Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 448 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, September 7. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate proceed to a period for the transaction of morning business for up to 30 minutes, with the first 15 minutes under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee and the final 15 minutes under the control of the majority leader or his designee; further, that the Senate then resume consideration of H.R. 5631, the Department of Defense appropriations bill.

Mr. President, speaking for the leader, he believes we had a full day debating the Department of Defense appropriations bill. Tomorrow we will finish this bill. Therefore, Senators should expect rollcall votes throughout the day. The managers should be consulted about any outstanding amendments Senators would like to have considered. Senator Conrad will be here first thing in the morning to offer an amendment.

Again, we will finish this bill tomorrow, and Members should anticipate a long day if needed to complete our work on this spending bill.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator Rockefeller has an amendment and a statement. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Rockefeller.

Will the Senator yield for a moment?

Is there not an order to lay down the Defense bill now?

What is the pending business?

May I ask what the Senator from Virginia intended to do?

I might say to my friend from Virginia, when we left this bill, the understanding was Senator Kennedy's amendment would come first. We will be happy to have the Senator offer his amendment with the understanding it will come up after the amendment of Senator Kennedy, if that will be agreeable to Senator Kennedy?

Is Senator Kennedy's amendment the pending amendment?

I yield the floor to have the Senator propose his amendment and then Senator Allen propose his amendment and we will come back to his amendment.

If the Senator will yield without losing his right to the floor?

It is our intention to suggest to the Senator from Hawaii, when he arrives, that we accept this amendment of the Senator from Virginia, but we don't accept amendments without bipartisan approval so I would appreciate it if the Senator will discuss his amendment after Senator Kennedy has discussed his and we will await an opportunity to discuss it with the Senator from Hawaii.

I made arrangements to put a copy of the report on every Senator's desk by tomorrow morning.

Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia will offer his amendment, so I will not take much time now. I will respond to the Senator from Massachusetts.

I have just returned from being present when the President of the United States made a tremendous statement about the situation in Iraq and the world in terms of the war on terror. My view of the situation is much different from the Senator from Massachusetts. I read this report that is before the Senate now as being an up-to-date analysis of the situation that exists now.

I sometimes wonder what would have happened in Korea if, after some of the major losses in Korea, the Senate had decided we ought to ask the Truman administration to make more reports, produce more reports, require analysis of what was going on, and have hearings.

We are about in the same situation. This report does conclude--that is why I think everyone should read it--the concerns over civil war that are expressed. It says that notwithstanding this concern, there is generally no agreed-upon definition of civil war among academics or defense analysts. Moreover, the conflict in Iraq does not meet the stringent international legal standards for civil war.

That is a situation of the statement that exists now. To require another set of reports when we get these every quarter is unwarranted. This was released September 1. We will get another one the first of January. We do not have to have an amendment to do this.

However, as we discussed, it may be possible to take this amendment to conference and work it out so we get some ideas. If they want additional information in the next report, we can arrange that; however, it does not have to be a conflict. It does not have to have as much political rhetoric, I say to my friend from Massachusetts. I am a little bit tired of political rhetoric concerning this conflict, which is a global conflict against terror. It is more than the war against Iraq, against Saddam Hussein. There is no question about that. I urge the Senator to read the President's speech today, the quotes he has given to us from the President of Iran, from the people involved with Hezbollah, from the people involved in the various dissident factions throughout the world that are demanding we surrender to them, that we kneel down before them and accept defeat. This Senator is not ready for that kind of rhetoric to come to this Senate. I hope it does not.

I am happy to do that, yes.

I still have the floor.

I will be glad to debate the Senator any time.

Again, I urge the Senator to read the President's statement before he criticizes it. The President has made a very significant statement today of where we are. He will make another statement tomorrow.

I have looked at the report. Every Senator should look at it. We should decide whether there is a deficiency. If there is, we will be glad to take the amendment to conference and try to work out some language that will not be political rhetoric. I sense it is political rhetoric, I say to my friend from Massachusetts. I hope it does not get that far. It is still a war against terror.

Our job ought to be to get this bill passed so we can get the money to these people for sure by October 1. The longer this bill is delayed, the more trouble our people in uniform are going to have. I have been arguing that now for a month. There is no question this bill has to be signed by September 30.

I am not going to prolong this by debating politics in the Senate. I will say we will do our best to take as many amendments as we can to conference and try to work out something that will meet with the agreement of the Congress as a whole so we can get this bill signed.

I yield the floor. We have an agreement that the Senator will be able to propose his amendment.

Mr. President, I would ask the Senator to allow me to become a cosponsor. I hope the Senator from Illinois will, also. We had a little disagreement before about funding in this area, but I have no disagreement with the necessity for funds, particularly after a report we received just this August on the nature and extent of these matters. I think this money is needed. So I would be willing--and I think the Senator from Hawaii will have no objection to this--I would be pleased to----

Mr. President, I have the floor, for just a second, if I may. I

would urge Senator Durbin, if he will, to join us. Again, it is a matter of expediting our bill. I know he has an amendment, too. But I believe the numbers are the same and the intent is the same, and we should all cosponsor it, as far as I am concerned.

I yield the floor.

If the Senator will yield for a question?

I believe the main difference was the amendment of the Senator from Virginia said ``may'' and the amendment of the Senator from Illinois said ``shall'' in terms of the $19 million. And you have used the word ``shall'' from the amendment of the Senator from Illinois, have you not?

Mr. President, was my request to be added as a cosponsor to the amendment granted?

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

Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me? I wish to make an inquiry of the Chair.

Mr. President, what is the order? Is the order that we go to the judge nomination at 4:30?

Mr. President, I ask the Senator--I don't know how long she intends to speak; I don't even need to ask--when she is finished, will she put in a quorum call if it is before 4:30, please?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a transmittal letter dated September 5, 2006 printed in the Record.

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

Madam President, I have another managers' package that has been prepared and has the approval of Senator Inouye and myself. Let me state it for the Senate.

It contains amendment No. 4777, for Senator Smith, regarding landing systems; amendment No. 4821, for Senator Landrieu, regarding first-aid kits; amendment No. 4789, for Senator Stabenow, regarding Stryker combat vehicles; amendment No. 4837, for Senator Bennett, regarding all-terrain vehicles; amendment No. 4823, for Senator Durbin, regarding the training of military nurse educators; and amendment No. 4838, for Senator McCain, regarding grants. These have been cleared by both managers. I send this managers' package to the desk and ask unanimous consent that it be considered immediately, the amendments be adopted immediately, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Madam President, we have a long day ahead of us. I again want to state that the Parliamentarian has submitted an opinion regarding the application of rule XVI to quite a few amendments. In order to not be discriminatory, it is my intention to raise rule XVI in any instance in which the Parliamentarian says it would apply, and I think Senators ought to be on notice to that effect.

