Floor Statements

Mr. President, I believe good progress is being made. I think there could be a proper utilization of the time. Given the structure of the understanding at the leadership level, which the Senator from Michigan and I are trying to maintain and will maintain, I would suggest that the Senate now go into a period of morning business with Senators to speak up to 15 minutes.

Let us say 15 minutes with the exception of the Senator from Vermont, who desires 20 minutes, and hopefully Senators who might wish to address issues relating to the bill can avail themselves of that opportunity. Would that be correct?

That is correct.

Mr. President, at this point in time, is my unanimous consent request granted?

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Vermont for his usual courtesy.

Mr. President, I thank our distinguished colleague from Arizona. He has been part of the team that has worked almost every day for agreements on the floor, and in consultation on how to deal with the various challenges we have had. He has been one of many who has made it possible. I think we are making steady progress here. I thank the Senator for the reference to the ITAR amendment, which I put in. I consulted with him, Senator Biden, and a great many Senators who worked with me in making this amendment possible, which is currently a part of the managers' package and, I anticipate, will become part of the final bill. It is long overdue, as the Senator points out. But this amendment is sort of a keystone. I thank the Senator for adding that very important piece of legislative history to what I hope will be a statutory provision that reflects the goals we both had in mind.

At this time, I yield the floor.

The bill is still actively being considered. There is a possibility we can achieve completion of the bill tonight. I remain of that view.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

In consultation with the majority leader, the distinguished Democratic leader, and the Democratic whip, Senator Levin and I have worked out a series of steps we are going to begin to take in seriatim at this time. The first step is that I yield the floor such that the Chair can recognize the Senator from Wisconsin.

If the Senator would withhold.

There is at the desk a second-degree amendment which I submit on behalf of Senator Gregg and myself.

No objection.

And the second-degree amendment likewise is withdrawn.

No objection.

Mr. President, the matter has been discussed between myself, Senator Levin, Senator Harry Reid, and the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin. The concept of the inspector general is a proven concept. It is a valuable concept in the administration of our expenditures to have accountability.

We shall work on it to see that from that conference evolves, hopefully, an amendment that is a part of the statute to be incorporated eventually from the conference report that reflects the goals the Senator has set out. That is correct.

Mr. President, I join in thanking the Senator for his cooperation.

I draw the attention of the ranking member to suggest at this point in time we clear a package of managers' amendments.

Yes, please.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, there is no objection. The matter has been carefully worked through the course of the evening, and it is ready for action by the Chair.

Mr. President, I urge adoption of the second-degree amendment.

No objection.

Mr. President, reference was made to the hard work Senator Landrieu performed on this amendment. Indeed, I was witness to that. But it did bring back a fond memory to me. In the period during the war in Vietnam, there was a very colorful and strong chairman in the House Armed Services Committee named Eddie Hebert from New Orleans, LA, and a gentleman who worked very closely with him, named Moon Landrieu. They were quite a team. They did a great deal working together for the men and women of the U.S. military.

When reference was made to Senator Landrieu's accomplishments, I am sure she would agree with me that the teachings of her distinguished father and the former chairman of the House Armed Services Committee have vested in her a lot of wisdom about military matters.

I also recognize the work done by Senators Ensign and Snowe. I have been working with both of them over a period of time. Senator Ensign and Senator Snowe each have put in previous pieces of legislation which basically covered this same subject. In the course of the past 48 hours, those two Senators have been working in collaboration with Senator Landrieu in an effort to get the Senate to take the action that we just took on that amendment. So I thank the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Nevada for their work.

As veterans look to the action taken by the Senate, they can decide for themselves on the work done by these Senators, and all Senators, because there was a unanimous vote on this amendment. I think we fulfilled our obligation to that very important class of individuals, the veterans; and particularly in this case, this provides benefits for the widows primarily--there are a few remaining spouses--but basically the widows who are at a critical time in their life and there is need for special consideration as it relates to personal finances. So I thank the Presiding Officer and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I think we are ready to do a package of amendments, if I could get the attention of the ranking member.

Amendments Nos. 3414, As Modified; 3280, As Modified; 3355, As

Modified; 3220; 3373, As Modified; 3459, As Modified; 3311, As Modified; 3476; 3477; 3478; 3479; 3480; 3481; 3342, As Modified; 3482;

3483; and 3484

Mr. President, I send a series of amendments to the desk which have been cleared by myself and the ranking member. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider those amendments en bloc, the amendments be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that any statements relating to any of these individual amendments be printed in the Record.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I am prepared to enter into a unanimous consent agreement with the distinguished Senator from Nevada.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all pending amendments be withdrawn, with the exception of the following: Daschle, No. 3409, as amended; Leahy, No. 3387, which will have a second degree by Senator Leahy or designee; and a series of amendments which have been cleared by both managers; I further ask consent that at 9:30 tonight the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Daschle amendment No. 3409, with no second degrees in order to the amendment prior to the vote; provided further that following the disposition of the Daschle amendment, the Senate vote in relation to the Leahy amendment No. 3387. I further ask consent that following the disposition of the Leahy amendment, and the disposition of the cleared amendments, the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, with no intervening action or debate.

Before the Chair rules, I ask unanimous consent that the votes occur in reverse order than listed above.

That is correct. If I failed to read it, it is as amended.

That is correct. It is in the script.

If that is the preference, so granted.

I concur in the modification.

I thank the Chair.

Certainly.

Mr. President, the Senator from North Carolina is correct. At the time that the Armed Services Committee was preparing its mark, there was not sufficient data available concerning the specific elements of the proposed program, and its interrelationship with other existing and emerging programs within the Department, to fully assess the merits of the National Demonstration Program for Citizen-Soldier Support. The absence of this proposed program in the bill should not be interpreted as a negative assessment.

I would agree wholeheartedly with the Senator from North Carolina's statement. At at time when we are relying more and more on our National Guard and Reserve forces to defend our national security, we must continue to provide direct and substantive support to these personnel and their families.

I commend the distinguished Senator from North Carolina for her steadfast advocacy for our men and women in uniform, and their families, and I would be pleased to work with her on this important issue.

Yes, that is certainly my understanding.

I understand that accuracy has been a problem with some systems developed to date so new approaches would be welcomed.

Yes, I think that if there were funding for such a development project it offers the prospect of significant security benefits.

In discussions with my good friend and colleague, Senator Inhofe, I have been made aware of the fact that questions have arisen about the intent of amendment 3316 regarding the American Forces Radio and Television Service, or AFRTS, submitted by Senator Harkin. That amendment to the pending legislation was accepted on June 14, 2004.

Thank you for offering me the opportunity to clarify this point. In my view, the intent of this amendment was not to call into question the performance of the AFRTS. Indeed, as my staff and I examined the proposed amendment originally submitted by Senator Harkin, we saw that it called for the establishment of a Presidential Advisory Board to examine the manner in which AFRTS carries out its mission and to submit recommendations on how the AFRTS should carry out programming. As we looked at the manner in which the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs and AFRTS perform its mission, however, it became clear that the case had not been made that changes were necessary or that such an Advisory Board was needed.

Absolutely. The amendment cites word for word relevant portions of the current Department of Defense Directive concerning AFRTS, including a statement of the mission to be accomplished and the key principles that should be followed in order to provide a free flow of political programming from U.S. commercial and public networks. The amendment specifically states that the mission statement is appropriate. Recognizing that there are several hundred satellite stations or ``outlets'' around the globe at which programming decisions are made on a daily basis, the amendment goes on to recommend that the Secretary of Defense ensure that these important principles, which can be summarized as fairness and balance in presenting shows on various topics, including political commentary, are being accomplished.

Yes. That would clearly be one factor among several that should be considered, consistent with the goal of providing the same type and quality of American radio and television news, information, and entertainment that would be available to military personnel and their families if they were in the continental United States. Other factors should also be considered in achieving the AFRTS goals of fairness and balance in presenting all sides of important public questions, and the amendment was intended to underscore the importance of those goals.

The Senator from Georgia is quite correct in his observation and assessment and our committee has urged the Department to move forward with its economic analysis of engine alternatives for this critical fleet of aircraft. The Senator from Georgia should be proud of the 116th wing of the Georgia Air National Guard, as the work that this integrated wing performs on a daily basis is responsible for saving many soldiers' lives. As he stated, the E-8C JointSTARS fleet provides critical airborne battle management command and control.

