $400 deduction. Under current law, up to $250 is deductible but only for classroom expenses; and (3) make the teacher tax relief provisions in the law permanent. Current law sunsets the Collins/Warner provisions after 2005.

Our teachers have made a personal commitment to educate the next generation and to strengthen America. And, in my view, the Federal Government should recognize the many sacrifices our teachers make in their career.

The Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2005 is another step forward in providing our educators with the recognition they deserve.

Mr. President, I rise today to share my views on the legislation before the Senate, S. 397, the gun liability bill.

From the outset, let me make clear: I am a strong supporter of measured, balanced, and fair tort reform. In my over 27 years in the Senate, I have consistently supported measures to reform our legal system when such measures benefit the American people as a whole, benefit our Nation's economy, and still remain fair to legitimate victims who have been wrongfully injured due to the wrongful actions of another.

Without a doubt, the gun , liability bill tries to address a very real problem in America. There is no question that the gun industry in this country is under legal siege from frivolous lawsuits. These lawsuits threaten the very vitality of the gun industry in America and, by extension, the ability of those of us who enjoy hunting, sport shooting, and the collecting of vintage guns, as I have done nearly all of my life. In my view, there is no question that law abiding gun manufacturers and law-abiding gun dealers deserve some measure of fair, balanced legal reform.

But equally true is that the gun liability bill before us today is an overly broad solution to a serious problem because it will immunize from legitimate lawsuits for negligence those very few, I repeat, very few irresponsible gun dealers and manufacturers in the industry whose actions, again and again, contribute to violent crime in this country.

This wide grant of immunity undoubtedly comes with unintended consequences.

For example, we know that under this bill, if it were law at the time, the victims of the DC area sniper shootings would have been unable to pursue their claim against an unbelievably negligent gun dealer who allowed the snipers to steal the weapon they used to kill so many innocent victims. This wasn't the first time this dealer had been negligent in accounting for its gun inventory. Indeed, it had previously lost over 200 weapons over a short period of time. This dealer had a track record of again and again losing firearms. That is why they were sued, and that is why the dealer ultimately settled the sniper victim's lawsuit for $2.5 million. The gun liability bill, though, would have rewarded this dealer's bad behavior by granting it immunity for these egregious acts.

I offered an amendment to correct this flaw. My amendment would have ensured that the 99 percent of law-abiding gun dealers in America would be protected from frivolous lawsuits, but ensured that those very few irresponsible gun dealers were not rewarded with immunity for their bad behavior. Unfortunately, procedural maneuvers made by others in accordance with Senate rules prevented me from obtaining an up-or-down vote on my germane amendment. So these defects in the bill remain uncorrected.

Over the course of the past week, these issues, both the pros and cons of this bill, have been extensively debated here in the Senate. The issues are clear. On the one hand, the need for tort reform for the gun industry is very real. On the other hand, I believe this is an overly broad measure that will likely treat some future victims of gun crimes unfairly.

These factors are not easy to weigh.

But as I went through the process of examining this legislation and listening to the debate, one particular point seemed to always stick out above all others. And that is the preeminent importance of America's national security.

As the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I recently requested that the Department of Defense review this legislation. In its reply, the Department's Office of General Counsel stated that the Department supports this gun liability legislation because it ``would help safeguard our national security by limiting unnecessary lawsuits against an industry that plays a critical role in meeting the procurement needs of our men and women in uniform.'' I ask unanimous consent to include a copy of this letter in the Record.

(See exhibit 1.)

Indeed, the gun industry does play a crucial role in helping to equip the men and women of our Armed Forces. Companies like Beretta U.S.A., Colt Manufacturing, and others supply a host of weapons and small arms that are vital to our military.

This fact is significant because the truth of the matter is that, for a variety of complex reasons, America's military is increasingly being forced to turn to foreign sources for new technology. We simply cannot afford to lose more and more technical expertise if we want to ensure that our men and women in uniform will always have the best equipment and the best technology in the world. Our national security is dependent on having home-grown talent and expertise, and this legislation will help ensure that we do.

Ultimately, it is for these reasons that I have decided to cast my vote in support of this legislation.

Exhibit 1

Department of Defense,

Office of General Counsel,

Washington, DC, July 29, 2005.

Hon. John Warner,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: We are pleased to provide you with the

Department of Defense's view on S. 397, a bill to ``prohibit

civil liability actions from being brought or continued

against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of

firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other

relief resulting from the misuse of their products by

others.''

The Department of Defense strongly supports this

legislation.

We believe that passage of S. 397 would help safeguard our

national security by limiting unnecessary lawsuits against an

industry that plays a critical role in meeting the

procurement needs of our men and women in uniform.

The Office of Management and Budget advises that, from the

standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no

objection to the presentation of this letter for the

consideration of the committee.

Sincerely,

Daniel J. Dell'Orto,

Acting.

Mr. President, I rise today to commend an outstanding public servant, Judy Ansley, who for many years has worked as diligently and as ably as anyone with whom I have had the privilege of serving during my years in the Senate.

When I was vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I selected Judy Ansley to serve as the first woman minority staff director. Today, Judy is the first woman staff director of the Senate Armed Services Committee which I chair.

How proud I am; how proud the Senate is that Judy has been selected to be the Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for European Affairs at the National Security Council. The administration could not have made a better choice for this important post, and I am confident that Judy will serve her country with dignity and honor, as she has done throughout her extensive career in public service.

My only regret is that Judy Ansley will be leaving the Armed Services Committee after next week to move to the White House. Over the course of the last 6 years, Judy has dedicated her time, energy, and intelligence to the work of the committee with great enthusiasm. As the deputy staff director and staff director, Judy has provided excellent leadership to the committee during challenging times, and I am deeply thankful for her profound concern for the issues facing the men and women of our armed services. I am sure that my colleagues on the committee would agree that she has been an indispensable resource for our efforts. In those instances where she had professional views in opposition to mine, she has never hesitated to express them. I trust that she will most respectfully do the same for the President.

As the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, I have had the opportunity to observe closely Judy's indefatigable efforts. Before she joined the committee, Judy served as my national security adviser for 5 years, and her keen judgment and incisiveness were readily apparent throughout her work. Truly, while I am pleased that the administration will be gaining such a remarkable asset, I will miss Judy's counsel and extraordinary nature. I send my deepest gratitude to Judy as she begins her transition to the National Security Council, and I join with her wonderful family, husband Steve and daughters Rachel and Megan, in celebrating this achievement.

Mr. President, I also take this opportunity to announce Judy's successor as staff director for the Armed Services Committee. I have asked Mr. Charles S. Abell, the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, to become the new staff director, and it gives me great pleasure to note that he has accepted this responsibility.

A humble and devoted patriot, Charlie Abell has served his country with valor in every endeavor. Before joining the administration, Charlie was an exceptional member of the Armed Services Committee professional staff. During his years with the committee staff, Charlie was the lead staffer for the Subcommittee on Personnel, including issues of military readiness and quality of life. A highly decorated soldier, he retired from the Army as a lieutenant colone1 after 26 years of distinguished service, and he brought a profound insight to his duties with the committee. I was privileged to work with this outstanding individual during his previous term with the committee, and I look forward to collaborating with him in the months ahead.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to the 10 courageous sailors who lost their lives in Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom on 28 June 2005 by printing the eloquent words of U.S. Navy RADM Joseph Maguire, Commander, Naval Special Warfare Command, during a memorial speech at Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek on July 8, 2005.

I ask unanimous consent to print this tribute in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to associate myself with these exceptional remarks by Admiral Maguire. Our great country will forever owe these courageous SEALs a debt of gratitude for their selfless actions in battle on June 28, 2005. While I am sorry that the families of these men have suffered such an irreplaceable loss, I am proud that America produced such fine gentlemen who valiantly answered the call to defend these United States. Recalling our national anthem, I say, we would not be ``the land of the free'' were we not also the ``home of the brave.''