There is a whole series of amendments that are being presented today. I believe we will have a considerable number of votes today.

I wish to point out to the Senate that Senator Inouye and I have now reprogrammed over $4 billion from various projects and equipment accounts that we have already approved for the Department of Defense for this fiscal year. Those requests were made to obtain more money to cover the costs of the military pay and allowances and the costs associated with rotation of our military force in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

That means within the next few weeks there is going to be a shutdown on many contracts throughout the United States. I say to the occupant of the chair, the distinguished Senator from the same State I represent, we had that happen at Fort Greely when the supplemental was not approved in time, with considerable disruption to the working people who were working on projects at Fort Greely. Some of them have been resumed, but the tempo that was in place could not be picked up because of the problem of financing the Department of Defense during this period. So I want Members to be on notice that if this bill is not completed and signed by the President and delivered to the Secretary of Defense before September 30, there will be even more of these notices of delay, which lead to unemployment, lead to considerable increase in costs.

There is no reason this bill should be delayed. This bill has to be sent to the President before the end of the fiscal year and timed, as a matter of fact, so the Secretary of Defense has the authority to release the money immediately on the first of October.

I urge the Senate to consider the welfare of these men and women who represent us now in 120 countries throughout the world. We have men and women in uniform who depend upon this.

As delays occur--we know what has just happened to the Stryker Brigade from our State. They were ready to come back. Two days from the time they were scheduled to come back, they were delayed. Their personal equipment had been sent home. Their families had airline tickets to go meet their loved ones as they came into the depot. They planned vacations and some time off with their families. Reservations were made. The Department has said they are going to try to compensate those people to the extent possible, but all of those are delays which were caused by lack of funding.

Now, I think the Senate cannot be in the position of not passing this bill before we go home. If we do so, I can tell Members of the Senate, they are going to get the kind of complaints Senator Murkowski and I have gotten from the families of the Stryker Brigade. And they are legitimate complaints. The problem is, there is nothing we can do about it.

I do think it is incumbent upon us to concentrate on this bill today. And again, I serve notice that rule XVI will be applied to any amendment the Parliamentarian says violates that rule.

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I wish to speak on the amendment.

Madam President, the Senator's amendment is very difficult to vote against, except that it applies to all members of the Department of Defense, civilian and military. About 1 percent of the people in the Department of Defense, civilian and military, go to a conference each year. I personally know that when we travel abroad, we ask for members of the Department of Defense from Germany and from Italy to come meet with us in France. We have conferences with them concerning NATO. We did the same thing recently in terms of the Middle East. We had people come from three different countries to meet with us when we were in Kuwait. That involved probably 14 people traveling in each instance to come see us. It is essential that we have conferences and not have to depend upon video conferences to deal with issues. That applies throughout the Department of Defense.

The Senator is correct. We offered to take it to conference, and in conference we might be able to find a reasonable figure that would be a limitation. Seventy million is not a reasonable limitation. There is no reason for us to try to be unreasonable with the Department of Defense. We are the last superpower in the world. People depend upon us, and we go visit the places, 120 different countries, where we have military people in uniform. It costs money. The cost of traveling is going up all the time.

I did offer to take the amendment to conference and try to work out with the House a reasonable limitation. The Senator is unwilling do that.

Therefore, I move to table the Senator's amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment may be temporarily set aside so the Senator may offer another amendment. We are trying to determine the availability of membership to be present for a vote.

Madam President, this amendment violates rule XVI in terms of the second portion of the amendment, part (b)(2), page 2. If it applied just to the reports delivered to the Appropriations Committee, it would not, in my opinion. I have already said I am going to raise rule XVI on any amendment that is determined by the Parliamentarian to apply to a particular amendment.

In regard to the basic concept, we have no problem with having all of the items that are submitted to the Appropriations Committee put on the Web. Almost all of them are anyway. But there are some reports that are submitted to Congress pursuant to section 1105, as I understand it, which are documents that go to other committees and are for other purposes. I don't know what their policies are with regard to disclosure.

All of the items that come to us are on the Web, and we welcome them being on the Web. We don't have any problem with every report required by the provisions of this act, submitted pursuant to this act, or, as a matter of fact, in terms of existing law, but I do think we should not have a violation of rule XVI. Therefore, I ask the Senator if he is willing to limit paragraph (2) to any report required by the Department of Defense to be submitted to the Appropriations Committee in support of the budget of the President which does not violate rule XVI? The Senator said that is what it is about, but it goes further. It applies to any report going to any committee or to the Congress itself with regard to this budget. There are other justifications submitted to other committees. What their policies are, I don't know.

Madam President, I raise a point of order under rule XVI that this amendment violates rule XVI. What is the ruling of the Chair?

I raise rule XVI. If the Senator wants to raise the point of germaneness, he may do so.

I will ask that the vote be postponed until we agree on a series of votes today.

I ask for the yeas and nays on that question.

What is the amount of time?

The Senator has the floor. I will not object now, but we are trying to get the votes put together so we can start at 11 o'clock for the convenience of the Senate because committee meetings are going to take place. I will not object now. To any further interruption, I will object.

Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act of 2006

Madam President, regarding amendment No. 4784, I ask unanimous consent that on page 2, section 2 be deleted.

I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to withdraw the point of order under rule XVI and that the vote on the issue of germaneness be rescinded.

It is my understanding that the Senator from Oklahoma wants a vote on that amendment. Is that correct?

We are prepared to accept it, but if the Senator wishes a vote, he is entitled to it.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, we expect the Senator from Oklahoma to raise two additional amendments. It is our hope that we can ask unanimous consent in a short time that a series of votes on the Coburn amendments start around 11 o'clock.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I think we should welcome the devotion of the Senator from Oklahoma to be concerned about the Improper Payments Act, and if the Senator's amendment applied to any payments made pursuant to this act, I certainly would have no objection. We are prepared to accept it.

This covers a great deal more than that, though, those made under existing law and those made to, as I understand it, in the areas of homeland security and Government affairs. I wish the Senator would say that this covers--to be clear under rule XVI--payments made out of any funds provided by this act. If he did that, I am prepared to accept it.

From the funds provided in this act? There are funds provided in other acts. For instance, the funds provided to the Defense Intelligence Agency come from the funds that are provided through the National Intelligence Director's Office, but they come to DIA. But we are very specific about it. If the payments are made pursuant to this act, we agree with it.

No, no, it does not. It says: All payments made by the Department----

It says performed by the Department on payments made for travel.

Yes.