I thank the Senator from Georgia for his leadership on this issue, and I look forward to working with him on this important issue.

I believe we looked to remedy this with the FAIR Act in 1998. Am I not correct in stating that this law basically says that federal agencies should inventory government services that are commercial in nature, and then review whether these activities should continue to be performed in the public sector?

Mr. President, I certainly agree with my friend from Wyoming that we should continue to evaluate the way the federal government operates. Competitive sourcing is an important tool available to the government to ensure that high quality governmental services are acquired at the lowest cost to the taxpayer.

I believe the Senator wanted to share some of his concerns with an amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Georgia.

Yes, I am. I certainly understand the Senator's concerns, and I can tell him that I am hopeful that as we move forward and reconcile this very important bill with that of the House in conference, we will take a very careful look at these measures and work out acceptable language that will not burden the DOD or hamper the President in his role as administrator of the federal bureaucracy in these critical times.

Mr. President, I would be happy to discuss this issue with the Senator from Hawaii.

Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Hawaii that improving the membrane technology for fuel cells was the program for which the Committee recommended an addition to the Defense authorization this year.

Mr. President, we want to accommodate the Senator. Whatever happened, happened. We are glad to, in an equitable way, offer him this time. I will try to take the floor in the area of 9:40, if that is convenient.

OK. Thank you.

I thank my colleague. We have served together these 26 years now in this body.

The distinguished Senator from Utah will address the Senate. We are ready to go to votes.

Mr. President, the Senate now turns to the second-degree amendment and an up-or-down vote.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the action on the Ensign second-degree amendment No. 3467 and withdraw it. That is a technical requirement.

Mr. President, I wish to thank so many who made possible the next vote. First, our leadership and the members of our committee, our committee staff, and particularly my distinguished ranking member, with a special thanks to both the Democratic whip and the Republican whip for their special time on the floor.

I ask for the third reading of the bill.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 2400 as amended be printed as passed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed immediately to the consideration en bloc of S. 2401 through S. 2403--Calendar Order Nos. 504, 505 and 506; that all after the enacting clause of those bills be stricken and the appropriate portion of S. 2400, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof, according to the schedule which I am sending to the desk; that these bills be advanced to third reading and passed; that the motions to reconsider en bloc be laid upon the table; and that the above actions occur without intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, with respect to H.R. 4200--Calendar Order No. 537--the House-passed version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate turn to its immediate consideration; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 2400, as passed, be substituted in lieu thereof; that the bill be advanced to third reading and passed; that the Senate insist on its amendment to the bill and request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees; that the motion to reconsider the above-mentioned votes be laid upon the table; and that the foregoing occur without intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, that concludes the matters addressing the bill. I thank the leadership of both sides, members of our committee, and the wonderful, fine staff we have, particularly my staff, Mrs. Ansley, and my good colleague over here, my partner for these 26 years we have been in the Senate. Guess we landed another one, not necessarily in record time. Our calculation is 16 legislative days. So perhaps we have set something of a record as the days were fairly consecutive.

I thank the chief of staff sitting here.

Thank you, Captain.

I thank my friend. These many years we have worked, really, as partners, and achieved one of the highest degrees of bipartisanship in the discharge of our respective responsibilities, together with the staffs.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the names of staff printed in the Record.

I am happy at this time to yield the desk back to the majority leader. I hope I never see this again for another year.

I thank the distinguished minority leader very much for his words.

I thank our distinguished majority leader, truly a very gracious soul and of pure heart.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 23, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a business meeting to consider legislation and committee resolutions.

The meeting will take place in SD-406 (Hearing room).

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet in open Executive Session during the session on June 23, 2004, to review and make recommendations on proposed legislation implementing the U.S.-Australian Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 23, 2004, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing on Nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 23, 2004, at 3 p.m., to hold a briefing on Iraq.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 23, 2004, at 11:30 a.m., to consider the

nomination of David M. Stone to be Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 23, 2004, at 10 a.m., in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting on pending committee matters, to be followed immediately by an oversight hearing on Indian Tribal Detention Facilities.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 at 10 a.m. on ``The Law of Biologic Medicine'' in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Witness List

Panel I: Dr. Lester Crawford, Acting Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD; and Mr. Daniel Troy, Associate General Counsel, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD.

Panel II: Mr. David Beier, Senior Vice President, Global Regulatory Affairs, Amgen, Washington, DC; Mr. William B. Schultz, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Washington, DC; Carole Ben-Maimon, M.D., President and Chief Operating Officer, Barr Laboratories, Bala Cynwyd, PA; and William Hancock, M.D., Bradstreet Chair of Bioanalytical Chemistry, Northeastern University, Boston, MA.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Competition, Foreign Commerce, and Infrastructure be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 23, 2004, at 2 p.m. on Peer-to- Peer (P2P).

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Government Affairs' Subcommittee on Financial Management, the Budget, and International Security be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 23, 2004, at 2:30 p.m. for a hearing entitled, ``International Smuggling Networks: Weapons of Mass Destruction Counterproliferation Initiatives.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 23, at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of the hearing is to review the grazing programs of the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service, including permit renewals recent and proposed changes to grazing regulations and related issues. The hearing will also examine the Wild Horse and Burro Program, as it relates to grazing, and the administration's proposal for sage-grouse habitat conservation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Production and Price Competitiveness of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 23, 2004. The purpose of this meeting will be to examine proposed legislation permitting the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to register Canadian pesticides. Agenda: S. 1406.

Could we speak for a minute before the quorum call?

I was going to recommend that our colleague from Alaska, who has commitments early this morning, be able to initiate on this side comments in rebuttal to the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from Michigan can follow and then the Presiding Officer wishes to say something, and I will wrap.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, will the Chair advise both sides as to the time remaining?

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Alabama.

I thank our distinguished colleague from Alabama. He has been in the forefront of this debate for all the years he has been a member of the Armed Services Committee.

At this time, I think it would be fair we allow the distinguished proponent of the amendment to speak for a bit. Then I will follow, and I presume he would like to do a few minutes' wrap-up; is that correct?

Mr. President, I say to our colleagues, I think the Senator and I can agree on this point that there is no vote on this current 2005 authorization bill of greater significance than the vote we will take momentarily.

I frame this vote as follows: The whole of America watched within the past few days the September 11 Commission, its Chairman, face the cameras and say, in response to the astonishment of the American people about the tragic events of September 11, we didn't foresee it, we didn't plan for it, we didn't fund for it, we didn't train for it, and it happened.

I say respectfully to my colleagues, that is precisely what this vote is all about.

The Senator laid down the priorities of the Central Intelligence Agency. I have them before me. I should repeat this one. They say the possibility that a WMD armed missile will be used

against the U.S. forces or interests is higher today than during most of the cold-war period.

Senator Levin and I have been partners for 25 years on this committee. We went through the cold-war era together. That is an astonishingly high expectation. True, the CIA put somewhat greater emphasis on a number of the programs that will be funded should the Senator's amendment pass, but the Senator would acknowledge to me, I think, that the administration, in sending forth this budget, covered those 10 programs. Six of those programs receive more money than asked for in the budget, and the remaining four programs were funded at the budget level.

He points out a most recent program raised by the Secretary of Energy. I share his concern, but the Secretary of Energy said that can be financed through reprogramming, which is a procedure we follow regularly.

In summary, we are at the crossroads momentarily of whether the Missile Defense Program that this Nation has been working on for these many years, that has been acted upon by the Congress in successive sessions, will continue.

While the Senator said we are not dislodging what has been done by the past Congress, I ask, why we should even go forward with those expenses if we are going to stop the program and gap it, gap it for an indeterminate period? Should we be able to put it together again after several years, at a minimum, who can assure the technical workforce that put together the first missiles will be there? Who can say the contractor wants to pick up, once again, the burden of trying to restart a program, given the background of the stop/start by the Congress if this Levin amendment is adopted?

This amendment will spread uncertainty into this program. The world will begin to say: America is not serious about missile defense.