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to the 10 courageous sailors who lost their lives in Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom on June 28, 2005, by reading the eloquent words of U.S. Navy CAPT Pete Van Hooser, Commander, Naval Special Warfare Group Two, during a memorial speech at Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek on July 8, 2005.

I ask unanimous consent to print this tribute in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to recognize and pay tribute to GEN Louis Hugh Wilson, Jr., U.S. Marine Corps, 26th Commandant of the Corps. General Wilson was the embodiment of everything the Marine Corps and our Nation stands for. I am honored to read the eloquent eulogy delivered by General Carl Epting Mundy, Jr., U.S. Marine Corps, 30th Commandant of the Corps, delivered in the Old Chapel, Fort Myer, Virginia, 19 July 2005, in General Wilson's memory.

I ask unanimous consent to print this tribute in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to recognize and pay tribute to CAPT Kenneth J. Panos, U.S. Navy. Captain Panos will retire from the Navy on September 1, 2005, having completed an exemplary 26-year career of service to our Nation.

Captain Panos was born in Union, NJ, and is a 1979 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy. He also earned a masters degree in Financial Management from the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA.

During his military career, Captain Panos excelled at all facets of his chosen profession. As a naval aviator, he deployed to South America and the Caribbean. While serving aboard USS Paul (FF 1096), Captain Panos participated in peacekeeping operations in the waters off Beirut, Lebanon.

In 1986, Captain Panos was redesignated a full-time support officer in the Navy Reserve. He reported aboard Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron (Light)-94 as the head of the Maintenance, Training and Administration Departments and achieved 1,000 flight hours in the SH-2F Seasprite while deployed aboard various Navy Reserve Force frigates. His outstanding capacity for leadership was recognized when he was selected as the HSL-94 Junior Officer of the Year in 1988. During Captain Panos' tour as the assistant reserve programs director/reserve service officer and later department head at Naval Air Station Willow Grove, he transitioned to fixed-wing aircraft and achieved an airline transport pilot rating while flying the UC-12B transport.

Captain Panos made good use of his graduate degree in financial management with assignments in the Aviation

Budgets and Requirements Office; the Chief of Naval Operations' Staff where he was assistant for aircraft procurement; research, design, test & evaluation; and ship construction appropriations; the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Financial Management; and as the director, Programming and Financial Management Division for the Chief of Navy Reserve. Many of my colleagues know Captain Panos from his service as the Navy's legislative affairs liaison for Reserve matters and anti-terrorism/force protection programs.

The U.S. Navy is a better Navy thanks in part to the talent and dedication of CAPT Kenneth J. Panos. While Captain Panos' retirement means the Navy will lose a fine officer, I am happy to report to this body that he has found a replacement. His oldest son, Michael, is currently a midshipman at the U.S. Naval Academy. His youngest son, Robert, is a sophomore at Robinson Secondary School in Fairfax, Virginia. I know all of my colleagues join me in congratulating Ken, his hometown sweetheart and wife Karen, as well as Michael and Robert, on the completion of an outstanding military career.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 32 years of service to our Nation of Sergeant Edward Owen Humphreys, U.S. Capitol Police, as he retires from the force.

Edward Humphreys was born and raised in Chesapeake Beach, MD, the son of Louise and Edward Humphreys. Sergeant Humphreys attended Calvert County public schools, graduating from Calvert High School in June of 1967. Soon after graduation, in 1968, Humphreys voluntarily joined the U.S. Navy, and proudly served 4 years during the Vietnam war. During his service in the Navy, Second Class Petty Officer Humphreys served on the USS Kitty Hawk and was a member of the VF 213 Black Lions F-14 fighter squadron. He spent his Navy time in the Pacific, with service in Japan, China, Hong Kong, Australia, Hawaii, and the Philippines.

After returning home from duty in the Navy, it was not long before Humphreys decided to continue his service to country by joining the U.S. Capitol Police in August of 1973. During his many years of duty in the Nation's Capitol, Sergeant Humphreys has worked in the Rayburn House Office Building, Communications, Patrol Division, and is currently assigned to the Senate Chamber section.

Sergeant Humphreys will enjoy his well-earned retirement with his wife of over 30 years, Leslie, and their daughters Casey and Lindsey. Even in retirement, Sergeant Humphreys will continue to serve his local community as a member and administrator of the North Beach Volunteer Fire Department--which he joined at age 16.

On behalf of the Senate, I am pleased to thank Sergeant Humphreys for his service to country and wish him well in his future endeavors.

Mr. President, I rise today to commend an outstanding public servant, Judy Ansley who for many years has worked as diligently and as ably as anyone with whom I have had the privilege of serving during my years in the Senate. Today Judy serves as the first woman staff director of the Senate Armed Services Committee. During my time as vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Judy was the minority staff director.

How proud I am; how proud the Senate is that Judy Ansley has been selected for the position of Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for European Affairs at the National Security Council. The administration could not have made a better choice for this important post, and I am confident that Judy will serve her country with dignity and honor, as she has done throughout her extensive career in public service.

My only regret is that Judy Ansley will be stepping down as the staff director for the Armed Services Committee after next week. Over the course of the last 6 years, Judy has dedicated her time, energy, and intelligence to the work of the Committee with great enthusiasm. As the deputy staff director and staff director, Judy has provided exceptional leadership to the committee during challenging times, and I am deeply grateful for her profound concern for the issues facing the men and women of our armed services. I am confident that my colleagues on the committee would agree that she has been an indispensable resource for our efforts.

In those instances where she had professional views in opposition to mine, she never hesitated to express them. I trust she will most respectfully continue to offer her candid assessments in her new job at the White House.

As the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, I have had the opportunity to observe closely Judy's indefatigable efforts. Before she joined the committee, Judy served as my national security advisor for 5 years, and her keen judgment and incisiveness were readily apparent throughout her work. Truly, while I am pleased that the administration will be gaining such a remarkable asset, I will miss Judy's wise counsel. I send my deepest gratitude to Judy as she begins her transition to the National Security Council, and I join with her wonderful family--husband Steve and daughters Megan and Rachel--in celebrating this achievement.

I also take this opportunity to announce Judy's successor as staff director for the Armed Services Committee. I have asked Mr. Charles S. Abell, the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, to become the new staff director, and it gives me great pleasure to note that he has accepted this responsibility.

A humble and devoted patriot, Charlie Abell has served his country with valor in every endeavor. Before joining the administration, Charlie was an exceptional member of the Armed Services Committee professional staff. During his years with the committee staff, Charlie was the lead staffer for the Subcommittee on Personnel, including issues of military readiness and quality of life. A highly decorated soldier, he retired from the Army as a lieutenant colonel after 26 years of distinguished service. I was privileged to work with this outstanding public servant during his previous term with the Committee, and I look forward to collaborating with him in the months ahead.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, and I thank the managers for the courtesy they showed us in the course of managing this bill.

I rise, as I did in the previous consideration of this bill, to support my colleague from Michigan. I do so because I basically want to be counted among those who are trying to bring a measure of relief to those professional people, such as doctors and educators, a whole list of people I enumerated last night when I addressed this bill on the Senate floor, who need help. In my judgment, Senator Levin--both of us are lawyers--is reaching back to the very fundamentals of the common law. These standards which the Senator wishes to have in this bill are the same standards that have withstood the test of time in court litigation from the very beginning of the judicial process, indeed in England and in our country. It is for that reason that I support it.

I also draw the attention of my colleagues to my amendment, which is not pending, but as I understand, it is filed at the desk, amendment No. 1625. I rise at this time to speak to it because it really addresses, in a very narrow way, one of the ultimate goals of the Senator from Michigan.

My concern is that the gun dealers across America need some protection themselves in this legislation. Ninety-nine percent are honest, law-abiding citizens. Yet they are subjected to the problems of our society today; namely, people can come in and steal from them.