I don't have any problems with this--this Senator doesn't have any problem with complying with the Improper Payments Information Act. I have to tell you, I am not informed about that act in detail, but I know there are payments made through DIA and through NSA and through other agencies and that if they remain, there would have to be a disclaimer in here about classification and other things. But if you just say it is from the Department under this act, I don't think you have that problem. And this act is a 1-year bill, it is not-- in truth, this should be applied to the Department of Defense authorization bill, and then they could have a bill that would authorize for more than 1 year. By definition, this bill is a 1-year bill.

I can understand why he would. I don't understand why the Senator wants it on this bill, too, because it has a problem on this bill that it doesn't have on the authorization bill.

If you do that, I would not raise a point of order under rule XVI.

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

Madam President, I submit an amendment to this amendment and ask for its immediate consideration. Do I have the right to ask to modify the Senator's amendment in that regard?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to modify the Senator's amendment with the amendment that is at the desk.

Does the Senator wish to have a vote on this amendment?

We are prepared to accept it. Does the Senator still wish a recorded vote?

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to a series of votes in relation to the following amendments: Coburn amendment No. 4787 for conferences, Coburn amendment No. 4784, as modified, for posting of reports, and Coburn amendment No. 4785, as modified, for improper payments.

The Senator has a pending amendment. That would not be included. It is because of the timeframe associated with meetings that are scheduled today that the leadership has asked that we proceed to the votes on these three amendments. I further ask that no amendments be in order to the amendments prior to the votes and that all votes be limited to 10 minutes each and there be 2 minutes equally divided on the votes.

All the votes have the yeas and nays, is that correct?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, 2 minutes before each vote. Senator Coburn and I each have 1 minute.

The committee has already cut $85 million from travel funds for the Department. This would say that for programs related to staff and travel costs and conference programs or other conference matters, the total amount available to the whole Department--over a million people in over 120 countries in the world--will be limited to $70 million. We are unable to run the Department at $70 million a year. So I proposed and made a motion to table the amendment.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, there are two more amendments. These are 10-minute votes, at the request of the leadership. I hope we can keep to that time. We are ready to take all three amendments to conference.

Amendment No. 4787

Mr. President, we are ready to take the amendment to conference on a voice vote. Is the Senator willing to accept a voice vote?

Mr. President, again, if the Senator will yield, we are willing to take this amendment to conference and accept it on a voice vote. Is the Senator willing to accept a voice vote?

Mr. President, the Improper Payments Act is not within the jurisdiction of our committee. We agreed that it should be reported. I believe the committee of jurisdiction ought to have hearings to determine whether there is improper compliance. We are pleased to accept it. If a rollcall vote is required, let us go ahead.

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.

Amendments Nos. 4755, 4808, 4847, and 4828, en bloc

I have a managers' package: amendment 4755, for Senator Santorum, regarding maritime inspection; amendment 4808, for Senator Bill Nelson, regarding UAV virtual training; amendment 4847, for Senator Reed of Rhode Island, regarding recoil mitigation; amendment 4828, for Senator Chambliss, regarding linguists.

I send this package to the desk. I ask unanimous consent it be considered en bloc, agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

We are continuing to work on the agreements. I hope Members come forward to help work them out. We still have the opportunity to finish this bill before we leave this week. There are some 34 amendments still pending we are working on. I do believe a lot of them can be worked out, as these last four were.

Mr. President, I have conferred with our cochairman, Senator Inouye. This is our intention. We do appreciate the Senator's desire to work cooperatively on this issue, and we intend to follow through and see to it we get the information he seeks and have further dialog on it when we do.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, this amendment has been modified after consultation with the distinguished chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I believe it has the support of the Senator from Hawaii.

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

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

Mr. President, as I indicated, we have discussed this amendment with the Senator from Kansas, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. We had a little bit of trouble reading the writing on the modified amendment. I believe we have that agreed to now.

I ask for adoption of this amendment.

I move to reconsider the vote.

The Senator from Iowa wishes to be recognized.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 4827 in its modified form--I believe it has been modified----

Mr. President, I ask for a vote on this amendment. Are the yeas and nays ordered?

I ask that that order be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. President, what is the pending business?

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

Mr. President, I certainly understand the position of the Senator from Florida. Reluctantly, I raise a point of order that this is legislation on the appropriations bill, and so it is in violation of rule XVI. There is also a budget point of order, but I believe that is sufficient.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

I move to reconsider the vote.

I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally divided on the Coburn amendment No. 4848, followed by a vote on the amendment with no second-degree amendments in order.

Mr. President, for the information of Senators, after the vote on this amendment, Senator Sessions will offer his amendment which deals with the conventional Trident modification, a very serious amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that the vote on this amendment be limited to 10 minutes. I say to the Senate this amendment is on the Defense authorization bill. I urged the Senator to accept a voice vote, but the Senator requested a vote. So I request a vote now.

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

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.

Amendments Nos. 4774, 4846, as Modified, 4849, 4851, 4761, as Modified, 4840, as Modified, 4801, as Modified, 4864, as Modified, 4841, 4860,

4797, and 4855, En Bloc

Mr. President, I have a managers' package that I would like to describe:

Amendment No. 4774 for Senator Sessions regarding blast protection; amendment No. 4846, as modified, for Senator Pryor regarding combat support hospitals; amendment No. 4849 for Senator Bond regarding intelligence personnel; amendment No. 4851 for Senator Biden regarding military bases in Iraq; amendment No. 4761, as modified, for Senator Lott regarding UAVs;

amendment No. 4840, as modified, for Senator Levin regarding vehicle technology; amendment No. 4801, as modified, for Senator DeWine regarding shipbuilding; amendment No. 4864, as modified, for Senator Nelson of Florida regarding test and evaluation; amendment No. 4841 for Senator Allen regarding OEA study; amendment No. 4860 for Senator Mikulski regarding an intelligence project; amendment No. 4797 for Senator Voinovich regarding portable batteries; and amendment No. 4855 for Senator Dodd regarding Navy UWVs.

All of these have been approved on both sides, and they have the clearance of all concerned, to the best of my knowledge.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these amendments which I send to the desk be considered en bloc and that they be adopted en bloc and that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a second? Would the Senator agree to a time limit so that we would vote at 6:15 on the amendment?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on this amendment take place at 6:15, with no second-degree amendments being allowed.

Mr. President, I don't recall a time I have had a dispute with Senator Sessions on defense policy but I do on this issue. In the first place, the Committee on Armed Services provided an authorization for the money but told us it cannot be spent until there is a study. I don't support this amendment because I do not agree with the urgency to commit to this solution and commit funds for it when we lack a full understanding of the requirement and a thorough review of the alternatives.

What we needed and what the Defense appropriations bill before us now provides is a comprehensive analysis. This follows the path of the Committee on Armed Services, a review that considers the military factors as well as the political and international factors of what is needed--not money upfront. Our Defense appropriations bill contains language for such a review and report. The Senate Committee on Armed Services was concerned about this capability. They included the extensive report language, as well. Our Appropriations Subcommittee has gone one step further, and we have withheld funds for the fiscal year 2007.