Much of the technology of these programs for missile defense could well be used in future years by other nations that will recognize their vulnerability to the missiles. When we say ``vulnerability,'' it is not necessarily limited to an aggressor firing, it could be an accidental firing. That has happened. I need only point out the tragic submarine experience. Both Russia and the United States have experienced errors with those magnificent platforms, causing death and destruction. Accidents happen even with the best of intent with military equipment.

We see China coming on, we see North Korea. I think there is no dispute as to their potential today.

We must look at ourselves and go back to that refrain of Lee Hamilton: We didn't plan, we didn't foresee, we didn't train, and it happened. A future generation of America can look on this Senate at this very moment and would have to see, henceforth, if this Nation ever experiences the type of attack to which the Central Intelligence Agency says we are vulnerable.

I urge Members to stay the course and not send a signal that America has stumbled backward.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will not object, but I would state that the Department of Energy, addressing the ``loose nuke'' issue, says they expect to spend $87 million on it this year, and they can't spend any additional money on it. So I think that should be stated likewise.

Mr. President, I would make an offer to my distinguished colleague, if he wishes to advance an amendment on the issue of the ``loose nukes,'' to work with him to see whether, in this bill right now, we could take that one change, if you feel it is inadequately funded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Burns second-degree amendment be modified with the technical changes at the desk.

Mr. President, I am sure my colleague would want to ask for the yeas and nays on his amendment.

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

Mr. President, I certainly want to accommodate the leadership. But I spoke earlier this morning outlining what I understood was going to be the sequence of events in the morning. We certainly want to accommodate the distinguished Democratic leader, but one of our Members, for very special reasons, has to be absent this afternoon. He is a member of the commission on WMD, and he wished to rebut Senator Dayton's amendment, which would be a very short period of time this morning.

I would say 15 minutes.

The two votes.

Could the Democratic leader then be recognized immediately after the luncheons?

In other words, if I understand the request now, it is simply to come in and be recognized for the purpose of laying down the amendment so it is in the queue, and then we will proceed with the Dayton amendment and those matters we originally scheduled?

Apparently my leader would like to address this issue. We want to be cooperative and supportive of the procedural aspects of it. Could we proceed at least through the first vote and then, in that interim period, be able to provide an answer?

I share that, but any manager has to be cognizant of the needs of his respective leader. So we will proceed to the first vote, with an understanding there will be a modest period in between to hopefully resolve this issue.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask that the vote that is about to be taken be deferred in recognition of a need by the distinguished Democratic whip.

Amendment No. 3409

Mr. President, we return to regular order.

Regular order.

Amendments Nos. 3235 and 3457

I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to reconsider the vote.

The Burns amendment, likewise.

We are moving along quite well. All are in agreement with great cooperation on both sides. We are about to proceed to the amendment, the ``Buy America'' from our colleague on the committee. The Senator from Arizona on this side is ready.

Yes.

Except the Senator from Virginia would like about 3 minutes to wrap up at the conclusion.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the modifications are at the desk. We have examined them, and there is no objection.

Mr. President, to go directly to the comments the Senator just made, as he and I were in our colloquy the other day, I pointed out that at the present time the United States, in the last fiscal year, sold $63 billion in defense sales and only purchased $5 billion. My point is, the Senator is going after the wrong target, the wrong segment of the industry by this amendment, because it will create greater loss of jobs if we go after that trade surplus that is in defense right now. That is why we plead with our colleagues to leave this sector of trade untouched. I believe it is very important we do that.

The second thing that concerns me, and it is somewhat technical, in drawing up this bill, I gave specific instructions to the staff to preserve the sanctity of that part of ``Buy America'' which I and I think everybody in this Chamber supports, the Small Business Act, where 23 percent of the dollars for small businesses have to go, the shipbuilding, the blind and the handicapped, and the Berry amendment. Yet when the Senator modified his amendment, this section up here was taken out. That is caught up, and takes it out also.

It seems to me it is important for the Senate to reaffirm the sanctity of those four categories of trade as being purely ``Buy America'' and let them stay. But the Senator has taken out the work of the committee when we put it in there. That is what troubles me.

Lastly, we have here another communication from the Secretary of Defense of Great Britain, who is so explicit, he says:

. . . efforts by Administration officials to introduce

unnecessarily restrictive language into US/UK cooperative

armament and research MOUs are a potentially serious blow to

US-UK relations in the defence equipment co-operation field.

They would put us under pressure domestically--

That is, before the parliament, their parliament would now

begin to examine this tremendous trade surplus that we have

with relationship to Great Britain

--to review our own policies and to consider whether we are

prepared to continue to place significant defence contracts

with US suppliers in the face of what could only be seen as a

demonstrably uneven playing field. The mutual operational,

technological, and industrial benefits we have enjoyed over

years of equipment cooperation could quickly evaporate with

both of us being losers, and with obvious political

ramifications.

I say to my good friend, I recognize his intention to try and help America save jobs, but his amendment addresses the wrong sector of trade. He could do serious damage to a surplus we are generating with additional jobs in the United States as it currently exists.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, if I might, on the resumption of the Senate consideration of this bill, that will be following the taking of the annual picture. At this time, the understanding is Senator Daschle will be recognized for the purpose of bringing up his pending amendment. I inform the Senate of that situation.

Mr. President, I say to my distinguished friend, the Democratic leader, I think the Senate Armed Services Committee, working in conjunction with the Senate Appropriations Committee in a bipartisan way, over a series of years now, has addressed, together with the participation of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, a number of issues which have substantially improved the ability of the veterans to meet their obligations to their families and to themselves for the balance of their natural lives.

For 2 consecutive years and again this year, the distinguished Senator from Nevada brought forth a provision for concurrent receipts, which is an improvement in the bill on that. Senator Landrieu, together with two other colleagues, Senators Snowe and Ensign on this side, have now perfected an amendment which is going to help the widows as they meet--and perhaps those of the male sex who are recipients of the retirement benefits of a female veteran--as a consequence of this bill, each of those will be able to expect to have greater certainty as to the amount of money in terms of their retirement at that juncture in life when Social Security becomes available to the surviving spouse in that situation.

As to the impression that the Senate, and particularly the Armed Services Committee, has not been very forthcoming in fulfilling what each of us believe in our hearts is that tremendous debt of gratitude to veterans and their families, I suggest the record states the Senate has worked its job and, in conjunction with the House, these matters have now become matters of statutory guarantee.

The distinguished Democratic leader has proposed an amendment which requires a combination of discretionary and mandatory funding for veterans health care. The modification includes a requirement for a Comptroller General report by January 31, 2007, on the funding achieved by the amendment, and provides for an expedited review of a joint resolution of Congress to implement the Comptroller General's recommendations.

The modification directs mandatory spending by the U.S. Treasury in the amount of $300 billion over 10 years. I want to repeat that. The modification directs mandatory spending--that is a very significant legislative initiative--by the U.S. Treasury in the amount of $300 billion over the next 10 years.

Every Member of the body joins with Leader Daschle in recognizing the need to continue to provide adequate funding for the health care of veterans in this country. I would point out that, to my knowledge, funding for veterans programs has increased significantly in the past 3 years under the cognizance of the Congress. Spending for veterans health care has gone up 34 percent since the year 2001, and I believe my colleagues Senator Nickles and Senator Bond are both prepared to address the funding of health care for our Nation's veterans when they soon approach the floor to actively debate this amendment.

The Senate budget resolution includes $29.1 billion for veterans health care, an increase of $1.4 billion, or 5 percent, in 2004.

In light of these increases, in this Senator's opinion, any future significant increases for veterans health care warrant careful consideration by the Congress. Such consideration would be limited by this amendment, which mandates funding based on a per capita formula.

For Federal budgeting purposes, the VA health system, as the DOD system, is discretionary, as juxtaposed against mandatory. Now that is what we are talking about, changing the manner in

which we have been funding veterans health care these many years. It seems to me the discretionary program has worked well. It has served the veterans' needs and should remain as a matter of law.

The amendment does not create an entitlement to VA health care. It replaces the current system of discretionary funding, which has no ceiling, with a formula-based approach which combines discretionary and mandatory funding.