My amendment adds to the bill, which has a provision in it on page 8 of the exclusions, and it would simply say, in actions brought against a gun dealer, a dealer which has a record of misconduct, negligence, and other types of criteria should not be entitled to the exemptions provided by this piece of legislation. So I want to be supportive. It protects those dealers who are trying to act in a lawful way who may have an accident, for some reason, and it does clearly remove from the protection of this bill dealers such as the one the Senator cited in the sniper case which struck my State of Virginia and Maryland and the District and paralyzed our businesses. People were afraid to go out on the street at night to conduct their ordinary affairs of life because of the threats.

That was a stolen weapon from a gun dealer that, for one reason or another, allowed some 200 weapons to disappear from the shelves of that store or inventory over a period of a year or two. That dealer, in my judgment, would be protected as it now stands, unless the provisions comparable to perhaps those from the Senator from Michigan or in my amendment are brought to the attention of the Senate. At some time, I will arduously try to get my amendment in that status--I believe it is germane--that it can be considered by this body, as is the amendment of the Michigan Senator now being reviewed.

So I say to my distinguished manager, I hope that whatever procedure by which you hereby determine such amendments can be heard--others not--that mine, which I understand is germane, can be heard by the Senate at an appropriate time.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the managers of the bill for keeping the Senate advised. I have an amendment that has been filed. I think at this point I will make the motion and ask for the reaction of the managers.

Mr. President, at this time, I ask unanimous consent that we lay aside the pending amendment such that my amendment No. 1625, which is on file, could be given the status of the pending amendment.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend for being absolutely forthright. I am fully aware of the parliamentary situation. The distinguished majority leader and the Democratic leader--to the extent that he has participated--are acting within the rules of the Senate. I do not ascribe any impropriety whatsoever to the exercise by any Senator at any time of the rules of the Senate. But it does put persons like myself who feel very strongly about amendments we have in a unique situation. I would like to support this bill, but I have grave reservations about those provisions relating to the dealers, and I'd like to have my amendment considered. I will express them momentarily. But the parliamentary situation, as the Senator has explained, does not allow me the opportunity at this juncture--although I may persist by other means--to get this amendment to be given the pending status.

I inquire of the Presiding Officer if the Parliamentarian would examine amendment No. 1625 to determine whether it is germane.

I thank the Chair. So I have here an amendment that is clearly germane. I regret deeply that I am not able to bring it up such that I and other Senators could debate it and have a rollcall vote, which I would ask for, and if granted, we could allow each Senator to express his or her views on this amendment.

Now, the manager said that we had a debate on the Levin amendment, and I supported the goal of the Senator from Michigan. And I listened to my distinguished colleague from Ohio as he spoke on this general subject. But my amendment is quite different from the Levin amendment. The Levin amendment would cause the gun industry, as some said, to suffer a death by a thousand cuts because it would essentially gut the bill. The Warner amendment does not come anywhere near to gutting the bill.

I feel very strongly that of the gun dealers across this country, if we were able to make an assessment and evaluation, 99 percent of them are law-abiding citizens. They not only want to stay within the law, but they also do not want to be a part in any way of the use of a firearm that might be involved in a crime.

My amendment is to focus in on those dealers who have, over a period of time, experienced, again and again, the loss of firearms from their inventory. And if it can be factually established that a dealer has a record of practices that for one reason or another--probably due to negligence--enables weapons in that dealer's inventory to find their way illegally into the hands of criminals, then that dealer should not be granted the benefits afforded by this bill. Nor should such dealers be spared from a closer inquiry into why they have an established record of having guns go out of that dealership that they cannot account for.

My amendment does not affect the protection from the frivolous lawsuits that exist under this bill. My amendment only addresses that narrow category of dealers who have a record of, again and again, mismanaging their inventory in such a way that they cannot account for a large number of weapons.

More specifically, my amendment does not take away the protections which 99 percent of the gun dealers should be able to avail themselves of, the honest ones, under this bill. I don't do that. My amendment is solely directed at those very few--I repeat, very few--dealers who have established a history of lost or stolen weapons as defined by the Attorney General of the United States pursuant to regulations that my amendment would call upon the Attorney General to promulgate for the industry. My amendment would enable the industry and, most particularly, the small gun dealers to know exactly what are the regulations that should be followed to maintain that inventory and conduct their business so that weapons cannot disappear and, by such disappearance, fall into the hands of criminals. That is what my amendment does. Maybe 1 percent of the dealers would be affected by this amendment. The other 99 percent are accorded the benefits of the underlying legislation.

Why can't we in the Senate voice our opinions on this concept? Regrettably, the decision has been made that at this time the amendment cannot be, even though germane, brought up in such a way as the entire Senate can focus upon it.

My amendment is not an attempt to gut the bill. Indeed, I recognize the gun industry, as I said last night, needs some reasonable, balanced, measure of tort reform. My amendment is offered in good faith, I say to the Senate. It is not just to protect the possible victims from criminal use of a weapon, but it is to protect the law- abiding gun dealers.

If this legislation remains as it is now, without some type of correction, such as mine, there will undoubtedly be unintended consequences.

We need look no further than our own backyard, based on the experiences we had here in the Nation's Capital and in adjoining Maryland and in my State of Virginia, with snipers committing wanton murder. The snipers illegally obtained their gun out of a gun shop that the record shows lost over 200 weapons over a period of a year or two. If another such tragic incident were to occur with a gun dealer who had a similar record of irresponsibility, and that gun dealer was immune from lawsuit, that would cast a very negative feeling all across America toward the gun industry and the gun dealers. They would be called to task to explain why they supported a law, if this is to become law, that would allow that to happen.

My words are one thing, but I want to bring to the attention of the Senate

a document that I find very interesting. In my modest career in the Nation's Capital and in Virginia, I have met a number of lawyers in my time, but one whom recently passed on--I remember working with him on a number of cases, even when I was in private practice--I will never forget. I go that far back, knowing Lloyd N. Cutler of the prestigious law firm of Wilmer, Cutler, and Pickering.

Lloyd Cutler was asked by the Brady organization--Jim Brady, we all remember, was President Reagan's press secretary who suffered a frightful injury at the time there was an assassination attempt against our President. He and his courageous wife in the ensuing years have been unrelenting in their efforts to try and have a balance across America between the rights of those who acquire guns under the second amendment--and I strongly support the second amendment of the Constitution.

But in any event, on January 15, 2004, Mr. Cutler wrote the organization which asked him to diagnose cases and the basic tenets and provisions of the legislation that is pending today.

I ask unanimous consent to print portions of this opinion into the Record.

Mr. President, I will read the last paragraph:

Accordingly, I conclude that the Johnson case does not fall

within the saving provision of the Daschle amendment or any

other saving provision of S. 1805 would have to be dismissed

if S. 1805 were enacted into law.

S. 1805 is legislation from the 108th Congress that is nearly exact to the bill before us today in the Senate. The Johnson case is a case brought by the victims of the DC snipers--I repeat, the DC snipers, the serious murders about which I spoke. Those victims could not have collected had this underlying legislation before the Senate been law at that time.

Is that what this Senate wants? I don't think so. I think I, and possibly other Senators, deserve the opportunity to go into greater length with regard to that provision which does not by any reading give the protection that is needed to victims should a dealer again and again have lost or stolen weapons from its inventory utilized for purposes of a crime. The bill as drafted does not give the protection we need, and I simply ask, let us impose on the Attorney General of the United States, if this legislation were to pass and remain on the books for an indeterminate period, let that Attorney General of the United States decide how best to analyze the gun dealers to establish a framework of regulations that would guide them in the conduct of their business such that we hope a weapon would never escape the inventory and find its way into the hands of the criminal.

I fear some day we are going to see another case. I hope not. But if we do, maybe somebody will come back and examine the record of this colloquy and this debate and reflect on the gun industry's desire to get legislation that does not protect the American public against the negligence and wrongful actions of a very small percentage of gun dealers, maybe at most 1 or 2 percent. That is all I ask.