Given the concerns raised by some Senators, our committee does not agree we must fund this initiative now. Funding for defense is very tight, as the Senate knows. Given the serious concerns about prompt global strike and the limited fund for defense this year, the Committee on Appropriations--in particular, our subcommittee--has carefully decided to fund only those programs that have been fully explained and justified.

There are three principal reasons why I am concerned about pursuing the conventional Trident missile, or CTM, solution. I have reservations about the international political opinion and the potential for misinterpretation of our actions. A country that picks up or identifies a CTM launch might legitimately worry whether the weapon carries a nuclear or conventional payload. This could be a provocative action, if taken. This issue is larger than the Defense Department. There are serious international implications that the State Department should be more involved before we go forward with CTM capability.

Second, the demand for a prompt strike capability is not well supported by the timeliness of our intelligence or its decision-making processes. It takes time to validate intelligence information, and the decision to strike takes time. It should be carefully analyzed before making that decision. This capability would offer the opportunity for risky, even reckless strikes, rather than deliberate, clearly thought- out action. Congress needs to thoroughly understand the implications and uses of the concept of prompt global strike.

My third concern with CTM is my preference to do more with our forward-deployed conventional strike assets which may be called back and under positive control under the combatant commanders until final commitment. Our committee recommended the Defense Department look again at how and where our conventional strike forces should be deployed to develop a more responsive means to meet the need for a faster strike capability.

The facts are that Congress does not have sufficient information to make a

decision on a conventional Trident missile today. This missile is not something that is needed in the near term. Therefore, I recommend the Senate not approve this amendment and support our Defense appropriations bill which calls for further study.

Is there a time set for the vote?

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, if we can get order, I can inform the Senators of what I know of the schedule. The Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, has an amendment he wishes to discuss. It has been cleared on both sides. I understand he will take about 20 minutes. We have another managers' package, and I will continue to work on packages.

After Senator Kyl has his amendment adopted by a voice vote, we will turn to the amendment to be offered by Senator Stabenow, which I understand will take some time. I tell the Senate, after those two, I know of no other Senator who has asked to call up an amendment.

If there is no amendment to be offered and debated, I will move for third reading.

Mr. President, do I have the floor? I thought I had the floor.

I am pleased to hear the distinguished minority leader mention this fact. Let's be sure: Senator Inouye and I have managed this bill now, one or the other of us, since 1981. We have never been on this floor longer than 3 days for the Defense bill. All I said was I am going to move to third reading if no one is here to offer an amendment. I didn't block anybody's amendment. All it takes, if I do move to third reading, all it takes is someone to ask for the floor or offer an amendment.

Let me tell the Senate this, though: We know what is happening. When we get back, we will have other business that will come ahead of this bill. We have to get this bill passed and to the President before the end of this fiscal year. When the House comes back, we can't get to conference if we don't finish it tonight or tomorrow until about the third week of September, and it takes time to confer on a bill such as this. It takes a lot of time, staff time. It is an enormous bill now because we have added considerable moneys to it that the House hasn't even considered.

When we come back, this bill has to be to the President before September 20. What the Senator is suggesting, as I understand it, is that we will take a couple days after we finish whatever is carried over from this session, if cloture is voted tomorrow, and this bill goes back on the calendar; do you know that? It would take unanimous consent to call it back up.

All I am saying is we manage this bill with the idea o protecting these people in uniform. Anyone can raise an amendment. I am prepared to stay all night tonight, all day tomorrow, all the next night. If you want to debate, debate. That is what we used to do in this society is be a debate society. It is not society.

I take umbrage with the fact that the good Senator said I threatened him. I didn't threaten anybody. I said I was going to offer a motion or make a request to go to third reading if no one has an amendment to debate. I say that again. It is not a threat; it is a promise, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I don't want to be disrespectful to anybody, and I consider every person--at least I consider every person on this floor my friend. I am old enough to know that I have outlived most of my enemies.

As a practical matter--I don't want to get a little maudlin about this, but these men and women overseas, they are not taking August off. They are not in a rush to get on an airplane. We could finish this bill.

My notice of going to go to third reading if there were no amendments is normal. Filibusters started around this Senate when people didn't want to go to third reading so they offered amendment after amendment after amendment so the leader could not take us to third reading.

We developed a procedure, a family thing here now, that now we do it like Marcus of Queensbury rules. I remember being on this floor overnight for two and three nights in a row, and so does my friend from Hawaii. I don't disagree with this procedure--it is a more humane procedure--but I do think we have a job to do, and the No. 1 job to do is to get this Defense bill to the President before the fiscal year starts.

Now, I understand we can get a commitment that we will finish by Wednesday night. Wednesday night means we can't get the papers to the House until Thursday or Friday, and it will be the next week before we confer, and then we will confer at least a week with the House, and that would be reasonable because both the House and Senate have other things to do than just confer with each other. We are going to get back here with this bill sometime around I would say the 21st, and then guess what. Then we would probably go home--it is just before the election--and we probably wouldn't get around to this bill because first we have to wait for the House to get it to us, as a matter of fact, because it is an appropriations bill. So we are looking at getting this bill back sometime around the 26th or the 27th, if everything goes right--if everything goes right.

I would prefer to have a time agreement for Wednesday night and that we would vote at a time certain, but I will take our friend's point of view and say: OK, we will commit as Senators that we will finish this vote on Wednesday night. I wish we could do a lot better. I think we are going to be criticized, every one of us, for deciding to go home rather than finish this bill.

Now, I have heard a lot of rhetoric from the other side during this year. You have not had that kind of rhetoric from me so far this year, but if people want to keep it going, we can debate whether we should get this thing done and if we can get it done. I can guarantee you the Senator from Hawaii and I could finish this bill tonight if we had cooperation. There is not one amendment I know of that will take all night--nothing in this bill requires something that would take all night.

So again, I am not the leader. You two are leaders. You make up your minds. But I am going to be super critical of this Senate if this bill doesn't go to the President in time to have this bill become law by the end of the fiscal year.

Mr. President, from what I understand, if the Senator would defer for a moment, we are checking one item pertaining to that amendment.

I have another managers' package, Mr. President. I will present it later. I thank the Chair.

I think someone should explain the amendment.

Mr. President, I am told it has been cleared by leadership on both sides, and under the circumstances I would ask for a voice vote.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider that action.

Mr. President, if the Senator from Michigan would allow me to, I will present a managers' package including amendment No. 4767, for Senator Sessions, regarding body armor; amendment No. 4867, as modified, for Senator Byrd, regarding Camp Perry; amendment No. 4757, for Senator Santorum, regarding electromagnetic guns; and amendment No. 4868, for Senator Clinton, regarding families of the Guard and Reserve.