I have been informed that experts on veterans health care believe the proposed formula is flawed, that it will have the effect of turning the VA health care system into a kind of glorified HMO, with every incentive to enroll the young and healthy and cut corners on the care needed by the old and the sick. These incentives are contrary to the commitment of this Nation to the health care needs of our veterans.

Treating the VA health care budget as mandatory rather than appropriated discretionary funding will hurt the ability of Congress to ensure accountability within the system and consistency of benefits throughout the country.

The modification attempts to control the outcome of the appropriations process by, in effect, establishing a cap in the amount appropriated by Congress in future years equal to the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2004, which is $28.3 billion. It further yields to the Comptroller General the responsibility of determining whether adequate funding for veterans is achieved, and how to fund these programs in future years.

Neither the original amendments, numbered 3408 or 3409, nor the modification proposed by the Senator from South Dakota is relevant to the Defense authorization bill. I hesitate to put that to my colleagues but it is clearly a fact. The only relevance is the unity of spirit is that of each of us in this chamber, and indeed I think the Congress, to share in supporting our veterans nationwide.

These funding proposals contained in this amendment require the careful deliberation of Congress to the appropriate committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, prior to further action by this body.

I yield the floor so my colleagues can address the subject.

Can I ask, is this a modification to the Leahy amendment?

I have to interpose an objection.

Fine; I understand.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I must respectfully say to my good friend, the Democratic leader, that I have to take a different view with regard to the situation on Senator Kerry. I listened to, I thought, most of the conversations, and I do not feel that is the situation. I have tried, and I propose trust in our colleagues on the other side.

I say I was negligent in allowing the first-degree amendment to come up and be second degreed. I felt it was another first-degree amendment being offered. It was not announced as a second-degree amendment. I tried to interject, but the parliamentary situation did not allow me to get a quorum call in to ascertain the situation.

What is past is past. But I do not want it to stand that on this side of the aisle I see a lot of attempt to block, whether it is Kerry or anybody else, from making votes here.

It was a Leahy amendment.

Mr. President, before this colloquy started--I think we have pretty much completed it, and we have different perspectives--we encouraged those Senators to come up and debate those amendments which are at the desk so we could have debate on them, but no further amendments in the first and second degree would be sent to the desk. I think that is a gentleman's understanding.

At this point in time I think we better go back to the original posture of the agreement we reached that we would at this point in time this afternoon just continue debate on matters pending at the desk.

I do not wish to use any of those words. All I recall very clearly when I quickly came on the floor, the Senator had the floor, Senator Bond had yielded the floor to the Senator from Nevada--I thought he was managing--and the Senator from Nevada said he wanted to send up amendments on behalf of Senators Akaka and Leahy. I said, fine, that is within the rules, and that the Senator did but he did not indicate that there would be a third amendment in the nature of--

I understand clearly the Senator has the same rights as all Senators as it relates to this amendment, but at this point in time our side is trying to deliberate the posture we are in and I am going to have to remain on the floor. Others will come and send for me when I am ready to make my contribution, but at this time I have no other colleagues on the floor so I am just going to remain. I suggest we just go ahead and debate those matters at the desk.

I understand there is a general agreement that we will at this point in time not be sending any additional amendments to the desk, but Senators will debate those that are pending and debate those that may be offered at some point during the course of the day.

Am I not correct on that?

That is understood.

I ask unanimous consent that between now and the hour of 6:20, the Senate proceed to allow Senators to speak for up to, say, 15 minutes with regard to pending amendments or amendments that they may intend to offer.

We will take each one and examine it on its own individual basis.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, there is a UC in effect which indicates there will be no more amendments that will be taken up at the desk. The Senator can speak to any amendment that is pending or another matter, but as far as transactions with the Presiding Officer at this time, they are not in order.

Mr. President, I say to my good friend--and we have been good friends for many years--you made reference to President Roosevelt and the GI bill. With my very humble and modest naval service in the last year of World War II, I was a beneficiary of that.

But I would say to my good friend, I am proud of what our Senate has done over the past several years to assist veterans. This is another matter that is now pending and has yet to be resolved.

I see the distinguished Senator from Nevada, who has been in the forefront with colleagues on my side on the issue of concurrent receipts. Prior to that, I worked with my good friend from Michigan on TRICARE for Life. I could enunciate others.

We are about to have a vote here sometime, perhaps tonight or tomorrow. The Senator from Louisiana and the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from Maine are trying to close that gap when a retiree's widow, in most instances, reaches the eligibility for Social Security. Oftentimes there is a very significant dropoff.

So we have done a lot in this body. I know well of my old friend's career in

the Navy. I was Secretary of the Navy, as you well know, and Under Secretary at the time the decorations you earned through your valor and your courage came before the Navy Department for approval. While I do not have specific recollections--I had to deal with many during those difficult days of a very stressful and tough period in American history; and how well both of us remember that--as far as I know, I participated in some way and look with a sense of pride on approving those decorations. Whether I was Under Secretary or Secretary, it was right in that period of time. We chatted about that in years past.

But as to the events of this day, I would say this is my 26th year in the Senate, working with Senator Levin, and I would ask the Senator to step back. If you had the totality of the picture, the majority leader was hopeful, and we have not lost that hope, of continuing through the night and tomorrow to get our final vote on this bill. Much remains to be seen at the hour of 6:20, when we will have the opportunity to look at the amendments our colleagues still feel require their attention.

But in that context, it was at the hour of 6:20 when we would have that body of information to give us some clear indication as to what time agreements we could make with the Daschle amendment, time agreements with a number that are pending at the desk. I certainly, speaking for myself--we are not trying to preclude our colleague from his rightful duty to participate today in the affairs of the Senate in any way, but we have to move ahead with not only this bill but the appropriations bill, which is soon to follow. My understanding is, it was to be brought up immediately, assuming this bill were voted on finally tomorrow.

But then there was another impediment, as I understand, regarding debt limit and some other things--which I admit I am unfamiliar with-- which then indicated to the majority leader, for whom I have great respect, Senator Frist, who wants to operate in a sense of fairness: Was he not able, as majority leader, to guide the package of legislation, both authorization and appropriations, which he felt necessary?

So I am not suggesting the Daschle amendment could not perhaps at a later time tonight be brought up and voted on.

I say to the Senator, I recognize the tough schedule you have, but I would not want to say that I feel on this side there is any conspiracy in this area, certainly from my perspective.

Would my colleague address what is a major concern with this Senator. I say this with total humility. I am a veteran and possibly could benefit someday by what this package contains. I don't know.

Well, I don't know, Senator. I am just trying to say that the Senate is looking at this in terms of its fiscal impact. This is somewhere between $200 and $300 billion.

Well, I believe it is involved.

Mr. President, I looked at the cost to the American taxpayers for TRICARE for Life, and that is $3.9 billion a year. The concurrent receipts were $22 billion in the 2004 cycle. Through this administration, in veterans funding, there has been a 34-percent increase in funding for health care since 2001. Overall spending for health care has doubled since 1993. So I am not going to take second place to anyone with regard to the achievements we have had in this body by way of trying to care for our veterans. I feel very strongly about that.

My military career is very modest: service in World War II and service in Korea in the Marines. I have served with the courageous ones, the ones who lost life and limb. I am not going to take second place to anybody in my trying to work hard to support proper recognition for them and what they have achieved. I am just one of the lucky ones who had the opportunity to serve alongside these veterans and work with their families. For 5 years as Secretary of the Navy, I worked with families in that stressful period of time in Vietnam.

I feel so strongly to be a supporter of the veterans' causes, not for political reasons. Some vote for me; some don't. That is all right. The important thing is that this Nation takes them to heart, particularly at this time when, at this very moment, who knows which veteran, which service Active-Duty man in Iraq or Afghanistan, where all of us have visited those battlefields, might have his or her life taken, life or limb. I feel ever so strongly about it. Day or night they are in my mind.

I see others desiring to speak so I shall yield the floor.

Mr. President, on our side we have taken about 40 amendments from our list, I say to my good friend from Michigan, and of the 40, roughly 19 of them are being prepared to be put in a package for the Senator from Virginia to forward to the desk in accordance with the UC. I say almost all of them, except one or two, we have been working on with the Senator's staff, and we have modified the amendments to conform with what we believe will be acceptable on the Senator's side. So as I send my package to the desk, they will be in a modified form. Logistically, I simply need the time in which to do the modification, and I presume the Senator from Michigan would desire to do pretty much the same thing.