I see the manager. Does the manager wish to pose a question?

Please. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to reply to my good friend. The Senator is absolutely correct about the reporting requirements, but the reality is that some dealers ignore those requirements. They are totally unscrupulous, negligent, and ignore them. The recordkeeping requirements did not

prevent Bull's Eye from losing 200 guns. They went ahead and ignored it. I strongly urge that we allow my amendment. It is but really one sentence. It simply says: On page 8, line 21, before the semicolon insert the following, or an action against a seller that has an established history of qualified products--that is the guns--being lost or stolen, under such criteria as shall be established by the Attorney General of the United States by regulation for an injury or death caused by a qualified product that was in the possession of the seller but subsequently lost or stolen.

We have to have a stronger enforcement mechanism than is in the underlying bill. It has to be strengthened. I say to my good friend, I respectfully disagree, and I think the confirmation by this distinguished counsel, Lloyd Cutler, who concluded that had this statute that the Senator seeks been in effect at the time of the snipers, they could have gotten out from under it.

Some sellers of guns repeatedly are losing firearms or having guns stolen and that is irresponsible behavior on its face. It has to be regulated, and it has to be regulated by the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, the Attorney General.

So I thank the Senator for the opportunity to speak to this. I once again plead with the Senator to allow this amendment, which is germane. If it were not germane, I would say to myself I gave it a good try. I ask the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, is this amendment of mine involved in any discussions, might I inquire?

Mr. President, it was my understanding that the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island and the distinguished Senator from Idaho were working on a possible package of amendments, and the Senator now advises me my amendment is in that package under consideration. Is that a fact?

If I may make a brief reply, I thank my colleague from Rhode Island. I think the managers are working on this situation. I am glad that my amendment is part of the consideration, and I just hope it is granted. As far as the business of the Senate, I entrust it to the majority leader and the Democratic leader as to what matters should be taken up at what time in relation to this bill. So I cannot make any comment on that and do not make one.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Record on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

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

Mr. President, I so amend my request to the Presiding Officer for the purpose of filing the amendment. I marvel at the parliamentary situation of the managing of this bill. Perhaps if I had done something similar, I would now be on the Defense bill. But nevertheless, we are where we are.

Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment, but I will file it at the present time and hope at some point I can be recognized for the purpose of having this placed into the queue.

I thought I made that request to the Chair. I failed to communicate. I now make that request.

From the outset, let me make it clear I have long been a supporter of tort reform. I believe the proliferation of baseless lawsuits and runaway jury awards is having a profound negative effect on many Americans, and indeed on the American economy. For these reasons I was a strong supporter of the Class Action Fairness Act that was signed into law earlier this year. I also support reforming the asbestos litigation system and I support medical malpractice liability reform.

In my view, measured, balanced reforms to our tort system can address very real problems. That is the purpose of this amendment.

Indeed, throughout history Congress has responded to very real problems in our tort system by passing reasonable tort reform measures. In 1994, Congress passed the General Aviation Revitalization Act. The law does not bar lawsuits altogether against the airline industry. Instead, it bars any product liability suit against a manufacturer involving planes more than 18 years old with fewer than 20 seats.

I remember that legislation as if it were yesterday, to the everlasting credit of one of my classmates, who joined when I came into the Senate 20-some-odd years ago, Nancy Kassebaum. She was the author of that historic breakthrough in tort reform as a Senator.

In 1996, Congress passed the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act. This law, which was intended to address the legal uncertainties that prevented food donation, provided limited immunity to certain individuals who are involved in the donation of food. It is important to note, however, that immunity does not apply in cases of gross negligence or intentional misconduct.

In 2001, Congress passed the Paul Coverdell Teacher Protection Act. What a wonderful man Senator Coverdell was. I so cherish the memories, having served with him here in this Chamber. This measure provided teachers with immunity from negligence lawsuits when teachers' actions are legal and in furtherance of efforts to control classroom discipline. The act did not immunize teachers from lawsuits claiming gross negligence or reckless or willful misconduct. So we see there has been a slow evolution of the law so that you don't give absolute immunity, but immunity that is in a balanced way. That is the purpose of my amendment.

In my view, the proponents of the gun immunity bill have undoubtedly acted in good faith by trying to respond to another very real problem. Without question, the gun industry in America is under legal siege, fighting lawsuits, many of them frivolous, all over the country.

I will have a letter printed in the Record from a gun manufacturer in my State who indicates the seriousness of this problem and the likelihood that the facility in Virginia may not survive unless some protection is given to the manufacturing industry. I strongly support protection to the manufacturing industry as provided in this bill.

My amendment goes to another provision in the bill, which I will enumerate momentarily.

I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

The costs incurred by the gun industry in defending these lawsuits is staggering. Indeed, the costs are so great that Beretta USA, an American company that supplies weapons for the U.S. Armed Forces, has written to me claiming that their ``ability to continue operations is threatened by these lawsuits.'' That is from the letter I placed in the Record.

Without a doubt, I think some reasonable measure of tort reform is necessary to protect the manufacturers. However, I must say I am deeply concerned about the broad scope of this litigation in other areas. In my view, it will undoubtedly have unintended consequences, but it is likely that we in the Senate will not be able to recognize some of these inequities until they occur. However, experiences in my State of Virginia make it clear to me that there is currently one unintended consequence in the bill as drafted that, if not corrected now, could impose a glaring inequity.

It is absolutely clear that this bill, if it had become law in a previous Congress, would have prevented certain lawsuits brought by victims of the snipers who wreaked havoc in the Virginia, DC, and Maryland area. In particular, this bill would have prevented the victims and their families from ever having their day in court, to sue a gun dealer, from which the snipers John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo illegally received their weapon.

The facts surrounding this gun dealer continue to amaze me. According to reports, the DC area snipers ``stole'' a gun from this particular gun dealer in Washington State who had lost over 200 guns in the previous 3 years.

I say those words ``lost'' or ``stolen'' carefully, because I am not sure how any legitimate, law-abiding dealer can lose or have stolen from its possession over 200 guns. But these were the facts that were developed in this case.

In my view, gun dealers such as this one, which at best have an established history of irresponsibility of securing its firearm inventory and at worst show signs of illegal activity in who they sell their guns to, ought not to have the blanket immunity as provided in this bill.

I can understand the need to protect responsible gun dealers from frivolous lawsuits. I join those in seeking that effort. After all, if a gun dealer is selling legal products to people legally entitled to buy weapons, then the dealer has done nothing wrong and should not be legally held responsible.

Indeed, in my view, the vast majority of gun dealers in America are faithfully abiding by the law. They are deserving of protection, and I would like to support the provisions of the bill that try to give that protection.

But we need to make sure this bill does not immunize the irresponsible behavior of a gun store such as the one in Washington State. How do you ``lose'' or ``have stolen'' more than 200 weapons? In my view, gun dealers who have established histories of lost or stolen weapons should not be immune from lawsuits when such a weapon is used to commit a violent crime. To give these dealers immunity in these cases is to give them a completely free pass from having to exercise any type of responsibility in securing or accounting for their weapons. That is plain wrong.

Accordingly, the amendment I am offering tonight would make it absolutely clear that victims of these types of crimes would be absolutely able to pursue their cases against those very few irresponsible or unscrupulous gun dealers in America. My amendment

simply says if a gun dealer has an established history of lost or stolen guns as defined by the Attorney General of the United States, and the lost or stolen gun is used in a way that causes death or injury to another, then that lawsuit would not be barred from its outset from going forward by the legislation now before the Senate.

In sum, this Warner amendment, which is based on the very real instances in the Virginia, DC, and Maryland sniper cases, makes it clear that irresponsible gun dealers will not be given a free pass by the Congress. It is a narrowly tailored amendment that will directly address a very real scenario. I would like at this time to read the language of the bill, together with my amendment.

I go to a section of the bill. I refer colleagues to page 8 of S. 397, copies of which are on each Senator's desk. It provides as follows:

An action brought against a seller for negligent

entrustment or negligence per se. . . .