I send these amendments to the desk, having been cleared on both sides, and I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be considered en bloc, agreed to en bloc, and that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for allowing me to go ahead.

Mr. President, the bilateral assistance account has $4 billion in it. The Economic Support Fund has $12 billion in it. I am talking about in the fiscal year we are in right now. There is no shown need for additional moneys to assist the State Department. The State Department has an enormous amount of funds set aside for such cases. It has an international disaster and famine assistance account, the emergency refugees and migration assistance account. We have no reports at all that the administration and all of the people involved in all of these activities have run out of money. Even if they did, if they are close to that, the foreign assistance bill will be before us in September that deals with these various sums.

The Stabenow amendment causes the bill to violate its 302(b) allocation by providing $200 million, if the emergency designation is not removed.

This is a rule XVI problem. This is not authorized. There are specific accounts already authorized, as I have said. There is existing for this fiscal year alone $6 billion involved in the area which could provide assistance.

I raise a point of order that this violates rule XVI.

I would be happy to author along with the Senator a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that the administration should proceed as rapidly as possible to use the funds which are in existence now and, if they are not sufficient, to submit a request for those funds.

I am not against the funds, but I believe that bill is coming along. The Appropriations Committee is coming along. It has a substantial amount of money in it this year. I don't see the need to add it to this bill.

If this amendment were agreed to, it would mean that we would have to confer with even another committee when we get back in September in order to satisfy the necessity to get a conference report to the President in time.

I reluctantly raised this point of order.

Mr. President, we are prepared to accept the amendment. If the Senator wants the yeas and nays, he is entitled to them.

Mr. President, I think we have to have some time to notify people when the vote is going to take place. I ask the cloakrooms to tell us what time to have this amendment voted on.

There have been 114 amendments filed on this bill so far. We have taken care of five of them in the managers' packages and several of them in the form of colloquies that have satisfied the issue raised by the amendments. Seven have been voted on or have been withdrawn because of a point of order under rule XVI.

I believe we have about 20 active amendments still pending before us.

I still say it is possible that we could finish tonight, if we wanted to. It is a leadership decision. I am not the leader. If the leaders make the decision that we will not finish tonight, that is fine for me. But for now, we are prepared to accept this amendment. I have no debate against it.

I ask that the rollcall commence at any time the leader says it should be. I would say we ought to have at least 10 minutes of debate before we vote on it. I know some people are having dinner and will have to come back.

I ask unanimous consent that the vote commence at 8 o'clock.

I agree to that, and I make that request.

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

Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Any other pending amendments?

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Waste Management on Military Bases

I share my colleagues' interest in ensuring that our active military and veterans receive the best health care possible. I am hapy to work with them as we move this legislation through conference.

Mr. President, I agree with the senior Senator from Alabama. Our warfighters need air refueling tankers to ensure that the United States can keep both our military and humanitarian commitments abroad. It is critical that our armed forces have the equipment to respond quickly and in force. However, the Defense Subcommittee's allocation was $9 billion less than the President's budget. Tough choices had to be made. The Tanker Replacement Program was deemed to have sufficient funds from previous years, given the schedule delays that will impact fiscal year 2007.

I want to thank my colleague for again raising this important issue. He has been a consistent advocate of our need to care for those injured by mandatory vaccines. The vaccine health care centers are a vital component in regular force protection. The centers help military medical providers administer vaccines in the most effective and safe manner and they provide expert care for that small number of personnel who have complicated adverse reactions.

Yes. In the past, the centers have been funded with supplemental funds. Last year we provided a portion of the funding in the regular budget and sought to show our support again this year. We understand that in the past, the Army has used supplemental funds to help cover the annual operating costs of all the centers, which is approximately $6 million. This year, we sought to provide some assistance by designating a portion of the regular budget in fiscal year 2007, $2 million, for the vaccine health care centers. It is not meant to be a cap on what can and should be spent.

Again, I agree with my colleague. I understand the Department of the Army has covered the costs of operating all these centers, even though some are located on Air Force and Navy installations. It is my hope that the Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs for the Office of the Secretary of Defense can provide that plan and look at how to support and maintain the vaccine health care centers in a joint setting. It was the committee's understanding that these centers would be fully funded and kept intact pending the report from GAO.

Yes.

I would be glad to engage in a colloquy with my friend the distinguished senior Senator from Idaho.

The Senator raises a valid concern. It is this chairman's expectation that the funds provided by our subcommittee in last year's bill be made available quickly by the Department of Defense and that this important research be conducted in an expedient manner.

I am happy to discuss this program with the Senator from New York.

The Senator from New York is correct. This disease has been listed in the program by the Congress for priority consideration.

I assure the Senator from New York I will do everything I can in conference to add this disease to the peer reviewed medical research list for consideration by the Department of Defense.

Mr. President, the research the Senator from Pennsylvania is describing is exactly the reason that the committee provided $45 million for the Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program. We need to get innovative treatments to our men and women in uniform as quickly as possible. I urge the Department to give the tissue engineering research proposal described by the Senator from Pennsylvania full and fair consideration.

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

Mr. President, the subcommittee has been presented with some requests pertaining to the use of treatment to deal with the effects of acute radiation syndrome. We believe we do not have sufficient information available to respond to the request for funding for this concept.

I will send to the desk an amendment that will require the Secretary of Defense to submit along with the President's budget for 2008 a plan to deal with countermeasures for treating members of the Armed Forces against the lethal effects of acute radiation syndrome and identify countermeasures required to protect the members of the Armed Forces in the event of a nuclear or bioterrorist attack. We believe we should not move forward and dedicate funds at this time until we have such a plan.

I will yield to our cochairman, if he has comments about this issue.

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, last evening, on behalf of myself and the Senator from Hawaii, I submitted an amendment and the Senate agreed to the amendment dealing with additional funding on an emergency basis for the Department of Defense. That was offered after consultation with the Department of Defense and also the Office of Management and Budget. It considers a series of things, some of which would be covered by other amendments which I understand other Members have.

I see Senator Reed is here now.

The amendment was intended to cover a whole series of issues.

I apologize to the Senator from Rhode Island. I know he wishes to offer an amendment.

I must say that these funds are duplicative, however, and we would have to examine each amendment to see what we will do with it. But we responded to the request of the Department of Defense and the OMB to provide additional emergency money for 2008 so-called reset programs. I will be happy to discuss that with anyone.

Mr. President, we join the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, with his distinguished military career, who has raised this issue. Some time ago, we had reports on this matter of the reset funding and the goal of about $17 billion for that purpose.