Mr. President, all the modifications are somewhere within the Senator's system. The Senator from Michigan is on notice as to what they are. The corollary situation is we have been notified as to a lot of their modifications. So I say most respectfully to my two colleagues on the other side, if we could put in a quorum call we could quickly resolve the status of the modifications on our side, and to the extent the Senator has knowledge of the status of the modifications on his side, reciprocally what we understand----

Yes.

I say to my colleague, he has the right to object, but we really are trying to structure this.

I think that is an excellent idea. We can make it 6:45.

Would the Senator from Oklahoma need 10 minutes to finish his remarks in the intervening period?

At which time the Senator will put in a quorum.

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

I ask unanimous consent to authorize the managers of the bill to offer en bloc amendments from the filed list on my side of the aisle. I send to the desk a list of 22 such amendments out of some 40 that we have designated as being filed by Republican Senators, just slightly over half. I note the unanimous consent provides an exception for the managers' amendment which has to be cleared on both sides.

That is provided for by the unanimous consent request; am I not correct?

The amendments of the Senator from Virginia are pending at the time the Senator from Michigan sent his list.

That is fine.

In addressing my colleague from Michigan, I speak to the Senate in its entirety, if you will give the managers of the bill a period of time to look through this, we might be able to quickly advise the Senate as to those we think we can accept. They will require some modification because in the procedure each side has voiced its own suggestions as to how they will be modified and shortly after we indicate to the Senate those amendments which we require would require more debate and possibly a recorded vote.

Mr. President, I would like to think a 30-minute time period, so about 7:20. I can ask for a quorum call until such time.

We will be able to advise the Senate as to the status of it.

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

Mr. President, I realize colleagues are perplexed over the lapse of time here, and I assure you, we are working very hard on this bill. I am going to first thank the staffs on both sides, and indeed our staff before us in the Parliamentary group, for working to make it possible.

I would like now to send a package of 26 cleared amendments to the desk and ask for their consideration en bloc.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3371, As Modified

We have two technical matters.

Sessions amendment No. 3371 was agreed to last week without a modification. I send to the desk a modified amendment No. 3371 as a substitute for the original amendment and ask unanimous consent that it be substituted for the version agreed to last week.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bunning, I send an amendment to the desk which makes a technical change to amendment No. 3438 on the Energy Employee Occupational Illness Compensation Program that had been previously agreed to.

My understanding is the amendment is acceptable on each side.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, we have been in consultation with the leadership on both sides. I see the distinguished Democratic whip. I will make this unanimous consent request at this time.

I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of the Defense authorization bill the Senate consider the following amendments in this order: Corzine amendment No. 3303, 30 minutes equally divided; Byrd amendment No. 3423, 20 minutes equally divided; McConnell, Iraq report and Kennedy amendment No. 3388, a total of 30 minutes equally divided for both amendments.

They will be voted on side by side.

Reed amendment No. 3353, 20 minutes equally divided; provided further that after the conclusion of all of the designated debate time, the Senate proceed to a series of consecutive votes in relation to the amendments mentioned above, in the order listed, with no second degrees in order to the amendments prior to the votes.

I have been informed that the first amendment is Corzine, the second is McConnell-Kennedy, the third is Reed, and the fourth is Byrd.

Yes. After the first vote, 10 minutes.

That is acceptable.

I understand. I have to look at it in the interest of my colleagues--no disrespect to the majority leader.

Mr. President, I accept responsibility for increasing the time. I just feel that these are important issues, and some of my colleagues are very anxious to express their views. I want to make that possible.

That would be an option with equal division of time.

Amendment No. 3409

Mr. President, I do not believe there are further matters in relation to this bill. At this point in time, I will proceed to wrap up on behalf of leadership.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in cosponsoring this resolution to honor and celebrate the 40th Anniversary of the Wilderness Act, and the contributions of those who have created a glorious wilderness system throughout the United States for all Americans to enjoy.

This anniversary provides a time for personal reflection on what wild places mean to us as individuals and society as a whole. As I consider the fact that this July 4 our country will celebrate her 228th year of independence, I marvel at the great changes she has seen. America has seen wars, the Industrial Revolution, the Great Depression, the Technology Age, times of prosperity and times of challenge. With all of these changes, much of America's landscape has been transformed.

I also think back to America as I knew her as a child and how she has rapidly grown and changed during my 77 years. I feel indebted to those whose foresight resulted in the Wilderness Act legislation, and whose tireless efforts saw this act signed into law. In addition, I recognize all those who have championed the expansion of the wilderness system which now encompasses 106,000,000 acres nationwide.

During my 26 years in the U.S. Senate, I have worked to pass three Virginia wilderness bills through Congress. In fact, I recently introduced the Virginia Ridge and Valley Wilderness and National Scenic Areas Act of 2004 which, if passed, would create an additional 29,000 acres of wilderness in southwest Virginia. With 177,214 acres of wilderness, Virginia's wild and beautiful landscapes will remain untouched by civilization. Visitors from across America can experience Virginia's wilderness and enjoy great beauty, solitude, primitive recreation, and nature in its true form.

I feel very strongly that the Wilderness Act is a vehicle whereby we can pay tribute to our great country by preserving some of her heritage and history. Though development, growth and change continue, we will have pockets of undisturbed lands for solitude, reflection, and recreation. In these areas we can keep America's natural diversity, wildlife habitats, and vegetation intact. Through the efforts, passion, and vision of many, we will leave a natural legacy of wildlands to future generations of America.

I did not hear the Senator.

Mr. President, I talked to Senator Lautenberg this morning. He made that request to me. I say this with all due respect. I second-degreed that amendment. The second degree, of course, would be in order for the first vote.

I just wonder. I am perfectly prepared to say yes, but if we begin to sequentially vote every second degree and underlying, we are going to be here for some period of time. Could some evaluation be made by the distinguished Senator from Nevada, after the vote on the second degree, as to whether in fact it merits the time of the Senate to go forward with the second vote?

Mr. President, if I could reply, first, I think the distinguished Senator from Nevada has been extremely helpful and is continuing to be that way. Let me point out that we are prepared to take up each and every one of those amendments that he just mentioned right now. In the case of Senator McCain, it could be that I could present on his behalf the second degree, we could engage in part of that debate on Dayton, and upon the arrival of Senator McCain, I am sure he could move right in and conclude the debate.

That is one option.

I am not certain as to the time of the arrival of the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch. But there again I don't have the knowledge. It is a matter unrelated to the Defense bill. As you know, it relates to dietary supplements. I understand my committee chairman, Senator Gregg, has some views on it. I expect we could begin to engage in some debate on that prior to the arrival of Senator Hatch.

So we could get started on that.

Fine. Mr. President, if I heard the distinguished leader properly, the word was ``closure'' tomorrow night, not ``cloture''? I want to make sure of that.

As we have been doing.

I thank my leader.

With respect to the first issue raised by the distinguished Senator from Nevada about the Lautenberg measure, I did not mean in any sense to be negative about his approach. Frankly, it is a bipartisan issue, in my judgment. There will be Senators on both sides who will perhaps look at this amendment, which I believe is an important one in terms of the very critical subject before us today--that is, how this Nation best respects those who lose their lives in the combat operations in far lands today, primarily Afghanistan and Iraq. It is a serious amendment. There will be, I think, some support on both sides for my proposition and perhaps as well for the position of my distinguished friend from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg.

But I wish to raise the subject of sequential votes in the case of second degrees. Each one should be looked at individually rather than just establishing an ironclad policy that we will proceed to have sequential votes every time there are second-degree amendments.

Mr. President, I concur in the observation of our distinguished colleague. All I am saying is we should look at each one individually rather than establishing a policy at this point--certainly with regard to this bill because, as the distinguished majority leader said, the Senate has devoted extensive time to this piece of legislation. It is very important. I am optimistic that we can meet the schedule for completion tomorrow night. I hope that optimism is shared on the other side.

At this time, the bill is open to amendment. The managers await the arrival of the first Senator.