I would add the following to it. My amendment reads: ``On page 8, line 21''--that is the line to which I have drawn the attention of the Senate--``before the semicolon, insert the following:''

. . . or an action against a seller that has an established

history of qualified products being lost or stolen, under

such criteria as shall be established by the Attorney General

by regulation--

That is the Attorney General of the United States--

--for an injury or death caused by a qualified product that

was in the possession of the seller, but subsequently lost or

stolen.

That provides, I think, and reposes in the proper authority the responsibility to look at these cases and determine what has, in fact, been the record of this dealer.

As I understand it, the ATF keeps certain records, and other records are kept, perhaps, by the States to determine how this gun dealer conducted its business. The regulations would spell out the criteria, first of their record, and then how this weapon was stolen. So, in my judgment, I think it strengthens the legislation. If it is a case, as I say, such as the sniper case in Virginia and Maryland--it captivated with fear the people in this region. I think it is our duty, in drawing up this legislation, to ensure we are doing everything possible not to have a repetition of that chapter.

I remember it so well because I was heavily involved with others in it. Certainly it was in my State. People didn't go out at night. People didn't go to gas stations; they didn't go to the market. They lived in fear, and it was a serious impact on the economy in this region, not to mention the tragedy of the loss of life and injury inflicted by these two extraordinary criminal individuals who had obtained a gun in the State of Washington from a dealer who had a horrible record, a record which on its face spelled out the highest degree of negligence.

So I ask the managers, at the appropriate time, if I may bring up this amendment, and I entrust to them a sense of fairness.

Yes, of course. I would ask the Parliamentarian if they would look at the amendment to determine whether, should cloture be filed, it would be a germane amendment.

Which is to say that at this point in time I cannot obtain such ruling; is that correct?

Then I yield to the wisdom of the Presiding Officer and the Parliamentarian and at some point in time that judgment can be made.

I yield the floor to my good friend.

Washington State.

Mr. President, I will look at the Frist amendment.

Mr. President, I have now had the opportunity to review the Frist amendment, No. 1606. This amendment simply restates that the Attorney General of the United States can continue to enforce current Federal firearms laws against those who violate them, including dealers. In my view, nothing in S. 397 would prohibit the Attorney General from going forward in those matters. Nevertheless, at this time, I have no objection to restating that authority, as proposed in amendment No. 1606.

In my view, though, amendment No. 1606 does not address the circumstances that my amendment seeks to remedy. The Attorney General has always had the authority to enforce its gun laws yet some dealers continue to act irresponsibly. My concern is that the provisions of S. 397 would completely immunize from lawsuits those irresponsible gun dealers who have an established history of repeatedly losing guns or have an established history of firearms being stolen again and again from their inventory. If enacted without my amendment, S. 397 could cause the relatively small number of irresponsible gun deales to grow, not shrink.

My amendment is precisely aimed at these irresponsible and unscrupulous gun dealers who repeatedly lose firearms and have firearms stolen from their inventory. This is exactly what happened in the DC area sniper case. The snipers, both of whom were not allowed under the law to purchase a firearm, apparently stole their weapon from a gun store in Washington state that had previously lost or had stolen more than 200 weapons over a short period of time. When a gun dealer has an established history of lost or stolen guns and that lost or stolen gun is used in the commission of a serious crime that causes death or injury, it is a grave inequity to lock those victims out of the courthouse doors.

While I have no objection to amendment No. 1606, it clearly does not address the very real problem remedied by my amendment.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend and Democratic leader. I ask a very narrow question. He has pointedly raised three or four amendments that address the benefits that could go to veterans or active.

The Senator from Nevada has been a leader every year that this bill has been brought up on a variety of issues, and no one takes the place to his fervor in trying to provide particularly for the concurrent receipt legislation. But I have to say to my good friend, and my question is, am I not correct that this bill came up Wednesday night, and Senator Levin and I were on the Senate floor into the evening, this bill was on the floor Thursday right up until early evening and again Friday morning? Every one of those bills--concurrent receipts, I remember specifically asking Senator Nelson of Florida: Could you not bring up that bill early? He said: No, I am going to wait until Tuesday. That is all he said.

I have to say, I believe I am correct that all of those pieces of legislation that were mentioned could have been brought up Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and addressed by the Senate.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, will the Chair advise the Senate as to the pending business.

Amendment No. 1342, as Modified

Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, who is participating in a ceremony in the Rotunda, the Support Our Scouts Act of 2005--and I am a cosponsor--is a very important piece of legislation, particularly in the wake of the tragic events that occurred last night. It will help ensure that the Defense Department continues to provide the Scouts the type of support it has lawfully provided in the past, to include supporting the Scouts at their jamborees.

In this context, I thank Senator Durbin for helping to refine the amendment's language to provide flexibility to the agencies that provide like support.

This amendment also ensures the Scouts have equal access to public facilities, forums, and programs that are open to other youth and community organizations. Boy Scouts, like other nonprofit organizations, depend on the ability to use public facilities and participate in these programs.

The Scouts are a youth organization, well known to every Member of this body, that is committed to developing qualities such as patriotism, integrity, honesty, and other values in our Nation's boys and young men. The amendment by the distinguished majority leader makes that goal clear.

As such, the amendment of the majority leader also makes clear that Congress believes the Boy Scouts should be treated the same as other national youth organizations.

I hope that all of my colleagues will join the 50-plus cosponsors of this legislation and vote with me and other supporters of Scouting.

Yesterday, July 25, tens of thousands of Scouts from around the country began arriving at Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia. Tennesseans, such as Bill and Diane Goins from Soddy Daisy, TN, have traveled great distances to participate. Vote for this amendment and let them know that Congress wants the Pentagon's support to the Scouts at their jamborees to continue.

Let's also let them know that not only is Defense Department participation helpful to the Scouts, it is also beneficial to the training of our armed forces.

Mr. President, I urge all of my Senate colleagues to vote for the young boys and girls who are following in the worthy Scouting tradition. A vote for this amendment is a vote for them.

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

Is there a sufficient second?

There appears to be a sufficient second.

All time having been yielded back, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1342, as modified. The clerk will call the roll.

I was just going to ask the Presiding Officer the regular order.

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

Mr. President, will the Chair advise the Senate as to the pending business?

Mr. President, I am very pleased the Senate has turned to this important legislation. It was first brought up Wednesday night with activity on Thursday and again on Friday. I thank all those who participated.

I am reminded that at 2 o'clock today, all first-degree amendments need to be filed in view of the pending cloture motion. This is a motion which the distinguished leader, Mr. Frist, and I will discuss, together with others. It ripens tomorrow morning. So as a protection, I ask Senators to consider their own interests in the context that it could be ripened, but that decision has not yet been made.

At this time, even though the distinguished ranking member is not with me, there is a matter by the Senator from Maine about which I hope she will find the opportunity at this time to address the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, before my distinguished colleague leaves the floor, she had the courtesy, as she always does, to show me the amendments. One of them relates to BRAC. The distinguished Senator from South Dakota offered a BRAC amendment the other night. I glanced at this one. It seems to be similar in form, but I have not had a chance to examine it.

The purpose of my colloquy with the Senator would be to encourage Senators who are concerned about the important issues on BRAC to take note that we had an extensive colloquy between myself and the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, with the Senator from Michigan, the ranking member joining in, the other evening on the subject. I hope that other Senators who may be cosponsors or otherwise interested in this issue will find the opportunity to examine the original amendment and this amendment and that we hopefully today can have a continuation of this important debate on the issues relating to BRAC which are of great concern to a number of colleagues.