I personally visited with Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Gordan England and Admiral Giambastiani about this and asked they check how much was needed for this reset operation and urged them to deal with the Office of Management and Budget so we would not have any problem over the total amount.

If you examine the bill, as we have it now, with the moneys we added last night, and the money that is already in the bridge account, there is the $17 billion there that was requested by the military.

In my trips to Iraq, I visited some of the places where they are up- armoring large trucks and up-armoring some of the humvees and saw some of the activities they were pursuing in order to get better armor on some of the helicopters.

All of this is part of the process, and it is not something new. After the Persian Gulf war we had two separate requests for funds for the reset activities. And ``reset'' is a word of art in the military; that is, to literally reset the force and the equipment so it is usable and ready in the event of another operation, should that be necessary.

But again, we had several sums suggested. And when we went to the OMB and to the Department, they came back with the figures we offered the Senate last night on a bipartisan basis. I think they are sufficient at this time to carry us through. We will have a supplemental in the spring. We all know that. The bridge is to carry us forward through the period until we look at what might be the requirements for the operations going on in some 120 countries. As I said yesterday, in terms of our people in uniform, they are in 120 countries as we speak. So this is an enormous problem to assure that the equipment and all of the systems are brought up to absolute the best state possible.

But again, Senator Reed has put forth his comments about this necessity from his military background. We appreciate that, and we agree with him. We agreed with him, and, as a matter of fact, the moneys we added last night were in addition to what the Senator was seeking because they cover some other activities beyond what he was talking about.

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

I make a point of order this amendment is legislation on an appropriations bill and violates rule XVI, and it would bring about a blue slip if this is reported to the House.

With regret, I make that point of order.

Mr. President, I have a chart that shows the reset requirements of the Army and Marine Corps. Again, I say to the Senate, the Defense Department identified a $23.7 billion requirement for resetting the force, bringing it back up to operational capability. The amount included was $17.1 billion for the Army and $6.6 billion for the Marine Corps. The fiscal year 2007 Defense appropriations bill which we have presented to the Senate included $10.6 billion that would directly address these needs. The remaining need was $13.3 billion. That was addressed in the amendment Senator Inouye and I presented last evening.

I ask unanimous consent the chart be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, we are prepared now to offer the first managers' package. This includes Senate amendment 4758, as modified, for Senator Cochran, requiring a report on depleted uranium. It includes Senate amendment No. 4759, for Senator Menendez, regarding the New Jersey National Guard. It includes Senate amendment 4770, for Senator Lugar, regarding man overboard ID systems, and Senate amendment 4772, for Senator Carper, regarding contractor award fees.

I send these amendments to the desk and ask unanimous consent this managers' package be considered en bloc and agreed to en bloc.

Mr. President, if Senator Sessions is prepared to consider his amendment No. 4775, the managers are prepared to accept this amendment.

Senator Kennedy had the floor when I interrupted him. When he is finished, we will be happy to proceed with your amendment.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Kyl second-degree amendment be agreed to; further, that the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Sessions amendment, as amended, at 2 p.m. today, with no further second-degree amendments in order.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, it is my understanding that the Senator from Texas would like to offer an amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be set aside so that he might offer that amendment, keeping in mind we do have a vote set for 2 o'clock on the pending business.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until the hour of 1:30 p.m. today.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Will the Senator yield for a moment?

I send to the desk a modification of Senator Sessions' amendment that reflects the amendment offered by Senator Kyl. Since it has not been ordered yet, I believe it is the Senator's right to modify the amendment.

I ask unanimous consent he be permitted to modify his amendment.

Mr. President, at 2 p.m. there will be a vote on the Sessions amendment, as modified?

The yeas and nays have not been ordered?

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

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Will the Senator permit us to have a managers' package first?

Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Inouye, I will present another managers' package. This contains amendment No. 4778, for Senator Smith, regarding airships; No. 4773, for Senator Dayton, regarding postdeployment support; No. 4766, for Senator Inouye, regarding a military history exhibit; No. 4760, as modified, for Senator Lott, regarding airdrop systems.

Mr. President, I withdraw the package.

Amendment No. 4802

Mr. President, Senator Kennedy's amendment remains the pending business?

I suggest the absence of a quorum. I withhold that request.

Mr. President, I think I can say with assurance, I am probably the only Member of the Senate who has had a traumatic brain injury in connection with a jet crash in 1978. I have deep respect for the researchers who are involved in this area. But really, this is an amendment to give the University of Chicago's research team $2 million.

The NIH has a substantial number of programs. I am told that through the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, a whole portion of NIH has an extensive traumatic brain injury program that supports basic, translational, and clinical research through grants and contracts through over 100 research teams and investigators.

In addition, we have $45 million in this bill that can be used. It is called the Peer Review Medical Research Program. This amount can come out of that $45 million if the Department of Defense needs it. It is up to them. To stay within our allocation, we had to notify Members who brought us requests for medical research that we had established this $45 million program, and from that the Defense Department can pick these suggestions that come from Members of the Senate, the Congress, too. The House will be involved in it obviously.

This is not a neglected area. We spent over $1 billion in research grants for studies in this area, particularly funding long-term research in traumatic head injury, head and spine injury, and epilepsy. This amendment deals with epilepsy and its connection with brain injuries.

In the past 3 years, an average of $430 million a year has been awarded for grants, contracts, and research by the National Institutes of Health clinics for epilepsy, traumatic brain injury, and injuries to the head and spine. In the last 3 years alone we spent $1.29 billion in those specific efforts in this area.

In this current fiscal year Congress encouraged and directed the National Institutes of Health to expand basic and advanced research in brain injury rehabilitation. As I said, they told us they have an extensive program there. This is where this money should be taken, in the final analysis. We have been using over three-quarters of a billion dollars for research not associated with military programs in the past.

We have at least 20 amendments of the same kind that have also been suggested to us. The Senator from Pennsylvania has one. A whole series of people have come and said they want to have earmarks on the money we have in that fund. We have not done that because we believe the Department should take the money and spend it on research that is related to the demands of the military today.

Further brain injury research through the Department of Defense will reduce the funds available for military readiness and will ignore the valuable contributions made by NIH and other nondefense research entities.

I say to the Senator from Illinois, as we discussed in the committee, there is no question it is a good program. There is no question the University of Chicago should compete with other universities for the money that is available. For this to be earmarked here now means they no longer have to compete. As I said, NIH said there are currently over 100 separate contracts out there right now in addition to the $45 million we have in this bill. NIH has an enormous amount of money and the expertise of NIH and their clinical trials. The program they have for allocating money, I think, should not be obviated by an earmark here on the floor.