Mr. President, I hope we can perhaps reach the Byrd amendment today. It is an important amendment. I have shared many debates with my good and valued friend from West Virginia, and we are prepared. I cannot join him in support, but we will have a good, strong debate on it. It will be, I believe, a historic debate to initiate today.

Mr. President, I will be available tonight should the senior Senator from West Virginia desire to take up that debate tonight.

Mr. President, we are where we are. In the mortal words of someone smarter than I, we have to deal with the cards which have been dealt.

I have a suggestion. We are trying to work out how we could protect the parliamentary situation as it now exists with regard to the Burns second degree such that we could proceed now with the debate on the amendment of the distinguished Senator from North Dakota and at least have the debate in place in the hopes that perhaps we could resolve this dilemma as the day goes on.

Mr. President, I so note that observation.

May I inquire of the Senator from North Dakota: Is the parliamentary situation on his amendment now clear?

I presume the Burns matter would require a recorded vote, so at this point in time I don't know whether the Senator is willing to use this available time to explain his amendment, although it will not be a pending matter before the Senate.

We will try to resolve the underlying parliamentary situation with regard to both amendments, the underlying amendment and the Burns second-degree amendment, so the Senator will have his opportunity.

That is a reasonable request, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, together with the Senator from Nevada,

the Senator from Virginia, in consultation with leadership, presents to the Senate this UC: I ask unanimous consent that at 5:30 today the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Warner amendment No. 3458 which is to be drafted as a first degree; to be followed immediately by a vote in relation to the Lautenberg amendment No. 3291; provided that no second degrees be in order to the amendments prior to those votes.

Amendment No. 3291, As Modified

No objection.

Mr. President, the leadership is working with the managers to see what we can do to resolve the question of one of the amendments which is pending before the Senate with regard to matters relating to the Commerce Committee. We see the Senator from North Dakota prepared to speak to his amendment. As soon as we can work out the parliamentary situation, we will proceed to that point.

It would be a valuable use of the time if we were to do so. We encourage that.

Mr. President, I think the Senator's understanding coincides with that of myself and the distinguished Senator from Nevada. In due course, several parties who have an active interest in not only the parliamentary situation but the substance are soon to arrive in the Senate. We have to wait a bit.

Mr. President, we understand. A Senator asked for a few minutes of morning business and then I would be prepared to engage with Senator Bingaman on his amendment, if that is agreeable.

Yes.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for bringing up that point. I, too, am concerned, as is every Member of this body, about the daily, weekly loss of life and limb by our brave men and women in the Armed Forces. As the Senator says, this is their bill. That is what it is. It is their bill, whether they are privates or generals or admirals.

Might we accommodate the Senator from Ohio?

Mr. President, we are awaiting, and there is diligence on the other side in every respect, either the amendment of Senator Dayton or the amendment from Senator Bingaman. We have given them our second degrees in each case, which are now being studied. Until such time as one of the managers on the other side or these Senators appear, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. President, let me first say I think our colleague has brought to the attention of the Senate through his amendment a very important subject. It is my hope and expectation that we can eventually have a meeting of the minds. I don't take great joy in putting a second-degree amendment up on important subjects such as this, but I felt it imperative so we can frame for our membership what I perceive as a very conscientious presentation by the Senator of a set of goals in which I concur with two-thirds of the Senator's objectives. But where I ask there be a reservation, those reservations are of such severity that I am compelled to put in the second-degree amendment.

I would like to walk through the amendment which the distinguished Senator put forth page by page.

The first section says:

Reports on matters relating to detainment of prisoners by

the Department of Defense.

Ordinarily, a report is something we are happy to grant a colleague. But in this instance, I will point out where my concerns are. First:

Reports required. Not later than 90 days after date of

enactment of this Act, and every six months thereafter, the

Secretary of Defense shall submit to the appropriate

committees of the Congress a report on the population of

detainees held by the Department of Defense and on the

facilities in which detainees are held.

That is, have been held more than 30 days.

My understanding was originally it didn't have that, and 30 days to me is reasonable. The Senator also added that the report can be submitted now in classified form. Again, that is a very essential improvement.

But we then continue:

(b) Report Elements. Each report under subsection (a) shall

include the following:

(1) General information on the foreign national detainees

in the custody of the Department during the six-month period

ending on the date of such report, including the following:

(A) The total number of detainees in the custody of the

Department . . .

I think that is an important fact, and I simply say ``as of the date of such report.'' I think that should be something which would be acceptable to the Senator.

Section (B) we leave standing.

The countries in which such detainees were detained, and

the number of detainees detained in each country.

That is acceptable.

Section (C) we take out simply because we modified (A) to state as of date of such report, and I think (C) is cared for by modifying (A) with date of such report.

Then we drop down:

The total number of detainees released from the custody of

the Department during such period.

We accept that fully.

(D) The nationality of the detainees covered by

subparagraph (A), including the number of detainees of each

such nationality.

That, too, seems to us to be fine.

Then section (F)--no objection there. That says, ``The number of detainees covered by subparagraph (A) that were transferred from jurisdiction of another country,'' so you can track them.

The Senator modified the original amendment. I am working from the original to show to date how much we have had meeting of the minds.

The Senator took out section (G). I will not trouble to talk about it.

We take out subsection (2). That is subsection (2) of the first paragraph of the amendment, report elements under (b).

As drafted, we delete for each foreign national detained by the Department of Defense during the 6-month period ending on the date of such report: No. 1, the name of the individual; No. 2, his or her nationality; the place at which they were taken into custody; the circumstances of being taken into custody; the place of detention; the current length of detention, or at least the duration of detention at the time of release. And on it goes.

Here is the problem. That bit of information, even though it were classified, were it ever to leak out--and regrettably, we know things of this nature will happen from time to time--it would be devastating because the enemy would know a great deal about custody and what we are trying to do with those individuals.

It seems to me there is far greater benefit to an enemy in such engagements as we must take prisoners than it would be of benefit to the legislative body to monitor that prisoners are properly being cared for. For example, the Durbin amendment we had the other day goes to potential abuses. That has been accepted. It is a major step forward to codify prohibitions against abuse of prisoners. We are all troubled by that.

To have in the custody of the Congress this type of information, even though it is locked up in S-407, or wherever it may be, potentially there is a document that could do great harm to our ability to conduct military operations during which we obtained detainees.

Then there is the following paragraph:

(3) Information of the detention facilities and practices

of the Department for the six-month period ending the date of

such report, including for each facility of the Department at

which detainees were detained. . . .

That is fine.

(A) The name of such facility.

(B) The location of such facility.

We have no objection to that. In fact, the entire next page of the amendment, we accept. We come to the conclusion of the amendment and no further objections. It simply is to the creation of a document that would have such detailed information that is not essential to the Congress in our oversight of these detention facilities and the practice of detention, and if that document would ever get out, it would be a devastating blow to the intelligence system, to giving the information to the enemy, who we have among their presumably lost and missing persons, and the like.

I urge my colleagues, this is something we should scrutinize carefully. I have framed it in such a way that colleagues will have to decide whether it

is a second-degree amendment that prevails or the underlying amendment that prevails.

Therein, with the exception of one other mention just this morning, the committee staff, the majority and the minority, were briefed on this document. It roughly looks to be 30 pages of unclassified material entitled ``Department of Defense proposed''--just being proposed at the moment--``administrative review of the detention of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.''

This is one of our facilities. The Secretary of Defense has established administrative review procedures to determine annually if enemy combatants detained by the Department of Defense at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay should be released, transferred, or continue to be detained, and so forth.

Much of it parallels what the Senator has in mind. I am confident after this morning's briefing the Congress will make several edits. I encourage the distinguished ranking member to engage our colleague, Senator Bingaman, a former member of our committee, to look at it also and see how we can improve and strengthen this. So this will soon be in effect.

I yield.

Mr. President, that is a very good question. I will take a few minutes to answer. It deserves a very considered answer.

I have thought this through. It is interesting, coincidentally over the weekend I dealt with the Department of Defense. I did not have a chance to brief my distinguished ranking member yet on the question of the Red Cross's participation in our situations, both in the Afghanistan detention facilities and the Iraqi detention facilities. I am speaking for myself.