I thank my distinguished colleague. I do bring to the attention of colleagues that today is a

good opportunity for debate such that we can have a vote on it as quickly as the proposers and others think it is appropriate.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, if I might ask my distinguished colleague a question or two. We are all good, strong supporters of the CTR program. But I am informed that you are taking $50 million from the missiles. I will address that question momentarily. But I think the Senate should know this--and I ask if I am in error, if the Senator would correct me, if not now, perhaps one of your staff members, in due course, could assist. The Senate should know there is $500 million of unspent 2005 money in the CTR program. The amendment would take this program, which as you point out has some test problems, and to give it the body blow this amendment would render, for $50 million will virtually cause a very severe perturbation in the production line. The Senator is familiar with how the production lines work. There are estimates of cost up to as much as $270 million to restart the line at some point in the future. But with $500 million for 2005 unexpended in CTR, I hope, if colleagues look at this amendment fairly and practically, maybe judge it on the merits--the use of these funds, to me, is not a justification for supporting the amendment.

I agree with the Senator's premise but I wouldn't want Senators to believe that, if I am correct, the shortage of money is in CTR. I am informed there is, in the bank, $500 million of 2005 unexpended funds. Does the Senator want to address that now?

I am a big supporter of CTR. I happened to be in the room on the day CTR was born--by Sam Nunn. I will never forget it. I have followed the program. I have been a supporter. I think there is quite a bit of funding in this budget for CTR right now. I point out, if the Senator is persuaded by the fact that CTR needs the money more than the missile program--and I will argue the point strenuously that is not the case--there is quite a bit of money. We are way into the 2005 cycle. As a matter of fact, September is on the horizon.

So I hope the Senator could carefully research that point, come back, and if I am in error, I would certainly like to hear his views.

I point out the current bill is consistent with the President's program that allocated $50 million toward this next tranche of the long-lead, cumulative money for ground-based interceptors. If you take $30 million out of the $50 million, I assure you, that does considerable disruption to the production line.

Then I point out the amount available for construction of associated silos, reduced by $20 million. I wonder if you might take the chance to check on the fact that the President's budget in this bill only allocates $13.5 million to the initial construction of the associated silos, and therefore your $20 million is considerably in excess of the $13.5 million.

We will have our staffs check those figures. I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I would like to vigorously oppose this amendment for the following reasons. The impact of the amendment would be, first and foremost, to send a message that we are not supporting, as a nation, wholeheartedly the ballistic missile defense capabilities to defend ourselves. It is clear North Korea has capabilities. This program was engendered in large measure, and accelerated in large

measure because of the threat posed by North Korea.

I noted here recently that Japan is now building its missile defense system. So it is not that the United States alone, in the world of nations, considers it a threat; other nations consider the North Korean capabilities a threat. It is correct we have had these test bans, but the failures that more or less have been in the mechanical phase-- somehow the missile is adjusted in its launch pad as opposed to the actual failure of the missile itself. And then I will address this question of the break in production which could result--assuming the program is restarted in its full measure--maybe up to $270 million is one estimate I have been given to restart it.

Again, I agree with the sponsors of the amendment that the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program is an important national security issue for the defense of our homeland against the growing threats. But asking us to choose between missile protection and CTR is a false choice. We need both. This bill funds the President's requested amount fully 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 nonproliferation efforts in the Department of Energy. There is a very strong recognition in this bill before the Senate, the authorization bill, of the importance of CTR. There is no current need for extra CTR funds. That is our basic proposition. They have in the bank very substantial amounts from 2005. They are unexpended. Whether they have been committed, I will have that checked. With a backlog that large and only roughly 70 days left in the fiscal year--that is an awful lot of money if someone is going to try to commit it and expend it in that period of time.

The President's budget for missile defense, on the other hand, has already taken a considerable amount of cuts. Due to last-minute decisions made at the Department of Defense as the fiscal year 2006 budget was being finalized, the missile defense budget request was reduced by $1 billion in 2006 and $5 billion overall between 2006 and 2011.

The sponsors of this amendment argue we should not provide long-lead funding for the GBI missiles 31 to 40 because of test failures. I am mindful of the recent difficulties encountered by the GMD system test program, but it is my view and that of the Department--and, indeed, independent authorities have looked at this problem--that these difficulties do not represent serious technological hurdles by the GMD program. Indeed, such problems are to be expected during the R&D and development phase of complicated weapons systems.

To get at the root cause of the testing problems, the Director of the Missile Defense Agency, to his great credit, commissioned the Independent Review Team, called the IRT, to examine the recent GMD test failures. The IRT found, one, that no fundamental GMD system design flaws are related to the recent test failures. Moreover, this independent panel 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 costly retrofit to the already fielded and those in production line of the 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 an intercontinental ballistic missile, ICBM, 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, may the manager of the bill address the Senate for a moment?

Mr. President, the way we run is the managers usually try to get recognition.

What we would now like to do, Mr. President, is to have the Senator from Oklahoma address his amendments--for what period of time?

I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.

The Senator from Florida desires recognition, so I would ask the Senator from Florida if he could give a rough estimate of the time he would like following the Senator from Oklahoma.

Fifteen minutes. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Oklahoma now be recognized for a period not to exceed 20 minutes, to be followed by the Senator from Florida.

Could we act on the UC request, Mr. President?

Mr. President, before the Senator brings up this matter-- and he has the floor--I wonder if I can clarify this among my colleagues, to try to accommodate others. We have Senator Dorgan to be recognized under the previous unanimous consent. I understand 10 minutes would be sufficient there.

We are anxious to get going, but we will do 15 minutes. I see the Senator from Colorado here. I know the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from South Carolina called within the hour. They need time. Can the Senator advise me as to what his desires might be?

If the Senator from Colorado could be recognized following Senator Dorgan, I would like to reserve an hour for myself and Senator McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham.

He will certainly get that time. I ask unanimous consent for that.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Oklahoma continue for about 10 minutes; Senator Dorgan for 15 minutes; the Senator from Colorado for 10 minutes; and 1 hour equally divided between Senators Warner, McCain, and Graham.

He can be recognized following the hour of three of us.

I thank our colleague. It will be given careful consideration. It relates to an important subject matter.

I understand the Senator from Colorado has about 10 minutes, followed by Senators McCain, Graham, and Warner for 1 hour.

Mr. President, under the unanimous consent requirement, Senator McCain, Senator Graham, and I are now recognized for an hour. I ask our distinguished colleague from Arizona--I would like to amend that to allow Senator Salazar to go for 2 minutes. I request that unanimous consent.

Mr. President, we now turn to the three Senators. I would like to take 1 minute to address both Colorado Senators.

I followed with interest your amendments. I do hope we now have on the record a clear statement of support by the Secretary of Energy. Am I correct in that?

Yes.

I thank the Senator.

Now, Mr. President, we would like to commence the 1 hour. I yield the floor so Senator McCain can gain recognition. But I would want to say this is a subject that is enormously important. I commend Senator McCain and Senator Graham. It merits the full attention and hopefully the support of the Senate. These are issues that go far beyond just the question of detention. It goes to the perception of the great Nation of which we are privileged to be citizens, the United States of America, as it relates to how we treat those people who come into our custody in the course of defending freedom, on battle fields, and elsewhere in the world. I have such great respect for Senator McCain.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 1557, as Modified

Mr. President, I suggest we take up the other one--you and I have discussed it--as soon as the other one is completed because I am a cosponsor on the one that is now pending.

Mr. President, I commend Senator McCain. I have been privileged to know him ever since I was Secretary of Navy in the closing years of the war in Vietnam. I know no military family that has served our Nation with greater distinction than the McCain family. This is a subject about which my dear friend has knowledge that none of us possess. I have absolute confidence they are doing the right thing.

The two of us do have some technical differences of opinion. His amendment is predicated on the Army Field Manual which he mentioned is being revised. The current Army Field Manual basically dealt with State-sponsored conflict. I have every reason to believe that the follow-on manual, in due course, presumably in both classified and unclassified form, will be completed.

Amendment No. 1566

There is another approach here. I ask unanimous consent, if it is agreeable, to set the McCain amendment aside temporarily and ask amendment 1566 be brought up.