If it happens, if the Senate wants to adopt this amendment, then I can tell them in all fairness we are going to have to bring forth the amendments of the other Senators. Several of them, as a matter of fact, are from Senators who are up for election. We told them no. So I say to the Senate, if you want to adopt this amendment of the Senator from Illinois to give the University of Illinois priority on this money, then that is the judgment of the Senate. I oppose it, as I did in committee. I do think we have to stop using Defense money for contracts with universities and basic research at the suggestion of a single Senator. It is not something that should be done.

We have adequate money in this bill to cover this if the Department wants to do it. We have an overwhelming amount of money in the NIH area, if NIH wants to pursue having the University of Chicago do this epilepsy research, but this is not a military requirement.

All the Senator said about injuries that are coming from current military involvement is correct. But they are being met. Not one member of the military society came to us and said we need more money for brain research--not one. This is not something to be handled with an amendment on the floor, to give one university priority over all others in connection with the research money that is available under this bill.

Will the Senator yield? I will be pleased to have you point that out to me.

We have had $3 billion requested of our subcommittee for medical research. It is the largest growth area in this subcommittee's jurisdiction. More and more money for medical research was requested. We put $45 million into this program. I want to see that earmark.

Does this require unanimous consent?

Mr. President, those 1,700 or however many you have, soldiers, aren't going to the University of Chicago. This is simply a provision to take $2 million of the defense money for the University of Chicago for epilepsy research. As I said, we had a total of $3 billion in requests from this subcommittee for medical research from other Senators. We turned them all down. The Senator from Illinois wouldn't take ``no.''

I understand his position. His position is he now wants to say other items we allowed him to earmark in other portions of the bill would be changed in order to have this go to the University of Chicago.

Every Senator who asks for that money is going to come wanting to do the same thing. In other words, it will not make any difference. The money will be going to medical research instead of going to the needs of the military.

I didn't say it was for readiness. I said we could not have any more money going out of the Defense bill to take care of medical research when medical research is basically a function of NIH and the subcommittee that deals with Labor, Health, and Human Services. It is not our business.

I confess, I am the one who made the first mistake years ago. The Senator just reminded me. I am the one who suggested that we include some money for breast cancer research. It was languishing at the time. It was back in the 1980s. Since that time it has grown to $750 million that was involved, I think it was, in the last bill we had, dealing with medical research that had nothing to do with the Department of Defense.

With the shortage of money we have now, we are now over the budget by about $78 billion in emergency money. Don't tell me I am objecting to brain research. As I said, I have been the subject of brain research. But there is plenty of money there for it.

I notice the occupant of the chair suggests maybe I need a little bit more.

But as a practical matter, we cannot do this just for one Senator, and I have been a whip and I understand what it means to have access to the floor and make a demand. But this is not right. I say to the Senate, if we are going to vote this $2 million, I am going to go back and tell each one of the other Senators they should come and offer their amendments, too. They are very well-meaning amendments. I have to tell you, we have back injury. We have problems with regard to a whole series of items. Among the amendments proposed were tissue engineering; another traumatic brain injury study for a long-term concept of a study of that; vaccine health care centers; eye refractive surgery; hypothermia; hemostatic agents; traumatic brain injury research at several other universities.

One of the reasons we turned this one down is we could not in good faith take the one from the University of Chicago in Illinois and take down the others. We had neuromuscular research. I could go on and on.

The things all added up to $3 billion. This is just the tip of the iceberg. It is $2 million, but it leads into, Why should we take this amendment of the Senator from Illinois and turn down all these other amendments? We turned them down, not because they were not worthy. We didn't turn them down because they were not necessary. We turned them down because this is not the place to fund them.

It is my position that the suggestion we are going to turn around and take it out of another provision in the bill that says why did we agree to that other provision, if it is not necessary? Why did we add it to the bill?

As a matter of fact, I don't recall those items where we did, but we did handle several amendments for the Senator from Illinois. We treated them the same as we did every other Senators with regard to research for medical purposes. This is the only one out of all of them where we said, no, that has been presented to the Senate.

I do not want to be accused of being against brain research or ignorant of the fact that there is an enormous number of brain injuries to our military people. As a matter of fact, I went out to Walter Reed to see one of our young people from Alaska who had a brain injury. But no one, again, has told me we need money in this bill for brain research beyond what is there already and beyond what is being made available by NIH.

I do say again, this amendment should not be adopted.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that Senator Salazar's amendment No. 4776 be placed before the Senate.

Mr. President, the managers of the bill are prepared to accept this amendment and ask that it be accepted on a voice vote.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, we have managers' package No. 2 back again. I wish to restate that request now. It applies to amendment No. 4778, for Senator Smith, regarding airships; amendment No. 4773, for Senator Dayton, regarding postdeployment support; amendment No. 4760, as modified, for Senator Lott, regarding airdrop systems; amendment No. 4796, for Senator Conrad, regarding weapons bays; and amendment No. 4771, for Senator Frist, regarding contracts.

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that the Senate proceed to the consideration of this managers' package en bloc, and that they be adopted en bloc, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Now, what is the pending amendment, Mr. President?

Mr. President, I am appalled at some of the information that the Senator from North Dakota

has brought to us. I will join him, perhaps, in some specific amendment that might have some germaneness to this bill such as an authorization to shoot such people. I can't imagine that anyone would provide to troops in the field contaminated water. I can't believe that we are being charged for a sizable number of clinics and our taxpayers are paying for it and they are imaginary.

On the other hand, this is a provision that deals with Government contracting governmentwide. If we include it, we would have to have several subcommittees and the other body confer with us to try to write the amendment in a way that might be pertinent to the matter before us, and that is financing the Department of Defense.

I do think we should be indebted to the Senator for his research and what he is doing to try to bring honesty into Government contracting. But I am compelled to say that it is an amendment that should be taken to the Government Affairs Committee, and it should not be on this bill. It is legislation on an appropriations bill. I do make a point of order that it violates rule XVI.

Mr. President, before the Senator leaves, I am sure Senator Inouye is telling him the same thing. We will instruct our staff to start the process of establishing a series of hearings to investigate this fraud that he has brought to our attention. The Senator is a member of our committee, and we will be pleased to work with him on it. If it gets to the point where we need a commission per se to be outside of the Congress to do this investigating, we can look into that, too. I think we should start the process of investigating into these repeated reports we have had about fraud and corruption in connection with Government contracting, particularly that related to our war effort.

I thank the Senator for his work.

I don't think we need an act. We have authority under our existing rules today to do that investigation. As has been pointed out, President Truman used a subcommittee of the Congress at the time he did his investigations in World War II.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Will the Senator yield?

The Budget Committee chairman raises literally the things we have been thinking about and mumbling about for months now. We have in this bill a provision that says next year all of this should be within the budget. That, of course, we realize is next to impossible because of the inability to predict in advance--really 18 months in advance--what the costs are going to be to fight a war.