I am very concerned about those problems over there. Our committee had several hearings on it. The issue comes up, as it should. It came up in the Judiciary Committee the other day, about the role of the Red Cross. I have learned a great deal about that role in a short period of time.

I had some familiarity when I was Secretary of the Navy and during the Vietnam conflict. The Secretary of Defense was at that time--I have served under three of them--Secretaries Melvin Laird and Jim Schlesinger. They were very conscientious about working with the Red Cross.

The Red Cross has done a remarkable job in this very difficult area, going into these prisons, monitoring them, and going back to the government host of the prisons and making corrections and trying, in some instances, to benefit the incarceration detainees in terms of their individual personal status.

The success of that program has been dependent on the absolute sanctity of that material and the fact that the observations of the Red Cross have not gotten into the public domain. We are working with the Department of Defense now, such that the Senate can be given the benefit of the Red Cross inspections in our facilities in Afghanistan and in Iraq. It will be my recommendation to the committee that we will have it in a classified briefing. But we are not, hopefully, going to retain any of those documents in the Senate.

Were that material to get out in some manner, we are told by the Red Cross, it would seriously limit their ability to do this magnificent work they do all over the world. If some nations--and only in a classified forum can I give those names--but some nations that now allow the Red Cross in to get information and to hopefully provide corrections to prisoners' treatment, if that had gotten out, that is the last time the Red Cross would get into that country to examine those prisons.

So we come down to the very basic fundamental issue about those detainees, whether they are in the United States or wherever they are in the world in these prisons, the Red Cross is helping in many instances. But they say if the information they write up and send back to the host country of the prisons gets into the public domain, forget it; they will be precluded from going on. So we would face a similar situation.

It is very difficult for me, one who has been privileged to be in this body now my 26th year, to just say I am concerned that some material in classified form in the possession of the Senate could get out. But, regrettably, whether it got out from under the Senate or got out from another source and that source would then blame the Congress for leaking it--I don't know, we have all been through the leak scenario--it leads to a never-never land in this Government of ours.

But I urge that we consider this very detailed information which our colleague is seeking. The amendment in the second degree, which I am perfectly willing to withdraw to the extent we can come to a resolution and make it your first-degree amendment and no second--I believe we have to observe the practices with regard to this detailed information you are seeking.

Fine.

Mr. President, I do not disagree in how you frame the issue, but I maintain my stance. Let me parse it very carefully. I say to the Senator, you are saying that what we give the Red Cross--not what the Red Cross comes back and tells us we are doing right or wrong--what we give to the Red Cross can be shared with Congress?

Here is where I respectfully differ. If the information we give to the Red Cross were to leak out, then other nations that are similarly following that practice will see this is now in the public domain and say: We are stopping, Red Cross, because we see it has gotten into the public domain of another country. Therefore, we don't want that to happen.

No.

Mr. President, I say to the Senator, I concede your point. You need not deliberate further. Fault lies on both sides, both branches of Government. All I am saying is--and I am informed by those who have greater knowledge about the procedures of the Red Cross than I; and I don't know whether it comes out of the executive branch or the Congress--further distribution of this information beyond one branch of Government to another branch of Government does increase the likelihood that somehow it gets out. And it will deal the Red Cross a very serious blow, I am told.

Mr. President, in other words, rather than the individual's name, that his number is No. 224--whatever it is? I would have to defer until I go to the heart of the experts. All I know is that the name--if we are detaining certain individuals and the enemy does not know whom we have captured, and they, therefore, have to shelve some of their plans, knowing that the persons who are missing from their roster, if they were to talk about the plans, they would make the plans less valuable to the enemy--I mean, I am just working through the obvious scenarios here.

Now, whether a number would suffice, I would like to go back to those who are dealing with this on a daily basis.

Mr. President, it is interesting, over the weekend I had the opportunity, I say to my distinguished colleague, to visit the Department of Defense, and I was greatly impressed with an individual, who was a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives a decade or so ago, who is in charge of it. I will seek to have him come over right away and provide both sides with the expert to propound these questions. They are good questions. Let's see what we can do to work this thing out.

Yes. Mr. President, I think all that can be accommodated, so I join in the request at this time to lay aside the pending amendment in the second degree and the underlying amendment by our distinguished colleague from New Mexico and to then let the other Senators seeking recognition have the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for the purpose of allowing me to put a second-degree amendment at the desk so our colleagues can then begin to examine both as this very important debate is underway?

Mr. President, I send to the desk, on behalf of Senator McCain, an amendment in the second degree.

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

I thank my colleague for his courtesy. We now undertake a very important debate on this subject.

Mr. President, before I get into the substantive debate in rebuttal to my distinguished colleague--and I say distinguished. We are very proud of his participation on our committee. Indeed, I remember vividly our trip together to Iraq. That was his first trip. It was helpful for all of us. I thank him for his remarks about the old Senator from Virginia. It is kind of nice to hear those after being on this bill now our 15th day. But we are making progress.

First, I think inadvertently--and I say to my friend inadvertently-- he made reference in his opening statement that the language of the authorization bill for this year changes the status of the Barry amendment. Did the Senator make mention of that?

I wonder if I might bring to the Senator's attention--the bill is at the desk--if he would look at page 175 of the bill. He will see section (f), ``Laws Not Waivable'':

The Secretary of Defense may not exercise the authority

under subsection (a) to waive any domestic source or content

requirement contained in the following laws. . . .

No. 4 is the Barry amendment. We do not touch it. I assure the Senator, section 2533 A(a) of title X is the Barry amendment, and that remains untouched.

The Senator is doing his best, and I have lived with these things for so many years.

The other is interesting. No. 1, we do not waive the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 631, which sets aside 23 percent of the dollar volume of all defense contracts must go to small business.

The Javits-Wagner, No. 2, is all products manufactured by the blind and the handicapped. We do not touch that.

No. 3, section 7309, shipbuilding, we do not touch that.

And No. 4 is the Barry amendment, and that covers textile, food, and speciality medicine.

I draw my colleague's attention to those points. He might wish to review it himself and make amendments to his opening statement.

Mr. President, I say to my colleague again, it is fascinating in a sense. He goes on about what we put into this bill, which I think in a very modest way strengthens America's position, in my judgment. For example, his bill goes after one Department, the Department of Defense; am I not correct?

I say to my distinguished colleague, the Department of Defense is among the few Departments of our Government with contracts generating a surplus. The area in which the Senator from Minnesota wants to go to preserve jobs is in other Departments and agencies of the Federal Government. Let me point this out.

We had $63 billion in defense sales in the last year--$63 billion--to nations all over the world. We bought only $5 billion of weapons from other nations. Those nations that sell us the $5 billion are basically the ones that are participating largely in the $63 billion. So there is a mutual trade there. We are selling them, by and large, far more than we are buying from them, and if you were successful, you would begin to bring down significantly the $63 billion, and that translates into hundreds of thousands of jobs in America would be lost because we are saying to those

countries: We are not buying anything from you anymore. And they will say: If that is the case, we have had it, we are not going to buy from you, and down goes our $63 billion surplus.

Yes.

Mr. President, I am not going to tread beyond the Department of Defense. Our bill goes strictly to the Department of Defense. If there are other areas in which my distinguished colleague and those who are aligned with him want to go, then other Senators who have the oversight responsibilities for their respective departments are the ones who will have to respond. So I am going to stick to DOD.

We have the largest, as far as I know--maybe in agriculture there may be some segments which are somewhat equally or larger in significance.

At the end of my remarks, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letters that we have received from a number of nations respecting the pending matter that the distinguished colleague from Minnesota has put before the Senate.

I start off with the Ambassador of the Netherlands:

Dear Senator, Mindful of the long-standing strong

relationship between the United States and the Netherlands, I

would like to express support for several very important

amendments to the Defense Authorization Bill 2005 that were

agreed this week . . .

And he then refers to those sections. Then we have the ambassador from the Embassy of Sweden:

As you are aware, Sweden is a significant supplier and

partner to the United States in several defense technology

areas such as anti-tank weapons systems and naval composite

technology. With almost 50 percent U.S. content, the Swedish

fighter aircraft Gripen is another example of close Swedish-

American cooperation. This extensive cooperation is to the

benefit of our respective defence industries.