And in no way do I wish it to substitute for Senator McCain's amendment. This is a complicated subject.

Essentially, my amendment simply says it will be the Secretary of Defense that will establish uniform standards and procedures for two separable subjects, detention and interrogation.

While I have not had a chance to go through in detail the Army's Field Manual, I am not sure there is the emphasis placed on the detention rule in such a manner as equivalent to the detention and regulation that will be and is on the interrogation. Those responsible for detention are often quite different than those responsible for interrogation. If there is any mistreatment in the course of the detention, depending on the timing between such treatment and the follow-on interrogation, it seems to me we have a problem.

Therefore, my amendment entrusts to the Secretary of Defense the task to put together basically all of the objectives as enunciated by my distinguished friend from Arizona.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

There are considerable parallels between the two amendments, with the exception that the subject should be adjusted to the Secretary of Defense. He may well designate the Army Field Manual as his work product, but then I would need, under the amendment, the assurance that equal emphasis is put on the detention phase as well as the interrogation phase.

Recent history has shown we must have uniform standards for detention and interrogation across the Department of Defense. We cannot have different standards for different theaters.

Soldiers, as Senator McCain pointed out, have to be trained and well understand the rules and regulations as they relate to both detention and interrogation. That is the goal of the McCain amendment. I wholeheartedly support it. It is best to entrust the entire subject to the Secretary of Defense and hold him accountable, as opposed to the designation of the specific document which is in the process of being changed.

Amendment No. 1557, As Modified

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate return to consideration of the McCain amendment.

Mr. President, seeing our other colleague, Senator Graham, I yield the floor. But I also see Senator McCain.

Mr. President, if I could reply to my good friend, you are absolutely right. And I know that chapter as you do and have studied it. But under the law, the Secretary of Defense is still the head of the Department, and as such I suppose he can alter the field manual of the Army and make it less in the present form and in the revised form in due course. But I think it is important we have a clear chain of authority and accountability. I look up the chain, and there are the laws established by the Secretary of Defense as opposed to those who might be involved in drawing up the Army Field Manual. I presume the Secretary of the Army is at the top of that pyramid.

But that is the reason I put in this amendment. I say to my good friend from Arizona, I hope we can sort this out before final passage and possibly amend it. I will withdraw mine because I want you to take the lead in every respect on this important amendment.

If I might add, I say to my friend from Arizona, there is another important amendment you needed to get completed.

Well, whatever.

Fine.

Mr. President, I accept my good friend's critique, but I do point out, as the Army Field Manual is under revision, there will be both a classified and unclassified portion of that manual.

Mr. President, I am well aware of the efforts of my good friend from Michigan to get documents from the Department of Defense and his modest success and some lack of success.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from South Carolina such time as he deems necessary.

Could the Chair advise us as to the amount of time remaining under the hour that I requested?

That is the full time?

Well, we will allocate the time among the three of us in an equitable way.

I yield the floor.

Yes, Mr. President, I suggest that we have amended the present one which is referred to as the Army Field Manual, and I am a cosponsor on that. Now there is a second amendment. I submitted to the Senator a suggestion, I believe that is----

Let's bring that up now and have that pending.

Mr. President, the field manual amendment has been laid aside for the moment. This goes to a second amendment which is----

That is correct.

I believe the Senator has just come on the floor. We have been on this now for about 45 minutes covering the parameter of the issues that would be brought up. I respect his desire to speak. We will try to accommodate you at any point. I would urge that we allow the Senator from Arizona to perfect this amendment and then in due course he will speak to it. I will speak to it, and we will lay it aside. And we will find the time for the distinguished Senator from Alabama to speak.

That is correct.

We definitely will make that happen. But I want to inquire of the Senator from South Carolina, you also have a third amendment. I am not sure of the status. You have it at the desk. You have spoken to it.

Mr. President, I think that is a very orderly manner in which to accommodate. Then the Senator from Alabama--let's get the time remaining and I will yield some of my time to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. President, I will assure you, working with the distinguished Senator from Michigan, we

will arrange--he has time immediately following the 1 hour being divided between three Senators and now a fourth. I want to make sure we have the time remaining to satisfy the needs of the Senator from Alabama. We now are proceeding on the second McCain amendment.

Mr. President, we would like to have the Senator from Arizona take such time as he desires to explain this. I wish to be added as a cosponsor to this amendment. Then we will yield the floor to the Senator from Alabama to speak for up to 10 minutes on the subjects of these three amendments. Then the balance of the time will be accorded to the Senator from South Carolina to bring forth his amendment.

That is correct. Would the Chair advise of the three Senators in the original order, what is the time remaining for each.

I can't hear the Chair.

I yield from my 9 minutes such time as the Senator from Arizona may need.

If the Senator will withhold, I want to endorse the McCain amendment. Essentially what he is doing is codifying what is policy now. I think it is of such importance that it would require this bill to do so.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 1557

We are operating under an original 1-hour agreement that was modified to give 10 minutes to the Senator from Alabama. I think under the original 1 hour the Senator from Virginia has time and the Senator from South Carolina has time. Would I be correct?

Mr. President, that is followed by a vote, is my understanding.

Reserving the right to object, and I do not wish to object, it seems to me that reality dictates that in 6 minutes we will go on the ADA; am I correct?

In effect, the Senator from South Carolina, unless he wants to take the 6 minutes and put his amendment in, we would have to come back to it at the conclusion of the ADA. Would that be acceptable?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the previous order, the Senate resume consideration of S. 207 at 5:15 today, with 15 minutes to debate under the control of Senator Harkin. I further ask that following the use or yielding back of the time, the Senate proceed to a rollcall vote on the resolution as under the previous order.

Mr. President, I believe that will accommodate our distinguished colleague from South Carolina to introduce his amendment beginning now, concluding at 5:10, at which time the Chair will recognize the junior Senator from Michigan for a period not to exceed 5 minutes.

I do so to accommodate Senator Levin. We have 2 minutes now for the Senator from Alabama to complete his remarks before the Chair recognizes the Senator from South Carolina; is that correct?

We certainly want to accommodate the Democratic leader. The Senator from South Carolina indicated that perhaps he would like to take up his amendment following the vote, giving him then such time as he requires, and giving the Senator from Michigan such time as he may require. So perhaps let us allocate the remaining time between now and 5:15 between the Senator from Alabama, the two colleagues on that side, and the distinguished Democratic leader.

Mr. President, following the completion of the rollcall vote, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from South Carolina be recognized.

Mr. President, that is correct.

That is acceptable.

Mr. President, I wonder if I might bring to the attention of the Senate that we now have 215 amendments offered on this bill; 27 amendments have been proposed and are pending, a number desiring to have rollcall votes. I know of five rollcall votes that I think are ready to go. I ask the Senator, might we advise our leaders that we can continue tonight with rollcall votes and hopefully that can be facilitated.

I thank my distinguished colleague because it is important that we keep momentum going forward on this bill.

Mr. President, my understanding is that the Senate now returns to the Defense authorization bill. Is that the pending business?

I know the Senator from Wyoming desires to address the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 1342

Mr. President, before my distinguished colleague leaves the floor, I regret to say that I just got a call from the Department of Defense in which I was advised that at the jamboree being held just a short distance down 95 in Virginia, a power line collapsed, and at the moment there is one deceased and five critically injured and an assortment of other problems associated with this.

So I am delighted that you gave that speech. I am a cosponsor of the bill. I support it. I was a Scout myself, and I got a lot out of it. I think we ought to close this set of remarks out by offering our prayers and hearts and minds to this tragic accident that occurred an hour or so ago. I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, we are still on the bill and speakers are coming to the Senate floor.

At this time, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the Senator is free to go. He spoke with me. It is an important element before the Senate. The general subject is BRAC.

Amendment No. 1389

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished leader. The Senator forgot the one time it was 5 weeks, but we got there.