I believe the Senator should look at the changes that have been made since the war I was in, World War II. We had draftees. All of the equipment that was used, the transportation equipment was operated by people in uniform. All of the bases were operated by people in uniform. We didn't have security people; we did the guard duty. We didn't have people running the kitchens; we did it ourselves. I distinctly remember peeling potatoes for hour after hour.

All I am saying to the Senator is, the concept of handling war materials and emergency issues has gotten out of control. The Senator from North Dakota--I don't know if the Senator from New Hampshire saw his comments about some of the fraud and abuse that is involved in Government contracting.

It is fairly clear, because of the nature of the emergency, controls have been thought of after the fact. We are trying to bring it into some kind of perspective for the future.

As budget chairman, the Senator from New Hampshire is absolutely correct, I don't know how we could fold into the budget for next year and make everything involved in the fiscal year 2008 the concepts we are dealing with in terms of emergency funding right now.

However, I am also convinced that because of the way this conflict has changed and the nature of the conflict, as opposed to wars of the past, even the Persian Gulf war that we fought, we have no way of telling how much it is going to cost.

I want the Senator to know that those of us who handle the appropriations bills, particularly those regarding defense, would like to work with the Senator. There must be some way to put some controls over the way this money is spent.

I am appalled when I hear of some of the things the money is spent for in a redundant fashion which ends up not achieving the goals, but still have to spend the money after the goals are not achieved. It is difficult for us right now to get our hands on the way this war has been costed out and the way the money has been spent.

I don't think it is a political question. I don't think it is a matter of politics. I think it is a matter of practical application, some good money-handling propositions. We have run into that in terms of some of the money we have provided to the Iraq Government, also. I hope the Senator from New Hampshire is familiar with those.

I wonder whether the Senator has any suggestions on how we might help him in this endeavor.

I thank the Senator also.

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

Mr. President, the Dodd amendment raises an interesting issue of availability of additional money if needed. It in effect is reprogramming authority granted in advance to move money to meet necessity, if it occurs. On that basis, I think I would be willing to support it, but I think the Senate as a whole ought to vote.

Mr. President, I suggest that we agree on a time to commence this rollcall vote. Can we say it occur at 10 minutes after 5? Is that agreeable with Senator Inouye?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this vote be scheduled for 10 minutes after 5.

Is there any further amendment to be discussed at this time?

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask to rescind the previous order regarding the vote that is scheduled, and I now ask consent that at 5:15 today, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the DOD amendment No. 4819, with no amendments in order to the amendment prior to the vote; further, that the Senate then vote in relation to the Durbin amendment No. 4781, with no amendments in order to the amendment prior to the vote, and there be 4 minutes for debate equally divided between the votes.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I would like the Senate to know where we are. As of 4:35 this afternoon, we had 68 more amendments. I have asked the Parliamentarian to advise Senator Inouye and me tomorrow morning how many of them are subject to rule XVI. A great many of them are legislation.

I point out to the Senate that this bill must be conferenced and we must get this bill to the President in time for the money to be available at the end of the fiscal year. We cannot go over this year.

Amendments subject to rule XVI, when we go to conference, require us to confer with another committee on the House side in order to see whether the House will accept these nongermane amendments.

It is our intention to raise rule XVI against any amendment that the Parliamentarian tells us is subject to the rule. If some can be rewritten in a way not to do that, we can reconsider them.

I apologize to the Senator from Illinois. There is another vote scheduled.

Amendment No. 4781, as Modified

Mr. President, this is an important amendment. It is one to provide the University of Chicago with $2 million to conduct imaging research on the connection between epilepsy and brain injury.

This is not to directly help the soldiers who have been injured. As a matter of fact, this is not a neglected area. We put up a billion dollars in the last 2 years, and there has been substantial research on brain injuries.

There is a necessity for money for the treatment and care of those who have this problem, but we do not need more money for research. As a matter of fact, in the past 3 years, we averaged $430 million a year in grants, contracts, and research conducted by NIH. For 2006, we asked NIH to expand research on brain injury rehabilitation.

This money is not going to treat soldiers; it is going to the University of Chicago for an imaging research

project. We have 20 other amendments here that deal with the question: Should we use more money from defense for medical research? We have said no, we don't want any more money used for brain research.

There is $45 million in this bill that the Department of Defense can use for any research project in the health area it wants to. But to take more money now--this is a symbolic $2 million. If this amendment passes, we have to deal with the other 20. We have said no to everybody, not just to one amendment.

I urge my colleagues not to support this amendment. As a matter of fact, I move to table this amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate amendment No. 4806.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that this amendment violates rule XVI.

Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate amendment No. 4768.

Mr. President, I similarly raise a point of order that this amendment violates rule XVI.

Mr. President, we do have another managers' package. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, again, I would alert Senators of the fact that we have active staff on both sides of the aisle working on these managers' packages. We urge Senators to come forward and discuss these amendments with us. We would like to work out as many as we can.

Amendments Nos. 4803, 4779, 4766, and 4798, En Bloc

I have another managers' package ready now. I will read the components of it:

Amendment No. 4803 for Senator Byrd regarding a biometrics

study, amendment No. 4779 for Senator Warner regarding

research and studies, amendment No. 4766 for Senator Inouye

regarding a military history exhibit; amendment No. 4798 for

Senator Isakson regarding environmental compliance.

I send these amendments to the desk. I ask unanimous consent they be considered en bloc, adopted en bloc, and the motions to reconsider be laid on the table.

Mr. President, what is the pending amendment now, Mr. President?

Amendment No. 4802

The Kennedy amendment, yes. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate amendment No. 4762.

This is the medical countermeasures procurement amendment. Is that ready for clearance on both sides?

I am informed there is no objection to this amendment. I ask it be considered at this time and adopted.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

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

Mr. President, I have another managers' package offered by myself and Senator Inouye.

The first is amendment No. 4814 by Senator Bingaman regarding adaptive optics; amendment No. 4829 by Senator Sununu regarding unmanned underwater vehicles; amendment No. 4792, as modified, by Senator Coleman regarding microelectronics; and amendment No. 4783, as modified, by Senator Schumer regarding bandages.

These I believe have been cleared on both sides.

Mr. President, I send this package to the desk and ask unanimous consent that the amendments be considered en bloc, agreed to en bloc, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I announce to the Senate that we have completed all the packages we can work on tonight. We urge Senators and their staff to get together with us early in the morning. We will be back in session at 9:30, and we hope we can continue to find ways to agree to the amendments that can be worked out.

There is a series of amendments regarding the National Guard that we wish to get to as quickly as possible tomorrow. I alert Senators and staff that we are interested in working on the National Guard amendments during the early part of the morning tomorrow, if it is at all possible.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

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