I am only reading just a fraction of these letters. Another one from Mr. David Manning, the Ambassador from the British Embassy in Washington:

I am writing to express the strong support of the United

Kingdom for three amendments to the Senate Armed Services

Committee mark up of the 2005 Defense Authorization Bill.

Those are the provisions, Mr. President, that my distinguished colleague seeks to strike. He goes on, ``These amendments are contained in section,'' so and so. He then goes on:

As you know, the UK and US armed services have a

relationship of unparalleled closeness, as our forces fight

side by side in Iraq and elsewhere. . . . I therefore hope

you will be able to support these amendments . . .

And eventually get them into law.

The Canadian Embassy sent a similar letter. We have a similar letter from the Danish Ambassador. We also have a letter from the Aerospace Industries Association of America. They state:

The future of U.S. aerospace is in the global marketplace.

Our industry exports 40 percent of the products it

manufactures in the United States and books the largest

export surplus of any sector of our economy.

I say to the Senator from Minnesota, he is facing a serious issue if he prevails. We have a similar statement from the Government Electronic Industries Alliance. We have the National Defense Industrial Association, Strength Through Industry & Technology:

Dear Mr. Chairman:

NDIA has had a long and productive association with you and

the committee. I look forward to discussing these issues . .

.

They support the bill, and I could go on, but this is a sample.

I will say in recognition of the issues that the Senator raises, in the second-degree amendment we pair down the list of 21 nations to the 7 that we believe absolutely have to be kept intact and not subjected to the strike that the Senator has in hand. The obvious ones are the United States, Australia, the Netherlands, Italy, Sweden, Canada, and Norway. So I think some advancement has been made in terms of limiting the number of nations that have to deal with this, but at this point in time I say to my colleagues that I think the second-degree amendment from the Senator from Virginia embraces the position that is the most important one that we should take versus the distinguished colleague from Minnesota.

I wonder if I might put in a quorum call for a brief few minutes when I have to absent myself from the floor. Does the Senator from Iowa wish to speak to this issue?

I say to my colleague, I think we can accommodate him because this important debate brought by the Senator from Minnesota, to which I have made a reply, will be laid aside because other Senators, hopefully, on both sides of the aisle, will come to support the amendment in the second degree by the Senator from Virginia.

I am anxious to hear from the Senator from Minnesota. Did he want to reply to some of my comments?

Yes, I will yield.

I thank my colleague. I would be happy to consider that if he wishes to bring that forth to change the documents that are presently before the Senate; that is, the underlying and second-degree amendments. So perhaps at this time we could lay aside this package with the understanding that we will bring it up again today for further debate and in the interim we can consider the measures that the distinguished Senator wishes to address.

I ask unanimous consent that this package be laid side.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, there is a Senator who has concerns about the amendment now pending offered by the Senator from Wisconsin.

Frankly, I find a lot of appeal in this amendment. I am not able to indicate to the Senator how we will deal with this on this side until I have had an opportunity to consult with that particular Senator.

I suggest this be laid aside with the full understanding that it can be brought up again--maybe this evening or possibly tomorrow morning for such further comments as our side may have.

That is the Senator's prerogative.

I will not characterize it as opposition, but a Senator on this side has indicated to me that he wishes to address this amendment before I as manager can speak for the committee. Actually, this is a matter now before our committee. Out of respect for him, I just ask it be laid aside.

I thank my colleague.

Now, after the votes now scheduled to start momentarily, it would be our hope--I hope we share this--that you could bring up this very important amendment you have on missile defense and that it could be debated immediately following this vote. Debate might not be concluded tonight, but at least we can cover a significant portion of it. Am I correct?

The Senator made that clear. So we begin debate right after that for such period of time as the Members involved debate--of course you, the presenter, I would be in opposition, and I am planning to have one or two others from my side in opposition--and that could consume, would the Senator estimate, maybe an hour, an hour and 20 minutes?

I thank the Senator.

I am wondering, I will inquire whether or not we could go ahead and start the votes and use that time productively.

Mr. President, I now understand that is not feasible because Members are travelling to the Senate from considerable distances.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I say to my good friend, it is exactly 1\1/2\ minutes before the votes are scheduled. I have to object at this time. This would be an amendment in the first degree. Under the rules, it is not permissible without unanimous consent.

Mr. President, I will divide such time as I have. I believe it is 2 minutes. I will take 1 minute and give the Senator a minute.

We had a very good debate. It involves an extremely sensitive subject, the handling of the remains of those who die or perish one way or another in these theaters of conflict as they are brought to the United States.

The amendment in the second degree is drawn to preserve the most important priority, and that is the privacy of the families. It is, therefore, my position that the better course of action for the Senate is to go with the amendment in the second degree which is before all parties tonight and not open this matter to great scrutiny by the press, as does the underlying amendment in the first degree.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays, to inform our colleagues of the need for a record vote.

I thank the Chair. Mr. President, that is on the second- degree as well as the first-degree amendment?

I thank the Chair.

Let's go to the unanimous consent agreement. The Chair advised the Senate with regard to the unanimous consent agreement that was put in early this afternoon.

Mr. President, am I not correct that the vote is now scheduled for 5:30 on the second-degree amendment, and the yeas and nays have been ordered?

The Chair is correct. I accept the ruling. And the yeas and nays have been ordered; am I not correct?

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3291, As Modified

Mr. President, I understand each Senator has 2 minutes; am I correct?

Mr. President, we have decided with the vote on the Warner amendment that we are going to leave it to the families to decide what they want to do when the bodies arrive at their final resting place. That has been the policy since 1991, through the gulf war and through operations of our two conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. I urge that it remain that way and not open up, as the Lautenberg amendment directs, the Secretary of Defense shall develop a protocol that permits the media to attend the bodies as they arrive in the United States.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I think the distinguished ranking member is about to bring up his amendment.

I thank the Senator. We shall address this amendment tomorrow.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, the managers of the bill, in consultation with the leaders on both sides, would now like to propose a unanimous consent request.

I ask unanimous consent that all remaining amendments in order to the Defense authorization bill be offered no later than 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 22; provided further that in the final 10 minutes prior to that time the chairman and ranking member be recognized in order to offer en bloc any further amendments from the filed list; further, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of the Defense authorization bill on Tuesday, there be an additional 60 minutes of debate.

Perhaps the Chair would like to rule on paragraph 1 now.

Now to the second part. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of the Defense authorization bill on Tuesday, there be an additional 60 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form in relation to the Levin missile defense amendment. I further ask consent that following the debate, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Levin amendment, with no second degrees in order to the amendment prior to the vote; provided further that following the vote the Senate resume consideration of Brownback amendment No. 3235 and that the Burns second-degree amendment then be agreed to. I further ask that Senator Brownback or his designee be recognized in order to offer a further second degree and that the Senate then proceed immediately to a vote in relation to the Brownback amendment. I further ask consent that following that vote, Senator Dorgan or his designee be recognized to offer a further second-degree amendment on media ownership, and immediately on the reporting of the amendment, the amendment be agreed to, to be followed by Senator Hollings or his designee to offer a children's programming amendment, and then immediately upon the reporting of the amendment the amendment be agreed to.

Finally, I ask consent that the Brownback underlying amendment be agreed to as amended.

No objection. I further amend it.

No objection.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Now, Mr. President, I understand Senator Levin will be recognized for the purpose of laying down his amendment. Shortly after his presentation, the distinguished Senator from Arizona will be recognized to present his proposal. The Senator from Virginia will reserve his comments on this very important amendment until tomorrow.

Amendment No. 3338

Madam President, I simply ask my colleague, Is there some thought that he is going to amend this amendment?

I thank my colleague.

Madam President, our distinguished colleague from Arizona has waited a very long time. Consequently, I am going to yield the manager's slot here to my good friend who will do an able job.

That is correct.

Before the Senator leaves, perhaps to acquaint our colleagues about what we hope to achieve tomorrow morning, I hope we could include the Dayton amendment and address it in the morning. Could the Senator consider that?

A lot of those will be voice votes.

Right after the Brownback.

Could I leave that as a pending request?

Senator McCain wishes to be active in that.

We will allow him time tomorrow morning to speak.