Mr. President, if my distinguished leader would enter into a little discussion with me, the Thune amendment, to which he has referred in his remarks, apparently has been modified in a way that I wish to advise the Senate on this modification, as I read it. It is extraordinary.

The concept of BRAC only works if the President decides on the block of closures and sends it to the Congress to vote it up or down en bloc.

As I read this and I just read it for the first time a few minutes ago I draw your attention to the page I handed the Senator from Mississippi. It says as follows:

In the heading by striking ``congressional disapproval'' and inserting ``congressional action.'' In subparagraph A, by striking ``the date on which the President transmits such report'' and inserting ``the date by which the President is required to transmit such report,'' and subparagraph B, by striking ``such report is transmitted'' and inserting ``such report as required''--all

this gets down to the following: that the Secretary may not carry out any closure or realignment--that is any of the number on the whole list, any of them:

The Secretary may not carry out any closure or realignment

recommended by the Commission report transmitted by the

President pursuant to section 2903 if a recommendation for

such closure or realignment is specified as discussed by

Congress in a joint resolution partially disapproving the

recommendations of the Commission that is enacted before the

earlier of. . . .

It seems to me, as I read this, Congress can now go in and cherry- pick base after base and pass a resolution to take it out.

If I may inquire at the desk, was there not a modification put in by Senator Collins this morning, three amendments, and among them

Let me point out, I say to my distinguished former leader, that the original Thune amendment that was offered, I think, Thursday or Friday night and was the subject of a detailed colloquy between myself and the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, is still at the desk, and then this amendment that I read to you is the final paragraph in an amendment which is identical in every way to the one we discussed--Senator Thune and myself--on Thursday night.

With the exception of the last paragraph in that amendment, it has been changed to read the same as this one.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished leader. I cannot remember how many years he was in the House and how many years he has been in the Senate, but I have only been here 27.

If he had something such as this on the roll, he would have a challenge----

Give them the benefit of the doubt to find out, but this is at the desk right now. This is the moving target on this BRAC. I am strongly in favor of the current BRAC law being implemented as it is written in the law, not deviating in any way. I cannot accept the delay, I say to my distinguished leader, because there are too many communities burdened by all the expenses of lobbyists, and so forth, and the uncertainty that would throw onto the business community not knowing, with the Thune amendment, for maybe another 2 years whether they are going to stay open.

Mr. President, I am familiar with that.

These communities could not begin to attract new business, could not get new capital. They would become almost stagnated not knowing which way that decision would go. I thank my distinguished leader for his participation in this debate.

Mr. President, if I might advise the Senate, there was a UC in place whereby the Senator from South Carolina was to be recognized for the purpose of bringing an amendment to the attention of the Senate. He has been patiently waiting some period of time. I would like to consult with the distinguished Senator from Michigan. I would like to give the Senator from South Carolina the opportunity to proceed, but I would like to be aware of what the needs of the Senator from Michigan are in regards to his side.

It is a part of the Record.

Mr. President, might I suggest that we take 15, and I would like to have 5 of those minutes.

I am not aware of that. I have been on the floor. I know that we checked with the Senator's side and there was some doubt as to whether there could be votes.

In fairness to our colleagues, let us clear that up in the course of the debate on the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina.

Might I ask from the Senator from Florida how much time he would like?

Absolutely.

Mr. President, I think we had modified the previous order with a new UC whereby the Senator from South Carolina gets 15 minutes, 5 minutes under the control of the Senator from Virginia, and 10 under his control, followed by the Senator from Florida for 10 minutes. Am I not correct?

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this is another very important step forward, drawing on the very profound remarks made earlier today by our distinguished colleague from Arizona. The three of us have worked together.

I want to clarify one aspect because when I looked at the Senator's earlier draft, it appeared to me that a military judge being given to an unlawful combatant appearing before an administrative review board would give that individual more due process than accorded a lawful combatant, a POW. My understanding is the Senator's modification now embraces that concern, and I want to make that clear to our colleagues.

Why does the Senator not state it in his own words?

Clearly, the unlawful has no advantages over, as we might say, the lawful. They are on equal status, so to speak?

Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I ask that I now be a cosponsor, with that modification.

Mr. President, the three of us, together with others who have talked with us, I think, have made a very valuable contribution because all eyes are on America as to how we conduct these difficult situations.

Tomorrow we will have an opportunity to further go into this question about the use of the Army manual. My concern over that is that the current manual, in my judgment, does not quite strike the balance between detention and interrogation. I am hopeful that we can draw from the Department of Defense, as best we can, what the modification of the Army manual would be.

If I can be assured that is going to be balanced and take into consideration the need to address this unlawful category of these individuals who are not acting on behalf of a State-sponsored conflict--am I not correct?

Mr. President, I do need to make certain that this modification will treat the subject of how a person is detained with equal specificity as to how they are to be interrogated.

As you know from your experience of 20 years in the JAG--as a matter of fact, you and I went to Guantanamo a week or so ago. It is important that detention be conducted in a way that it doesn't somehow influence how the interrogation might go. I will not draw the picture here as to what could be done.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I can answer that. If you look at the second McCain amendment, basically that amendment is directed at that question. That is my understanding.

Will the Senator allow me to address the Senate on a separate matter for 1 minute? On the subject of cloture, my leader, Senator Frist, and I will confer in the morning and then confer with the Democratic leader himself. At the moment, it is not a matter of absolute certainty, even though it ripens, as to whether the leader will wish to pursue it.

Also, we would like to advise all Senators there will be no more votes tonight, if you concur in that?

The assistant Democratic leader is here.

Mr. President, I say to our good friend and colleague, we will take under consideration the Senator's amendment with great care.

Please proceed.

Amendment No. 1428

Mr. President, we will take the amendment under careful consideration, I assure the Senator.

Mr. President, may I assure our colleague and others who have expressed an interest, Senator Levin and I are working toward those ends. I take full responsibility for the concept of the cloture. It has achieved, a significant result thus far. We have up to 240 amendments. Another 18 amendments are pending at the desk with rollcalls requested. So the Senate is actively participating. I assure you I am going to meet with my leader--and I respect his judgment-- first thing in the morning. I will explore the options that are available with him. I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, we have labored together these 27 years. This, too, shall be overcome in one way or another. I thank my friend from Connecticut. I am impressed with the enthusiasm he expressed at this hour of the night.

Mr. President, I rise to express concerns about the Levin amendment related to Federal time and material contracts.

The proposed amendment would direct that when prime contractor engages a subcontractor to augment the delivery of hours under a time and materials contract, the prime should be entitled to be reimbursed only at the price the subcontractor is billing the prime.

I want to bring to the attention of the Senate the rational for the pricing of these time and materials contracts. The prime contractor must locate, negotiate and obtain the subcontractors with whom he performs the contract and assume the risk associated with his and the subcontractors performance. If a subcontractor does not perform or is substandard in its performance, the prime is responsible. If a subcontractor quits or is dismissed, the prime must find a substitute. Assuming this management role, and more importantly, the risk, is one of the reasons for the time and management contract and the blended payment arrangement.

Of particular concern to me about the Levin amendment is its potential impact on small business. The proposed amendment would be counter to the President's mandate to promote small business participation in government acquisitions by de-incentivizing prime contractors from engaging subcontractors--most of whom are small businesses--in the fulfillment of their contracts.

Finally, Mr. President, I am told that the administration is about to initiate a rule making to revise how time and materials contracts are managed. Federal contracting is a very complex process which is best resolved through a thorough review among all the parties and through the regulatory process. If there are abuses, I am the first to stand and say that they should be stopped. But it is very difficult for the Senate today to understand fully the implications of the Levin amendment and whether it will even resolve any alleged abuses in contracting.

I would like to work with Senator Levin and others to encourage the administration to issue its proposed rule promptly, put it out for comment so that all the impacted parties would have the opportunity to comment. If the Senate continues to have concerns once the rule making is completed, that is the appropriate time for us to act.

I ask unanimous consent that several letters I received on this subject be printed in the Record.